►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting #78
A
Welcome
to
EIT
IP
meeting
78
I
have
shared
agenda
and
chat.
It's
issue
number
two
to
four
on
eipip
GitHub
repository.
We
have
few
open
issues
and
PRS
to
be
discussed
today
and
there
are
a
couple
of
items
from
the
earlier
meetings.
Discussion
continued
we'll
get
some
update
on
eipwbot
issues.
One
of
the
characters
are
working
on
it
and
we'll
go
ahead
with
eaps
inside
for
the
month
of
March
and
April,
followed
by
EAP
editing
office
are
so
I'm
going
ahead
with
the
agenda.
A
A
C
A
So
this
is
the
first
item
on
the
agenda:
pull
request
number
six.
Eight
two
four
to
include
some
wording
about
finalizing
yeah.
B
Yeah,
the
the
background
is
that
in
our
previous
discussion
on
eipip
meetings
that
people
agree
generally,
you
should
not
move
a
move,
a
EIP
into
final
status
with
other
changes.
Basically,
the
last
PR
pull
request
to
move
a
stat
to
to
change
an
EIP
status
should
only
touch
the
status
without
other
changes,
and
this
is
a
reflection
of
our
of
the
the
meetings
decision.
B
Just
oh,
it's
already
merged.
Okay,
so
yeah.
A
Yeah
looks
like
it
has
been
mushed.
It
received
approvals
from
other
authors.
So
thank
you
for
providing
the
background
here.
A
All
right,
the
next
one
is
pull
request.
Number
six,
eight
one
three
that
is
to
that
is
a
CI
change
for
bump
rake
file.
Depths
I
see
a
lot
of
comments
here
and
there
are
some
changes
made
by
the
proposal
for
recent.
Wonder
what
other
editors
think
about
merging
for
this
proposal.
C
I
think
it
just
needs
to
be
tested.
It
looks
like
one
of
the
builds
is
failing,
so
the
the
CI
checks
so.
A
All
right,
let's
move
ahead
with
the
next
one.
A
This
is
created
by
Panna
people
and
it
is
to
remove
EAP
Preamble
entry.
I
think
I
can
see
a
lot
of
comments.
There
are
some
people
in
favor
of
it
and
some
are
not
I,
don't
see
Pana
on
call
today.
E
B
I
support
that
we
don't
remove
it
I
I
assure
it
was
even
stronger
that
I
think
in
the
content
of
the
EIP.
We
should
have
a
have
a
number
just
like,
even
if
you
might
have
title
somewhere.
You
should
also
have
the
title
in
inside
of
the
the
inside
of
the
content,
and
the
EIP
number
is
an
important
piece
of
that
information
and
should
be
duplicated
and
double
check.
F
So
I'm
missing
the
the
argument
on
removing
it.
So
is
it
just
because
the
Erp
number
is
in
the
title
or
in
the
file
name
that
he
wants
to
remove
it.
It's.
C
It's
a
little
bit
more
than
just
that
right,
like
we're
working
on
making
the
EIP
number
a
signing
bot
and
it's
you
know
one
percent
easier.
If
you
only
have
to
change
it
in
one
place
instead
of
two
places,
so
I
think
that's
where
this
is
coming
from,
but
it
really
doesn't
matter
too
much
technically,
which
way
we
go.
C
D
A
So
I
think
one
of
the
editors
may
be
able
to
close
it.
It
looks
like
most
of
them
are
not
in
favor,
so
we
don't
have
a
clear
consensus
on
that.
Moving
ahead.
The
next
one
is
a
website
remove
dependency
on
eips
Preamble.
It
is
number
6799
and
it's
by
Panda
again
looks
like
it's
waiting
for
some
review.
G
A
Okay,
if
any
of
the
editors
May
close,
these
two
number,
six,
seven,
nine
zero
and
six
seven
nine
nine
next
one
is
a
update
code.
Spell
project
action
code
spell
digest,
I'm,
not
sure
if
it
is
created
by
a
human
or
a
bot,
so
I
just
thought
of
bringing
it
to
this
meeting,
wonder
what
people
think
about
it.
The
number
is
6805.
C
Yeah
these
are
made
by
a
bot.
This
is
the
the
the
demand
renovate
thing
that
Panda
pep
wanted
to
do,
and
it
makes
useful
pull
requests.
I
just
haven't
gotten
around
to
reviewing
any
of
them
yet.
A
Okay,
then
I'll
I'll
like
let
it
let
maybe
even
other
editors,
also
get
chance
to
take
a
look
and
Sam.
If
you
can,
because
you
are
closely
looking
into
Bots
so
yeah
that
would
be
good
to
have.
And
that
concludes
our
first.
Like
new
discussion
items,
our
pull
request.
The
next
one
is
a
discussion
continued
from
the
past
meeting,
someone
requested
to
have
the
first
two
sub
items
for
this
particular
section.
A
The
pull
request
number
is
six
two
c
six
nine
and
it
is
about
a
full
EDM
equivalence
in
ethereum.
A
So
it
looks
like
it
was
discussed
earlier,
I
think
when
we
had
Greg
on
the
call
as
well,
and
we
didn't
have
any
clear
consensus
on
it.
So
after
three
four
meetings,
the
proposer
has
requested
to
be
discussed
again
to
see
if
there
is
any
news
stand
by
the
AP
editors
and
if
we
can
probably
move
this
forward.
B
Do
we
have
consensus
that
execution
spec
should
be
linkable,
yep
I?
Think
oh
yeah
I
think
we
can
let
the
proposer
just
split
it
out
and
then
put
this
the
execution
first
and
then
yellow
paper.
I
think
Sam
and
Matt
is
against
and
then
Greg
and
I
were
were
support.
So
we
can
discuss
that
further.
We
want
to
just
minimize
the
block
on
whoever
proposed
the
link
and.
C
I
mean
they
are,
but
if
they
remove
the
links
they
still
wouldn't.
Let
them
merge
this
because
you
can't
make
an
EIP
Force
things
on
other
eips,
so
I
don't
see
the
point
in
having
an
EIP
that
just
makes
a
definition
without
some
sort
of
technical,
like
substance
or
proposal
right
so
I
I,
don't
think
the
content
of
this
EIP
is
suitable
for
this
Repository.
B
B
Until
I
mean
until
when
there
was
not
there's
use
cases
where
multiple
independent
EIP
needs
a
definition
and
that
definition
is
non-trivial,
so
maybe
just
too
early
or.
F
It
doesn't
make
sense
at
all
I'm
looking
through
it.
It
says
full
AVM
equivalence
and
it's
just
definition
of
it.
It
seems
like
to
me,
like
a
marketing
term,
could
be
done
in
a
Blog.
A
Okay,
so
yeah.
The
last
comment
was
from
the
editor
saying
that
let's
discuss
this
in
eipap
meeting
and
from
today's
meeting,
probably
we
can
add
a
comment
that
editors
are
in
favor
of
closing
this,
maybe
not
the
best
place
to
add
it
in
EIP,
Repository.
A
The
next
one
here
is
pull
request,
number
6306.
It
is
by
the
same
author,
a
same
proposal
and
it
looks
like
we
have
two
comments,
one
in
strong
favor
and
one
strongly
things
that
it
should
not
be
added
to
eip1,
Victor
and
Matt.
If
you
would
like
to
share
your
thoughts
and
Arguments
for
for
and
against.
B
Oh,
this
is
actually
the
one
that
I
I
was
confused
with
so
I
think.
The
proposal
was
to
add
to
allow
link
a
permitted
links
and
then
one
is
to
exection
execution
back,
which
we
all
agree
and
then
the
yellow
paper,
which
we
disagree
and
so
I
think
we
can
let
the
proposer,
let
submit
a
merge
for
the
spec
first
and
then
we
can
wait
for
consensus
from
for
your
paper.
B
Can
you
make
a
argument
that
I
know
that
is
lack
of
updates,
just
like
execution,
is
currently
being
the
canonical
one
to
update,
and
then
we
kind
of
socially
agree
that
execution
is
up
to
date.
But
how
can
you
prevent
six
months
or
a
year
from
now?
B
So
the
fact
that
you
think
that
is
currently
the
lack
of
Maintenance
I,
don't
know
if
that
is
consensus,
I'm
actually
proposing
that
and
Greg
and
I
were
proposing
that
we
should
actually
look
into
it
and
have
people
contribute
to
with
the
to
to
put
a
yellow
paper
back
to
up
to
date.
So
that's
why
I
feel
that
using
the
arguments
that
yellow
paper
is
no
longer
maintained
as
a
way
to
block
links
is
for
one
week
and
for
two,
it
doesn't
also
apply
to
execution
and
and
and
even
longer,
I.
B
Don't
think
deprecated
documents
is
one
thing
is
a
reason
to
stop
linking
to
them
like
you
for
for
us.
We
believe
that
giving
people
historical
context
is
also
sometimes
useful,
and
so.
E
B
E
Of
Eeps
is
to
not
link
to
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff,
and
if
we
were
to
be
providing
a
lot
of
historical
context,
then
we
would
be
having
to
provide
a
lot
of
links
to
oh.
There
is
a
discussion
here
on
Twitter.
Then
at
this
interact
we
had
you
know
this
decision.
It
originally
was
like
that,
like
this
isn't
a
you
know,
assimilation
of
a
whole
bunch
of
information
about
how
we
got
to
this
certain
point.
E
That's
trying
to
concisely,
define
the
spec
and
trying
to
concisely
Define
why
things
were
chosen
and
summarizing
a
bunch
of
conversations,
but
that
to
me
is
like
not
that
big
point.
The
point
is:
is
that
the
yellow
paper
isn't
updated
past
the
merge.
There's
not
really
people
working
on
it.
If
that
changes,
then
we
can
reopen
the
discussion
and
think
about
it,
some
more.
But
right
now
we
have
three
full-time
people
working
on
the
execution.
Spec
it
works,
post,
merge
it
works
for
Shanghai.
We
have
people
maintaining
it
for
the
foreseeable
future.
E
B
So
again,
I
I,
understand
where
you're
coming
from,
but
I
feel
and
I
believe
Greg
will
very
strongly
that
we
should
allow
authors
to
link
and
the
fact.
B
I,
don't
think
yellow
paper
needs
to
yellow
paper
needs
to
be
updated
in
order
to
be
qualified
to
be
to
be
linked.
That's
the
point
like
I'm,
not
arguing
with
you
that
yellow
paper
is
out
of
date.
That
is
sad
fact.
We
agree
that,
but
the
fact
that
we
don't
allow
a
LinkedIn
to
add
yellow
paper
and
then
the
fact
that
we
are
not
allowing
linking
to
other
live
clients
back
live
clients
on
implementations,
I
believe
that
is
making
it
very
hard
for
authors
to
to.
D
B
Their
arguments
yeah,
that's
separate
the
yellow
paper.
No,
no
so
I'm
saying
that
restricting
we
should
have
very,
very
strong
reason
to
to
restrict
link
unless
there
is
a
need,
rather
than
we
should
diff
by
default
link
this
permit
link
without
unless
we
have
a
strong
reason
and.
E
B
So,
what's
the
point
of
linking
to
an
EIP
like?
What's
the
point
of
it
is
to
link
to
to
ER
T20
to
erc721,
because.
E
B
That
is
not
how
we
Define
linked.
If
we
begin
with
it
is
we're
using
the
proposal.
Eip
proposal
to
let
people
make
arguments,
make
technical
arguments
and
even
like
to
begin
with.
We,
there
is
an
RSC
that
people
were
following
will
use,
must
and
should,
and
that,
even
that,
one
that
RFC
is
being
updated,
that
was
that
was
deplocated,
and
then
we
linked
to
it
without
no
without
a
problem.
B
So
we're
just
empowering
ourselves
too
much
to
restrict
link
and
then
again,
I
I
know
that
we're
not
I'm
not
going
to
convince
you
and
then
you're
not
going
to
convince
me
either
and
I
think
that
we
can
put
aside.
E
So
then
we
should
close
this
issue
because
if
we're
just
gonna
sit
here
and
like
argue
about
it,
every
single
meeting,
this
is
not
useful.
Like
proposals
that
we
to
change
the
ethereum
repository,
the
EIP
repository
should
generally
be
accepted
unanimously
and
if
they're
not,
then
we
just
need
to
move
on
and
start
working
on
next
to
the
next
problems.
B
All
right,
I'm
agreeing
that
we
should
allow
executions
back
to
be
linked,
and
that
was
what
I
proposed
and
we
know
that
yellow
paper
is
being
being.
It
is
not
being
in
consensus.
Yet
so
that's
what
I
proposed
we
split
it
out
and
then
we
let
the
execution
be
permitted
to
go
in
and
so
the
yellow
paper.
We
can
just
wait
another
six
months
or
a
year
and
then
we'd
come
back
to
discuss
our
stats.
B
B
Or
like
there's
two
other
possibilities
that
either
there
is
a
material
change
or
the
sentiments
in
the
in
a
group,
changes
how's
that
so.
H
My
opinion
on
this
is
that,
is
there
an
instance
where
we
are
actually
severely
impacted
by
not
letting
the
reference
to
yellow
paper
come
in
the
eips
I
mean
if
there
is
such
an
instance,
and
we
are
really
being
impacted
and
it
is
a
real
impact,
then
it
becomes
something
to
discuss
about
else.
The
discussion
is
moved.
B
The
impact
is
that,
after
when
they
are
making
EIP
arguments,
they
want
and
sometimes
need
to
cite
the
historical
context
and
then
yellow
paper
has
historically
been
a
very
good
source
of
the
of
the
execution
there.
A
I
think
this
would
be
probably
a
good
place
to
let
this
discussion
settle
down
on.
Maybe
if
people
are
more
interested
can
add
more,
like
you
know,
support
on
the
pull
request
itself,
because.
B
Hold
on
I
I
think
I
have
one
question
for
like
clients,
my
client:
do
you
think
we
should
permit
current
link
to
exact
location
spec,
or
do
you
think
that
we
should
permit
live
link
to
execution
link
spec?
B
What
is
the
differentiation
link?
Permlink
is
git
get.
It
is
github's
link
that
includes
the
commit
which
links
to
a
non-changeable
specific
snapshot
of
executive
of
a
of
a
repository
live
link,
links
to
a
relative
place
of
inner
repository.
That
may
change.
So
do
you
think
that
we
should
allow
permlink
to
execution
stack
or
we
should
allow
live
link
to
executions
back,
let's,
like
I,
mean.
B
E
It's
already
not
up
to
date
like
it's,
not
nothing
that
we
have
to
assume.
We
already
know
that
nobody
is
currently
working
on
the
yellow
paper.
I,
don't
know
if
that's
ever
going
to
change
it.
Probably
isn't
it's
going
to
be
really
hard
to
define
the
merge
in
the
context
of
the
yellow
paper,
and
so
why
go
ahead
and
accept
this
thing
if
the
most
like
it's
going
to
be
just
become
less
valuable
over
time,
if
the
execution
spec
stops
being
supported
at
some
point,
that's
unfortunate.
It.
B
By
by
definition
by
your
definition,
the
perm
link
stops
being
changed.
It
stops
evolving
so
that
that
that's
exactly
the
same
place
where
like,
if
you
don't
think
executions
back
as
one
thing,
but
as
snapshots
of
each
one
of
the
individuals
themselves
linking
to
each
one
of
them
is
going
to
be
out
of
date.
No
one
is
maintaining
and
changing
that
print
link,
because
it
cannot
be
changed.
E
E
To
have
multiple
resources,
pointing
to
the
same
things
the
execution
spec
already
implements
all
the
historical
hard
Forks.
The
yellow
paper
is
not
being
updated.
We
don't
need
to
have
two
ways
of
linking
to
something
depending
on
how
you
feel
or
like
what
resource
you're
used
used
to.
We
should
be
forcing
people
down
this
one
funnel
that's
supported
right
now
and
if
something
changes
in
the
future,
we
can
address
that
issue,
but
this
is
just
how
things
are
stand
right
now.
B
I
do
I,
don't
think
you
answered
my
question:
how
could
how
could
link
to
the
permlink
maintain
the
the
up-to-date
status.
H
B
H
No,
we
first,
we
can't
link
to
a
dynamic
link
because
Dynamic
link
can
change,
and
the
content
in
the
EIP
can
basically
go
a
very
very
tangent
to
what
now
the
dynamic
links
contains
right.
A
H
B
Right
what
I'm
so
I'm,
not
arguing
with
you
that
we
should
add,
live
link
I'm,
just
saying
that
the
the
same
reason
that
we
disallow
live
link
and
the
same
reason
that
we
disallow
yellow
paper
is
going
to
be
the
same
link
that
we
disallow
permalink,
because
permlink
don't
change,
it
will
be
out
of
date.
H
B
H
E
B
E
E
I'm
saying
if
people
want
it,
then
let's
close
this
and
wait
for
someone
to
come
back
and
say:
I
have
this
EAP,
it's
really
important
that
I
have
the
link
to
the
yellow
paper
right
now.
The
person
who
said
they
want
the
link
to
the
yellow
paper
wants
to
try
to
define
something,
an
informational
EIP
that
we
don't
think
is
a
good
fit
for
this
repository.
If,
at
this
later
point
an
author
says,
it
is
critical
for
my
EAP
that
I
link
to
the
yellow
paper.
We
can
have
this
debate
again.
E
B
E
B
If
that
is,
that
is
a
possible
new
information.
I
would
accept
that
to
to
wait
for
this
discussion
like
I,
can
accept.
We
put
this
exception
on
hold
until
either
yellow
paper
changes
or
a
number
of
editors
who
feel
that
we
should
allow
link
to
yellow
paper
changes,
or
there
is
an
author
who
has
strong
reason
in
their
own
EIP.
That
needs
to
allow
this.
A
A
There
could
be
another
reason
when
Bart
decides
to
make
it
stagnant,
so
I
hope
one
of
the
conditions
come
earlier
than
bought.
So
we
can
probably
bring
it
back
to
the
agenda.
E
Yeah
I
feel
like
we
should
close
these
things
and
not
just
let
them
sit
there,
because
then
we
get
notifications
when
stagnant
that
we
want
to
talk
it
about
it
again,
but
we've
kind
of
reached
this
impasse
where
there
isn't
really
a
good
way
forward,
and
so
we
should
close
it,
and
if
somebody
comes
and
reopens
the
pr
or
decides
to
open
a
new
PR.
That
does
this
thing.
We
can
have
the
discussion
again.
A
All
right,
maybe
for
like
another
issue,
that
we
just
another
pull
request
that
we
just
discussed
6269.
If
someone
can
maybe
close
that
that
would
be
nice
I.
C
A
We
decided
that
it
should
not
be
a
part
of
EIP
repository
and
followed
by
6306
if
we
think
that
we
can
probably
take
up
this
discussion
back
to
the
meeting
when
we
have
an
example
for
a
proposal
who
really
needs
it.
C
A
A
All
right,
so
we
can
probably
move
on
to
the
next
one.
The
next
one
is
a
PR
number
6650
and
it
talks
about
customizable
editors.
C
Yeah,
so
it'll
only
give
editors
like
it'll
only
tag
editors
for
certain
keywords
or
for
the
lack
of
certain
keywords
in
proposals.
C
C
Yeah
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
if
this
is
ready
for
an
eipip
discussion,
yet.
A
Yeah
right
I
just
wanted
to
provide
background
here.
