►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting #3
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
The
number
two
fleshing
out
requirements
for
EIP
is
related
to
when
something
is
more
requires
a
little
more
work
than
like
a
the
normal
or
the
typical
EIP
that
is
seen
and
how
we
can
communicate
that
effectively.
A
code
of
conduct
process,
documentation
which
I'm
not
sure
which
that
one
means
is
that
one
that
you
added
puja.
B
C
D
A
E
A
Implemented
technically
it
still
is
still
I
got
unknown
thing
and
I
didn't
follow
up
with
Hudson
about
who,
in
the
EF
kit
would
have
the
technical
resources
to
make
changes
to
the
bots
cool
yeah.
We
should
make
that
as
an
as
a
like,
an
owl
sighting
outstanding
item
to
follow
up
on
good
and
the
IP
one
I
don't
know
if
you
have.
If
all
you
had
a
chance
to
look
at
it,
I
don't
have
an
easy
way
to
I'm
on
my
mobile,
so
I
don't
have
an
easy
way
to
link
it
to
the
chat.
B
B
I'm
not
sure
this
is
the
appropriate
time
of
it,
because
I
was
there
in
the
previous
call
when
we
discussed
it,
but
at
that
time
I
did
not
come
to
my
mind
so
I'm
just
sharing
it
I,
like
the
response
of
Tim,
about
the
upgrade
usage
of
upgrade
instead
of
hard
folks.
So
in
my
mind,
I
was
thinking
that
like
if
we
can,
since
we
are
making
so
many
changes
to
a
IP
one,
not
so
many,
but
yes,
we
are
making
some.
B
Will
it
be
a
good
idea
to
update
that
as
well
like
I
see
it
in
your
line,
9
1,
/,
3
4
in
the
link
that
I
have
shared
there.
We
are
writing
aetherium,
hard
folks
and
updating
what
hard
folks
started
on
what
block
number
so
even
go
ahead
and
update
it
over
there,
as
instead
of
aetherium
hard
folks
make
it
an
idiom
upgrade.
C
B
I,
like
the
idea,
it
will
give
more
visibility
to
what
major
change
that
we
are
proposing
and
will
get
more
feedbacks
on
it.
So
yeah
I,
like
the
idea
yeah,
the
other
thing
I
was
wondering
about
was
like
in
your
PR.
You
mentioned
that
we
are
referring
to
more
on
two
three
three
and
two
three
seven.
Eight
both
of
these
VIPs
seems
to
be
in
the
status
of
draft.
B
A
A
We
moved
it
to
draft
so
that
people
could
link
to
it
and
it
was
a
little
a
little
more
easy
to
use,
but
he
would
have
rather
had
it
not
have
that
information
and
but-
and
so
my
was,
the
word
compromise
was
to
make
it
to
draft
and
then
when
a
IP
one
is
updated,
we
can
remove
all
of
the
things
that
doesn't
need
and
make
it
final.
It's
just
a
registry.
B
B
So
that
was
an
experiment
that
we
are
trying
to
perform
for
this
upgrade
and
I
considered
this
2
3,
7
8
again
and
similar
thing
like
this
is
another
experiment
with
the
EAP
centric
model
and
EFI
is
just
an
intermediary
for
this
EAP
centric
model.
So
I'm
not
sure
that
if
this
is
the
right
time
to,
you
know
include
in
EAP
1
when
we
are
I,
don't
know
certain
or
not
certain,
to
follow
this
in
the
future
upgrade
so
I
was
just
wondering
like.
B
Should
we
keep
it
separate
for
some
time
till
we
decide
that
we
are
not
gonna
follow
the
flight
train
model.
We
are
gonna,
follow
the
EAP
centric
model
or
if
something
else
is
proposed
in
future,
so
keeping
it
separate
like
EAP
one
not
to
be
updated
again
and
again,
and
whatever
heartful
process
or
a
great
process
we
are
gonna
follow,
should
be
kept
separately.
That
was
just
my
general
thought
process
around
it
and
I
mean
like
open
to
discussion.
Yeah.
F
C
The
challenge
with
like
having
two
resources:
I
get
your
point,
pooja
and
I
agree
like
II
ip1.
So
far
was
very
conservative
in
terms
of
upgrades
right.
It's
like
the
process
would
change
a
lot
and
it
would
have
to
like
have
been
changed
for
a
long
time
before
a
IP
one
reflects
it,
and
so
now
it's
like
if
we
change
it
and
you
get
to
a
spot
where
you
have
like
a
IP
one
referencing,
something
that's
kind
of
in
flight.
C
The
on
the
other
hand,
the
challenge
you
get
is
then
it's
hard
to
point
people
towards
the
process.
So
if
it's
like,
we
need
to
point
them
to
IP
2,
3,
7
8,
it's
like
how
the
hell
does
anyone
ever
like
find
that
the
IP?
So
that's,
that's
just
my
concern
there.
It's
like
you're
trading
off
like
stability
versus
like
making
it
accessible
to
the
community.
I
get.
B
B
But
I
am
fine
with
the
appear
that
he
made,
and
these
were
just
couple
of
concerns
one
de
IP,
a
hard
folk
to
upgrade,
which
Jim
proposed
that
it
should
be
a
separate
IP
altogether
and
second,
the
EAP
two
three
three
and
two
three
seven
eight
should
be
converted
to
accepted
or
I
mean
like
because
that
isn't
draft
right
now.
So
those
are
those
were
my
two
points
here.
A
A
But
then,
when
we
have
the
core
des
call
and
everyone,
you
had
consensus
for
us
to
try
it
I
I
feel
like
e
IP,
one
representing
the
current
consensus
of
the
core
devs
and
then
just
if
we
need
to
update
it
a
lot,
then
cool
people
will
always
know
to
go
to
a
IP
one
again.
Another
problem
would
be
if
we
we
tell
everyone
to
go.
A
Last
call
is
having
one
single
source
of
truth
for
everyone
in
the
community,
about
what
is
the
core
devs,
and
what
is
everything
like
I
just
was
thinking
when
I
was
writing
out
the
definition
of
the
hard
Forks
and
stuff
that
there
isn't
really
a
place
to
for
people
to
reference
to
say
yeah.
This
is
how
the
core
devs
are
thinking
this.
It's
just
sort
of
amorphous
everywhere,
and
it
just
would
be
nice
to
get
all
that
documented
yeah.
B
I
believe
that
documentation
will
help
a
lot
like
sometimes
back
about
a
year
back
I
tried
that
in
AP
1929,
which
is
still
again
interact,
which
was
shelled
because
we
were
doing
some
experiments,
then
so
I
think
that
this
may
be
the
right
time
to
create
a
documentation
about
what
process
all
coordinates
are
following.
It's
it's
every
time
it's
with
the
devs
only
and
it's
not
documented,
because
we
are
still
in
experimentation
phase
and
have
not
set
something
in
stone
that
this
is
what
we
are
gonna
follow.
B
A
C
D
C
The
Dow
you
know
like
that
eeep
implementation
is
still
an
upgrade
and
I,
so
there
was
a
conversation
about
whether
upgrade
is
the
right
word.
I
still
feel
pretty
strongly
about
that.
Just
because
I
know
the
person
who
is
kind
of
arguing
against
or
saying
upgrade
assumes
it's
better,
but
I.
Don't
really
think.
That's
true
I
think
it
assumes
its
new
right,
yeah
yeah.
A
C
B
C
And
there's
a
lot
of
like
controversial
dynamics
around
like
what
led
to
the
hard
fork
like
the
fact
that
you
know
there
wasn't
really
a
hard
fork
for
like
a
week,
but
then
some
exchange,
you
know,
started
trading
et
Cie
and
that
kind
of
revived
it
so
I,
yeah
I
I'm,
still
like
in
favor
of
calling
it
a
network
upgrade.
You
know
it's
one
of.
C
The
the
EIP
right
like
that
that
was
patched
there
was
the
upgrade,
and
the
fork
is
the
process
by
which,
like
the
nodes
that
are
still
running,
it
is
even,
if
that
run,
that
upgrade
right.
So
the
way
I
see
it,
it's
like
the
upgrade
leads
to
the
fort,
but
they're
still,
you
need
to
have
the
upgrade
to
get
to
the
fort
right.
C
C
D
G
Tell
you
you
would
be
a
very
good
practitioner,
but
I
agree
with
you
with
terminology
can
is
the
synergies
accept
accepted
down
like
the
rest
is
clearly
upgrades
and
you
can
or
definitely
argue
that
I'm,
the
great
doesn't
have
to
be
positive.
It's
just
a
modification
of
going
to
a
newer
version.
Yeah.
C
And
I
think
you
know
it's
important
to
state
that,
because,
like
I,
you
know
I
still
think
it's
a
really
important
feature
of
these
upgrades.
That's
like
they're,
not
certain
to
happen
and
that
kind
of
puts
the
responsibility
on
core
developers
that
you
know
not
put
stuff.
That's
like
too
controversial
to
not
split
the
network,
and
that
is
like
it
really.
C
That
is
like
a
really
important
concern,
but
also
think
we
want
to
highlight
the
fact
that,
like
a
theorem,
just
has
this
culture
where
these
changes
will
happen
and
and
and
I
think
kind
of
moving
away
from,
like
the
terminology,
that's
using
Bitcoin
is
it's
kind
of
good.
Let's
regard
I
can
see
how
that's
also
a
controversial
opinion.
I.
G
C
Yeah
so,
and
that's
something
I
think
is
like
even
more
important
for
aetherium
is
like
not
having
that
perception
for
a
couple
reasons
like
a
because
of
the
Hulk.
That's
how
classic
started
be
because
it
just
creates
confusion
for
current
users
and
see
because
of
a
theorem
2.0
right,
like
you,
don't
want
to
create
this
perception
that,
like
every
upgrade,
is
like
free
coins
or
like
has
the
risk
of
having
two
different
types
of
coins
exactly
yeah.
So.
C
A
C
E
B
You
recommend
dislike,
like
whatever
we
are
discussing
here
in
a
IP,
IP
and
creating
peers,
and
everything
I
would
like
to
suggest
like
we
should,
whatever
it
is,
our
summary
or
the
action
item
that
comes
up
in
our
meeting.
We
just
share
it
with
the
alcalde
meetings,
one
as
if
they
don't
think
that
we
are
started.
We
have
started
making
decisions
on
our
own
and,
like
not
yeah,.
C
A
C
D
C
Controversial
you
know,
if
that's
not
controversial
great,
you
have.
Maybe
you
kind
of
split
your
PR
into
where
one
of
it
was
just
basically
format.
Adding
you
know
the
list
of
upgrades
and
the
table
of
contents
and
yeah.
One
added,
like
the
other
part
added
a
bunch
of
definitions.
So
maybe
we
get
the
table
of
contents
merge.
My
small
kind
of
you
know
hard
Forks,
the
network
upgrades
merged
and
then
once
those
two
are
done,
you
basically
haven't
changed
the
IP
one.
A
A
A
And
there
and
they
they
do
feel
sort
of
different
yeah,
then
the
normal.
So
there's
the
contentious
upgrade
if
we
just
say
upgrades
like
the
normal
piston
bowl.
Whatever
then
there's
contentious
upgrades,
which
is
the
DAO
fork
like
the
odd
man
out,
is
the
is
the
ones
that
there
was
like
the
what's
the
one
when
that
Beijing,
when
the
sauce
attacks
were
happening.
Spurious.
C
D
A
A
C
A
Yeah
we
can
call
the
hard
fork,
the
one
that
is
people's.
My
I
won't
get
back
into
it,
but
it's
it's
it's
just.
It's
J
its
gelling
in
my
mind,
which
I
which
I
like
so
the
Louie.
This
is
kind
of
going
back
to
conversations
we've
had
unless
there's
someone
else
who
wants
to
go
into
that
that
portion
we
can
move
on
I
just
give
a
little
space
for
someone
to
say
something.
A
So
an
overview
to
get
people
caught
up,
there's
an
an
interesting
problem
that
not
yeah
not
all
the
IPS
really
should
have
the
same
requirements
of
due
diligence
on
both
the
EIP
author
and
the
IP
and
and
the
Chordettes.
So
the
like,
the
the
biggest
and
I
kind
of
see
them
as
sort
of
three
categories
that
I've
observed
as
we've
been
going
I
had
they
like
prod
tau
is
one
of
those
categories
where
it
was
where
they
even
required
a
like
a
software
audit
before
it
would
be
considered
and
that
hasn't
been
a
requirement.
A
Forgot
what
I
was
saying
and-
and
yet
are
you
yes
yeah
any
other
eat
that
has
gone
in
there
hasn't
been
a
hey.
Let's
make
sure
every
EEP
has
a
has
a
requirement
for
a
software
audit.
