►
From YouTube: EIPIP meeting 33
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/69
A
Welcome
to
app
meeting
33,
I'm
puja
ranjan,
so
the
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
statements
regarding
trademark.
I
have
added
this
item
from
the
last
meeting.
There
was
some
discussion.
This
is
in
continuation
to
that
wondering
if
there
is
any
word
on
it
and
another
question
is:
should
it
be
on
the
agenda
anymore?
So
I
I
don't
see
tim
here
but
michael
likely,
if
you
guys
have
any
word
on
that.
B
I
do
not
have
any
insight
beyond
what's
in
the
discussion
on
the
api
belief.
C
A
Okay,
so
I'll
keep
it
open
if
we
get
something
by
the
end
of
this
meeting
today,
that's
fine
and
if
we
don't
have
to
put
it
on
the
agenda
anymore,
I'll
remove
it.
A
So,
let's
move
on
the
next
item:
should
external
link
be
allowed
in
the
eip,
so
this
has
been
coming
up
here
and
there
and
in
some
cases
of
eip,
as
well
as
in
some
cases
of
ercs,
because
we
have
active
editors
in
this
meeting,
it
will
be
good
to
hear
some
thoughts.
A
That
may
be
helpful
for
authors,
who
are
pushing
proposals
like
when
we
are
talking
about
external
inc
or
what
is
the
definition
that
we
want
to
put
in
that's
number
one
and
number
two:
if
there
is
any
reference
link,
would
that
be
referencing
things
client
implementation,
I'm
referring
to
particularly,
would
that
be
counted
as
an
external
link
as
well.
B
So
so
that
just
for
some
back
stories
in
case
someone's
watching
this
afterwards,
the
eap
editors,
there's
very
few
of
us
and
we're
very
resource
constrained.
So
time
constrained
and
it's
very
easy
to
implement
rules
that
are
very
strict,
such
as
no
external
links.
That's
an
easy
rule.
If
you
see
an
external
link,
you
just
say
no,
whereas
external
links
that
are
the
other,
the
other
two
options
are
just
allow
all
external
links.
B
And
so,
if
we
allow
all
external
links,
we
end
up
with
a
number
of
vips
that
end
up
have
following
that
pattern,
and
there's
a
worry,
at
least
for
me,
that
if
we
continue
to
allow
that
behavior,
then
we're
going
to
get
going
to
get
overrun
by
these
people
that
are
looking
to
advertise
and
in
the
middle
ground,
of
course,
is
to
use
some
sort
of
judgment
like
the
editors
would
use
judgment,
say:
okay,
this
is
an
acceptable
link.
That's
not
an
acceptable
link.
B
The
problem
with
that
one
is
due
to
the
limited
resources
available
to
eip
editors
time
wise,
it's
very,
very
time,
consuming
to
do
case-by-case.
Judgments
like
that
for
one,
because
just
just
the
mental
effort
of
making
a
judgment
is
hard
they
have
following
you
have
to
see
what
it
goes
to.
You
know
try
to
gauge
what's
the
quality
of
the
sources,
and
then,
on
top
of
that,
you
have
to
deal
with
people
to
say.
Well,
you
let
someone
else
include
an
external
link.
B
Why
can't
I
have
my
external
link
and
you
have
to
fight
people
on
it.
So,
historically,
I've
been
going
with
the
just.
No
external
links
rule-
and
I
was
very
rigid
on
it
and
just
said:
if
there's
an
external
link
not
allowed
one
exception,
the
one
exception
I've
let
through
is
rfc
links,
so
rfcs
are
a
standard
by
another
standard
standards
organization
and
they
are
very
stable
over
time.
They've
shown
throughout
history
like
they've
lasted
decades,
and
we
already
have
them
all
over
the
place
in
the
afp's
repo.
B
We
have
some
long-term
ideas
for
how
to
address
that
problem
like
such
as
switching
eips
repo
like
getting
rid
of
it
or
getting
rid
of
four
eips
in
favor
of
a
concrete
specification
that
is
updated
via
pull
requests
in
such
situations,
there's
much
less
room
for
people
to
put
external
links
and
they
make
much
less
sense,
and
so
this
problem
might
just
go
away
on
its
own.
If
we
can
ever
achieve
that,
it's
also
possible
that
my
fears
will
not
be
borne
out.
C
C
A
So
when
you
say
for
advertising
I
mean
I
am
considering,
that
is
not
the
case
with
the
poor
proposal
that
in
case
of
erc's
right
so
can
we
have
a
kind
of
fine
line
between
the
eips
and
ercs
here
like
when
we
are
talking
about
ethereum
client
implementation.
We
can
have
certain
rules
and
we
can
define
the
external
links
over
there
and
when
we
are
talking
about
erc's
kind
of
proposals,
then
we
we
may
or
may
not
allow
the
link
from
the
particular
github
repository.
I
mean,
if
that's
that's,
just
a
proposal.
B
As
long
as
they're
kind
of
together,
it
feels
easier
to
have
one
set
of
rules
rather
than
have
a
step
two
sets
of
rules
in
the
past,
we've
had
kind
of
separate
rules
for
ufcs
versus
eips,
and
it
led
to
a
lot
of
confusion
for
users,
because
you
had
this
kind
of
branching
like
okay.
If
you're
this
kind
of
vip,
then
you
need
to
follow
these
rules
if
you're
this
kind
of
vip
and
follow
those
rules,
and
we
have
strived
to
kind
of
condense
those
into
one
path,
like
the
whole
thing.
B
With
having
draft
review
last
call
final,
we
used
to
have
that
branch
a
lot
more
based
on
the
ip
type,
and
I
think
that
just
led
to
a
lot
of
confusion
for
users,
and
so
I
have
a
weak
preference
for
not
having
different
rules
until
we
have
the
systems
actually
split
apart,
which
hopefully
is
soon,
but
I
can.
I
could
be
convinced
away
from
that.
If
other
people
feel
strongly.
E
F
I
think
if
we
get
more
once
the
eip
and
erc
repos
are
split
apart
and
once
we've
hired
more
eip
and
erc
editors,
then
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
say
the
eip
or
erc
editors.
Whichever
rule
sets
they
have
can
define
if
something's
being
too
much
advertisy
or
if
something
is,
the
link
is
not
applicable
to
an
eip
or
an
erc.
F
E
I
think
in
general
links
can
bring
utility.
Obviously
they
could
put
links
in
the
discussions
to
selection,
but
those
get
lost
yeah
I
mean
it
would
have
utility
in
the
in
the
case
where
someone
is
has
done
external
research.
This
is
the
one
included
in
the
ap
to
blow
it
and
they
just
link
to
it.
E
As
a
reference
like,
I
think,
having
evidence
like
additional
evidence
to
support
an
eap
is
beneficial,
like
you
said,
having
just
links
that
are
advertisements
or
product,
I
don't
think
that's
desirable
for
the
aps
repo,
so
I
like,
I
can
see
the
benefit
of
it,
but
I
do
think
that
it
needs
some
policing
that
makes
sense.
F
We
want
to
improve
the
token
standard
erc20,
so
I
need
to
link
to
these
four
papers
that
talk
about
quote
attacks
on
erc20
like
where
would
that
fall?
Micah?
Would
that
be
because
that
sounds
like
something
that
would
be
justification
within
the
eip
for
the
eip
or
the
sorry
for
the
erc
to
get
approved.
B
So
I
tell
people
one
of
two
things,
or
both
usually
one
is
that
the
eips
are
specifications
and
standards.
This
is
not
the
right
they're,
not
the
right
place,
to
argue
a
point
so
like
when
you
define
a
standard,
you
say:
okay,
these
are
the
rules
somewhere
else.
You
can
convince
someone,
you
should
follow
rules
a
instead
of
rules
be,
and
this
is
kind
of
just
the
just
the
rules
bit,
not
the
arguments.
B
The
motivation
section
obviously
speaks
against
this,
and
I'm
and
often
the
motivation
section
is
where
the
most
conflict
comes
in
is
because
people
want
to
use
the
motivation
section
for
like
a
to
put
forth
like
a
big
argument
for
why
this
should
happen,
and
my
personal
opinion
is
for
a
standard
repo.
That's
not
really
this
not
really
appropriate
place.
To
argue
for
your
thing,
the
standard
repo's
job
is
to
define
a
thing,
not
to
say
whether
the
thing
is
good
or
bad
or
to
assign
more
moral
value
to
it.
B
D
B
G
I
feel
like
one
of
the
reasons
that
that
is
so
prevalent.
Is
it
there
isn't
a
great
way
of
building
consensus
and
arguing
for
standards
outside
of
the
eve?
Yes,
there's
the
discussions
to
form,
but
you
can
have
the
same.
You
can
have
different
people,
ask
the
same
question.
You
know
every
month
and
you
have
hundreds
of
posts
to
go
through.
It's
not
really
the
latest
and
greatest
of
the
thinking
of
the
author
and
there's
no
good
mechanism
to
have
that,
and
so.
G
It's
you
know,
I
I
feel
like
in
her
ideal
world,
there
would
be
no
motivation,
it
would
be
purely
a
spec
and
there
would
be
a
group
of
people
working
on
the
standardization.
I
want
to
think
about
ercs,
mainly
because
I
think
that
eips,
we
kind
of
already
have
that
for
court
heaps.
This
is
a
bit
of
an
all-core
devs
call.
We
have
general
agendas
of
things
that
we
want
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
work
on
the
specification
outside
of
it.
G
There's
I
think
a
lot
less
need
for
the
motivation,
but
for
ercs
there's
no
group,
that's
sort
of
thinking.
What
does
the
community
need
in
terms
of
standards?
That's
going
to
improve
the
interoperability
and
make
ethereum
better?
It's
just
mainly
projects
who
think.
Oh,
I
need
to
extend
nfts
in
this
way
for
my
project.
Maybe
other
people
benefit
from
that.
Let
me
throw
in
15
links
to
my
project.
D
Yeah,
you
guys
are
talking
about
consensus,
building,
that's
exact
and
having
summaries
of
all
the
discussions
that
going
on
and
tracking
the
people's
latest
greatest
current
thought.
That's
exactly
what
canonizer
is
kind
of
designed
to
do.
You
create
a
camp.
That's
a
petition
that
you
want
to
build
consensus
around
and
people
that
agree
with.
You
can
like
basically
sign
the
petition
and
the
petition
can
constantly
improve,
and
anyone
who
disagrees
with
that
can
create
a
competing
camp
and
all
of
that
kind
of
stuff
is
designed
to
be
handled
at
canada.
Just
fyi.
D
Canonizer
yeah
a
little
bit
and
I've
been
trying
to
reach
out
and
recruit
them
to
help
do
that,
but
they
just
think
I'm
just
shilling
my
our
product
and
stuff,
like
that,
it's
hard
to
communicate
that
canonizer
can
do
that
and
that's
what
canonizer
is
for
it's
a
consensus,
building
and
tracking
tool.
But.
G
I
feel
like
it's
more
than
just
building
consensus.
It's
it's
to
me!
That's
the
approach
right
now
is
more
reactive.
You
know
people
come
out
and
they
say
hey.
Maybe
this
is
a
good
standard
and
then
everybody
reacts
to
standard
to
try
and
say:
oh,
is
this
good
or
bad?
Where
I
think
we
need
I'm
talking
again
about
erc's?
I
think
things
need
to
be
more
proactive
in
terms
of
ercs.
These
are
things
that
we
think
in
the
future.
You
know
some
group
of
people
who
do
a
lot
of
smart
contract
development.
G
These
are
things
that
we
think
can
improve
interoperability,
let's
work
together
and
try
and
build
standards
around
this
rather
than-
and
there
always
needs
to
be
an
avenue
for
outside
submissions,
and
this
is
exactly
how
rfcs
work
generally
there's
groups
of
people
who
are
working
together
on
standards.
That's
going
to
improve,
improve
the
internet,
improve
software
in
general
and
there's
always
the
ability
for
outsiders
to
submit
things
and
then
once
that
circle
and
work
together,
and
we
kind
of
have
that
with
core
eaps
there's.
G
Clearly,
this
all
core
devs
call
that's
happening
every
two
weeks
and
there's
core
developers
who
are
thinking.
You
know
what,
in
terms
of
where
we
want
to
go
with
the
core
protocol,
what
sort
of
use
do
we
need?
Okay?
Well,
there's
a
ddos
attack,
that's
possible.
We
want
to
go
to
stateless,
so
let's
introduce
access
list
of
these
things
and
build
leaps
around
that,
and
that
makes
sense,
but
we
have
nothing
like
that
for
ercs.
There's
no
group
of
people,
thinking
hey!
You
know
we
really
need
to
build
out
this
erc
721
standard.
A
I
think
we
we
went
a
little
like
on
the
other
item
of
the
agenda,
so
let's
first
conclude
this
one
and
then
we'll
go
to
the
ercs
in
general.
That
is
listed
as
the
next
item.
So
if
I
understand
correct,
as
for
now
the
general
consensus
is
around,
let
authors
add
whatever
reference
to
link.
They
would
want
to
add
in
the
proposal
for
both
eids
and
erc
when
we
have
a
separate
process
set
for
erc.
A
If
and
then,
then
maybe
we
will
discuss
on
that
part,
but
for
now
it
seems
like
we
are
in
consensus
to
allow
them
to
put
whatever
in
the
proposal.
Even
I
was
looking
into
eip
one.
It
says
that
you
know
like
if,
if
I
may
read
each
efp
that
is
referenced
in
an
it
must
be
accompanied
by
a
relative
link
for
the
first
time
if
it
is
referenced
and
may
be
accompanied
by
a
link
on
subsequent
references.
A
So
I
don't
see
any
hard
and
fast
rule
mentioned
in
there
as
such,
and
I
hope
people
are
in
agreement
to
let
it
be
like
that
if
I'm
missing
on
anything,
please
correct
me.
F
That
sounds
right
to
me.
I
I
just
wanted
to
add
at
the
end,
though,
that
as
we
hire
on
eip
and
erc
editors
getting
their
opinion
and
getting
their
bandwidth
and
seeing
how
they
want
to
do
this,
I
think
it's
a
good
thing
to
revisit
in
the
future,
so
it
doesn't
have
to
be
something
that's
like
in
stone.
A
A
This
is
on
the
agenda
for
past
few
meetings
and
there
are
a
lot
of
back
and
forth.
All
these
discussions
can
be
found
on
the
issue.
That
is,
a
link
is
provided
in
the
item.
As
for
the
last
meeting,
we
were
discussing
to
reach
to
the
right
person
to
create
an
erc
repo,
but
in
light
of
some
new
comments,
there
could
be
some
new
options
that
can
be
explored,
so
yeah
I'm
opening
the
floor
for
anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
to
this.
A
G
G
Maybe
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
split
out
the
erc's
at
that
point.
Maybe
it
makes
sense
to
just
let
the
er
erc
sort
of
take
over
the
eip
repository,
because
otherwise
we
risk
you
know
splitting
out
ercs
and
then
moving
to
spectrum
and
development
without
eips
and
now
we're
re
directing
everyone
who
wants
to
look
at
ercs
to
a
different
repo.
B
I
agree
with
the
caveat
that
my
my
caveat
only
on
the
time
frames,
so
I'm
concerned
that
we
might
not
actually
move
to
spec
driven
core
development,
for
you
know
three
to
five
years
and
we're
good
means
we're
suffering
with
erc
eip
combination
for
three
to
five
years
or,
however,.
B
G
G
There
are
people
who
hire
someone
yeah
I
mean
I,
you
know
we
have
a
full
ethereum
implementation
in
python,
the
trinity
client
and
it's
really
a
matter
of
removing
the
software
engineering
from
it
to
make
it
a
great
client
and
then
making
it
into
more
of
a
very
readable
format
for
specification,
and
I
would
love
to
move
to
the
future
where
we
don't
have
a
front.
We
don't
fracture
this
the
consensus
test
across
multiple
repos.
We
just
have
you
know
the
ethernet
specs
repo.
D
G
B
Yeah,
I
agree
with
the
the
trajectory
I
think
that
started.
The
trinity
client
is
very
reasonable
because
it's
probably
the
closest
client
to
something
that's
written.
That
is
what
we
want,
but
I
suspect,
there's
still
a
whole
lot
of
work
to
take
out
all
the
optimizations.
Basically
we're
basically
saying.
D
H
Yeah
there's
two:
I
think
I've
been
chatting
with
different
people
about
this
over
the
past
few
months.
There's
like
two
approaches
you
can
do
one
is
you
take
trinity
and
you
simplify
it
and
then
the
other
approach
is
you
take
the
yellow
paper
and
you
transcribe
it
in
python,
or
you
know
some
readable
like
yeah
like
or
you
don't
need
to
transcribe
it
line,
but
you
know
you
kind
of
rewrite
the
yellow
paper
in
python.
H
You
know
I,
I
think
the
challenge
for
either
of
those
is
finding
people
who
want
to
do
that.
One
and
two
who,
whose
purpose
is
to
actually
help
with
the
kind
of
eip
and
eth1
specs
process?
H
So
there's
some
folks
who
are
you
know,
looking
at
rewriting
the
yellow
paper,
for
example,
but
they're
more
interested
in
just
analysis
and
and
not
necessarily
the
eip
process,
yeah,
there's
and
there's
obviously
kind
of
the
the
trinity
team
who
has
written
the
python
client,
but
I
don't
think
they're
interested
in
kind
of
adopting
it
to
be
more
respect.
H
If
anyone
knows
like
an
engineer
who
would
like
to
make
that
kind
of
their
focus
like
write
a
python
spec
for
ethereum,
either
based
on
trinity
or
on
the
yellow
paper
yeah,
I
I
I
can
probably
help
coordinate
funding
you're.
You
know
like
getting
some
reviews
on
it
and
whatnot,
but
it
seems
like
finding
a
person
who
wants
to
do
this
work.
Who
has
the
skill
to
do
it
and
whose
main
motivation
is
the
eip
process
and
not
like
some
tangent,
where
it
might
end
up
being
useful
to
the
eip
process?
H
No,
so
I
think
yeah
he's
he's
looking
at
kind
of
rewriting
the
yellow
paper
in
python,
but
he
wants
to
stick
to
the
yellow
paper
as
closely
as
possible.
So
I
you
know
the
okay,
the
two
options
are,
you
know
we
wait
for
paul's
work.
We
see,
you
know
how
how
close
or
far
that
is
from
from
what
we
do.
H
Quite
easy
to
refactor
that
then
the
other
option
is
you
take
trinity
and
you
just
start
from
that,
but
yeah
I
I
I
suspect,
paul's
direction
is
like
coordinated
with
what
we
want,
but
it's
not
the
exact
same
thing:
yeah
yeah,.
G
I
might
float
this
idea
with
some
people,
depending
I'm
curious
to
see
what
the
the
apprenticeship
program
yields
in
terms
of
people,
because
I'm
seeing
a
wide
range.
Some
people
are
saying
they
have
10
years
of
experience,
software
engineering
and
they're
kind
of
newer
to
ethereum,
and
so
they
might
have.
There
might
be
some
people
who
have
good
python
skills
and
goals,
yeah
back
and
forth,
implementing
in
a
simple
way
where
you
don't
need
to
do,
because
you
know
a
lot
of
ethereum
isn't
the
most
complicated
thing
in
the
world.
G
Yeah,
that's
true
yeah!
That's
so.
H
G
H
Yeah
yeah,
that
would
be
that
would
be
really
valuable
if
somebody
from
that
batch
would
get
on
it,
and
it
might
be
also
like
a
slightly
so
one
of
piper's
concerns
with
that
program.
Is,
you
know
like
how
much
people
can
like
actually
help
these?
You
know
onboard
new
people
to
the
to
the
process,
but
this
feels
like
it
might
be
kind
of
distinct
enough
from
like
core
development
that
you.
H
If
we
can
get
different
folks
to
help
with
reviews
and
whatnot,
it
might
be
a
way
to
get
somebody
to
like
increase
the
total
capacity.
Yeah
yeah.
That
sounds
good.
B
G
It's
yeah:
it's
used
as
different
different
purposes,
but
we
pipers
the
snake
charmers
meet
up
there
every
week
or
so
so
I
just
come
up
here
and
work
with
them.
B
A
So,
coming
back
to
the
question
here
how,
when
what
is
the
time
period
that
we
see
here
with
this
migration,
considering
we
get
people
to
write
aspects
for
ethereum
and
we
will
eventually
move
on
to
the
you
know
pr
based
system
that
we
are
talking
about.
If
we
talk
about
this
eips
and
erc,
how
how
long
is
the
period
that
we
think
that
switch
is
going
to
happen
like
if
it
is
more
than
a
year?
In
my
mind,
it's
worth
considering
have
a
separate
repo.
A
B
I'd,
say
six
months
before
for
a
full
migration
more
realistically,
probably
much
longer,
because
we
need
to
find
someone
and
the
person
they
find
there's
a
good
chance.
They
will
either
not
to
be
an
expert
at
python
or
not
be
an
expert
at
ethereum,
probably
the
latter
and
so
a
lot
to
learn
on
the
way
and
then
so.
I
would
assume
like
optimistically
like
a
year
pessimistically
three.
H
You
know
I
can
see
everything
goes
well
and
we
have
you
know
like
a
and
drafted
it
by
the
end
of
the
summer,
but
like
the
the
the
distance
between
eighty
percent
done
and
100
done
is
probably
another
couple
months
and
then
kind
of
switching
the
process
over
is
probably
another
couple
months
and
then
you
know
cordes
will
be
busy
with
the
merge
in
the
meantime
so
yeah,
I
I
think
a
year
is
like
things,
go
reasonably
well,
yeah
three!
A
So
considering
a
year
like
do
we
like
have
the
need
of
erc
people,
as
of
now
is
the
question
that
we
might
want
to
answer
here,
because
if
they
do,
then
we
would
want
to
progress
in
that
direction.
Getting
a
repo
created
and
like
process
set
up.
G
D
A
Yeah,
I
think,
for
the
time
being
I
mean
if
this
is
like
general
agreement,
then
for
the
time
being,
we
can
start
using
making
use
of
obviously
the
tags
available
in
github,
although
it's
not
gonna
help
us
with
the
notifications
that
we
are
receiving,
but
that
would
be
something
we
can
look
into
and
work
for
the
time
being
and
if
people
would
like
to
revisit
it
after
some.
B
A
If
the
task
can
be
done
being
an
eap,
I
mean
having
it
in
the
eip
repo
and
that
can
be
managed,
is
fine.
But
if
we
have
someone
pushing
it,
then
in
my
mind
it
will
make
sense
to
move
in
the
direction,
even
if
we
start
looking
for
people
who
can
actually
create
a
repo
and
we
do
not
have
any
maintainer.
That
would
be
again
an
issue
at
the
end
of
the
day.
F
F
Yeah,
I
don't
have
an
opinion,
otherwise
I'd
be
the
tiebreaker
this
time
but
yeah.
I
don't
have
an
opinion.
D
G
Stop
us
from
continuing
to
search
for
people
to
become
part
of
the
erc
process
and
I'm
happy
when
we
find
people
to
do
that
to
help
work
with
them
to
you
know,
get
them
in
a
place
where
they
can
do
it
all
on
their
own.
I
just
I'm
not
going
to
be
a
great
eoc
editor,
because
I
don't
write
smart
contracts
and
I
don't
interact
with
things
in
the
dap
level.
F
Well,
the
good
news
is,
we
are
exploring
funding
options
pooja
and
I
and
we've
made
a
lot
of
progress
on
that.
I
don't
think
that's
in
the
agenda
and
I
don't
know
how
much
we
want
to
say
yet
about
where
we're
getting
funding
but
we're.
What's
it's
moving
along.
I
Cool
yeah,
actually
in
a
similar
thing.
The
reason
why
I
joined
today
is
I've
been
doing
some
work
with
magicians
and
the
idea
was
floated
to
maybe
have
me
move
towards
the
rsd
editing.
So
I
came
in
a
bit
late.
I
missed
a
bunch
of
the
conversation,
but
it
sounds
like
that
would
be
really
relevant
right
now.
I
like
this
is
like
a
really
really
really
fresh
idea:
it's
not
really
scoped
out
in
any
way
shape
or
form,
but
if
there's
any
information
I
could
offer
with
that.
J
F
Contracts,
so
if
that's
the
case,
I'd
be
okay
with
you
being
like
a
and
training
editor.
If
you
decide
to
go
that
path,
I'd
be
in
favor,
oh
cool.
I
I
mean
I
can't
say
I
have
like
the
best
grasp
of
like
exactly
what
would
be
in
scope
as
an
editor.
Also
so,
like
I
mean
I
definitely
am
not
looking
for
any
kind
of
streamlined
decision
process
on
that.
Just
it'd
probably
be
good
if
I
signaled
that
there
might
be
something
like
that,
like
you
know,
living.
A
So
yeah,
I
see-
and
it's
comment
on
that
issue
proposing
william
to
be
an
erc
editor,
and
I
have
also
received
a
couple
of
more
interest
on
the
ech
discord
people
mentioning
that
they
are
interested
to
contribute
as
eip
and
erc
editors.
A
We
will
keep
looking
into
this,
like,
as
I
always
mentioned
it,
to
people
that
the
best
place
to
start
with
will
be
the
eip
github
repo
and
as
like,
can't
also
mention
that
if
they
have
any
questions,
it
would
be,
I
mean
like
he
is
available.
You
can
always
go
and
ask
for
that,
but
the
question
that
we
started
with
is
still
here:
do
we
need
a
repo
at
this
point?
Should
we
think
about
it,
or
should
we
drop
it?
B
A
Thank
you.
I
mean
I,
I
wanted
to
have
a
clarity
on
this
part,
because
many
things
like
are
dependent
on
it.
So
if
we
are
clear
that
we
are
gonna,
have
these
things
like
as
it
is
for
now,
and
maybe
we
would
revisit
it
after
three
months,
then
we
can
start
looking
into
it.
But
again,
this
is
one
thing
that
we
were
looking
into
another
point
that
was
mentioned
today
and
it
is
like
a
very
important
the
process
of
erc.
There
are
a
lot
of
things.
A
A
Having
said
that,
I
have
listed
a
erc
standard
of
in
the
like
sub
item.
It's
eic223.
That
is
an
open
issue
I
did
not.
I
could
not
find
any
full
request
for
that,
but
I
find
that
is
being
used
as
a
standard
for
many
other
projects
and
many
other
proposals.
A
This
is
a
situation
that
I
don't
know
how
we
we
should
handle
that
if
a
proposal
which
is
not
and
not
listed
on
eips.ethereum.com,
should
we
call
them
as
an
erc
or
should
we
not
because
I
think
the
clarification
on
usage
of
terms
is
also
important
for
people
to
understand
what
is
a
standard
for
ethereum
and
what
is
just
any
issue
that
is
randomly
moving
around.
G
A
Do
we
want
to
wait
for
any
standard
to
follow
the
standardization
process
that
was
defined?
I
think
nine
months
or
so
ago,
like?
This?
Is
the
process
that
every
proposal
has
to
undergo
eips
and
ercs
to
be
called
as
a
standard,
and
when
that
is
added,
as
in
a
standard
it
is
available
for
community
to
use,
although
community
can
use,
even
if
it
is
in
the
form
of
pull,
request
or
issue.
A
But
it's
I
feel
it's
important
that
we
should
give
some
clarity
to
them
when
we
are
actually
calling
it
as
a
standard,
because
I
don't
want
that.
People
should
write
something
in
their
own
report
that
I
have
seen
an
example
that
that
is
there
in
their
personality
and
they
are
calling
it
yeah.
This
business.
B
So
I
tell
people
that
until
you
reach
final,
you
are
not
a
standard
you're,
just
an
idea
for
a
standard,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
we've
frequently
run
into
this
problem
in
the
past
of
people
going
out
and
implementing
things
before
the
standardization
process
finishes.
Erc20.
Being
the
canonical
example
of
that,
where
you
know
we
had
the
ico
boom
and
10
million
tokens
were
created
on
the
erc20
standard
before
it
was
finished,
and
we
all
regret
it
now,
because
the
erc20
standard
is
terrible
because
it.
B
And
then
everyone
implemented
the
first
draft
and
then
people
came
and
reviewed
it
we're
like
hey.
This
is
not
good.
We
have
these
problems,
this
problem,
this
problem,
this
problem.
We
need
all
these
other
features,
and
this
is
not
great,
but
we're
stuck
with
it,
and
so
I
try
to
strongly
encourage
people,
don't
go
implementing
these
yeah
like
just
because
something's.
B
Repo
does
not
mean
it's
a
good
idea
to
implement
it
like
it
has
not
been
reviewed.
It
has
not
been
vetted,
there's
not
agreement
on
it
until
it
reaches
final.
