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

Check if gas_fee_l1_acceptable = True is fine for s_transactions_new_proposals #282

Closed
SeanMcOwen opened this issue May 13, 2024 · 5 comments · Fixed by #312
Closed

Check if gas_fee_l1_acceptable = True is fine for s_transactions_new_proposals #282

SeanMcOwen opened this issue May 13, 2024 · 5 comments · Fixed by #312
Labels
question Further information is requested Tier1

Comments

@SeanMcOwen
Copy link
Contributor

Currently is:

gas_fee_l1_acceptable = True #XXX: Temporary economic assumption

We can make a strong assumption but this one feels like a bit too far of an assumption?

@SeanMcOwen SeanMcOwen added Tier1 question Further information is requested labels May 13, 2024
@jackhack00
Copy link
Contributor

This assumption was only set for the limited censorship sim, where we didn't need the more granular censorship option of setting a threshold after which users find it unreasonable to do L1 transactions. With censorship timeseries, we might instead just rework the profitability test alone to reflect gas / blob gas prices being too high

@SeanMcOwen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Maybe make it a functional parameter and for now have it be a simple always true thing?

@SeanMcOwen
Copy link
Contributor Author

agent expects profit can be something that is modular, but gas_fee_l1_acceptable can be removed as it is a remnant of censorship

@SeanMcOwen
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jackhack00 I am also going to get rid of assertions like these unless you tell me not to:

assert (
agent_expects_profit
), "REVEAL_CONTENT: Agent should be expecting profit."

@SeanMcOwen
Copy link
Contributor Author

SeanMcOwen commented May 22, 2024

Also spawning a tier 5 issue for adding in the non always profitable version: #311

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested Tier1
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants