-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 364
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
Update solidity-support: block.coinbase and block.difficulty #351
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
allow changes
arbitrum-docs/solidity-support.mdx
Outdated
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Arbitrum Nitro chains are Ethereum compatible, and therefore allow you to trustl | |||
Although Arbitrum supports Solidity code, there are differences in the effects of a few operations, including language features that don't make much sense in the Layer 2 context: | |||
|
|||
- `blockhash(x)` returns a cryptographically insecure, pseudo-random hash for `x` within the range `block.number - 256 <= x < block.number`. If `x` is outside of this range, `blockhash(x)` will return `0`. This includes `blockhash(block.number)`, which always returns `0` just like on Ethereum. The hashes returned do not come from L1. | |||
- `block.coinbase` returns zero | |||
- `block.coinbase` returns the address of the L2 transaction's L1 batch poster |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will the batch poster always be 0xA4b000000000000000000073657175656e636572
? I noticed this error in the docs while working on evm-diff and documented this as a question here. I came here to open an issue about it, but than found this PR.
There's a few other questions in there of things I couldn't find in the docs, or places where the docs seem inaccurate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hi @mds1 - you're correct, these docs were out of date; I've pushed an update, ty!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
Does tx.origin
also need to be added? I'm not sure if tx.origin
address is also aliased for L1-to-L2 "retryable ticket" transactions, or if only msg.sender
is aliased
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
No description provided.