Hello everyone!
I’ve been reading through the RIP, and I have couple questions.
In the RIP it is stated:
Prerequisite 1: The L2 sequencer has access to an L1 node. Given that the sequencer needs to monitor deposit transactions from L1, it already embeds an L1 node inside (preferred) or has access to an L1 PRC endpoint.
The overhead to L2 sequencers from additional RPC latency
TheL1SLOADprecompile introduces risks of additional RPC latency and intermittent RPC errors. Both risks can be mitigated by running a L1 node in the same cluster as the L2 sequencer. It is preferrable for a L2 operator to run their own L1 node instead of using third party to get better security and reliability. We will perform more benchmarks to quantify the latency overhead in such setting.
Q1
I could be missing something, but this prerequisite/overhead is not just for sequencers, it’s for any L2 node. Am I correct? (if so, IMHO, the RIP description should be updated so that mentions of “sequencer” is replaced with eg. “L2 node”).
Which ties to my next question/observation:
Q2
Assuming that I was correct, by making L1SLOAD accept any block number, we would impose requirement of running full archive L1 node on any node which wants to participate in L2 (not just sequencers). Am I correct?
Q3
I’m not sure if this is actual problem in practice, ie. was it observed that indeed, most L2 nodes do run archive nodes either way, making this issue “non-issue”?