Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add flag to skip L1 transaction #258

Open
pgebheim opened this issue Dec 5, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Add flag to skip L1 transaction #258

pgebheim opened this issue Dec 5, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@pgebheim
Copy link

pgebheim commented Dec 5, 2024

Description

It is useful to use op-succinct to generate proofs, but in certain circumstances it isn't required that those proofs are written to the L1. Specifically, during testing it would be great to just be able to run op-succinct in a a mode where we can generate the proofs locally and verify them from the database.

Feature

Add a new flag --skip-l1-proposal (though the name is up to you), which simply skips the L1 transaction step, and instead emits a INFO-level log and still writes the resulting proof information to the database.

crStiv added a commit to crStiv/op-succinct that referenced this issue Dec 17, 2024
   - Added SKIP_L1_PROPOSAL environment variable with default value false
   - When SKIP_L1_PROPOSAL=true, sets OP_SUCCINCT_SKIP_L1=true
   - Added logging when L1 transactions are skipped
   
   Closes succinctlabs#258
@ratankaliani ratankaliani added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 7, 2025
@pgebheim
Copy link
Author

@ratankaliani -- Any chance you can knock this out quick?

@ratankaliani
Copy link
Member

@pgebheim What's the context for why you want this flow?

Is this with a contract in an on-chain setup? Or are you just generating range + agg proofs for testing and verifying them separately?

If it's the first, and you don't plan to relay the proofs (ever), I'm not sure an on-chain setup makes sense.

If it's the second, a Rust script that starts at a block and generates these proofs and saves them seems to make more sense.

I'm wary of adding additional flags to the proposer if they aren't commonly used flows, so I want to understand what the utility of adding this is.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants