►
From YouTube: KZG-Ceremony Breakout Call
Description
A
Awesome
all
right,
so
we
can
kick
it
off.
This
is
the
first
of
what
will
probably
be,
I
think,
fortnightly
or
bi-weekly.
Every
two
weeks,
I
think,
is
what
we'll
stick
with
as
long
as
it's
productive,
but
this
is
the
first
call
for
coordination
around
the
kcc
ceremony.
So
thanks
everybody
for
coming,
you
guys
are
doing
all
the
work,
I'm
just
just
helping
to
coordinate.
So
I'm
very
happy
that
we
have
such
big
brains
on
board
here.
I
guess,
let's
start
with
an
overview
of
where
we're
at.
A
A
Hey
or
actually,
I
can
start
with
the
big
thing
which
maybe
everybody
is
aware
of,
or
I
guess
the
audit
chat
is
private,
so
we'll
work
backwards
from
there.
So
we
have
two
audits
tentatively
scheduled
one
in
one
in
october,
with
sigma
prime
and
another
in
august
with
sekbid.
So
I
think
they've
both
committed
to
audit
both
implementations,
so
rust
and
javascript,
but
that's
sort
of
what
we
need
to
work
backwards
from
and
the
good
thing
is.
A
We've
already
started
on
a
lot
of
this
and
we're
building
off
of
existing
a
lot
of
existing
work.
So
I
hope
that
makes
our
job
easier,
but
that's
sort
of
the
context
that
we're
working
in
jeff.
Do
you
want
to
just
give
a
summary
of
what
you've
been
up
to
for
others
in
the
group
maybe
give
an
intro,
because
maybe
maybe
hackspot.
If
you
don't
know
anybody
feel
free
to
to
ask,
but
I
guess
we'll
just
give
intros
just
to
start
sorry
go
ahead.
Jeff.
B
Yeah,
okay,
I'm
just
doing
a
sound
check
because
I've
I'm
finding
you
trying
to
breaking
up
a
bit
and
it's
probably
my
crappy
internet
connection.
So
can
you
hear
me.
A
B
Yeah,
okay,
yeah,
so
the
things
I've
been
working
on,
I
put
in.
B
Sign
in
with
ethereum
switched
over
from
using
github
oauth,
so
that
is
that's
working.
B
B
B
At
the
moment,
I'm
working
on
cueing
just
putting
together
some
architecture.
There
I
mean
the
cueing.
B
B
C
Sorry,
how
did
the
queuing
work
previously
when
you
say
we
could
run
with
operation
in
the
past?
What
was
that.
B
Oh
so
it
was
just
one
cue:
when
we
got
if
we
got
500
people
joining
the
queue,
the
q
would
be
500
long
and
it
would
last
for
a
week
and
yeah.
We
did
that
with
the
last
big
ceremony
we
did
and
we
had
like
3
000
contributions,
but
if,
if
a
lot
well
a
lot
of
people
joined
the
queue
and
then
dropped
because
they
didn't
stay
on
live
for
a
week.
B
So
you
know
you
would
have
got
another
30
or
so
from
that
number.
If
we
had
a
better
killing.
C
Okay
and
then
you
you're
talking
about
auth
and
ddos
stuff.
What?
How
does?
What
does
that?
Look
like
on
your
side
like
how?
How
does
like
what
tokens
are
using
how's
that
being
passed
around,
because
I'd
like
to
standardize
this
as
well.
B
Sorry,
you,
you
didn't
catch,
it.
C
B
Yeah,
what
does
the
auth
technique
look
like
on
the
q
side?
We're
talking
about
so
the
authorization
is
done
when,
when
a
participant
first,
first
signs
in
so
they
have
to
do
that
before
they
join
the
queue.
B
C
Okay,
I'd
like
I'd
like
to
turn
that
into
a
standard.
If
you
can
have
like
the
possibility
for
multiple
implementations,
then
I
I
think
we
need
to
have
this
properly
defined
so.
B
A
Cool
thanks
for
the
update,
I
think
carl,
if
you
want
to
talk
about
the
spec
a
bit,
maybe
maybe
so
carl
is
going
to
be
the
general
update
is
carl,
is
going
to
be
helping
me
organize
the
technical
side
of
this,
because
this
is
clearly
out
of
my
my
domain.
My
typical
domain-
I'm
not
usually
running
technical
projects
like
this,
so
he's
going
to
be
helping
me
on
that
side
and
the
big
thing
he's
been
working
on
is
the
specs.
A
I
wanted
to
talk
about
carl,
how
generally,
how
you
see
the
management
of
this
going?
What
sort
of
goals
you
want
to
have
timelines
when
you
hope
to
have
certain
things
completed
by
like
your
best
and
worst
case
scenarios
thinking
about
when
we
have
these
audits
coming
in
and.
C
Okay,
cool
sure
I
just
I
think.
First
time
I
started,
the
law
was
the
philosophy
of
what
what
I'm
trying
to
go
for
with
these
specs
one
is
that
I'm
trying
to
keep
them
as
as
simple
as
possible,
like
the
idea
being
that
anyone
can
write
up
their
own
implementation
and
participate
so
trying
to
use
standard
like
restful
apis
and
like
json
files,
and
that
kind
of
thing
just
to
just
to
make
things
very
easy.
C
It's
not
going
to
be
the
fastest
out
there,
but
we'll
prepare
to
make
some
of
it.
Well,
I'm
I'd
like
to
make
some
of
those
sacrifices
in
order
to
enable
all
of
this
and
yeah,
so
the
the
the
the
the
principal
goal
here
is
is
is
just
to
have
this
be
like
the
the
minimal
set
of
things
that
need
to
be
implemented.
In
order
for
you
to
participate
in
terms
of
timelines.
C
I
think
one
thing
I'm
realizing
all
of
a
sudden
on
this
call
is
that
jeff
and
I
have
been
working
past
each
other
a
little
bit.
I
think
jeff
jeff's
implementation
is
running
quite
concurrently
to
this,
so
I
think
I'll
be
able
to
give
a
better
a
better
update
on
that
when
I,
when
we
think
a
little
bit
better
on
this,
the
specs
themselves
maurice
is
going
to
write
an
implementation
of
them
this
weekend
at
least
prague.
C
So
I
think
that'll
help
flesh
out
some
of
the
the
more
idiotic
bugs
which
which
are
definitely
in
there,
and
I
I
I'd-
appreciate
people
putting
some
eyes
on
it.
I
I
don't
know
if
you
have
a
few
free
cycles
kev
and
it
sounds
like
hobie's,
taking
a
look
at
it.
So
hopefully
we
can.
We
can
flush
out
some
of
the
more
obvious
things
in
the
next
few
days,
maybe
by
the
the
end
of
next
week.
C
Have
some
idea
of
what
the
basics
are
gonna
look
like,
then,
I
think
it'll
probably
take
another,
maybe
two
weeks
to
to
like
harden
it.
The
I
think,
the
big
thing
that
the
based
on
experience
with
the
ethereum
consensus,
specs
the
networking
and
apis,
take
much
longer
than
you
think,
so
I
I
guess
again
syncing
with
with
with
jeff
on
all
of
this
and
and
trying
to
implement,
implement
all
these
things
is
going
to
be
important
and
yeah.
C
Then
I
I'm
not
really
sure
where
we
lie
on
on
the
implementations
ahead
ahead
of
the
audits,
but
I
guess
that
would
that
will
tie
into
that
next.
Does
that
really
touch
on
what
you're
hoping
to
get
through
the
trend.
C
Yeah
yeah,
I
think
I
think
that's
that's,
because
the
pretty
much
the
the
the
updates
there,
the
I'm
one
of
the
other
things
I
think
it's
I'm
trying
to
remove,
is-
is
much
of
the
verification.
Okay,
yeah,
okay,.
D
For
the
I'm,
assuming
there
will
be
one
or
more
reference
implementations.
Are
there
any
plans
to
write
a
reference
reference
implementation
that
is
optimized
for
readability
rather
than
performance,
so
one
that's
specifically
written
so
that
it's
very
easy
to
read,
but
it
probably
is
dog,
slow.
C
I'm
not
really
familiar
with
any,
but
I
mean
that
would
that
would
be
very
cool.
Are
we
are
you
talking
about,
in
this
case
an
implementation
for
a
participant
or
for
the
the
con?
The
coordinator.
D
For
a
participant,
I
think,
is
the
more
important
one.
So
that
way,
if
someone
wants
to
write
their
own
participant
implementation,
which
we
want
to
encourage,
it's
easy.
D
To
have
something
to
work
from
that
doesn't
have
all
those
as
soon
as
you
start,
adding
optimizations
the
code
becomes
very
hard
to
follow
and
read
very
quickly,
and
so,
if
you
have
one,
that's
you
know
optimization
free
for
the
most
part
like
just
enough
that
it
will
function.
I
think
it'll
encourage
more
people
to
get
involved
with
writing
their
own
participant
implementations.
C
Okay,
well,
if,
if
that's
the
goal
of
that
particular
implementation,
then
I
think
the
specs
are
actually
a
good
place
to
go
it's
written
in,
like
mostly
their
python
sections,
which
okay,
I
explained
what
needs
to
happen
in
text
first.
First
of
all,
then,
there's
python
like
scripts,
that
basically
explain
what
needs
to
happen,
and
it's
almost
at
the
point
where
it's
executable
in
and
of
itself.
C
So
I
think
I
think
that
should
make
things
very
doable.
The
specs
are
also
written
in
like
two
parts.
One
is
things
are
explained
once
using
like
cryptographic,
mathematical
terms
and
then
again
in
code,
and
I
think
the
the
hope
there
being
that,
no
matter
what
your
background
is,
you
can
understand
and
approach
this
or
pop
a
sponsor
in
it.
C
So
hopefully
that
that
enables
that
again,
part
of
minimizing
the
verification
that
I
get,
the
that
I
get
participants
to
do
is
to
try
and
make
it
simple
for
participants
to
to
be
able
to
to
participate
in
so
right.
Now
you
don't
you
don't
need
even
need
pairing
checks
to
to
be
able
to
do
this.
One
of
the
interesting
things
is
that
we
don't
have
like
a
standardized
bls
api
and
by
the
way,
that's
I
mean
the
like
curve
for
all
the
functions
we
need.
C
B
So
the
the
verification
was
very
fast,
a
few
seconds
yeah
compared
to
minutes
for
the
for
the
actual
computation.
C
Interesting
that
doesn't
line
up
with
my
expectations
right,
because
you
should
have
to
do
one
pairing
per
per
group
per
power
and
it's
one
multiplication
per
power
until
your
multiplication
is
much
faster
than.
E
You
also
don't
need
to
do
a
subgroup
check.
I
think
as
well
per
group
element.
You
just
need
to
check
one
of
them
and
then
the
I
think
you
call
it
a
continuity.
Continuity
check
that
sort
of
implies
that
all
of
them
are
in
the
group.
If
one
of
them
is.
C
E
E
Yeah,
I
think
he
said
you
just
need
to
check
one
power,
I'm
not
really
sure
what
that
I
think
he
said
one
power,
I'm
not
sure
what
that
means.
Actually.
E
I,
I
guess
that's
what
guarantees
do
the
parties
the
prints
need
to
ensure
before
they
before
they
update
the
srs
is
what
I'm
thinking
like
is.
Do
they
just
need
to
check
that
the
the
srs
they
received?
All
the
elements
are
in
the
correct
subgroup
for
do
they
need
to
do
more
than
this?
C
Okay,
I
mean
the
the
the
yeah
in
in
in
in
this
case
his
his
low
order
subgroup,
as
attack
would
work
with
without
subgroup
checks.
So
I
guess
we
do
need
to
do.
Need
preventive
preference
against
that.
I
just
opened
up
a
branch
that
addresses
that.
C
F
I
was
just
thinking
for
the
check
that
they
are
all
the
correct
powers.
Can't
you
just
do
a
polynomial
evaluation
or
something
like
that,
like
simply
use
kcg,
to
check
right.
Something
like
that
should
be
possible
that
you
can
do
it
with
like
two
pairings
or
something
and
a
couple
of
multi-explanations.
E
F
E
C
B
F
I
mean
what
are
we
about
here
right,
what
what's
our
longest
2
to
the
15
right,
so
in
total
2
to
the.
C
B
F
E
Yeah,
I
was
just
thinking
about
the
eb,
the
strongbow
implementation
and
rust,
I
think
yeah.