Then
there's
this
other
level,
that's
kind
of
existed,
which
is
currently
the
elliptic
curve,
precompile
one
where
we
don't
have
a
good
way
of
saying
hey.
You
need
to
do
this.
If
you're
doing
this.
C
And
I
think
there's
another
category
of
like
a
IP
1559,
where
there's
both
the
technical
challenge
as
well
as
the
economics
right.
So
it's
like
do
we
you
know
we
want
to
do
this
big
change.
It's
assumed
that
it's,
you
know,
gonna
make
fees
better,
but
how
do
we
actually
like?
How
do
we
evaluate
that
right?
A
So
far,
what
has
kind
of
come
up
in
conversation
is
you
have
having
if,
in
in
the
case
of
the
elliptic
curve
cryptography
one
I?
Did
the
core
devs
don't
have
domain
expertise
in
the
very
complicated
math?
That
is
that,
like
that
kind
of
high
level,
cryptography,
oh
they're,
good
well
just
having
other
members
who
have
the
expertise
to
review
those
PRS
like
explicitly
make
that
as
a
if
you're
doing
something
beyond
normal,
then
having
experts
come
in
vouch
for
the
work
you're
doing.
C
Yeah
I
was
gonna,
say,
I,
think
that's
generally
a
good
solution
and
and
kind
of
loosely
enough
define
that
it
works.
So
if
you
look
at
like
1962
versus
Prague,
pal
I
think
frog
pal,
because
it
touches
you
know
many
different
parts
like
there's
like
the
biggest
reason
you're
doing
it
is
to
delay
a
six
and
that's
like
a
whole
kind
of
can
of
worms
in
and
of
itself
with
hardware.
C
Having
you
know,
a
hardware
expert
and
a
software
expert
kind
of
sign
off
and
and
and
say
that
this
makes
sense
is,
is
kind
of
need,
whereas
for
1962
you
know
you
don't
have
this
hardware
component
as
much.
You
just
have
this
this
kind
of
specialized
crypto
so
like
what
Lewis
proposed
on
the
previous
Stahl
having
different
crypto
specialist
sign
off
on
it.
I
also
think
it's
kind
of
sufficient.
So
maybe
it's
just
about
that.
C
D
Think,
with
the
prompt
our
example,
one
thing
to
point
out
is
that
the
algorithm
it
was
replacing
each
hash
also
had
an
audit
covering
basically
the
same
things
so
for
each
hash
it
was
being
subjected
to
the
same
scrutiny.
The
other
thing
is
replacing
was
being
put
under
so
I
think
that's
one
thing
we
need
to
consider:
do
we
lower
their
scrutiny
standard
or
maintain
his
crew
D
standards,
easy
yetiz,
so.
G
G
He
should
have
been
said,
for
instance,
if
we
wanted
it
to
have
accepted.
Put
this
potentially
accept
it
until
technical
completion
and
just
having
the
narrative
of
explaining
this
is
coming
as
soon
as
it's
ready
sort
of
soon
right
narrative.
We
have
movie
2.0
today
but
apply
to
program,
so
that
would
allow
us
to
evolve
this
whole
technical
auditing
biggie,
but,
as
of
today
is
useless
or
we
don't
already
where
it
goes
and
probably
could
have
helped
I
say,
align
everyone
to
say,
okay,
this
is
where
I
was
gonna
happen.
G
G
One
of
the
miners
group
miners
who
came
in
for
the
previously
IPs
when
weather-wise
like
the
discussion
about
a
reward
reduction
and
keep
coming
to
the
to
the
to
the
to
the
core
nephew
defending
and
also
try
to
modify
the
narrative
on
Twitter
and
various
media
to
say
this
is
in
and
you
have
no
choice
around.
That
was
just
restart
about
a
program
as
of
1962
I.
Think
that
the
view
perfectly
said
the
parameter
is
the
technical
expertise
of
the
of
the
court
live
and
every
IP.
G
If
1962,
although
Alex
did
a
terrific
job
at
coming
at
every
meet
a
brief
talk
and
come
in
explaining
what
he
was
trying
to
do,
the
problem
is
that
there
wasn't
enough,
like
coordination
or
enough,
like
the
process,
wasn't
clear
enough
for
him
to
gather
the
sort
of
natural
crowd
to
come
and
vouch
for
his
work
and
I.
Think
when
we
proposed
to
bring
like
people
like
expert
to
mccraty,
Kobe
go
Jodie
and
various
other
krypter
krypter
would
help.
C
And
yes,
I
I
agree
with
all
of
that.
I
think
one
thing
that's
also
worth
noting.
Is
you
know
it's
normal
that
these
things
are
hard
kind
of
you
know
to
the
degree
the
of
the
change
you're
proposing?
So
on
one
hand,
it's
like
you
want
to
have
a
smooth
process,
but
on
the
other
hand,
if
you're
proposing
something,
that's
totally
new,
that's
never
been
done
on
a
theorem,
and
this
is
like
I.
Don't
know,
20
billion
something
that's
work.
That's
live
like
I
I.
C
Think
it's
fine
to
kind
of
take
the
time
to
get
to
a
spot
where
everybody's
comfortable.
Even
if
that
that
means
that
the
process,
we
won't
be
able
to
define
the
process
for
every
type
of
new
thing
in
advance.
Right
so
like
this
1962
is
different
from
Prague
pal
and
that's
probably
going
to
be
slightly
different
from
something
like
ungass
right.
C
So
I
think
we,
you
kind
of
need
a
loose
high-level
guideline,
probably
to
be
more
explicit
than
if
you're
coming
in
with
this
huge
change
the
etherium
be
prepared
to
spend,
like
you
know,
a
year
kind
of
getting
you
through
and
just
to
set
expectations,
because
I
think
it
would
have
been
impossible
to
say
like
no
to
Prague
now
on
day,
one
just
because
there's
so
many
like
unknown
unknowns.
Right.
C
G
Yeah
I
just
want
to
come
in
top
of
this
is
there's
one
of
them
things
I
found.
Mr.
disturbing
to
some
extent,
is
to
some
for
some
VIP,
the
the
the
the
people
pushing
it.
The
the
the
champions
are
not
always
on
the
coding
I
think,
because
we're
talking
about
the
twenty
billion
dollars
were
Network.
It
sort
of
it
should
be
a
hard
requirement
to
for
some
representative
of
the
c---eight
of
the
IP
to
be
available
and
to
come
up
like
at
any
call.
C
G
C
Yeah,
yes,
so
maybe
that
yeah
that's
kind
of
part
of
setting
the
expectations
it's
like
yeah.
You
should
be
willing
to
like
iterate
on
this
thing
for
a
year,
you'll
probably
needs
a
non-trivial
amount
of
funding.
You
know
to
either
get
an
independent
implementation
and
audit
or
whatever,
and
and
like
we
expect
you
to
be.
You
know
whether
it's
on
every
call
or
to
at
least
check
the
agenda,
and
if
your
thing
is
mentioned
to
be
there
yeah
I
think
that's
that's
reasonable.
D
A
G
People
don't
need
to
move
ease
forward.
She
just
like
you
know
she
just
been
people
on
papers
in
mind,
I'm,
going
to
take
an
example.
For
instance,
if
we
on
the
last
course
I
was
a
new
IP
that
came
in
about
the
thing
about
like
strict
requirement
for
contract
to
to
like
require
specific
amount
of
gas
or
something
I.
Don't
exactly
remember
the
content,
but
the
guy
that
pushed
champion
was
seem
very
interested,
but
the
sort
of
reason.
G
The
line,
reason
why
he
never
is
pretty
not
going
to
get
in
is
because
I'm
not
because
I
think
if
the
IP
is
not
sound
he's
just
because
he
wasn't
known
to
the
to
the
to
the
curve
of
people
I
think
like
if
you
were
to
become
more
often,
even
if
he
wasn't
topic
wasn't
on
table,
it
would
have
helped
gather
some.
You
know
some
sort
of
common
agreement
that
this
is
needing.
C
C
But
like
I,
don't
know
we
yeah
if
we
get
have
like
a
paragraph
or
two
I,
don't
know
if
this
is
an
EIP
one
or
just
on
the
eeap's
websites
like
the
home
page
of,
like
you
know
here
a
couple
examples
of
very
large.
You
know
projects
that
people
have
trying
to
do
on
the
etherium
and
sears
kind
of
what
you
should
assume
you'll
have
to
invest
in
terms
of
time
in
terms
of
like
money
or
just
like
technical
resources
and
and
timelines.
You
know
it's
it's
it's
not
going
to
happen
in
three
months.
A
That
would
fit
in
there
the
so
we
had
wish
I
the
table
of
contents
to
have
requirements,
the
EIP
requirements,
VIP
recommendations
and
recommendations
being
just
to
try
and
summarize,
we've
gone
over
so
far.
If
there's
something
outside
of
the
of
the
expertise
of
the
core
devs,
you
need
outside
peer
review
from
experts
if
there
is,
if
you're,
if
you're,
implementing
something
or
upgrading
something
having
a
parity
with
the
like.
The
previous
implementation,
like
how
prog
pal
got
an
audit,
because
you've
had
one
that
you
should
expect.
A
C
I
think
related
to
that
what
was
said
about
1962
I
forget
his
name,
but
the
guy
who's
been
pushing
yet
says
he
kind
of
assumed
it
was
yeah,
Alex
yeah.
So
he
said
like
it's
his
responsibility
to
show
up
if
something
goes
wrong,
so
I
think
that
should
be
like
an
it
like.
If
you're
the
champion
on
an
EP,
you
know
you're
kind
of
a
person
of
contact,
but
it
should
probably
be
two
people,
so
you
know
I
Alex,
you
know
seems
to
take
this
seriously.
C
A
That
explicit
it's
more
of,
they
need
to
have
a
plan
and
it
needs
to
be
written
out
and
cuz.
The
disconnect
that
happened
was
margin
was
like.
Oh
no,
what
are
we
gonna
do
and
Alex
the
whole
time
was
thinking.
Oh
I'm
just
gonna
show
up
and
help
and
if
he
knew
Alex's
plan
of
how
to
address
like
a
critical
something
happening
on
maintenance-
and
that
was
written
out,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
I
depend.
Each
EIP
might
have
a
different
plan,
but
having
that
expressed
then
understood,
I
think
would
qualify.
A
C
You
need
to
list
who
are
like
the
potential
failure
modes
and
what
to
do
and
those
failure
modes
right.
So
you
know
what
happens
say
with
1962.
If
two
implementations
disagree
right
like
how
would
you
be
bug
that
what
happens
if,
like
I
don't
know,
some
other
thing
goes
wrong
and
then
I
can
see
a
bunch
of
dosatron
pow
as
well
right.
You
know
what
happens
if
you
know
there's
still
a
six
on
the
network
if
there's
still
whatever
so
just
thinking
through
like
the
risks
and
how,
on
a
high
level
you
and
mitigate
them.
C
Maybe
that's.
E
C
G
Yeah
I
think
in
my
in
my
in
concerning
in
1962
I'm
I'm.
One
of
my
concern
is
actually
not
victory
and
Marian
is
marking
is
really
worried
about
security.
My
prime
was
the
quality
of
the
specification,
not
because
I'm
assuming
I
like
this
a
bad
job.
It
just
promised
that
there,
when
I,
look
at
how
Bitcoin
is
pushing
like
new
great.
C
C
There's
like
a
full
comprehensive
specification,
then
need
to
be
a
requirement
because
I
feel
if
you
get
an
audit
for
an
e
p--.
You
know
you
kind
of
want
that
specification.
Anyway.
If
you
get
like
peer
review,
you
probably
want
the
specification,
so
I'm
I'm
not
sure
how
to
define
this,
but,
like
some
like
you
know,
yeah
full,
complete
specification.
A
G
C
Maybe
one
difference
so
I
I'm,
not
sure
what
I
think
here,
but
like
the
peer
review,
I
assume,
there's
a
specific
that
another
expert
in
the
field
can
read
right,
but
maybe
a
a
virile
upper
won't
be
able
to
like.
You
know,
grasp
the
entire
respect,
whereas
I
feel
like
I,
don't
know.
Do
we
want
the
requirement
kind
of
above
and
beyond
that,
but,
like
any
core
developer
is
like
comfortable
with
this
patch
and
I'm,
not
sure
if
that's
even
realistic,
right,
yeah.
C
So,
like
I
guess
for
1962
as
an
example,
you
know
I
can
see
a
case
where,
like
somebody
from
a
spec,
looks
at
the
spec
and
it's
like
yeah.
That
sounds
good
to
me,
but
I
don't
know
we
have
way
and
Dino
on
the
call
but
like,
and
they
don't
have
like
that,
crypto
experience.
So
maybe
they're
not
you
know
as
comfortable
with
the
spec
and
it's
like
who
should
we
be
aiming
for
in
terms
of
spec
parity?
G
I
think,
in
that
case,
I
would
have
aspect
to
be
obviously
vouching
for
it
and
Dino
and
Martine,
and
the
way
to
have
sort
of
a
basic
understanding
on
what
could
go
wrong.
And
how
does
it
work
and
you
know,
write
sort
of
generic
like
generic
idea
that
no
can
you,
when
you?
How
would
you
be
comfortable
with
we
should
show
the
AP.
D
I
mean
I
can
speak
to
what
I
am
familiar
with
the
engineering
tasks,
but
you
know,
like
I,
said
to
the
rock
crypto.
Prep
knows:
why
is
the
g1
curve
safe
and
novel
by
reducing
mathematical
questions?
It's
not
something
I'm
trained
in
good
at
giving
answers
for
so
having
someone
else
come
in.
Who
is
trained
and
things
like
I'm
talking
to
say?
Oh
no,
this
particular
krypton
thing
provides.
What
it
claims
it's
provides.
D
I
think
is
something
that
would
be
valuable,
but
when
I
look
at
these,
mostly
I
looked
with
the
engineering
perspective
and
I
think
people
who
chime
in
chime
in
relative
to
their
strengths,
of
what
they're
used
to
evaluating.
So
that's
why
some
of
the
crypto
stuff,
you
know
at
least
a
cursory
glance
by
professional
cryptographer-
is
needed,
even
though
maybe
rock-solid
I,
don't
think
many
of
the
engineers
on
the
car
will
qualify
to
say.
Well,
yes,
it's
rock
solid.
C
So
it's
almost
a
validate
this
speck
right,
so
it's
like
the
speck
is
clear
enough
that
any
court
have
engineer
can
implement
it,
but
they
don't
know
when
they're
plugging
you
know
the
sort
of
constant
to
the
curve.
What
like
is
that
the
good
one
and-
and
you
want
to
be
confident
that
light
the
sort
of
assumptions
in
the
spec
are
are-
are
correct
and
that's
where
you
get
the
peer
reviews,
value
from
right.
D
Because
we
will
take
it
if
it
presents
itself.
As
you
know,
this
is
good,
strong
crypto
and
we
don't
know
any
better.
We
might
take
it,
which
is
like
getting
someone
who
can
validate
those
claims.
No,
this
isn't
good.
It
looks
like
it,
but
it's
not
because
of
NZ's
that
only
a
trained
cryptography
know
about
those
are
the
report.
G
So
it's
usually
not
there
than
that
and
understand
that
the
permit
actually
an
implementation.
In
any
case,
the
bugs
doesn't
come
from
the
math.
They
usually
come
from
the
way
you
write
the
code
and
and
I'm
not
sure
that,
even
if
the
spec
was
vouch
for
the
math
test
act
of
it,
it
would
actually
save
you
from
any
any
any
trouble.
So
I
think
why
you
should
actually
probably
have
is
like
expert
in
both
the
cryptographic
and
then
plantations
part
of
the
cryptography
I
think.
H
We're
getting
a
bit
trapped
in
the
weeds,
though,
if
I
can
try
and
pull
out
for
a
second
I
mean
we're
using
this
example.
If
anything,
I
think
all
this
does
is
is
is
proof
that
we
can't
codify
exactly
what
each
is
going
to
need.
If
anything,
there
should
just
be
a
reference
that,
depending
on
the
scope
and
just
how
critical
an
EIP
is
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
there
may
be
unique
things
to
eg.
H
Ip
I
mean
it
seems,
like
everybody
was
more
or
less
on
board
with
the
idea
that
Prague
Pound
needed
an
external
full
audit,
because
it's
frog
pal
I
mean
it's
the
guts
of
the
consensus
algorithm
that
aetherium
would
run
on
I
mean
if
anything,
we
don't
need
to
figure
out
what
every
kind
of
change
would
need
right
now.
I
would
think
that
only
need
to
do
is
in
that
vague
way
you
were
talking
about
before.
Tim
is
just
say
case
by
case
there
may
be
different
things
needed.
It
may
need
a
more
thorough
peer
review.
H
C
But
it
was
like
bob
rao
from
from
intel
that
did
the
hardware
audit
but
like
if
prog
pal,
the
prog
tell
people
were
kind
of
just
friendly
with
bob,
and
you
know
got
him
to
come
on
the
Carl
and
vouch
for
it.
