►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting #4
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
All
right,
hi
everyone
and
welcome
to
EIU
meeting
number
four
thanks
pooja
for
making
the
agenda
first
off.
Is
there
anyone
who
wants
to
lead
the
meeting?
I'm
perfectly
fine
doing
it,
but
since
I
haven't
been
here
for
the
last
few,
if
anyone
really
feels
the
urge
to
run
it,
who's
been
kind
of
taking
lead
on
it
feel
free,
if
not
I'll,
be
going
ahead
with
it.
So
anyone
want
to
take
it
up.
I.
B
Second,
one
is
code
of
conduct.
We
did
some
discussion
in
the
previous
call
on
this
particular
item,
so
if
we
would
would
like
to
continue
that
the
next
item
is
progress
on
e
IP
repo,
cleaner,
we
were
having
a
discussion
around
how
we
can
see
all
current
GIPS
that
are
in
effect,
so
the
repo
cleanup
was
one
of
the
primary
issue
that
we
would
want
to
solve
in
order
to
get
this
EAP
process
right
in
working
perfectly
for
us.
Fourth
agenda
item
is
update
on
James
P
are
made
to
AIP
one.
B
Next
is
process
documentation,
I
added
this
item,
because
I
feel
that
there
is
a
need
of
documentation,
although
I
believe
there
are
not
available
itself,
but
we
might
would
want
to
update
that
or
if
something
is
missing
might
want
to
create
some
new
documentation.
That
could
be
helpful
for
the
community.
B
C
B
A
C
A
So
for
there
no
problem,
oh
okay,
so
someone
asked
me
on
on
telegram:
I
forgot
who,
because
I'm
behind
on
messages
on
there,
just
a
little
bit
who
made
that
bot?
It's
Nick,
Johnson
and
I
believe
that
someone
else
knows
how
to
work
with
it
and
I
gotta
find
who
that
is
because
someone's
been
making
PR
changes
to
it.
But
it's.
D
C
A
E
D
A
C
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
C
C
B
E
Sure,
yeah,
Luis
and
I
were
having
a
conversation
about
this,
where
he
brought
this
up
like
it's
true
that
there's
you
know,
there's
often
like
a
big
lag
in
trying
to
get
to
get
stuff
like
the
yellow
paper,
the
beige
paper
and
whatnot
up-to-date,
and
it's
not
like
it's
not
trivial
to
do,
but
it's
also
not
rocket
science,
so
maybe
it
would
be
possible
to
they
have
either
either
grants
or
whatnot
from
the
EF.
When
we
have
hard
Forks
or
through
the
cat
herders
they
get
to
get
that
updated.
A
I
am
I
am
conflicted
on
number
one
if
it's
worth
our
time
and
money
right
now
or
if
it's
even
in
the
scope
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
a
IP
IP
and
the
reason
for
that
is
the
reason.
So,
first
of
all,
the
reason
that
it
would
be
in
scope
in
general
for
the
IP
IP
is,
if
it's
like
a
requirement
for
to
update
the
yellow
paper
beige
paper
jello
paper.
If
you
were
to
make
a
quarry,
IP
change.
A
So
that
would
be
one
of
the
only
reasons
I
can
think
of
for
us
to
traverse
into
that
area.
And
then.
Secondly,
that's
like
a
undertaking
in
and
of
itself,
because
there's
been
long
discussions
on
the
all
core
devs
meetings
of
which
one
is
should
be
considered
by
the
community
as
canonical,
because
if
we
have
people
upgrading
who
can
upgrade
the
yellow
paper
versus
the
beige
paper
versus
the
jello
paper
like
what
like.
A
Who
would
be
responsible
for
that
and
as
there's
someone
we
can
find.
That
would
be
up
for
that
and
I
guess
it's
very
dependent
on
if
we
can
find
someone
who'd
be
up
for
that
and
which
one
they
want
to
do.
My
guess
would
be
the
jello
paper.
That
would
be
the
one
I'd
pick,
because
it
actually
has
a
way
to
generate
test
from
I
think
it's
written
in
K
or
some
other
single
letter
language
that
would
allow
for
automated
test
generation.
Once
the
specification
is
entered
to.
C
C
A
Yeah
I
think
that's
fair,
I
think
it
is
something
thinking
about
it,
a
little
more.
In
my
opinion,
this
is
something
that
we
shouldn't
heavily
focus
on
as
like
something
that
has
to
get
done.
It
shouldn't
be
necessarily
a
backburner
item,
but
something
in
between
where
we
focused
mostly
on
e
IP
one
upgrades
and
recruiting
more
e
IP
editors
and
some
of
the
other
things
we
have
his
focus
on
the
agenda
or
on
the
previous
agendas
in
this
one.
F
F
F
Think
one
of
the
missing
like
key
thing
missing
today
and
if
for
people
to
understand,
is
I,
think
Tim
I
told
you
about
when
equivalent
to
the
program
Bitcoin
from
Jimmy
song
like
a
book
but
actually
go
through
every
step
of
what,
if
you're
young
Easter
day
and
and
if
like
this,
would
be
a
key
element
and
I
think
that's
a
sort
of
work
and
project
that
the
EF
should
sponsored,
and
it
would
be
like
a
very
long
undertake
to
be
honest
but
very
important.
One.
F
Mastering
material
because,
like
there
is
this
core
is
public
but
mastering
the
theory
I'm
like
mastery
Bitcoin
is
quite
on
the
surface
in
a
mini
extent,
versus
program
Bitcoin
you
actually
get
into
the
deep
of
like
here
or
the
theorization.
The
way
you
actually
sign
a
message,
the
way
you
actually
construct,
transaction
and
stuff
like
that
which
is
really
much
into
the
death
that
we
we
need
to
bring
more
core
dev,
more
more
brain
into
the
system.
C
F
A
F
F
No
matter
what
work
we
put
in
in
f1,
the
one
it
wouldn't
be,
a
lost
cause
because,
first
of
all,
the
timeline
for
each
2.0
is
still
unknown
and
until
then
I
don't
believe
we
should
stop
focusing
on
each
one
and
even
everything
we
get.
We
like.
We
will
inherit
a
lot
of
things
from
if
one
int
with
two
and
as
such
the
work
and
the
to
formalize
and
teach
it
we'd
already
wouldn't
be
lost.
Good,
fair
point.
G
F
And
I
just
want
to
point
out
about
the
VM
that
Thomas
the
nevermind
Accord,
the
dev
Korolev
already
had
a
print,
a
day-long
plantation
that
he
he
does
in
the
U
in
in
London,
explaining
the
the
intricate
bits
of
the
Lybian.
We
should
probably
return
to
him
to
see
if
he
wants
to
extend
it
or
even
participate
in
such
an
effort.
A
B
B
Yeah,
let
me
first
give
this
context
of
this
particular
item.
In
the
previous
meeting.
We
were
discussing
about
what
should
be
the
code
of
contact,
for
you
know
in
general
to
be
implemented
or
enforced
on
the
all
hold
of
gator
or
any
other
public
platform
where
people
are
interacting
like
how
we
can
limit
people
I
mean
to
avoid
any
kind
of
you
know
bad
behavior,
bad
communication,
and
if
people
does
that,
we
can
just
keep
them
out
of
that
particular
Gator
or
telegram
or
any
other
groups.
So
we
have
a
TCH,
the
etherium
cat
herder.
B
We
have
one
code
of
conduct
written
by
I'm.
Sorry,
I'm,
missing
Charles
sometimes
backs
so
we
considered
that
as
the
baseline
and
we're
trying
to
change
the
scope,
because
that
was
specifically
for
the
cat
herders.
So
we
were
discussing
if
we
can
change
the
scope
and
make
it
in
general
to
be
applicable
in
the
oil
colder
and
similar
channels
of
communication.
I
William,
you
wanted
to
add
something
I.
C
Just
reflecting
on
some
experiences
with,
and
then
just
in
general,
my
github
has
certain
features
that
I
think
would
be
good
to
establish
some
forums
around
that,
because
the
EIP
repo
is
not
the
traditional
way
you
would
use
github,
they
didn't
design
it
thinking.
It
would
be
a
governing
body
for
some
amount
of
specifications.
H
C
B
The
next
agenda
item
is
progress
on
e
IP
repo,
cleaner.
So
this
item
we
we
are
actually
considering
it
from
the
very
first
meeting
and
I
was
thinking
about
it
and
I
would
like
to
share
my
screen
and
discuss
a
proposal
that
I
have
in
mind.
That
might
help
us
I
mean
that's,
that's
my
thought
process.
So
I'm
just
gonna
share
my
screen
here.
B
Is
it
visible
now,
yes,
okay,
so
I
was
looking
into
this
EW
s,
dot,
ET
m
dot,
o
rj
/.
All
it
shows
that
we
have
about
180
VIPs.
Those
are
in
draft
status
by
draft
status.
It
means
that
the
initial
tr4
they
have
been
approved,
but
they
never
moved
from
draft
to
any
other
state
to
understand
this
properly
I
was
actually
working
on
this
presentation.
B
I'm
just
saying
it.
Please
correct
me
if,
if
my
understanding
is
not
correct
at
any
point
of
time,
so
these
are
basically
the
types
of
VIP
we
divided
into
three
categories.
Three
types:
meta
standard
informational
standard
is
further
divided
into
code,
networking
interface
and
ERC,
as
per
the
definition
of
COI
IP.
My
understanding
is
like
we
are.
Gonna
include
core
that
comes
from
the
standard
track,
plus
some
of
the
metal,
a
IP
and
rest.
B
All
a
IPS
can
be
considered
for
the
non
core,
a
IPS
so
based
on
this
ap
one
and
my
understanding
I
created
this
process
flow.
That
is
there
for
quarry
IP.
What
we
talk
about
here
is
like
right
from
the
idea
to
the
draft
state,
like
idea,
is
something
that
anybody
any
champion,
or
anybody
would
like
to
share
that.
I
would
like
to
draft
any
IP
around
this.
Is
it
a
visible
idea?
B
This
efi
was
in
between
accepted
and
final
state
where
clients
used
to
decide
if
we
would
like
to
implement
it
or
if
they
would
like
to
include
it
for
the
upgrade
or
not.
But
now
the
process
has
changed
and
we
are
trying
to
put
efi
right.
After
the
draft
status,
there
are
some
VIPs
which
was
started
as
draft,
but
their
champion
decided
not
to
pursue
and
those
are
categorized
at
abundant.
For
now,
the
AIP
status
of
abandoned
can
be
changed
at
any
point
of
time.
B
If
some
other
champion
comes
into
pictures
and
would
like
to
first
you
this
Eid
once
this
efi
once
that
is
there
in
the
efi
list,
it
has
further
further
accepted
as
draft
that
is
the
first
draft
and
when
it
comes
to
at
this
state,
this
is
being
listed
here
as
draft
earlier
than
before
this.
It
is
only
a
PR
and
cannot
be
shown
over
here.
So
when
we
accept
the
first
draft,
we
can
further
improve
it
and
keep
on
changing
by
requesting
the
full
pull
request
every
time,
but
any
change
still.
B
We
believe
that
AIP
is
matured
enough,
so
that
it
can
be
pursued
once
it
is
done,
and
it
and
an
author
believes
that
this
EAP
is
completely
mature.
We
can
put
it
into
last
call
that
lasts
for
14
days
and
after
the
14
days
that
can
be
changed.
The
status
can
be
changed
to
accept
it
if
it
is
a
kori
IP,
they
accepted,
one
is
where
we
need
at
least
three
clients
should
agree
to
implement
it.
We
try
to
enforce
that.
B
These
are
the
major
clients
so
that
most
of
the
notes
are
updated
accordingly,
and
once
this
is
accepted,
we
can
move
on
to
final.
Only
if
it
is
adopted
or
any
upgrade
is,
is
deployed.
Some
of
the
IPS
can
remain
there
for
forever
after
forever
life
and
their
status
cannot
be
changed.
The
example
is
a
VIP
one,
which
is
again
a
meta
ap,
but
its
status
is
live
forever
and
is
active
after
some
time.
B
Some
AIP
is
maybe
superseded
by
another
AIP,
and
these
VIPs
should
be
actually,
you
know
changed
from
the
status
of
final
to
superseded
to
clean
up
the
EIP
repo.
That's
my
thought
process
and
once
it
is
superseded,
we
cannot
change
the
status
of
it.
Any
further.
Similar
similar
process
flow
is
designed
for
the
non-core
AIP.
Now
what
I
am
proposing
here
is
like
we
have
this
list
of
180
IPs.
We
know
this.
We
know
these.
A
Yeah
so
I
think
that's
a
great
idea,
I
think
one
other
column
you
might
want
to
add
to
the
excel
document
that
has
the
type
subtype
and
propose
status
is
if
we've
communicated
with
the
author
and
what
they
have
to
say,
because
I
think
to
figure
out
the
proposed
status,
that's
gonna
be
integral,
and
additionally,
I
saw
just
a
few
really
small
things.
I
wanna
propose
to
correct
and
some
of
the
way
you've
categorized
this
very
simple
things:
you've
got
it
like
95%,
99%
right,
the
main
ones
are
that
active
is
not
followed.
A
I,
don't
think
active
has
ever
been
followed
by
final,
so
active
is
like
its
own
little
bubble,
so
it
doesn't
have
that
arrow
from
final
to
active.
Unless
we
want
to
propose
that
and
then
the
other
thing
is
on
slide
2
and
what
what
we'll
do
pooja
is.
If
you
send
me
this
over
email
I'll,
add
comments
to
it
since
it's
a
PowerPoint,
so
you
don't
have
to
write
all
this
down
right
now,
but
informational
es
are
separate
than
any
of
the
other
networking
interface
or
ERC's.
So
they
shouldn't
be
in
that
dotted
line.
B
This
dotted
line
what
I
am
trying
to
represent
here
are
the
non-core,
VIPs
I'm.
Sorry
because
of
this
particular
design,
it's
not
reflecting
properly,
but
the
dotted
line
includes
the
EAP
which
would
follow
the
non-core
EAP
process.
Metta
and
core
will
follow
the
core
EAP
process
because,
by
the
definition
of
Cory
IPP
standard,
try,
Cory,
IP,
plus
meta.
A
IP
should
follow
the
Corey
IP
process
that
is
process
flow,
that
I
try
to.
You
know
picturise
and
slide
three
and
four
okay
cool.
G
B
Oh
yeah,
so
what
I'm
proposing
here
is
like
I
think
it's
a
need
to
clean
up
the
EIP
github
to
clean
up
the
EAP
Gator.
We
need
to
go
VIP
by
EAP.
Whatever
is
there
I
see,
there
are
180
IPS
which
are
in
draft
status
and
I'm,
not
sure
if
they
would
come
in,
like
author
would
like
to
pursue
it
or
that
may
have
been
superseded
on
may
have
been
rejected,
but
they
are
still
lying
there.
So
the
proposal
was
to
use
this
excel
sheet
and
rightly
come.
You
know
you're
using
this
excel
sheet.
B
E
B
And
add
that
like,
where
does
this
VIP
stand?
Is
it
something
that
Martin
would
like
to
pursue,
or
is
it
something
that
Martin
would
like
to
close,
or
has
it
been
superseded
by
some
other
a
IP?
So
we
can
add
that
status
here
and
following
the
process
of
the
EIP.
If
say
it
is
corey
IP,
then,
following
the
process
of
corey
IP,
we
can
actually
change
the
status
from
draft
to
any
other
status
wherever
it
feels
say
it.
If
it
is
like
superseded,
or
you
know
it
will
is
rejected.
G
B
A
B
Okay,
I
think
I'm,
not
sure
if
it
is
only
me
or
somebody
else
might
have
mistaken
here.
The
abandoned
earlier
I
thought
that
abandoned
means
that
AIP
is
not
particularly
in
use
and,
like
you
know,
it's
like
rejected
kind
of
thing
or
on
something
similar
to
that,
but
going
by
the
EIP
one
I
realized
abandoned
mean
the
EIT
thought
that
was
a
good
idea
has
been
approved
by
you
know
by
community
they
submitted
the
draft
of
the
EIP,
but
somehow
the
champion
or
the
author
decided
not
to
do
that.
B
Maybe
they
don't
have
time
or
something
of
funding
or
something
like
that,
so
they
are
categorized
and
abundant.
But
this
special
thing
about
this
abundant
status
is:
it
can
be
changed
if
somebody
else
comes
into
picture
and
would
say
that
okay
I
want
to
pursue
this
AIP,
they
can
go
ahead
again
and
start
moving
that
AIP.
So
this
abundant
is
not
that
it
is
gone
forever
because
most
of
the
cases
like
if
it
is
superseded,
the
state
cannot
be
changed.
B
A
See
I
see,
and
so
if
someone
were
to
take
over
someone
else's
the
IP,
the
author
on
the
EIP
would
change
the
status.
Would
change,
and
probably
even
the
text
of
the
EIP
would
change,
but
it
would,
but
there
might
need
to
be
something
in
the
metadata
at
the
top
of
the
EIP
to
reflect
that
it
was
taken
over.
So
you
have
original
author
and
then
other
authors,
and
then
it
like
a
champion
or
whatever
yeah.
B
There
is
one
thing
that
I
would
like
to
highlight
here
is
the
quarry
IP
process
flow
that
I
just
have
made
is
as
per
tick.
Current
like
there
is
no
mention
of
efi
in
a
IP
one,
which
James
is
trying
to
propose
there
in
his
PR
to
e
IP
one
so
earlier,
I
was
a
I
was
raising
some
concern
about
adding
that
to
a
IP
one
directly,
because
the
e
IP,
which
talks
about
EFI
is
itself
in
the
draft
process.
That's
a
meta
IP
that
contains
some
information,
but
that
is
still
in
the
draft
process.
B
So
my
recommendation
here
was
to
first
change
that
see
IP,
which
reflects
the
efi
or
final,
and
then
it
should
be
added
to
a
IP
one
because,
as
per
the
present,
a
IP
one
with
no
change,
this
efi
section
does
not
come
there.
It
comes
in
between
accepted
and
final
state
of
a
IP.
So
this
is
the
slight
change
that
we
are
proposing
that
is
actually
being
followed
for
Berlin,
so
it
has
been
accepted
by
all
cold
air.
So
we
can
add
that
any
81
great.
C
B
Okay,
so
actually
we
do
not
have
template
for
each.
You
know
a
standard
EAP,
each
category
of
a
standard
IP,
so
what
we
can
do
is
like
create
template
for
that
and
add
it
over
there,
and
in
that
we
can
actually
suggest,
like
whatever
the
chronic
chronological
order
of
author
us
has.
We
can
add
it
over
there.
So
the
to
do
things
that
I
can
think
of
is
like.
B
We
need
to
create
a
checklist
for
each
category
of
a
IP
so
that
we
can
decide
if
an
EIP
is
enough
and
is
in
a
position
to
change
it
to
status,
because
we
have
a
lot
of
the
IP
that
marrieds
a
change
of
strategy
number
one
number
two:
we
need
a
template
for
each
category
of
standard
e
IP
that
is
not
available
any
IP
one
I
mean
I
could
not
find
that.
Maybe
I
am
missing
out
something.
So
these
two
things:
if
we
can
figure
out
I'm
sure
it's
gonna
help
us
a
lot.
D
C
C
As
far
as
authors
of
champions
to
have
a
section
that
is
that
his
for
champions
and
update
the
Opera
section
to
tell
peak
when
I'm
writing
a
piece
it
gets
weird
cuz
you're,
like
what
order
do
I
put
things
into
I,
put
myself
on
the
front
I
put
myself
in
the
bag
or
just
be
more
useful
to
see
the
authors
in
reverse
chronological
orders,
the
oldest
it
was
one
servers.
The
older
ones
are
lower
on
the
list.
C
C
Like
1559
ian
is
taking
over
as
champion,
but
I
can't
just
magically
Stoppers
and
he
may
not
want
to
actually
be
an
author.
They
just
want
to
be
a
champion,
but
there
is
space
for
that.
So
if
there
was
a
a
separate
item
for
champions,
then
I
would
be
a
lot
more
comfortable,
adding
that
yeah.
This
new
person
wants
to
take
over.
B
D
There
was
implemented
section,
but
since
it
hasn't
been
implemented,
I
changed
that
to
abandon
I
in
X
at
the
bottom
and
I
put
all
the
abandoned
information
down
there
and
that's
ready
to
do
a
poll
request
on
which
I
was
going
to
do.
I
just
wanted
to
let
everyone
know
that
I
can
put
the
link
to
that
seeing
in
the
in
the
chat,
but
I
just
wanted
everyone
to
know.
B
A
D
B
I
What
James
is
mentioning
I
think
for
the
champion
section.
It
might
be
good
just
to
leave
it
as
a
single
section,
not
show
past
champions
and
current
champions
in
the
same
section.
If
we
assume
that
there's
only
one
champion
currently
and
then
I
guess
it
would
just
be
a
top,
but
if
there,
if
there's
a
possibility,
that
could
be
both
all
champions.
At
the
same
time,
we
can
label
them
as
current
compiled
in
parentheses
or
something.
C
Yeah
I
would
agree
that
the
the
author
list
is
the
history
of
contributors.
The
champion
should
just
be,
who
is
the
current
champion
and
if
they're
removed
they're
removed,
if
they
don't
that
they
weren't
added
as
author,
it
would
also
help
when
I
was
helping
with
late
to
be
I
was
being
a
community
champion
for,
but
I
didn't
know
the
tag
stuff.
I
F
C
F
Also
I
would
want
the
wonderful
requirement
requirement
and
/I
sort
of
yeah
in
the
principle
in
requirement.
I
would
want
the
champion
to
also
declare
the
interest
in
this
a
IP
getting
pushed
because,
as
we
saw
in
part
one
of
the
problem
that
when
you
have
people
pushing
ap
without
having
direct
interest,
it
creates
sort
of
a
conspiracy
theory
or
the
idea
that
there
is
something
hidden
that
doesn't
get
publicly
discuss.
F
It's
it's
a
conflict
of
interest
in
no
more
like
a
reason
why
they
wanted
its
themself
sort
of
a
tithe
motivation,
which
is
slightly
headbutts.
Motivation,
can
also
add
you
can
easily
hide
either
motivation,
and
my
point
is
that
we
should
have
clear
reasoning.
Why
is
this
person
is
pushing
this
Pacifica
brain.
F
And
I'm
going
just
to
give
you
an
example,
so
the
one
I
worked
on,
which
was
white,
20:28
I,
start
where
we
clearly
benefit
from
it,
because
our
proof,
like
cost,
is
finished
by
half
and
I.
Think
people
as
long
as
you
provide
clear
and
honest
argument
for
why
this
is
a
cubicle
network,
but
also
thing
while
you
are
putting
the
effort
to
prove
it
to
the
network
in
the
community,
I
think
it's
sort
of
a
requirement
for
anyone
to
believe
that
you
you
do
it
for
action
for
the
sake
of
a
system,
I.
C
F
A
F
Mean
it
brings
the
like
the
transparency
report,
saying
you
know,
I
care
enough,
because
this
and
it's
not
completely
useless
because
of
this,
and
also
in
the
case
of
work
by
like
because
it
annoys
it
around
the
I'm.
Sorry
for
that,
in
the
case
of
purpo,
the
people
will
push
into
the
court.
The
court
that
didn't
have
direct
interest
in
the
sort
of
a
look
like
from
make
look
like
on
the
outside
of
their
window
when
some
low
be
beyond
it.
That
didn't
get
disclosed.
F
It's
also
true
for,
for
things
like
like
to,
and
also
the
reason
why
I'm
talking
about
leg
two
is
because
the
fact
that
the
person
two
motivations
one
person
pushing
it
wasn't
like
you
know
it
wasn't
clear
and
oh
don't
I
mean
I
know
it's
was
you
know,
that's
and
I
think
for
a
big
to
be,
but
there
was
an
issue
there
were
I.