So
the
new
planck
implementations
they
basically
don't
have
this
transcript
linking
feature
while
the
schombo
implementations,
the
graph16
ones,
do,
and
I
believe
he
wrote
a
comment
about
this
saying
that
they
could
avoid
some
checks
by
just
making
sure
the
transcripts
linked.
E
So
in
the
graph
16
ones
they
they
need.
This
sort
of
non-malleability
check
a
proof
of
knowledge
with
plunk
the
it's
quite
simple:
you
just
provide
the
private
key,
but
with
graph
16
you
sort
of
need
to
hash
every
previous
transcript
as
well.
E
C
Okay,
when
you,
when
you
find
out
what
that
is,
you
can
check
in
on.
Let
me
know
about
that.
I'll,
be
interested
guys.
E
So
do
we
use
a
hash
function
in
the
ceremony
anywhere?
No,
not
not
just
oh
no
yeah.
E
Okay,
I
think
that's
the
yeah
that
sounds
like
the
plonk
version
yeah,
it's
a
lot
simpler.
That
way.
A
E
C
C
I
think
it's
mostly
like
some
small
encoding
encoding
things
here
and
there
more
than
anything
else,
but
yeah
it
does
my
specs
line
up
fairly
closely
with
your
repo.
A
Anything
else
you
can
just
keep
going
on
the
the
agenda.
I
guess
the
circum
stuff
is
next
one
per
one
important
person
who's
not
on
this
call
is
jordy,
and
I
guess
what
we've
talked
about
is
that
he
will
need
to
make
some
updates
to
circom
and
he's
at
least
agreed
to
do
this
handshake
deal
kind
of
thing,
but
do
we
need
to
at
what
point
do
we
actually
need
to
get
him
to
do?
That?
B
B
B
E
Okay,
but
it's
possible
to
just
basically
have
someone
else,
rewrite
the
the
javascript
version
and
following
the
specs,
instead
of
needing
geordi
explicitly.
A
Okay,
sorry,
so
to
summarize,
we
don't
necessarily
need
jordy,
but
there
will
need
to
be
some
library,
modification.
B
B
To
be
modification
to
to
agree
to
align
with
kyle's
specs,
so
the
approach
we
thought,
because
we
I
I
don't
personally
know
the
internal,
the
internals
of
snapchats.
B
E
E
B
E
A
B
It
just
seems
like
the
easiest
path
to
get
there
from
where
we
are,
but
there
are
alternatives
we
could
write
it
from
scratch
or
start
with
you've.
What
you've
got
give.
E
B
E
It
out
yeah
yeah,
I
think
it's
by
google
chrome,
labs,
rust,
wasn't
rust,
rayon
wasn't
buying
gen
or
something.
C
A
And
clarify
something
for
me,
so
we've
been
bouncing
between
this
past
implementation
that
I
think
jeff
was
using
as
a
reference
and
then
kev
has
a
newer
modified
version.
Have
we
settled
on
whether
we're
going
with
the
modified
version
or
the
previous
version.
C
I
mean
I'm
not
familiar
enough
with
with
the
the
jeff's
implementation
to
be
able
to
to
comment
on
this,
and
also
who
who
would
like
do
all
the
the
upkeep
and
further
work
on
kevs
on
cabs,
one,
the
I
I
I
guess,
there's
a
fairly
large
difference
between
where
it
stands
now,
which
is
sort
of
implementing
everything
and
then
handling
all
the
the
surrounding
things
around
cueing
and
auth,
and
and
all
of
that-
and
I
don't
know
if
I
guess
I
have
to
keep.
A
E
Oh,
I
thought
carlos
again
yeah,
so
I
think,
there's
currently
two
versions
and
cars,
one
lines
up
with
the
rust
one.
More
is
what
I
understand
at
the
moment
and
I'll
just
basically
modify
it
to
match.
Whatever
carl
puts
in
the
specs,
I
think
it
might
yeah
so
with
the
version
that
jeff
is
using
it's
going
to
take
a
bit
more
modification,
since
it
differs
by
quite
a
lot
in
terms
of
doing
the
coordinator
stuff.
E
To
be
honest,
I
can
definitely
expose
the
right
api
for
the
coordinator
to
be
implemented
by
someone
in
in
javascript,
for
example,
but
yeah
I'd
probably
prefer
not
to
mess
around
with
the
github
off
and
stuff
like
this.
B
Yeah,
I
think
I
need
to
look
at
your
stuff,
kev
and
think
more
about
what
it
would
take
to
integrate
that,
and
it
is
it's
more
than
just
you
know
getting
it
up
and
running
in
a
in
a
browser.
It's
the
whole
you've
got
to
have
the
have
it
running
in
the
back
end,
so
that
there's
got
to
be
the
verification
side,
and
then
we
want
a
file
that
anyone
can
verify
so
yeah.
So
we
need
like
to
to
make
that
public.
B
E
Yeah,
that's
true.
I
think
the
verification
code
is
quite
like
simple
enough
that
people
can
sort
of
just
re-implement
it
in
any
language.
C
Yeah,
so
I'm
a
little
bit
less
worried
about
about
that.
For
now.
I
I
think
part
of
this
is
the
slight
disconnectors
to
the
like
end
users
or
like
the
the
people,
expect
to
be
actually
verifying
this,
and
that's
that's
less
people
implementing
snarky
things
and
more
kcg,
like
this,
like
very
specific
tailored
kcg
use
case.
E
To
jeff's
point
I
think,
yeah
we
probably
need
to
standardize
the
file
format.
That's
going
to
be
sort
of
outputted
at
the
end
of
the
ceremony.
Is
that
already
in
this
specs
carlo?
Or
was
he
thinking
about
editing?
It.
C
Yeah,
so
I
define
a
ceremony
file,
which
is
basically
because
we've
got
four
sort
of
sub
sub
srs
being
generated,
they're
four
sub
transcripts
in
there
and
that's
basically
just
a
json
file
with
all
the
points
in
there.
I
don't
think
we
should
bother
editing
it
between
that
and
the
the
final
output.
C
So
there's
a
little
bit
of
extra
information
that
will
be
contained
in
there
from
all
the
participants
along
the
way,
but
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
it's
it's
worth,
creating
a
separate
version
and
then
kept
trying
to
keep
track
of
that
also
in
case
we
ever
want
to
run
another
round
where
we
we,
we
build
on
top
of
this
positive
tower
in
five
ten
years
down
the
line.
C
So
the
randomness
has
to
be
your
yeah
like
pub
key.
I've
been
calling
it,
but
basically
your
randomness
is
checked
against
all
other
participants
in
this
particular
ceremony
and
in
all
other,
so
this
particular
trans
transcript
and
all
other
other
ones
right
needs
to
be
unique
across.
All
of
that
which,
I
guess
is
quite
a
different
check
from
the
normal
things,
you'll
see
in
positive
ceremonies.
E
C
E
F
Because
the
random
people
is
public
right
yeah,
so
then
you
can
still
compete
with
more
powers
using
the
same
beacon
like
you
need
to
limit
it
inside
the
ceremony.
Yeah.
Everyone
has
to
use
different
secrets
for
each
of
them
so
that
every
single,
like
once
even
one
single
participant
doing
this
correctly
and
not
computing
any
extra
powers
will
limit
the
different
ceremonies.
F
E
F
C
If,
if
you
are
the
one
participant
who
was
like
who
actually
had
different
secrets,
then
you
sort
of
know
the
relation
between
all
of
these
and
you
can
take
one
of
the
the
longest.
The
longer
setups
run
it
through
the
beacon
for
the
shorter
setups
and
now
you
know
extended
sets
of
powers.
A
Have
we
covered
most
things
at
this
point?
Is
there
anything
else,
something
something
someone
wanted
to
bring
up
feel
free
to
jump
in.
A
F
I
I
have
thought
about
it,
and
actually
it
almost
adds
nothing
to
to
do
the
firecoin
thing
because
we
want
to
like
it
would
have
the
full
powers
so,
for
the
degree
check,
we
would
still
rely
on
our
own
secrets,
so
we
might
as
well
start
from
nothing.
It's
like
that's
a
tiny
layer,
security,
yeah.
F
F
F
E
Yeah,
I
guess
it's
more
of
a
social
security
that
it
adds
when
you
say
we're
continuing
from
file
coin.
So
now
the
malicious
person
needs
to
have
corrupted
both
the
file
coin
ceremony
and
the
new
yeah.
But
that's
not.
F
C
Yeah
so,
and
in
addition
addition
to
this,
they
all
have
the
same
tau
across
all
of
all
of
the
the
inputs
right.
