Sending Data Between L1 and L2

Interacting between Layer 1 (L1) and Layer 2 (L2) blockchains is a foundational capability for modern decentralized applications. Specifically, Ethereum and its optimistic rollup networks—such as OP Mainnet—enable smart contracts to exchange data across layers using a secure, standardized process known as bridging. This article explains how developers can send data between L1 and L2, the mechanics behind cross-layer communication, associated costs, timing considerations, and best practices to ensure secure and efficient interactions.

How Contract Calls Work on EVM Chains

To understand bridging, it helps to first grasp how smart contracts communicate within the same Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)-based network like Ethereum or OP Mainnet. When one contract calls another on the same chain, it typically uses high-level Solidity syntax:

myOtherContract.doSomething();

Under the hood, this triggers an ABI-encoded function call. Solidity abstracts much of the complexity, but developers can also manually encode these calls using low-level functions:

address(myOtherContract).call(abi.encodeWithSignature("doSomething()"));

Both approaches perform the same operation: sending encoded calldata to a target contract. Due to limitations in Solidity’s cross-contract call model, the OP Stack’s bridging interface mimics the manual encoding approach, giving developers fine-grained control over cross-layer message passing.

👉 Discover how seamless blockchain interoperability powers next-gen dApps

Cross-Layer Communication Basics

Communication between L1 and L2 is facilitated by a pair of system-level smart contracts called messenger contracts—one on each layer. These act as intermediaries that relay messages securely, abstracting away complex cryptographic proofs and network coordination.

Each messenger contract exposes a sendMessage function with three parameters:

• _target: The recipient contract address on the destination layer.
• _message: The ABI-encoded calldata to execute.
• _minGasLimit: Minimum gas required for execution on the receiving end.

This design mirrors intra-chain contract calls but operates across networks. For example, to invoke a function on OP Mainnet from Ethereum:

l1CrossDomainMessenger.sendMessage(
    l2TargetAddress,
    abi.encodeWithSignature("updateData(uint256)", value),
    1_000_000
);

The message is queued and processed asynchronously, ensuring trust-minimized execution while preserving Ethereum's security guarantees.

Transaction Speed: L1 to L2 vs L2 to L1

Unlike on-chain transactions, cross-layer messaging is not instantaneous. Timing varies significantly based on direction due to differing security models.

L1 to L2 Transactions (Fast)

Messages sent from Ethereum to OP Mainnet take 1–3 minutes. The delay occurs because the Sequencer waits for several L1 block confirmations to mitigate reorg risks. Once confirmed, the message is included in an L2 block almost immediately.

L2 to L1 Transactions (Delayed)

Messages moving from OP Mainnet back to Ethereum face a 7-day challenge period before finalization. This delay is essential for security and consists of four stages:

1. Initiation: The L2 transaction is submitted and confirmed within seconds.
2. Block Proposal: The L2 block is submitted to L1 (~20 minutes).
3. Proof Submission: A validity proof is posted to the OptimismPortal contract.
4. Finalization: After 7 days (mainnet), anyone can challenge incorrect results via fault proofs.

Only after this window closes can the message be executed on L1.

Handling Message Origin: Recovering msg.sender

In standard contract calls, msg.sender identifies the caller. However, when receiving cross-layer messages, msg.sender will always be the messenger contract, not the original sender.

To retrieve the true originator, use the xDomainMessageSender() function exposed by the messenger:

function processMessage() external {
    require(msg.sender == address(l1CrossDomainMessenger), "Only messenger allowed");
    address originalSender = l1CrossDomainMessenger.xDomainMessageSender();
    // Proceed with logic using originalSender
}

This pattern is crucial for access control—such as implementing an onlyOwner modifier—when handling inbound messages.

👉 Learn how secure messaging enables trustless cross-chain operations

Cost Structure for Cross-Layer Messaging

L1 to L2 Fees

Costs are primarily driven by L1 gas expenses, since the message originates on Ethereum. You pay:

• Gas for executing the call on the L1CrossDomainMessenger.
• Dynamic overhead charged by OptimismPortal, which burns additional L1 gas proportional to the requested L2 execution cost.

Higher network congestion increases fees due to competitive demand for L1 bandwidth.

L2 to L1 Fees

Three transactions contribute to total cost:

1. L2 Initialization: Standard OP Mainnet gas fee.
2. L1 Proof Submission: High cost due to Merkle trie verification on Ethereum.
3. L1 Finalization: Relatively low but mandatory.

The proof and finalization steps dominate total expense, making outbound messages significantly more costly than inbound ones.

Understanding the Challenge Period

The 7-day challenge period is a core security feature of Optimistic Rollups. Instead of validating every transaction immediately, OP Mainnet assumes correctness ("optimism") and allows a window for disputes.

During this time:

• Anyone can submit a fault proof to contest an invalid state transition.
• If proven wrong, malicious actors are penalized, and correct data is restored.
• After 7 days without a challenge, the result is finalized.

This means smart contracts on L1 should not act on L2 data until after finalization. Premature processing risks basing logic on potentially invalid information.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can I reduce the 7-day wait for L2 to L1 messages?
A: No—the challenge period is hardcoded for security on mainnet. Testnets like Sepolia use shorter periods (a few seconds), but production environments require the full 7-day window.

Q: How do I encode complex data types when sending messages?
A: Use Solidity’s abi.encodeWithSelector or abi.encodeWithSignature to serialize structs, arrays, or custom types consistently across layers.

Q: Are there alternatives to waiting 7 days for withdrawals?
A: Yes—third-party liquidity protocols offer fast withdrawal services at a fee, though they introduce counterparty risk. Native bridging remains the most secure option.

Q: What happens if I set too low a gas limit for my message?
A: The transaction may revert on the destination layer due to out-of-gas errors. Always estimate execution costs conservatively.

Q: Can I send messages directly without using the messenger contracts?
A: Not safely. The official messenger contracts handle replay protection, sender validation, and proof verification—bypassing them compromises security.

Q: Is cross-chain data transfer censorship-resistant?
A: Yes—once a message is enqueued, it cannot be blocked or altered without breaking consensus rules, ensuring permissionless interoperability.

👉 Explore tools that simplify cross-chain development and deployment

Final Thoughts

Sending data between Ethereum (L1) and OP Mainnet (L2) enables powerful decentralized applications that leverage scalability without sacrificing security. By understanding the role of messenger contracts, managing msg.sender correctly, accounting for delays and costs, and respecting the challenge period, developers can build robust cross-layer systems.

Whether you're building bridges, decentralized identity solutions, or multi-chain DeFi protocols, mastering L1-L2 communication is essential in today’s modular blockchain landscape.

Keywords: L1 to L2 bridging, cross-chain communication, Optimistic Rollup, OP Mainnet, Ethereum layer 2, smart contract messaging, challenge period, fault proof