►
From YouTube: Eth2.0 Implementers Call #8 [2018/12/13]
Description
A
A
Here
is
the
agenda.
If
you
haven't
seen
it
nothing
too
crazy
on
these
number
today
we'll
go
through
the
normal
things.
We
have
a
few
things
to
talk
about
opening
its
best,
expect
discussion
and
then
that'll,
be
it
first
client
updates
no
one
likes
to
volunteer
so
I'm
going
to
volunteer
somebody
how
about
Joey,
hi.
B
C
Last
weeks,
we've
been
working
on
pls
refactor
and
this
reflectors
had
a
goal
to
make
our
implementation
agnostic
to
elliptic
curve.
Mathematics
provider
and
current
implementation
is
based
on
my
crew,
but
after
this
refactor
it
could
be
swapped
to
any
kind
of
elliptic
curve,
mathematics
provider
or
even
build
it
even
a
custom.
One
also
we've
been
working
on
simple
serialize
implementation,
with
two
care
consensus,
low-level
implementation
and
building
some
high-level
stuff
like
Timothy,
which
will
work
with
annotations
with
the
annotated
classes.
C
C
We're
also
touched
base
with
Pegasus
guys,
which
was
pretty
nice,
and
we
decided
to
collaborate
on
lipid
Opie
on
crypto,
stuff
and
testing
stuff.
Also,
there
is
it's
possible
to
work
on
C
on
the
same
eath
1.0
provider.
So
there
is
a
plenty
of
things
to
collaborate
on
and
we
decided
to
start
from
lipid
to
P
work.
D
My
apologies,
my
mistake,
but
we
decided
on
our
name
for
our
client.
It's
gonna
be
called
armas.
We
had
plans
for
opening
open
sourcing
which
are
in
progress
right
now
and
coming
soon
we
have
validator
registration
process
in
place
and
raising
it
event
when
a
new
validator
is
detected
also
in
talks
with
collaborating
with
harmony
and
we're
waiting
on
getting
up
here,
approved
for
limb,
p2p
daemon,
so
it
can
interface
with
Java
natively
and
that's
it.
A
D
D
F
Is
slower,
you
could
respect,
update
we're
currently
catching
up
on
spec
we're
working
on
picking
up
refactoring
with
the
radius
back
updates
and
also
with
ongoing
refactor
realized.
It
would
be
idea
to
modify
how
how
our
current
sink
service
function
so
previously
was
split.
All
the
same
service
between
between
initial
sing
and
the
no
more
sing
to
right
now
were
combining
the
two
servers
together.
We
finish
that,
on
top
of
that,
we
also
implemented
a
first
version
of
simple
see,
realized
spec,
which
is
now
implemented
in
prison,
and
that's
it
awesome.
Thank
you.
G
Hi,
so
now
we
are
at
most
one
day
of
the
spec,
so
we
are
keeping
up
we
implemented
or
scheme
free
for
BLS
signature.
So
in
line
with
latest
spec
from
two
weeks
ago,
we
now
have
a
commit
and
reveal
scheme
that
can
work
for
right
now
until
we
have
something
more
concrete
in
the
spec
we've
developed,
yeah
Mel
tester
generator
for
shuffling
tests.
There
is
a
dedicated
ripple
now,
so
it's
not
in
the
name
becomes
in
the
repo.
G
G
We
have
a
mock
gossip
sub
based
on
our
LP
X
now
in
the
name
beacon
chain
and
regarding
the
p2p
pub/sub.
We
have
raised
the
kind
of
critical
issue
today
so
when
we
have
multiple
multiple
connections
done
to
the
same
peer.
If
one
is
closed,
all
others
are
also
closed.
So
this
has
been
raised
to
the
attention
of
the
team.
I'm
posting
the
issue
also
here
and
apparently
it's
a
critical
flow
in
where's,
the
rock
around,
but
it's
something
I
have
to
think
about.
G
And
lastly,
regarding
community
we
studied
2.0
series
with
introduction
to
become
chained,
to
validators
and
transition
from
proof-of-work
to
prefer
stage,
and
the
community
has
been
looking
into
it
with
interest
and
there
are
some
that
we
will
be
translating
vowels
to
Chinese
and
Croatian,
so
other
translations
are
obviously
welcome.
So
let
us
think
so.
A
A
Their
update
is
that
the
recipe
TP,
which
I
think
is
managed
by
parody,
has
finished
like
a
major
API
refactor,
which
is
a
blocker
for
them
for
utilizing
the
same
repo
and
Adrian
has
begun
to
implement
gossip
sub.
They
finish
that
refactor
they've
also
been
refactoring
a
match.
The
spec
updates
been
doing
a
lot
of
kind
of
project
management,
stuff
and
I
have
been
working
towards
a
q1
beacon
chain
test
tonight.
Actually
I
think
Alex
Stokes
is
here.
Who
does
some
work
with
lighthouse?
Does
that
cover
most
of
it?
Alex
yeah.
A
Great
and
parody
it
has
an
internal
workshop
right
now,
so
they
will
not
be
here
but
generally
they're
continuing
to
follow
the
spec
continuing
to
ensure
that
substrate
is
going
to
meet
the
needs
and
kind
of
get
in
the
bones
in
place.
So
but
no
major
update
on
their
end,
great
I,
didn't
miss
anyone
right.
A
G
G
A
A
Okay,
thanks
yeah,
oh
you're
right
they
did
put
something
in
the
H
and
I
think
they're
their
biggest
update
as
they've
changed
the
next
full
refactor
to
utilize
typescript,
which
I
think
is
the
same
decision.
If
you're
in
JavaScript,
okay,
cool,
so
research
we
have,
the
testing
group
is
continuing
simulation
groups.
Doing
some
work
is:
are
there
any
other
updates
from
research.
I
I
Yeah
so
from
my
side,
I
have
been
doing
some
refactoring
notes
on
the
Honda
simulation
on
the
simulator
that
I
planned
to
running
the
supercomputer
I
added
a
couple
of
features
previously
every
single
MPI
process,
so
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
sure
how
many
people
here
are
familiar
with
MPI
is
a
message
passing
interface,
which
is
what
we
use
to
communicate
in
supercomputers.
Every
single
process
was
simulating
a
single
node
in
the
network.
I
have
changed
that
into
that
now.
I
One
single
MPI
process
can
simulate
multiple
nodes
in
the
in
the
peer-to-peer
network
so
that
allow
us
to
do
more.
Large-Scale
simulations
and
I
also
added
some
kind
of
speed.
The
speed
up
time
feature
I
wish
I
can
speed
up
time
by
up
to
a
hundred
times,
so
that
the
execution
of
the
blockchain
happens
a
hundred
times
faster
than
it
would
actually
happening
in
in
real
life
and
to
have
much.
I
But
when
you
look
at
this
bag,
you
have
like,
for
example,
1,000
shards
and
256
validators
pressure
and
I
wanted
to
ask
how
this
compares
to
the
current
number
of
notes
that
we
see
in
the
India
Trillium
Network
right.
So,
if
you
think
about
the
number
of
pollinators
for
that
respect,
you
think
about
almost
two
to
sixty
thousand,
which
is
not
the
number
of
nodes
that
we
have
I.
Think
right
now
in
the
tearoom
Network,
so
I,
don't
know.
How
is
this
I
mean
are?
A
Right
so
the
number
of
validators
per
shard
actually
scales
in
it
is
scaled
I.
Think
in
like
a
function
called
get
current,
shuffling
and
so
essentially
per.
If
you
have.
If
you
reach
a
certain
threshold
Valladares,
then
per
cycle,
you
do
cross
link
all
shards
in.
But
if
you
do
not
reach
a
minimum
threshold,
then
it
starts
taking
multiple
cycles
to
cross
link
all
the
shards
so
that
you
don't
have
too
few
and
your
committees
that
are
cross-linking.
So
the
number
to
answer
your
question,
the
number
of
shards
is
to
be
fixed.
A
So
another
thing
to
consider
is
that
these
validators
are
32
weak
instances
and
in
all
likelihood,
a
lot
of
actual
physical
nodes
in
the
network
will
represent
multiple
validator
instances.
I,
don't
have
a
good
handle
on
what
we
expect,
that
kind
of
distribution
to
be
but
say
we
have
300,000
validators
and
we
only
we
have
the
same
number
of
nodes
in
the
network
today
so
say
on
the
order
of
16,000:
that's
like
1819
validators
living
actually
in
each
node
and
participating
in
multiple
shard
subnets.
A
A
Of
given
say,
say,
we
have
Tim
Malini
validating
we
have
on
the
order
of
like
300,000
validators,
how
many
the
actual
distribution
of
nodes
on
the
network
say,
I.
Think
right
now
we
have
like
10
to
15,000
nodes
in
the
network.
You
know:
do
we
expect
to
have
a
similar
amount
of
nodes
in
the
network
and
just
to
have
mini
validate
or
entities
crunched
into
each
one,
or
you
know
what
that?
What
you
think
that
distribution
might
look
like
it.
K
J
Mean
nautical
identities
there'll
be
one
validator
and
in
terms
of
physical,
like
computers
and
IP
addresses
I.
Guess
it's
hard
to
tell
one
kind
of
nice
thing
is
that
the
amount
of
resources
required
for
validator,
as
in
like
a
node
with
multiple
validators,
grows
linearly
up
up
to
a
coins
up
to
roughly
I?
Guess
a
thousand
validators.
So
if
you
have
small
validators,
relatively
small
validators
that
are
not
pooling,
then
that
should
lead
to
a
lot
of
physical
machines.
But
it's
hard
to
predict
how
much
cooling
will
happen
right.
I
But
this
is
also
desperation.
I
think
is
important
because,
when
you
consider,
when
you
want
to
consider
a
number
of
bad
actors,
most
likely
all
the
validators
run.
In
the
same
note,
if
one
of
those
validators
is
a
bad
actor,
it's
most
likely
that
all
of
the
validators
in
the
same
physical
note
are
bad
actors,
because
there's
no
belongs
to
the
same
person
and
probably
will
be
using
the
same
so
far,
and
so
is.
This
is
why
this
ratio
is
interesting.
I
L
A
M
Had
a
question
about
this,
like
the
way
the
system
performs
when,
when
more
or
less
violators
a
9-2
in
right
now,
is
that
scales?
Basically
this
way?
But
if
we
start
seeing
that
there
are
a
few
validators
in
times
when
there
are
not
so
many
or
nots
moving
nodes
will
have
thousand
and
twenty
four
slow
nodes.
And
then,
in
times
when
we
had
a
lot
of
other
areas
where
many
bad
days,
we
still
have
a
thousand
twenty-four
nodes
and
there'll
be
an
upper
bound
on
how
fast
those
are.
So
in
terms
of
scalability.
M
M
M
K
Yeah
well
we're
scaling
two
things
that
we
stand.
The
current
spec
one
of
them
is
basically
how
frequently
cross
links
appear,
and
so
what
the
load
is
on
the
beacon
chain-
and
the
second
thing
is
that
if
at
least
I'm
not
sure,
if
any
of
this
is
actually
in
phase
zero,
it
might
only
be
in
the
phase
one
file
right
now.
But
if
the
number
of
validators
is
too
small,
then
we
base
allow
some
of
them
to
not
submit
group
of
proofs
of
custody.
K
And
so
the
assumption
will
be
that
the
majority
of
the
mouths
of
the
across
wink
validators
when
we
summon
the
crosslink
validators,
won't
actually
be
doing
full
validation
and
all
crew
of
custody
generation.
They
will
just
be
basically
either
validating
data
availability,
proofs
or
something
similar.
I
K
K
J
So
I
guess
the
general
idea
from
a
design
perspective
is
to
do
some
sort
of
graceful
degradation,
and
you
know
we
could
have
a
dynamic
number
of
shots,
but
reducing
the
number
of
shards
is
something
that's
very
disruptive.
So
it's
not
so
graceful,
and
so
in
terms
of
things
that
we
can
do
gracefully
is
what
the
type
talks
about,
which
is
reducing
the
frequency
of
the
cross
links
and
not
requiring
so
many
proofs
of
custody
is
when
we
don't
have
that
many
validators
and
things
we
can
also
do
with
the
execution
layer
is
reduced.
I
Well,
it
also
depends
on
how
dynamic
you
want
the
system
to
be
I
understand
change
change.