Of
course,
I
can't
stop
people
from
doing
things
that
are
bad
ideas,
so
it
still
happens.
G
G
Yeah,
I
I
mean
I
agree.
I
just
feel
like
we
need,
you
know
more
leadership
and
more
authority
around
the
erc
process,
because
they're,
it's
really
just
a
free-for-all
at
the
moment,
and
there's
no
cohesive
plan
or
goals
to
move
to
and
to
things
that
or
like
people
want
to
address.
If
we
had
a
strong
leadership
group
who
was
helping
shepherd
standards
and
the
erc20
standard
there's
two
ways
to
go
about
it,
one
you
can
do
things,
you
know
slightly
more
closed
source.
G
That
way,
you
don't
even
have
the
issue
of
people
seeing
what
these
standards
are
before
they
reach
a
more
thought
out
position.
Obviously,
there's
issues
with
this
and
you
know
we
could
still
do
it
in
the
open,
but
just
not
have
it
become
even
a
draft
drc
until
it
gets
to
a
point
where
some
people
within
this
group
have
seen
it
and
have
done
some
betting
on
it.
E
Another
thing
is
say
the
committee
of
erc
people
reviewing
your
c's.
I
think
we
should
start
off
with
just
having
erc
editor
and,
as
there
becomes
more
erc
editors,
they
can
be
the
committee
because
we
don't
have
like
core
developers
that
are
separate
from
eap
editors
right
now.
The
only
people
reviewing
them
are
the
erc
editors,
which
apparently
we
we
don't
have
any.
E
G
The
issue
is
that,
being
an
editor
is
very
different.
From
being
you
know,
a
person,
who's,
helping,
try
and
shepherd
and
lead
standards,
just
being
an
editor,
is
just
doing
doing
editorial
tasks.
These
are
things
that
most
people
can
do
is
just
a
little
bit
of
training
saying
this
is
what
an
eap
is.
What.
G
Whereas
looking
for
people
to
come
in
and
say
here
are
the
problems
that
we
see
interacting
with
applications
in
ethereum
here
are
some
ideas
of
standards
that
we
should
try
and
flesh
out
to
improve.
That,
and
you
know
it's
been
six
years
of
ercs
and
we
still
don't
really
have
any
people
who
are
kind
of
coming
forward.
So
I
think
it's
sort
of
on
us
to
try
and
help
facilitate
and
build
that
out,
because
it
doesn't
appear
to
be
naturally
occurring.
D
I
I
don't
think
I
agree
with
that
either
I
mean
I
mean
I'm
in
the
app
level
dev
personally
and
I
mean
yes,
I
could
put
an
erc20
contract.
I
have
no
interest
and,
like
you
know,
I
did
not
make
any
dog
tokens.
I
have
no
interest
in
doing
anything
of
that
particular
ilk.
I
I
think
also
the
point
that
you
mentioned
before
lite
client
about
shepherding
is
important.
I
think,
would
also
really
play
into
funding
something
that
I
think
would
probably
be
more
important
for
the
ercs
than
the
corey
ips.
I
Is
it
having
people
of
a
capacity
that
are
more
shepherding
than
necessarily
critiquing
a
lot
of
the
erc's?
These
personally,
that
I've
looked
at
just
literally
need
help
like
maybe
to
explain
to
people
what
needs
to
change
or
to
help
them,
especially
if
english
is
not
their
first
language
through
the
process
of
even
getting
a
like
legible
flesh
out
erc
and
then
to
maybe
shepherd
them
a
little
bit
through
the
process.
I
I
believe
that
that
is
well
geared
for
a
number
of
people,
who
probably
would
not
necessarily
be
in
the
position
to
launch.
Like
you
know
the
next
hot
er
c20
token
anyway,
and
I
also
to
get
back
to
what
I
was
saying
before.
I
wouldn't
underestimate
the
goodwill
of
people
who
are
in
the
space
for
the
right
reasons.
B
I
think,
if
I
understand
what
labour
land
is
getting
actually
talked
about
before
it's
it's,
this
weird
intersection
where
you
have
people
who
are
passionate
about
the
work
and
no
matter
how
much
you
pay
them
is
not
going
to
change
whether
they
work.
So
you
got
people
like
me,
for
example,
who
I
I
don't
get
paid,
but
for
some
reasons.
B
Continue
to
help
out
and
put
forth
almost
all
my
effort
into
ethereum,
and
then
you
have
people
that
are
motivated
financially
and
if
you're
motivated,
financially
and
you're
capable
in
this
space,
there
are
more
profitable
things
to
do,
and
so
we're
kind
of
looking
for
specifically
that
set
of
people
who
are
interested
in
making
ethereum
better
and
then
of
those
people.
The
question
is:
is
how
many
of
them
need
financial
motivation?
On
top
of
that,
like
will
that
push
them
over
the
fence
and
maybe
there's
a
lot?
I
don't
know
especially.
I
What
I'm
trying
to
argue
is
that
I
do
think
that
that
would
be
useful.
I
mean
choose
myself
as.
D
I
G
I'm
just
thinking
in
terms
of
you
know,
if
we're
trying
to
build
great
standards,
to
create
interoperability
between
the
most
important
projects.
To
me,
that
means
you
need
to
get
buy-in
from
the
developers
at
uniswap.
You
need
banter,
you
need
these
people
who
you
know
it's
not
it
they're
not
going
to
be
swayed
by
okay,
we'll
give
you
5
000,
whatever
they're,
not
going
to
be
swayed
by
some
money
to
participate
in
that
and
yeah.
G
There
are
a
lot
of
roles
and
important
jobs
that
can
be
done
by
people
who
aren't
necessarily
meeting
big
d5
projects,
but
it
can't
be
a
group
of
outsiders
just
fully
leading
these
standards
because
it
needs
to
be
the
people
who
are
going
to
be
using
the
standards
of
the
highest
level
need
to
feel
that
they're.
You
know
part
of
the
process
and
that
they're
able
to
contribute
what
they
think
things
should
be.
B
B
Go
ahead,
I
can
imagine
like
the
people
who
the
the
paid
editors
or
paid
reviewers
or
paid
curators,
whatever
we
call
them
reaching
out
to
those
other
groups
for
soliciting
feedback.
So
I
think
trent
has
been
doing
this
lately
for
forget
one:
five,
five,
nine
or
three,
seventy
four
one
or
two,
and
so
just
those
people
who
are
kind
of
the
paid
workforce
of
eips
or
the
paid
curators
or
whatever,
whatever
you're,
not
calling
them.
I
I
think
having
them
can
allow
us
to
interact
and
integrate
with
those
big
projects.
G
I
A
So
there
is
another
suggestion
in
the
chat:
would
it
make
sense
to
have
an
integral
standard
organization
or
a
smart
contract
standards
body?
I
think
that's
kind
of
what
your
fees
are
right.
B
The
enp
process,
I
think,
was
meant
to
be
kind
of
like
a
standards
bodies
like
iso
or
rfc
or
whatever
or
wc3
or
w3c,
it's
just
not
quite
as
functional
as
them.
It's
all
a
little
more
dysfunctional.
At
the
moment,
I.
G
This
is
not
an
erc
and
just
here,
and
you
know
that
they
want
to
go
ahead
and
make
a
pr
and
really
persistent
shirt,
I'm
all
for
allowing
this.
But
I
think
that
would
stop
a
lot
of
people
from
coming
in
and
just
making
whatever
years
they
want
to.
And
it's
also
like
at
the
first
point
of
contact
that
we
can
start.
You
know
understanding
what
what
are
the
needs
of
people,
what
sort
of
things.
I
I'm
curious
to
who
would
leverage
that
service
there's
a
part
of
me
that
I
I
don't
mean
this
to
be
discouraging,
but
there's
definitely
a
part
of
me
that
feels
like
it
would
be
very
helpful
for
the
people
there
for
the
right
reasons
and
then
it
would
probably
also
inspire
kind
of
a
wave
of
low
effort
like
the
kind
of
low
effort,
low
quality
crowd
that
shows
up
when
they
can
like
think
they
get
someone
else
to
do
the
work
like
you
know,
I
I'd
anticipate
being
on
a
certain
percentage
of
calls
with
that
involve
like
okay.
I
So
can
you
write
me
an
erc
where
you
can
make
a
contract
with
a
token
and
it's
worth
a
thousand
die
always
or
something
like
that,
but
it
would
be
helpful
for
other
people
also,
and
it
could
be.
The
cynical
vision
is
not
correct
here.
A
A
Maybe
catalyst
can
also
contribute
to
that,
and
in
that
case
we
can
look
into
a
proper
process,
not
as
if
not
an
organization,
maybe
focusing
more
on
process,
we'll
try
to
discuss
it
in
this
meeting,
because
we
consider
this
as
a
process
improvement
meeting
we'll
bring
it
there.
But
now,
like
the
example
that
we
that
I
just
mentioned
about
erc223,
I
believe
the
general
agreement
is
until
that
is
a
standard.
B
F
B
G
How
can
we
actively
discourage
that,
though,
because
right
now
you
know
once
it
become
once
it
goes
on
to
the
live
website,
there's
just
nothing
that
we
can
really
do
people.
You
know,
no
matter
what
we
say.
People
are
gonna,
do
it
because
it
has
a
number
in
front
of
it
and
it's
on
an
official
website
and
that's
why
I
think
that
there
needs
to
be
a
stage
before
to
try
and
help
stop
or
at
least
get
a
more
fleshed
out
version
before
it
becomes
live
yeah.
So.
B
In
the
past,
what
I've
done
is,
I
have
back
when
I
was
doing
erc
stuff.
I
just
would
when
people
start,
I
see
people
referring
to
it
and
just
tell
them.
This
is
not
a
standard.
Do
not
implement
this
like
or
implement
at
your
own
peril
like
this
is
subject
to
change
and
make
that
very
clear
and
that
kind
of
helps
at
least
a
little
bit,
I'm
not
suggesting
that
we
go
out
and
start
like
camp
actively
campaigning.
B
B
B
G
G
E
E
Anyways
like
in
javascript,
there
was
decorators,
which
some
projects
in
react
started
using,
but
they
needed
like
special
libraries
to
use
it,
and
I
think
angular
is
used,
uses
decorators,
even
though
the
the
spec
was
still
being
fleshed
out
and
wasn't
in
final
state,
but
they
I,
I
guess,
the
javascripts
as
standards
they
they're
willing
to
do
that,
just
just
to
keep
the
process
transparent
but
yeah.
E
B
A
B
Yeah,
it
should
just
be
somebody,
someone
who
knows
css
and
html
basically
just
needs
to
submit
a
pr
to
the
eips
repo
in
on
the
one
of
the
templates.
I
don't
know
which
one.
A
A
I
mean
I
understand
you
have
other
tasks
as
well,
but
I
am
asking
if
there
is
someone
who
can
own
this.
It's
fine
then
we'll
look
into
it
later.
K
Yeah
I
mean:
do
you
mind
kind
of
reviewing
a
little
bit
on
what
it
entails
that
wasn't
paying
100
attention.
D
K
A
I
know
we
have
only
four
minutes
left,
so
I
wanted
to
discuss
about
erc
editors
like
what
are
the
things
that
we
are
planning
to
do,
but
just
in
in
essence
of
time
I
want
to
touch
up
on
any
other
item
quickly
that
people
would
want
to
share.
I
see
there
is
this
item
json
rpc,
api
spec.
K
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think,
having
a
follow-up
on
that
is
good.
I
guess
kind
of
one
pertinent
thing
to
bring
up.
Is
I
created
a
bunch
of
issues
and
a
project
on
the
on
the
eth1
specs
repo?
So
if
you
want
to
see
like
the
progress
of
the
of
the
project,
which
is
essentially
zero
right
now,
then
you
can
check
there,
but
it's.
K
Things
are
starting
to
ramp
up
more
now
that
we've
kind
of
come
to
a
conclusion
on
how
things
are
going
to
get
done,
and
I'm
just
kind
of
going
to
soon.
I
am
the
person
and
getting
you
know
more
focused
work
anyway.
H
Sorry
yeah
about
the
open
pr
for
the
15291
I
saw
so
matt
or
you
had
two
like
basically
typo
comments,
but
aside
from
that,
if
I
commit
those
in,
is
there
anything
else
we're
missing
before
we
can
merge
this?
H
G
D
K
So
I
reverted
the
the
renaming,
but
the
the
important
thing
to
recognize
with
the
renaming
is
that,
like
I'm,
going
to
be
completely
revamping
like
I'm
going
to
be
splitting
everything
up
into
like
different
files
and
stuff,
like
that's
the
next
step,
so
it's
pointless,
but.
G
Well,
I
would
caution
against
you
know
how
you're
going
to
proceed
on
this,
because,
if
you're
going
to
start
doing
a
lot
of
work
on
the
spec,
I
think
that
work
should
be
done
from
scratch
so
that
we
can
license
the
cco
because
it
is
apache2
license.
And
if
we
just
continue
using
this
as
a
base,
then
we're
going
to
put
a
lot
of
work
into
an
apache
2
project.
G
G
Just
copying
the
spec
was
kind
of
you
know
to
get
the
ball
rolling
asap
and
have
a
spec
for
1559
stuff,
but
for
the
future
work.
I
think
that
the
first
step
is
to
yeah.
I
don't
know,
I
don't
think
it's
I
mean
it's
a
spec,
and
so
it's
not
going
to
look
that
much
different
than
it
kind
of
is
already.
But
if
you're
going
to
write
from
scratch,
I
reckon
just
doing
your
best
to
write
it
out
from
you
know
clean
and
then
we
can
license
it
cco.
H
G
G
A
So
I
see
over
100
issues
that
was
created
yesterday
on
eat
one
dot
post
by
people.
I
personally
feel
that's
a
good
way
of
keeping
track
of
all
the
tasks
that
that
is
being
put
in,
but
it
was
funny
to
receive
more
than
100
notification
in
like
10
minutes.
H
Yeah,
I
would
kind
of
agree
if
there's
a
way,
so
it's
not
only
the
one
time,
notifications
and
now
it's
done
like
it
might
just
be
too
much
of
a
pain
to
change
it.
But
it's
also
like
the
kind
of
order
of
magnitude
difference
between
like
everything
else
and
that
so
it's
like
kind
of
hard
now
to
find
you
know
any
other
issue
in
the
ethos
factory.
Oh
there's,
not
a
ton
now
but
yeah.
H
B
I
I
just
agree
with
both.
I
think
that
the
it's
a
one-time
cost
to
get
all
those
dishes
created,
but
it
gives
us
a
lot
more
clean
tracking
on
progress
and
allows
us
to
distribute
tasks
and
distribute
work
more
easily.
Okay,
and
we
just
apply
labels
to
them
too.
If
we
need
to
filter.
K
K
Is
like
in
the
case
that
we
want
someone
to
get
on
board
because
I'm
not
fulfilling.
So
if
you
want
somebody
else,
go
faster,
be
it's
a
lot
easier
to
just
kind
of
assign
tasks
and
delegate.
A
Right
so
initially,
I
thought
that
there
was
some
issue
with
the
bot
or
something
like
that,
but
later
on,
I
realized
these
are
these
are
all
issues
yeah?
If
that
can
be
bunched,
I
mean.
I
also
feel
that
it
would
be
better,
but
now
that
is
there,
let's,
let's
keep
it,
let's
use
it
for
the
purpose
of
tracking
okay.
We
are
already
like
on
time
anything
anyone
wants
to
cover.
I
know
there
is
another,
can
called
source
of
eips
that
is
listed
for
today's,
and
eip
gets
a
bar.
A
So
anyone
wants
to
speak
on
either
item.
Maybe
we
can
go
a
couple
of
more
minutes
and
then
we'll
conclude
the
meeting.
B
G
A
H
Oh
yeah,
so
yeah
thanks
for
reminding
me,
I
put
a
pull
request
in
the
east,
one
specs
repo
with
all
of
the
previous
hard
forks.
Basically,
I
basically
copied
over
the
eeps
into
that.
I
didn't
want
to
merge
it
until
you
know
people
had
a
chance
to
look
it
basically
com,
so
it
copies
the
text
from
the
e.
The
only
change
I
made
is
I
link
back
to
the
actual
eep,
so
I
added
a
kind
of
metadata
link
field
for
every
one
of
them
linking
the
eep
yeah.
H
I
I
you
know.
I
know
we
discussed
this
last
time
so
yeah,
I
don't
know
if
we
can
go
ahead
and
merge
it,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
people
work.
He's
aware
before
I
brought
all
this
in.
I
I
B
H
Oh
okay,
that's
it!
Okay,
guys!
That's
all
the
text
from
the
each
though
the
link
I
added
is
line
nine.
Basically,
in
that
file,
I
see
oh
yeah,
I'm
not
particularly
keen
on
fixing
every
broken
link.
B
B
H
H
Yeah
but
okay,
so
this
is
why
I
wanted
people
to
review
it.
Yeah,
oh,
no
worries
my
call
I'll
leave
myself
a
comment
on
the
pr
about
this
and
I'll
fix
it.
A
Thank
you
so
yeah.
We
are
already
over
time
and
thank
you,
everyone
for
joining.
We
hope
to
continue
this
discussion
on
some
of
the
topics
that
we
started
today,
but
we
may
not
get
on
the
conclusion
hope
to
see
you
all
in
two
weeks
from
now.
Thank
you
for
joining
today
have
a
great
one.