Like
you
know,
in
the
last
meeting
we
asked
the
proposal
like
what
is
the
proposal
and
he
probably
added
a
few
more
context
to
it
like
what
is
being
tried
to
be
done
here.
I
just
wanted
to,
let
it
just
know
so
they
can
take
a
look
and
provide
the
feedback.
There
is
no
pull
request
for
this
proposal,
yet.
A
A
B
Yeah
I
I
tried
it
I,
try
to
close
69
six
to
nine
at
six
nine
I,
don't
have
closing
I,
don't
have
closing
rights.
Anyone
who
has
covered
in
the
right,
please
close
it,
and
then
I
already
noticed
down
our
meeting
notes
to
say
that
we
will
close
it.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that
Matt.
Maybe
if
you
can
give
it
a
try,
because
Sam
wants
to
be
reserved
he's
like
vocal
about
it,
and
he
just
want
to
reserve
from
this.
So
if
you
can
give
it
a
try,
sometimes
today
or
later.
A
Okay,
I
have
to
refresh
my
agenda,
so
it
can
reflect
it
here
as
well.
Oh
yeah,
it
does
all
right.
The
next
one
is
eapw
bot
issues
Jose.
If
you
have
any
updates
to
share.
G
C
G
D
A
You
moving
on
to
the
next
item.
It
is
eaps
Insight,
so
I
have
added
hack
MD
for
the
month
of
April
as
well.
We
have
four
new
eaps
as
draft
two
promoted
to
review
and
two
eabs
in
last
call
with
three
eits
getting
into
final
status.
Last
call
proposals
are
EAP
6220
with
the
end
date
on
18th
April
and
the
other
one
is
6105
with
the
end
date
of
4th
April,
which
has
already
passed.
So
the
author
is
requested
to
create
a
new
pull
request.
A
If
there
is
no
major
feedback
for
aspect
changes,
they
can
create
a
new
pull
request
to
move
this
proposal
to
the
final
status.
The
three
final
eips
are
EAP
4736,
that
is
clwp
consensus,
layer,
withdrawal
protection.
There
are
two
erc's
ERC,
5006
rental,
nft,
nft
user
extension
and
ERC
5219
contract
resource
request.
All
of
them
are
added
in
the
hack
MD.
In
added
to
the
agenda.
A
That's
all
on
eaps
inside
for
EAP
editing
hour,
we
had
our
last
meeting
yesterday.
There
would
be
another
meeting
two
weeks
from
yesterday
and
I
have
added
agenda
to
the
new
meeting.
People
may
request
any
pull
requests.
They
have
question
about
their
particular
proposal
and
that
will
be
answered
by
AIP.
Editor
Samuelson
generally
takes
out
this
officer
to
talk
to
authors
and
then
last
item
for
today's
discussion,
or
maybe
information
is
a
action
item
from
the
earlier
meeting.
I
have
added
link
to
the
notes,
I'm
just
taking
a
quick
look.
A
6579
was
approved
office,
obviously
it
would
have
been
merged
and
the
third
one
was
about
this
trauman
proposal
discussion
to
be
continued
in
the
link
provided
there.
So
probably
there
is
no
action
item
specific
on
anyone,
so
yeah.
That
all
concludes
for
the
items
listed
here
today.
Anyone
has
anything
to
bring
up
share.
I
want
to
discuss.
A
I
had
one
thing
I
wanted
to
mention
here,
like
I
mentioned
it
in
the
allcard
of
meeting
as
well.
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
have
all
the
proposals
for
shape
upgrade
in
the
last
call.
I
saw
only
one
proposal
in
last
call,
and
one
is
already
final,
because
that
is
a
meta
and
that
is
not
going
to
be
deployed,
but
there
are
I
think
three
more
proposals
that
needs
to
go
in
the
last
call.
A
Now
we
do
not
have
even
two
weeks,
it's
less
than
that,
but
I'm
wondering
like
what
would
be
the
next
step.
Is
it
okay
that
someone
from
Caterers
make
creatable
request
or
yeah.
C
A
It,
okay,
that's
all
anyone
has
anything
else
to
add
for
today.