Believe
we,
because
you
you
didn't,
have
the
technical
requirements
you
some
people
couldn't
ask
some
specification.
That
was
so.
If
you
think
that
didn't
get
perfectly
in
line.
In
my
opinion,
I.
A
F
Slightly
I
think
people
should
just
be
transparent
to
why
there's
been
energy,
you
know,
but,
for
instance,
you
are
pushing
technically
interesting
thing:
I
think
it's
transparent.
You
know
why
you're
you're
someone
unknown
you
work
for
a
company
and
you
pushing
something
very
complicated.
Then
maybe
we
should
know
why
it's
interesting
for
you,
I.
G
Mean
just
from
the
local
neighborhood
cynic,
putting
a
section
into
the
IP
doesn't
mean
that
people
will
use
it
honestly,
I
mean
no
one's
gonna
write.
My
non-technical
motivation
is
because
I
want
to
attack
the
network
and
subvert
everything
and
make
a
50
percent
attack.
I
mean
I,
hope
so
I
mean
having
it.
G
A
Is
a
technical
standard?
This
isn't
a
that.
This
isn't
I
mean
I,
don't
know
if
technical
standards,
I
guess
knowing
a
person's
intention
or
suppose
that
intention
shouldn't
have
an
effect
on
technical
standards
beyond
I
want
to
use
it
for
this
use
case,
which
would
be
under
technical
motivation,
so
I
think
we're
kind
of
going
down
a
slippery
slope
if
we
start,
including
things
that
are
non-technical
and
a
technical
specification.
C
C
And
they
do
all
the
work
and
they
do
all
of
this
stuff
like
they
come
to
the
core
devs
and
they
say:
hey
I
want
this
change.
It's
a
little
R,
it's
a
little
non,
realistic
to
say
that
everyone
should
do
should
not
be
doing
something
that
benefits
them
individually.
Somehow,
because
that's
the
whole
system
kind
of
works
that
way
like
was
like
start
where's.
He
IP
the
matter
labs.
He
had
the
zkg
IP.
The
random
specifications
and
standards
were
all
designed
to
benefit
like
the
author
did
that
because
they
thought
it
was
better.
G
In
a
I'm
looking
at
your
comment,
Louis,
it
doesn't
mean
that
it's
benefiting
them
in
a
bad
way.
I,
don't
know
this
dark
where,
like
the
technical
aspects
of
stark,
where's
EIT,
but
the
IP
I'd
assume
is
there
in
order
to
help
build
the
algorithms
or
the
underlying
platform
in
a
way
where
it's
easier
for
them
to
implement,
CK,
snarks
or
Starks
I
mean
that's,
not
bad.
It's
good,
but
I
mean
especially
if
we're
gonna
put
this
in,
like
a
really
strict
sort
of
games.
G
I
Go
ahead
maybe
place
like
that
would
be
more
appropriate
in
the
discussions
to
section
with
an
introduction
to
a
new
champion
if
they're
changed.
A
F
B
G
Maybe
I'll
just
put
the
post.
This
is
a
sort
of
open-ended
personal
question,
I
mean
I,
guess,
I,
sort
of
hope.
It's
relevant
for
other
people,
also
a
lot
of
the
sort
of
action,
ish
items
that
are
coming
up,
like
maybe
efforts
to
revise
any
of
the
various
colored
or
jello
papers,
or
things
like
that
I'd
be
interested
in
contributing
to,
but
I.
A
Talk
in
the
telegram
channel
and
someone
who
is
more
familiar
with
the
process
can
help
you
out
is
my
recommendation.
So
just
say:
I
am
trying
to
accomplish
this,
but
I
don't
have
a
I,
don't
have
the
knowledge,
can
I
jump
on
a
call
with
someone
and
I
I
would
take
that
up
some
of
the
time
and,
like
I'm,
sure,
pooja,
James
Tim.
Other
people
who
might
be
more
familiar
with
the
EIP
process
can
help
Brent
Brent.
Also
alright,.