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

Adjust timeouts to timestamps on Arbitrum #2916

Closed
taleldayekh opened this issue Aug 27, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3034
Closed

Adjust timeouts to timestamps on Arbitrum #2916

taleldayekh opened this issue Aug 27, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3034

Comments

@taleldayekh
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Confirmation blocks might not be needed on rollups and therefore pointless to wait 5 blocks after a transaction.

Acceptance criteria

  • See if client works with confirmation block 0 or 1.

Tasks

  • [ ]
@taleldayekh taleldayekh added this to the Product Backlog milestone Aug 27, 2021
@taleldayekh taleldayekh removed this from the Product Backlog milestone Sep 3, 2021
@andrevmatos andrevmatos self-assigned this Oct 12, 2021
@andrevmatos
Copy link
Contributor

As per #2915 (comment) , the current value should be fine on the clients, except on Metamask outdated blockNumber caching; but for that, we may need to tweak other parameters on fast networks like Arbitrum, instead of confirmationBlocks. This parameter can be reduced to 2 or 1 on clients which are confident they can keep up to date with current blocks, but 5 usually is safer, and for bigger delays on dApp with Metamask, we need to tweak the timeouts instead.
I think we can keep this issue open, and edit it to better describe the tweaks needed on the timeouts on the specific network speed/behavior.

@taleldayekh taleldayekh changed the title Adjust confirmationBlocks on Arbitrum Adjust timeouts to timestamps on Arbitrum Nov 22, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants