►
From YouTube: EIPIP meeting 24
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/47
A
Welcome
to
eipip
meeting
24..
The
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
single
source
of
truth
for
eip.
I
think
bent
he
was
looking
into
this
event.
If
you
may
have
any
update
on
this.
B
Yeah
I've
been
working
on.
One
of
my
action
items
in
our
last
meeting
was
to
start
a
google
doc
to
collect
some
of
the
information
and
try
and
get
a
handle
on
what
what
needs
to
be
done
for
all
this,
and
I
think
I'm
having
some
creep
of
what
this
is
supposed
to
do,
because
I've
added
in
the
yellow
paper
and
and
and
other
so
there's
multiple
wikis
depreciated
and
then
there's
githubs
that
control
those
wikis.
And
so
I'm
just
trying
to
collect
all
that
stuff
trying
to
get
my
head
around
all
that
stuff.
B
But
anyway,
I'm
making
progress
and
working
on
all
that
stuff
to
try
and
figure
out
how
we
can
get
some
of
this
cleaned
up
and
standardized
and
and
and
also
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
item
is
figuring
out
how
to
do
the
spec
and
and
that's
kind
of
also
dealing
with
the
yellow
pages
and
stuff
like
that,
and
so
so
anyway.
Yeah
I'll
put,
let's
see,
there's
the
link
to
the
here.
Here's
the
link
to
the
google
doc
that
I'm
working
on
I'll
stick
that
in
the
chat.
B
So
if
anyone
has
any
opinions,
if
I'm
having
too
much
creep
and
responsibility
or
or
if
they
any
ideas
of
what
direction
we
should
push,
basically,
my
goal
is
to
have
that
document
to
collect
all
that
kind
of
information
so
anyway
making
progress,
hoping
to
continue
on
that.
Hopefully,
we
can
it's
mostly
probably
for
my
education
to
understand
what
all
the,
what
all
is
important
to
everyone.
A
All
right,
as
you
mentioned,
the
next
item
is
also
like
linked
with
this.
We
were
talking
in
the
earlier
meeting
about
maybe
creating
a
bounty
kind
of
stuff
to
get
at
one
dot,
post,
spec
populated
with
important
information,
including
yellow
paper,
and
all
I'm
not
sure
james.
Would
you
like
to
add
more
to
it
like?
How
would
you
want
to
see
it,
and
I
believe
you
have
some
thoughts
that
you
shared
in
the
earlier
meeting.
D
A
I
think
a
light
coin
has
pointed
it
out,
for
I
mean,
like
he
also
mentioned
it,
sometimes
like
what
should
be
added
like
if
you
would
like
to
add
something
here
too,.
E
A
spectrum
you
know
it
in
the
ideal
world.
It
would
be
great
if
these
1.0
specs
was
similar
to
how
these
two
specs
repo
is
laid
out,
and
it
has
this.
You
know
python
spec
that
has
everything
up
to
date
with
what
it
means
to
be
a
consensus
client
for
you
to
mainnet
and
there's
not
really
something
like
that
for
you
one.
E
E
It's
hard
to
find
people
who
have
that
kind
of
you
know
understanding
of
ethereum
or
like
willingness
to
understand
that
much
about
ethereum
and
write
that
out.
So
we
might
have
to
settle
for
something
in
between
and
I'm
not
sure
like
what
exactly.
That
would
look
like.
B
Yeah
I
mentioned
to
puja
earlier
earlier
earlier
on.
We,
since
the
ether
winter
is
finally
over
jim,
and
I
spent
about
10
of
our
time
helping
with
this
kind
of
stuff,
but
that's
not
near
as
much
as
I'd
like
to,
but
anyway
so
we're
thinking
of
possibly
hiring
on
another
partner
to
work
with
jim
and
myself.
And
basically
his
role
would
be
100
to
spend
time
on
exactly
this
to
be
a
member
of
this
team.
B
B
A
On
the
hard
fork
documentation,
we
are
in
touch
with
the
ethereum.org
team
and
possibly
we'll
be
adding
a
page
over
there,
so
that
they
would
display
all
the
information
of
earlier
hard
work
and
it
would
be
easier
for
a
new
community
member
to
just
log
into
ethereum.org
and
get
this
information
there.
So,
yes,
we
are
working
on
that.
C
Is
there
others
is
there?
I?
I
would
like
it's
it's
okay,
if
we
don't
do
this
today,
but
some
more
brainstorming
on
stuff
that
could
be
on
ethan
dotto
specs
that
we
could
collect.
That
would
be
beneficial
for
developers
of
on
maintenance
ethereum,
whether
it's
client
devs
or
its
contract
devs,
because
there's
some
there's
some
room
for
a
team
to
be
able
to
help
with
that,
and
it
might
be
something
that
we
might
be
able
to
also
get
resources
on
resources
with
too
so.
Getting
ideas
on
what
needs
to
go.
B
F
If
the
team
like,
if
we
think
the
team
will
be
big
enough
to
handle
doing
everything
like
client
said
that
I
would
say
just
start
working
towards
that,
if
we
think
that
the
team
will
not
be
able
to
handle
that
I
do.
I
agree
like
I
said
that
there
are
smaller
things
we
could
take
on
that
are
still
useful.
B
Yeah
as
far
as
resources
go
what
what
because,
like
I
mentioned,
I'm
going
to
put
the
current
job
description
we
have
for
the
person
we're
looking
for
and
hopefully
we
would
have
someone
that
could
push
towards
being
what
you
guys
described.
I'm
going
to
add
the
job
description
that
we've
started.
But
if,
if
you
guys
could
let's
stick
that
in
the
chat.
B
Anyway,
I'm
thinking
of
passing
this
around
and
and
and
but
basically
there's
it's
basically
a
professional
cat
herder
with
focus
on
this
kind
of
stuff
and
and
of
course
he
would
be
an
employee
of
canonizer.com
and
so
to
me,
one
of
the
important
things
that
I
would
like
to
do
is
help
with
this
kind
of
stuff
and
consensus,
building
around
controversial,
eips
and
stuff.
Like
that,
I
feel
like
that's
what
we're
good
at
and
that's
what
I
love
doing,
and
so
that's
what
we
want
to
push
towards,
but
anyway,
so
so
there.
B
C
Cool
other
people
have
ideas.
Well,
I'm
sorry,
I'm
starting
to
collect
them.
So
maybe
next
week
I
can
next
eip.
I
can
report
on
sort
of
what
I've
collected
so
far.
Next
meeting
I
mean.
B
F
For
me,
the
things
that
I
constantly
look
for
that,
like
it's
smaller
than
all
of
things,
is
consensus,
data
structures
and
the
wire
protocol,
because
in
theory
with
just
that,
I
can
build
a
thing
that
at
least
communicates
with
the
rest
of
the
network.
And
maybe
it's
not
consensus
compatible.
Yet.
B
F
Least,
I
can
communicate
and
that's
it
and
I'm
always
the
first
step
in
building
a
client
and
making
sure
you
can
communicate
with
other
clients
and
then,
after
that,
you
want
to
communicate
in
a
way
it
doesn't
get
kicked
off,
and
so
I
feel
like
the
shape
of
the
different
data
structures
like
what
is
the
shape
of
a
block.
What
is
the
shape
of
a
transaction?
What
is
the
shape
of
the
receipt
track
and
then,
like
that
p2p?
F
I
guess,
would
be
the
other
one
that
p2p
currently,
I
believe,
lives
a
wiki
somewhere
with
no
version
control.
Last
I
checked.
F
It's
been
there
before
too,
okay,
so
yeah,
so
yeah
that
if
you're
looking
for
a
smaller
chunk
to
bite
off
or
leave
1.0
specs,
that's
my
vote
for
where
to
start
is
data
structures
and
network.
Maybe
we
can
just
hold
the
p2p
in
or
something.
C
Link
to
it
make
sure
I
forgot,
I
was
gonna,
say
so:
it'll
come
back
or.
A
Won't
okay,
so
I'll
keep
this
on
agenda
for
the
next
meeting
as
well.
Maybe
by
then
we
we
can
have
some
more
clarity
on
it.
How
we
would
want
to
proceed?
Okay.
C
And
my
client
thought
the
hard
fork
information's
been
on
my
backlog
to
do
into
the
east
one
specs
repo.
So
that's
something
that's
okay!
On
my
plate
to
get
done.
F
I
guess
that's
perhaps
another
question
for,
for
you
james
is
who
is
the
target
audience
of
this
repo?
Is
it
current.
C
F
B
And
and
also
there's
people
like
us
that
what
that
want
to
make
because
we
we
need
a
tool
that
will
like
given
an
address,
how
much
ether
was
in
that
address
at
any
point
in
history,
and
so
we
need
to
write
a
tool
that
can
do
that.
But
it's
kind
of
how
do
I
find
the
spec
and
figure
out
how
to
do
that
and
stuff.
Like
that's.
So
it's
not
a
client,
but
but
it's
a
tool
to
do
some
things
like
that.
But.
C
A
A
I
have
added
a
few
comments
like
a
point,
I'm
not
sure
if
this
would
be
the
right
time
to
discuss
about
it
or
right
place
to
discuss
about
it,
but
it
came
in
the
last
all
coded
meeting
about
the
inclusion
process
and
there
was
some
conflicts
with
eip.