Then
that
would
have
been
like
a
much
more
lightweight
process.
That
probably
would
have
gotten
us
the
same
kind
of
safety
assurances
as
the
audit
gives,
but
in
a
much
more
efficient
way
and
like
Lois
point
earlier,
was
like
the
audit
was
kind
of
used
as
a
way
to
kick.
C
The
political
jam
down
the
road
so
I
do
think.
If
we
have
this
requirement
for
like
peer
review,
that's
loosely
defined.
It
makes
it
then
harder
for
people
to
push
for
something,
above
and
beyond
that
for
political
reasons,
and
that's
a
good
thing.
Well
still.
Obviously,
maintaining
that
like
this
is
a
high-stakes
thing
and,
and
you
want
to
be
serious
about
it,
yeah.
A
And
the
part
of
the
I
think
the
nuance
who
were
getting
at
is
that
there's
a
difference
between
the
general
requirement
of
if
you're
doing
something
that's
outside
of
the
normal
purview
of
core
devs.
You
should
have
external
peers
validate
and
vouch
for
it
like
publicly
validate
and
vouch
for
it
with
their
reputation
like
involved,
and
but
is
there
also
a
need,
or
should
there
be
an
expectation
of
packaging?
C
That's
a
good
point,
because
that's
what
Rick
was
asking
you
about
1559
a
couple
calls
ago
right,
because
what
they
went
ahead
and
did
was
like
a
full
implementation
as
a
way
to
get
feedback.
But
you
know
if
they
had
that
type
of
collateral
whatever
it
is,
they
could
have
requested
feedback
on
that
before
going
into
the
full
implementation.
A
And,
in
their
case
it
was,
it
was
hard
to
really
get
a
specification
without
building
out
a
some
kind
of
implementation,
which
is
just
sort
of
the
nature
of
how
that
it's
just
sort
of
how
that
that
was
how
they
chose
to
approach.
It.
I
guess,
is
a
better
way
to
say
they
chose
to
approach
it
with
the
create
and
implementation
and
then
make
the
spec
fitting
it
I'm
learning
from
the
implementation.
As
far
as
what
to
do
with
the
spec.
B
F
A
A
D
Yeah,
as
for
me
to
see
actually
proposes
since
the
Yankees
and
there's
something
specific
that
brought
that
to
mind
but
I
think
just
in
general,
we
need
to
have
some
sort
of
explicit
standards
as
to
how
we
treat
each
other
and
these
environments,
like
all
four
devs
in
the
Yippies
I'm,
not
concerned
about
the
laundry
list,
protected
classes
that
seem
like
the
government
code
of
conduct.
I
think
we're
all
on
board
with
that.
But
I
think
we
need
some
sort
of
standards
and
boundaries
for
when
certain
behavior
is
unacceptable
and
how
we
treat
it.
D
A
B
Not
sure
but
I
think
some
chants
from
the
cat
or
Osteen
had
done
something
on
code
of
conduct
for,
in
general,
like
how
it
should
be
for
a
participation
and
and
conversation
ongoing
conversation.
Is
it
something
similar
to
that
you
are
talking
about
on,
or
is
it
something
specifically
to
how
we
proceed
with
the
you
know,
protocols
have
created
and
something
with
coders
and
EAP.
B
D
About,
basically
what
Charles
was
talking
about
and
that
the
scope
would
be
limited
to
you
know,
I
mean
the
enforcement
is
the
worst
we
could
do
is
we
could
kick
people
out
of
all
cord
outs?
That's
probably
the
worst
we
could
do.
It
has
no
impact
on
the
actual
runtime,
which
is
why
I
think
the
API
key
is
the
right
place
rather
than
they
all
cord
s
call
to
discuss
a
meta
issue
like
this.
That
hasn't
been
a
change
I'm.
B
D
B
D
C
Yeah
and
what
comments
I
would
have
I
feel
like
this
can
open
like
a
huge
can
of
worms
and-
and
you
know
so
as
we
think
about
the
scope
thinking.
How
can
we
like
narrow
it
to
be
like
efficient
but
kind
of
reduce
the
argument
surface,
because
I
can
really
see
this
kind
of
becoming
a
massive
dumpster
fire
if
it's,
if
it's
too
broad
so
just
trying
to
figure
out,
what's
what's
really
essential?