So
that
fails
the
check,
we're
just
talking
about
where
there's
a
different
tile
for
each
of
the
sub-ceremonies.
E
Right
so
because
of
this
degree
check
that
you
guys
want
to
do,
we
can't
really
use
anybody
else's
ceremony.
C
Well,
we
could,
but
it
doesn't
it
doesn't
it
wouldn't
add
much
yeah
and
and
you've
got
to
do
a
hack
to
get
around
the
fact
you've
got
you.
You
have
to
mix
in
some
public
randomness
to
to
to
get
around
the
fact
that
all
the
tiles
are
the
same.
F
I
mean
basically,
it
all
comes
down
to
the
question.
Failing
this,
the
degree
check
check
like
does
the
ceremony
actually
have
any
security
at
all,
and
I
the
I
think
the
answer
might
be
no
and
then
starting
from
the
file
coin.
Security
adds
nothing
yeah.
E
B
A
A
F
F
B
C
A
A
C
E
E
I
I
could
have
participated
and
I
haven't
checked
that
it's
been
included.
For
example,.
C
E
E
So
I
was
saying
that
maybe
we
should
add
a
two-step
phase
here.
You
attest
that
you've
done
it,
but
then
you
also
later
on
maybe
a
test
that
has
been
included.
C
D
I
think
there's
value
in
just
encouraging-
and
you
know
from
a
social
standpoint,
just
encouraging
as
many
people
as
possible
to
actually
run
the
validation
step
at
the
end,
because
I
know
with
the
aztec
ceremony
from
correctly
like,
I
don't
think
anyone
except
for
aztec,
actually
ran
the
validation
at
the
end.
Like
you
know,
you
had
a
bunch
of
people
participate
and
then
everybody
walked
away
at
that
point
and
no
one
came
back
to
check
it.
D
A
I
was
going
to
say:
is
this
something
that
happens
after
the
ceremony,
or
can
it
happen
concurrently
like?
Can
they
be
checking
progressively
and
then
doing
this
second
tweet
or
it
doesn't
have
to
be
after
the
ceremony.
D
You'd
want
to
make
sure
that
the
final
thing
did
include
you
and
it
wouldn't
fork
some
way
along
the
way
and
exclude
you,
and
so
I
think
you
want
to
do
it
after.
The
ceremony
is
over.
A
Yeah,
okay,
that
that's
a
good
consideration
and
it's
definitely
like
I
guess
we
didn't
go
over
like
the
the
meta
goals,
because
I
assumed
everybody
is
at
least
up
to
speed
on
things
but
like
we
want
this
to
be
the
largest
ceremony
ever
and
it
has
to
be,
it
has
to
be.
Airtight
basically
has
to
be
perfect,
because
you
know
we
don't
want
to
be.
We
don't
want
any
sort
of
question
about
something
that
ends
up
in
the
in
protocol.
A
We
don't
want
people
to
have
any
sort
of
shims
to
ask
questions
by
so
that
means
yeah
large
number
of
participants
and
the
verification
is
also
crucial.
I
think
that's.
I
I'm
not
aware
of
other
ceremonies
that
have
emphasized
this
aspect
as
much
I've
only
ever
seen
and
the
ones
I
participated
in.
Do
the
I
just
participated
in
x
ceremony,
but
there's
never
this
second
step
after
so
definitely
that'd
be
something
I'd
be
interested
in
doing
like
after
the
ceremony's
done.
There's
a
whole
another
social
campaign
about,
like
I
just
verified
x
ceremony,.
A
Well,
I'm
assuming
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
actually
require
anything
of
you
right.
It
would
just
be
the
social
coordination
at
the
end
and
having
a
mechanism
for
people
yeah,
I
guess.
Actually,
I
don't
even
know
what
verification
actually
looked
like.
Did
somebody
download
a
file
and
run
it?
Is
it
just
they?
Somebody
can
host
a
website.
C
That
that
that's
sort
of
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at
here
is
like,
if
you
like,
tweeted
about
something
in
the
past
right,
then
the
information
in
the
tweet
or
like
how?
How
do
we
get
those
information
back
into
the
the
whatever
system
is
doing
this
checking
like?