So
do
we
think
we
can
discuss
here
in
this
meeting
on
this
topic.
A
A
So
it's
like
a
proposal
is
going
on
in
the
process
and
then
another
proposal
comes
up
and
there
is
a
conflict
like
which
one
should
go.
How
how
do
we
plan
to
address
this?
I
believe
this
is
more
of
a
process
thing,
so
I'm
trying
to
separate
it
from
the
breakout
room
meeting
and
try
to
bring
it
to
eitip
meeting.
Maybe
we
can
come
up
with
some
process
or
some
solution
to
that.
C
So
far
being
able
to
identify
early
when
something
like
this,
like
that,
that
a
more
kind
of
consistent
breakout
room
might
need
to
happen
on
a
topic,
because
I
think
a
lot
of
time
could
have
been
saved
if,
on
the
main,
all
court
f
call.
If
we
had
thought
of
doing
this
like
six
weeks
ago
or
when
it
was
coming
up,
saying,
hey,
there's
this
thing:
that's
taking
up
a
lot
of
time
on
the
that's
a
reoccurring
item,
that's
taking
up
a
lot
of
time.
C
E
C
Yeah,
there's
the
why
something
that
might
come
out
of
this
that
could
be
a
process
would
be
if
evm
385,
so
evm384
is
likely
to
happen.
If
bls
does
is
bls
gonna
happen
at
a
precompiled
level
is
not
is
not
totally
set
is
not
known,
but
there
could
be
a
world
where
most
things
are
are
most.
What
could
be
a
pre-compile
is
done
by
evm
384
if
as
long
as
gas
efficient
enough
and
then
some
subset
of
things
that
need
to
be
more
efficient
for
whatever
reason
than
gets,
pre-compiles.
F
And
I
think
the
real
issue
is
much
deeper
than
that.
This
is
my
feeling
from
talking
to
the
developers
that
are
working
on
the
event
384
stuff
and
the
bls
pre-compile.
I
think
the
frustration
and
the
reason
they
keep
bringing
it
up
is,
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
frequent
itself.
It
has
more
to
do
with.
F
They
have
sunk,
an
inordinate
amount
of
engineering
hours
into
this
project,
and
they
are
frustrated
because
they
have
no
light
at
the
end
of
the
tunnel
like
there
is-
and
this
is
a
problem
many
people
run
into
anyone.
Who's
had
to
deal
with
the
core.
Devs
call
has
basically
run
into
this,
where
it
is
not
clear
how
to
move
forward
and
how
to
actually
get
something
in
or
just
get
a
hard
no
like
for
a
developer.
Getting
a
hard.
F
The
impression
I
get
is
that
they're
really
demoralized
not
because
they
like
really
need
this
feature
or
they
want
it
in
just
because
they
have
sucked
so
much
time
into
it
and
they
keep
doing
what
they
think
is
going
to
get
them
across
the
finish
line
and
as
soon
as
they
get
there,
they
realize.
Oh,
this
isn't
actually
the
finish
line.
This
is
just
a
checkpoint
and
there's
an
infinite
number
of
checkpoints
that
they
don't
know
where
the
end
is.
F
So
I
think
the
real
problem
here
is-
and
I
don't
have
a
solution
for
it-
is
that
we
have
no
way
of
giving
people.
You
know
clear
goals:
they
can
work
towards
or
just
hard
nose
early
on,
because
they
know
we're
not
going
to
do
this.
I
think
that's
the
real
underlying
problem
here,
not
you
know
like
it's
not
really
about.
You
know:
okay,
there's
vls
versus
384,
it's
more
just
like
you
know.
We
did
all
this
work
and
we
thought
we
were
done
and
then
you
guys
threw
this
other
thing,
which
was
oh
well.
F
What
if
we
do
this
instead
and
then
now
that
they
were
telling
them?
Okay
now
go,
do
a
bunch
of
research
and
prove
to
us.
We
shouldn't
do
this
other
thing.
It
wasn't
even
part
of
this
discussion
when
you
started
all
the
first
work
you
did
originally,
and
so
I
think
that's
where
the
real
problem
lies
and
again
I
don't
have
a
solution
to
this.
This
is
a
very
hard
problem
when
you
have
no
leader.
B
Yeah
to
me,
that's
exactly
what
I
I
mean
this
wouldn't
solve
the
problem,
but
if
you
have
a
petition
like
a
dynamic,
dynamic
petition
like
system
that
you,
where
you
make
your
proposal,
what
you
want
to
do
and
then,
of
course
you
would
sign
it
like
signing
a
petition,
then
other
people
as
they
get
on
board,
could
sign
it.
And
then,
if
anyone
has
any
objections,
they
could
create
a
competing
camp,
says
no,
I'm
not
for
this,
and
they
could
sign
it
and
they
could
recruit
people,
and
that
would
be.
B
That
would
be
at
least
a
way
to
track.
Who
is
on
board
who
isn't
on
board,
and
then
that's
also
needs
to
be
about
falsifiability.
What
would
it
take
to
get
people
on
board
who
aren't
on
board
and
stuff
like
that?
But
anyway,
that's
what
we're
pushing
for
it
is
is
creating
a
petition-like
system
where
work
where
it
may
not
completely
solve
that
problem.
At
least
it
would
formalize
it
and
track
it
know.
Who
is
on
board
who
isn't
on
board,
and
you
also
need
to
track
when
people
change.
B
If
you
make
some
adjustment
to
your
proposal,
then
then
six
more
people
get
on
board
and
stuff
like
that.
It
seems
all
critical
to
me
to
be
able
to
track
that
and
and
and
hopefully
early
on,
you
could
get
much
more
idea
of
of
where
this
could
go
and
which
direction
the
consensus
is
going
and
that
kind
of
stuff.
A
I
think
not
I
mean
talking
about
this
particular
eip.
I
I
think
last
year
like
in
2020
when
we
started
our
january,
we
started
by
saying
that
whenever
bls
is
ready,
we
will
be
going
by
going
with
berlin,
but
it
was
stopped
at
one
point
like
there
was
no
further
discussion
on
them.
So
in
my
mind
it
may
not
be
a
perfect
solution,
but
I
think
we
should
have
some
parameters
of
readiness
of
an
proposal
before
we,
you
know
just
say
no
to
any
other
proposal.
A
A
Are
like
no
more
in
discussion?
I
don't
know,
obviously
something
better.
We
have
along
with
the
process,
but
I
think
if
we
can
get
some
criteria,
some
checklist
that
may
be
helpful
to
maybe
kind
of
create
a
process
for
selection.
Here.
C
I
don't
I
that
seems
like
a
bit
of
a
trap
to
me
and-
and
I
and
I
mean
that
in
like
a
it's
like
if
I
have
these
puzzle
pieces,
and
I
got
this
sense
on
the
last
call-
and
I
I'm-
and
I
definitely
agree
with
you
mike
as
this
is
a
a
hard
problem
and
not
and
at
the
root
of
it.
That's
what's
really
going
on
like
it's
just
what
it
sounds
like
they
were
looking
for
is.
C
C
F
Yeah
exactly
like
there's,
even
if
we
do
build
a
checklist,
because
we
are
leaders
of
the
organization
and
anyone
can
add
items
to
that
checklist.
The
checklist
as
we
saw
is
problem
proof
of
work.
The
checklist
can
grow
forever,
like
as
long
as
there
is
someone
who
is
willing
to
drag
things
out
in
order
to
avoid
getting
that
change
made
for
whatever
reason,
whether
it's
political
or
they
just
don't
like
it
or
they
do
believe
their
alternative
is
better
whatever
the
reason
is
like.
F
B
Right
and
that
gets
to
my
point,
if
someone's
trying
to
game
the
system
and
trying
to
just
delay
something
by
adding
dish,
you've
got
to
find
out.
Who
is
asking
for
exactly
what
is
that
just
one
person?
Is
it
50
of
the
ether
community?
Is
it
the
miners,
all
that
kind
of
stuff
and
and
really
the
no
it
seems
like
to
me?
Is
we
want
to
avoid
a
fork?
And
if
you
can
track,
if
there's
only
one
or
two
people,
then
you
don't
need
to
worry
about
a
fork.
B
But
if
there's
a
third
of
the
population
and
we
need
to
find
ways
to
track
those
kinds
of
things
rigorously.
So
so
you
can
get
an
idea
of
what's
going
on
and
because,
basically
the
no
is,
if
you
do,
this,
half
of
the
ether
community
is
going
to
fork
and
so
being
able
to
tell
that.
Okay,
there's
there's
a
handful
of
people
that
don't
like
this,
but
we
can
still
move
forward
with
this,
because
that's
all
there
is
a
handful
of
people.
F
Then
we
get
into
the
question
of
who's
allowed
to.
F
B
B
B
B
Basically,
if
you
join
a
camp,
then
whatever
canonizer
algorithm
is
selected
gives
you
how
much
vote
you
have
if
and
and
so,
if
you
have
a
lot
of
ether
and
the
canonizer
algorithm
select,
you
get
a
lot
of
ether
votes
and
then,
if
you're
high
ranked
on
it
on
a
pure
ranking
system,
you
get
a
high
vote
there
and
then
it
ignores
anyone
else
and
the
idea
is
is
make
a
canonizer
algorithm
that
filters.
Let
anyone
create
a
canonizer
algorithm
that
can
filter
anything
and
not
count
anyone.
F
F
F
So
would
it
be
possible
to
have
you
or
someone
from
your
team
or
something
follow
the
core
dev
calls
and
just
in
the
background
kind
of
build
up
a
canonizer
thing
instead
of
having
the
people
themselves
actually
go
to
canonizer
and
post
just
have
like
one
of
the
admittance
kind
of
post
on
their
behalf
to
build
up
the
kind
of
the
graph.
F
So
to
speak,
the
idea
being
two
twofold:
one
benefits
you
because
in
theory
makes
us
so
people
can
come
and
we
can
start
using
canonizer,
but
without
needing
to
get
everybody
on
board
first,
and
so
it
helps
yeah
yeah
yeah.
I
spread
the
word.
It
helps
us
potentially.
If,
if
it
does
truly
add
value,
then
it
means
hopefully
we'll
see
that
value
just
by
kind
of
recording
the
awkward
devs
calls
in
canonizer.
If
that
makes
sense,
yeah.
B
F
Because
it
might
be
valuable
like
oh
the
idea
of
like
it
would
be
nice
to
for
two
reasons,
one
to
get
an
idea
of.
Sometimes
it's
hard
in
over
the
course
of
core
dev
calls
being
once
every
two
weeks,
whatever
they
are
and
spread
out
over.
You
know
six
months,
it's
hard
to
keep
track
of.
If
there
is
just
one
person,
who's
consistently
kind
of
say
no
to
something
while
everybody
else
is
either
quiet
or
saying
yes,
because
the
time
elapsed
like
I've,
I
have
no
idea.
F
You
know
who
was
against
bls
six
months
ago
exactly,
and
so
it
might
be
valuable
just
to
get
that
recorded.
So
we
can
see
if
it's
just
one
person
who
is
continually
saying
no,
in
which
case
we
maybe
sit
down
with
them
out
of
the
core
dev
call
and
just
really
discuss
more
directly
and
openly,
and
also
it
has
potential
to
help.
F
I
think
sometimes
people
don't
realize
that
they're
alone
on
a
hill
dying
and
just
being
able
to
see
that
hey,
I'm
the
only
person
that
has
routinely
denied
this
for
the
last
six
weeks.
I
just
realized.
I
don't
actually
care
that
much.
I
thought
it
was
me
and
a
bunch
of
other
people,
and
I
was
just
helping
you
know
defend
all
of
us
and
really
it
was
just
me
fighting
on
a
hill
by
myself,
and
so,
if
we
can
just
show
people,
you
know
and
say
hey.
F
This
is
the
current
layout
and
you
know
person
a
shows
up,
but
they
look
at
it
like
oh
wow,
I'm
the
only
person
on
the
right
here.
Everybody
else
is
on
the
left.
I
don't
really
care,
and
so
maybe
that
will
also
help
like
without
anyone
having
to
call
anybody
out,
people
might
just
notice
on
their
own
once
we
have
that
visualization
or
maybe
nothing
else
will
work.
I
don't
know
it's
just
a
theory.
B
Hey
man,
that's
that's
exactly
what
we're
trying
to
do.
You've
got
to
just
rigorously
track
all
this
stuff,
because
when
everyone's
posting
stuff
you've
got
to
track
when
they
jump
camps,
and
if
that
you
find
out
what
exactly
is
required
to
get
people
on
board
and
it's
all
about
falsifiability,
what
would
falsify
your
position,
then
you
can
do
an
a
b
test
and
they
can
see
the
results.
Okay,
the
test
proved.
I
was
wrong,
so
I'm
going
to
jump
on
board
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
C
C
C
B
Yeah
we
also,
we
also
have
infinite
delegations,
so
my
guess
would
be
not
only
would
vitalik
be
the
top-ranked
peer-reviewed
expert,
but
gazillions
of
people
would
delegate
their
vote
to
him
and
so
any
camp
that
he
joined
all
his
huge
delegated
tree
would
follow
him
around
and
then
so.
In
other
words,
it's
exactly
what
you're
saying
whatever
vitality
and
then
a
vitalik
screws
up,
and
then
everyone
can
delegate
to
someone
else,
and
so
so
there's
a
lot
of
that
kind
of
stuff
too.
C
E
B
Yeah,
so
on
the
self-destruct,
you
have
different
topics
and
you
delegate
your
vote
for
each
individual.
You
don't
give
delegate
for
air
across
the
board.
You
just
delegate
on
individual
issues
when
you
go
to
support
a
camp
that
shows
your
position.
