Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
zain
@zain
We’re looking for feedback on the Interop explainer. Takes <2min. Would love to know: - What questions do you have after reading it? - What was confusing about it? - What do you want to know more about? - What were you surprised to learn? https://docs.optimism.io/stack/protocol/interop/explainer
5 replies
6 recasts
18 reactions
shazow
@shazow.eth
I found the FAQ to be the most informative part, because it explores the boundaries of the design. Ideally I'd love to see more things along those lines, but perhaps case studies/scenarios from the perspectives of (a) consumers, (b) developers. Maybe kinda in the shape of the "what happens when you enter a url in your browser" interview question, but breaking down what happens behind the scenes when we make txns that require interop (also would love to see just interesting examples that demand for interop along the way).
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
carl
@cerv1
Was wondering about this today. Seems to have too many technical terms and overly precise language. Example: With Superchain interop, latency can be low (~2 seconds) by optimistically accepting cross-chain messages. The fork choice rule enforces eventual consistency, meaning that if an invalid cross-chain message is accepted, it will be reorganized out eventually. Potentially revise to: Cross-chain transactions settle in 2 seconds or less. Users no longer need to think about bridging, it just happens seamlessly behind the scenes. The same “optimistic” assumptions that apply to L1/L2 messaging now apply to L2/L2 messaging, only faster, everywhere on the Superchain. (This is my understanding of what the paragraph means at least)
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Drew Fisher
@drewf.eth
What "upgrade policy" is used for modifying the dependency set? Can it invalidate executing messages in submitted batches (or even submitted roots) when removing a dependency? Does a dispute resolution method need to be provided when adding a chainId to the dependency set? (Can there be disagreement about this, i.e. superchain chain A and superchain chain B both depend on chainId 2, but use dispute games that will settle to different claims about initiating messages from 2 due to a bug in one or both dispute game?)
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Drew Fisher
@drewf.eth
The focus on risks of sequencer equivocation/unsafe initiating messages feels like it's designed around dependent chains without fault proofs or using dispute games that can't determine claims about initiating messages. Is this ever expected to be a configuration of production, mainnet chains?
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
0xZara.eth🎩
@0xzara.eth
The explainer is super clear, especially how Superchain interoperability enables seamless asset transfers. This opens exciting possibilities, like using a token from one game to buy items in another game across different chains 💥 I’m curious about how complex assets like NFTs with metadata would be handled in cross-chain scenarios. Also, will latency stay low as more games and chains join the ecosystem? Thanks for the breakdown, really makes the future of interconnected gaming tangible!
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