If
you
encourage
people
to
download
a
file
that
contains
like
the
little
proof
of
their
their
contribution,
then
they
people
are
going
to
lose
that
and
like
it,
it's
not
important.
It's
all.
It's
like
the
the
information
is
all
out
there.
It's
just
we
it's
it's.
C
C
D
I'm
assuming
we
would
also
want
multiple
people
to
write
verifiers.
I
think
it's
a
little
less
important
than
multiple
people
writing
the
participation
code
right,
but
it
does
seem
like
there
is
value
in
having
not
just
a
single
reference
implementation
of
the
verifier
just
in
case
there's
a
bug
in
the
verifier.
C
That
seems
good,
but
again
the
the
the
thus
I'm
fully
expecting
to
be
in
every
client,
and
I
I
think
we
have
so
many
implementations
of
this
it'll
be
ridiculous.
C
Maybe
not
not
ones
with
nice
pipelines
into
twitter,
but
things
that
just
sort.
D
C
A
All
right,
we've
got
one
ish
minutes
left.
Let's
talk
about
so
specs
going
to
be
done
tomorrow
or
today
completely
done
absolutely
sent
in
the
mail
yeah
exactly
well.
I
mean
at
least
so
somebody's
gonna
hack
on
it
this
weekend
and
we'll
tell
you.
If
there's
any
issues,
I'm
sure
they'll
find
some
marius
is
working
on
it.
What
what's
gonna
happen
over
the
next
two
weeks?
Really
quick
before
we
meet
next.
C
On
my
side,
well
on
the
spec
side,
I'm
going
to
squash
those
bugs
there's
quite
a
lot
of
other
things
to
to
build
up
and
explain
why
things
are
necessary
and
why
they're
sufficient
for
for
for
the
safety
we
require
and
why
we
have
these
requirements.
I
think,
is
also
something
that's
rather
left
out.
C
So
there's
there's,
there's
quite
a
bit
of
just
content
to
put
in
there,
then
the
the
api
it
needs
needs
a
lot
of
work
as
in
it's
non-existent
right
now.
I
just
assume
someone
will
have
that
there,
so
I
would
like
to
think
of
jeff
jeff
on
all
of
that.
So
that's
that's.
What's
gonna
happen
on
my
side
from
respect.
A
Yeah,
I
guess
the
specs
are
the
key
focus
right
now
and
then
what
would
follow
is
the
implementations.
Kev
will
like
figure
out
what
differences
exist
and
then
make
modifications
to
match.
B
Yeah,
no
I'm
definitely
going
to
take
a
look
at
kev's
code
and
think
what
it
would
take
to
to
integrate
that
get
us
a
get.
A
better
idea
of
where
we're
heading
with
that.
A
Awesome
yeah-
and
I
mean
kobe
jumping
in
is-
is
a
huge
help,
but
is
there
anybody
else
who
wants
a
review
that
I
could
pull
in
carl?
I
think
previously
someone
mentioned
mary,
I
don't
know
if
that's
still
a
person,
we
want
to
review
the
spec
or
other
people.
I
could
help.
You
forget.
C
I
mean
I
tried
chat
a
bit
about
it
on
internal
cryptography
teams
and
get
whoever
has
some
free
cycles.
So
take
a
look
if
they
don't
mind.
C
Yeah
I'd
like
to
clean
things
up
a
little
bit
more
before
I
before
I
do
that.
Otherwise,
I'm
going
to
get
lots
of
you
idiot
yeah
they're
like
one
or
two
sections
where
there's
a
there's
a
header
here
and
I
have
a
notebook
full
of
issues
which
I
haven't
opened
as
physical
issues
on
the
repo.
Yet
so
it's
a
little
bit
early
for
that
store.
A
Awesome
all
right
yeah
we
can,
we
can
wrap
here.
Thank
you,
everybody
for
chatting
and
showing
up.
I
didn't
have
like
huge
notes,
so
I
don't
even
know
if
that'll
be
useful,
but
that
the
agenda
has
a
good
overview
of
what
we
went
over
but
yeah.
This
recording
will
be
available
on
like
the
ethereum
cat
harder's
youtube,
but
yeah
I'll
see
everybody
in
two
weeks
and
bring
a
friend
next
time.
If,
if
you
think
they
could
be
helpful
to
something
like
this
yeah.