B
There's
two
different
kind
of
supporters.
There's
direct
supporters.
If
you
direct
support
the
camp,
then
you're
expected
to
receive
the
emails
and
expect
it
and
review
the
new
versions
and
and
be
involved
in
the
stuff.
If
you
don't
want
to
receive
those
emails
and
be
involved,
then
you
can
delegate
your
support
to
anyone
else
at
the
camp
and
and
you
can
delegate
to
anyone
so
it
creates
any
trees.
B
B
But
but
again,
when
you
go
when
you
go
to
canonizer,
you
think
of
signing
a
petition
by
signing
your
camp
and
you
can
either
sign
that
directly
and
be
involved,
or
you
can
delegate
your
signature
to
someone
else
and
and
if
that
someone
else
jumps
camp,
your
vote
would
follow
them
when
they
jump
camps
and
stuff.
Like
that.
B
B
What
is
it
that
canonizer
can
do?
What
is
the
goal
and
understanding
all
this?
These
questions
that
you're
asking
and
stuff
like
that,
but
my
prediction
is
that
the
first
community
that
learns
how
to
build
consensus
like
this
instead
of
governance,
it
learns
how
to
build
consensus
and
track
consensus.
B
A
C
C
When
I
was
starting
to
volunteer
more
with
the
core
devs,
I
guess,
even
though
it
was
two
years
ago
now
holy
cow
time,
but
I
realized
the
most
helpful
thing
to
do
was
to
show
everyone
what's
going
on
and
then
they
make
the
best
decision
with
that
information.
So
I
I
didn't
I
was
like
coming.
I
was
new
to
the
awkward
of
calls.
C
Some
people
knew
me.
I
wasn't
hired
by
anyone.
I
wasn't
funded
by
anyone,
I
didn't
have
any
say
or
whatever,
but
I
was
still
able
to
help
move
along
the
processes,
because
I
would
just
map
them
out
map
out
what
was
going
on
with
istanbul
and
then
when
people
saw
what
was
going
on,
they
would
just
make
they
would
make
decisions.
B
Yeah
thanks
for
that
info
and
if
anyone
else
has
any
other
ideas
of
things
priorities
we
want
to
work
on,
then
that's
what
I
created
the
google
doc
for.
So
if
you
have
any
ideas
and-
and
I
I
guess,
alita's
taking
the
notes
for
today-
so
yeah-
I
guess
I'll
have
to-
but
it
looks
like
she's
not
here,
but
anyway,
I'd
like
to
work
with
elita
to
get
some
of
the
goals
you
guys
are
talking
about
from
the
hopefully
we'll
make
it
into
the
notes.
B
A
Great,
so
moving
on
the
next
comment
that
I
have
added
is
like,
like
we
might
want
to
review
the
eip1
dock
and
clean
up
with,
like
removing
the
obviously
eip
those
are
mentioned
there.
I
mean
like
when
I
looked
into
eips.ethereum.org.
A
F
There's
there's
a
bunch
of
them.
I
ran
the
same
problem
when
I
tried
to
do
a
mass
update
and
then
gave
up
on
it.
There
are
a
lot
of
eips
that
are
linked
all
throughout
the
ap
repository
that
don't
actually
exist.
F
Usually
it's
because
someone
creates
a
pull
request
and
then
a
bunch
of
people
start
linking
that
pull
request
and
then
the
full
request
gets
closed
without
ever
being
merged.
Instead
of
the
eip
never
actually
gets
created,
it's
not
just
a
problem
with
the
ip1,
but
it's
definitely
existing.
If
you
want,
I
think,
there's
half
dozen
links
or
something
like
that
that
are
all
broken.
F
I
support
just
removing
them.
I
don't
think
any
of
them
are
critical.
A
C
C
F
A
Well,
that
exactly
was
my
question.
I
was
about
to
ask
that
like.
Is
it
okay
for,
like
creating
small
small
pull
requests
for
removing
things
as
people
find
they're
creating
one
so
yeah?
That
would
be
one
thing.
F
Yes,
small
pull
requests
are
my
preference,
the
smaller
the
better
so
like
if
you
as
long
as
the
change
is
all
like
there?
So
you
know,
if
you
just
see
a
typo,
a
single
request
of
a
single
type
of
fix
is
preferred.
If
you
have
like
a
bigger
change
that
changes.
You
know
multiple
paragraphs,
but
it's
all
together
like
it
doesn't
make
sense
individually.
Then
do
it's
one
well,
one
full
request.
So
whatever
the
smallest
request
is
that
still
makes
sense
in
isolation?
F
A
A
A
So,
like
so
far,
I'm
trying
to
update
this
this
project
board
and
we
have
all
the
five
eips
which
are
considered
for
yellow
v3.
My
question.
I
know
we
could
not
find
answer
earlier,
but
it
was
like
sometimes
back,
I'm
hoping
that
we
get
some
clarity
here.
The
next
stage
is
testing
green
light.
Does
that
mean
that
whatever
eip,
when
when
they
are
running
on
yellow
v3,
and
if
they
have
successfully
passed
on
there,
they
would
be
considered
as
green
light
or
do
they
have
to
follow
some
other
process.
C
Yes,
the
the
things
before
that
are
getting
on
yolo
v3
having
it
be,
live,
and
then
the
fuzz
testing
team
usually
is
kind
of
the
last
step
as
far
as
integration
tests
and
stuff
go.
Then
if
they
say
yes,
then
it's
good
to
go.
A
Okay,
yeah.
I
just
wanted
to
have
some
clarity
on
that,
because
I
mean
I
was
looking
for
some
clarity
because
I
have
to
like
go
for
a
presentation.
I
just
don't
want
to
be
confused
there,
so
yeah.
So
after
yellow
v3,
we
would
be
having
the
list
of
eips
that
we
would
considered
as
green
light
and
then
from
there.
It
can
directly
go
to
the
public
testnet.
C
C
G
A
Other
okay,
so
that's
all
the
questions
I
had
on
this
and
one
last
agenda
item
is
review
action
items
from
the
previous
meeting.
A
F
Oh
currently,
yes,
that
is
correct.
We
don't
currently
we
have
that
requirement.
I
don't
know
if
we
should
have
that
requirement
update
the
paper
is
kind
of
hell.
A
A
Next
decision
is
tentative
decision
to
publish
eip
status
law
and
efa
data's
role.
We
we
are
waiting
on
adsense
for
the
editor's
roles
and
responsibility
blog,
but
eip
status
blog
is
already
published
action
item.
The
first
one
is
put
on
the
agenda
that
we
already
did
and
we
discussed
number
two
james
will
do
an
at
one
or
spec
repo
list
for
eip's
first
book.
I
believe
james
mentioned
that
he
is
working
on
it
or
even
studio.
A
A
F
Sorry
I
was
muted
when
I
was
responding
to
the
action
item
for
me,
I'm
pretty
sure
I
already
did
that
one
did.
Do
you
happen
to
have
a
link
to
the
thing
that,
in
the
notes
that
you
have.
A
Okay,
I'll
do
that
so
yeah,
that's
all
from
last
meeting
auction
item
and
decisions
made.
So
if
anyone
has
anything
else
that
you
would
want
to
discuss
with.
F
Not
start
anything,
but
I
just
figured
I'll
bring
it
up.
Do
we
want
to
talk
about
the
one
five
five,
nine
situation
or
no?
We
just
want
to
pretend
that
it's
not
a
problem.
F
F
Just
hope
that
the
core
devs
are
wise
enough
to
ignore
it.
My
only
fear
is
that
people
like
start
taking
to
heart
what
these,
what
the
aggregators
were
saying.
C
C
I
I
don't
know
if
this
could
be
an
e
catheter
thing,
but
like
a
someone
to
help
write
a
summary
that
we
could
pin
in
those
situations
that
say
this
is
us
talking
about
your
issue
because
they
end
up
getting
a
lot
of
times.
Just
saying,
oh
well,
you
need
to
write
a
summary.
This
is
just
like
paraphrasing
what
happens
generally,
it's
like!
Oh
well,
you
need
to
write
a
summary
why
my
point's
wrong
and
the
other
one's
like
I'm,
writing
all
these
and
then
it's
like.
C
B
Yep
you
just
described
what
canonizer
is
you
have
a
dynamic
camp
that
people
support
and
it's
a
wiki
cam
so
and
once
you
support
a
camp,
you
can
override
anything
that
gets
added
to
your
camp.
Any
supporters
can
override
any
proposed
changes,
and,
and
so
you
can
track-
and
you
can
update
your
camp
and
your
arguments
and
collect
the
arguments
and
you
can
measure
the
quality
of
the
argument
by
how
many
people
it
converts
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
B
But
anyway,
I've
been
trying
to
get
up
to
speed
on
50
59
and
I'm
going
to
try
and
contact
some
of
the
promoters
of
that
and
try
and
do
exactly
what
you
guys
are
talking
about.
Describe
exactly
linked.
All
there's
a
lot
of
material
out
there
that
you
know,
but
anyway,
yeah
and
I'd
like
to
work
towards
that.
C
A
Sorry
so
we
have
recently
created
a
channel
in
catered
as
discord
where
we
are
inviting
community
members
to
share
their
thoughts,
definitely
not
technical,
because
for
technical
discussion
we
are
pointing
them
towards
rnd
discord
the
1559
channel
there,
but
if
they
have
questions
and
the
confusion
is
going
around,
they
are
welcome
to
join
the
ethereum
canada
discord
and
we
have
a
specific
channel
for
discussion
for
eip1559
and
yeah.
A
I
also
come
across
like
some
kind
of
allegation
that
minus
and
the
pressure
that
is
being
created
by
miners
on
the
core
dev
and
because
of
that
codes
and
hardware
coordination
team
are
not
taking
appropriate
steps,
so
we
are
trying
to
pacify
them
in
like
whatever
way
it
is
possible,
but
I'm
not
sure
how
much
helpful
it
will
be
just
by
sharing
information
about
the
progress
and
the
meetings
implementers
meetings
whenever
they
are
scheduled
and
whatever
notes
are
available,
we're
trying
to
share
that
with
the
community.
I
hope
that
helps
somehow.
C
Maybe
just
a
little
bit
of
venting
on
my
side
here.
I
don't
want
to
make
sure
we're
not
going
over
anything
okay,
but
it's
it's
surprising
to
me
how
fast
the
community
goes
from
things
aren't
progressing
on
1559.,
oh
well!
It
means
that
the
miners
are
messed
are
like
making
the
process
slow
down
and
just
like
I've
never
had
that
experience.
F
C
F
F
Is
very
low
for
one
five:
five:
nine
compared
to
some
of
the
things
we've
done
in
the
past,
yet
it's
been
kind
of
just
stuck
and
not
really
moving
forward,
and
so
the
it
makes
me
wonder.
Okay,
why
is
it?
Why
is
this
stuff?
Why
is
it
coming
before?
We
have
all
these
people
who
all
want
it
and
we
have.
We
have
multiple
champions
for
it
like
we
have
more
champions
for
1559
than
any
other
eip.
F
Yet
it's
not
making
progress,
and
so
that
makes
me
wonder
you
know
why
is
it
stuck
and
then,
when
I
look
into
it,
it
looks
like
okay
well,
because
people
keep
asking
for
more
and
more
things,
and
this
again
reminds
me
very
much
of
the
product
proof
of
work
issue
or
the
bls
issue
where
it's
like
this
theme,
where
you
see
something
that
looks
good
and
everything
looks
like
it's
done,
but
then
there's
just
more
stuff
keeps
coming
up.
Can
can
you
do
this?
Can
you
test
this?
Can
you
research
this?
F
F
So
anyway,
so
I
it's
possible
that
other
people
maybe
feel
similarly
like.
Maybe
I'm
not
the
only
one,
that's
feeling
this,
where
you
have
this
kind
of
somebody
is
asking
for.
You
know
way
more
on
this
eip
than
any
other
aip
like
way
more
data
way
more
research
like
we
hired
an
independent
game
theory
researcher
just
to
research,
this
one
eip.
F
We
did
not
do
that
for,
like
the
block
reward
any
of
the
block
reward
changes
which
are
arguably
far
more
impactful
to
miners,
and
you
know,
we've
never
done
that
to
calculate
what
is
the
right.
You
know
payment,
two
miners.
What
should
we
be
paying
for
hash
rate
to
keep
the
system
secure?
No
one
has
any
clue
like
this
is
something
I
learned
a
long
time
ago
in
blockchain,
because
no
one
actually
has
any
clue
how
much
we
should
be
paying
for
hashrate
like
there
is
no
formula
out
there,
there's
just
wild
guesses.
F
Yet
we
don't
hire
someone
for
that,
and
so
this
is
what
kind
of
leads
me
and
perhaps
other
people
to
conclude.
Well,
there
must
be
someone
here
that
is
demanding
things
that
are
unreasonable
or
that
are
not
demanded
of
other
things
because
they
have
an
agenda
or
they
have
an
incentive
to
not
want
this
to
make
it
through
or
they're
trying
to
delay
it
for
whatever
reason,
whether
that's
true
or
not,
I'm
hypothesizing
that
maybe
this
is
why
people
go
there.
That's
why
people
then
start
saying
minors
are
trying
to
sabotage
us.
A
Well,
I
think
this
is
a
topic
that
we
are
not
going
to
get
rid
of
easily,
because
this
is
a
decentralized
chain
and
people
will
keep
coming
and
keep
blaming
one
or
the
other.
Yes,
okay,
so
I
think
we
are
on
time
and
we
have
covered
whatever
there
on
the
agenda,
and
this
is
something
we
would
like
to
bring
here.
The
process
change
the
process
improvement
for
next
meeting
or
onwards.