The
number
of
shots
is
costly
if
you
change
every
every
hour
or
so,
but
if,
if
you
want,
if
you,
for
example,
I
start
with
a
hundred
charts
and
then
every
month
say
to
reevaluate
this,
and
is
that
cost
that
heavy.
A
A
K
I
I
know
I
was
not
thinking
about
decreasing.
I
was
mostly
thinking
about
increasing
kind
of
like
for
a
bootstrap.
You
know
for
like
when
we,
when
we
actually
start
charting,
so
that
at
the
very
very
beginning
we
don't
have
300,000
body
de
toes
I
was
thinking
about
start
just
starting
with
different
number
and
then
increase
slowly.
As
the
number
of
alligators
increases
I
understand,
the
Christian
is
much
more
challenging.
Now.
A
Right
I
mean
that's
a
similar
trade
off
to
just
reducing
the
number
of
cross
links
per
epoch
and
it's
a
similar
trade
off
and
reducing,
say
the
gas
limit
and
shards
by.
If
you
increase
the
slots
or
this
slot
length
or
skip
the
or
skip
certain
slots,
I
think
it
all
of
those
kind
of
linearly
reduce
load
and
are
viable
but
I.
A
Think
I,
don't
know,
I,
don't
see
much
changing
the
slot
length
kind
of
I
think
is:
may
maybe
changes
the
regularity
of
these
events
so
maybe
changes
the
speed
with
which
they
can
become
fixed.
If
like
they
can
mend
themselves.
If
say,
a
number
of
validators
do
come
on
online,
so
I
think
keeping
slot
length
is
probably
healthy.
The
same
is
probably
healthier
way
to
go.
J
Fundamentally,
having
less
validators
causes
bandwidth
issues,
not
latency
issues,
so
we
should
address
the
bandwidth.
You
know
by
reducing
the
block
size
or
releasing
the
gas
the
metal
things
like
that,
but
changing
the
you
know
we
don't
have
to
compromise
on
latency
and
increasing
this
fluctuation
compromises
unnecessarily
on
on
latency
right.
F
O
J
J
A
Move
to
Kakaako
256
that
might
be
a
requirement
just
to
reduce
the
load.
Pretty
talk
on
a
hashing
I
will
say
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
actual
implementation.
You
still
have
the
same
validator.
You
still
have
the
same
index
into
that
that
entity
so
I
think
it's
actually
kind
of
minor
on
the
actual
implementation
side,
but
significant
from
a
it's.
Like
data
strips
rework.
J
Right
in
terms
of
data
structure
reorg,
we
are
considering
merging
some
of
the
fields
for
for
justification
and
finality.
So
right
now
we
have
four
different
fields
and
we
could
merge
them
all
into
a
single
bit
field
that
basically
grows
by
one
bit
epoch,
and
that
represents
whether
or
not
the
Year
Park
was
justified
and
beyond
being
cleaner.
It
has
an
other
advantages
like
being
more
flexible,
we're
considering
adding
more.
J
Random
mixes
to
the
state,
the
recent
Mandar
mixes,
and
we
also
have
to
include
various
placeholders,
for
example,
for
the
the
proofs
of
custody
and
the
PDFs,
but
hopefully
these
obviously
additions
to
the
existing
data
structures
in
terms
of
significant
changes.
I
think
there
will
be
some
simply
through
all
the
bug
fixing
that
will
happen.
So
we
we
fixed
we've
identified
and
fixed
a
lot
of
bugs
in
the
last
two
weeks,
but
I
still
think
there's
a
lot
of
unidentified
bugs.
You
know
on
the
order
of
at
least
50
and
Stan
needs.
Academic
review.
J
I
see
three
frames.
One
is
the
the
fourth
choice,
rule
and
I
think
we
have
Edo
bento
who's.
Looking
at
that,
we
also
need
to
have
a
review
of
the
the
BLS
hash
function
and
it's
possible
we'll
ask
Dan,
Bonet
or
open
attic
bones
to
look
at
that,
and
there's
also
a
new
logic
around
the
justification
and
finalization
for
Casper
Ritchie
I.
Guess
more
people
need
to
look
at
that
and
try
and
break
it,
or
maybe
we
should
go
ahead
and
prove
that
it's
correct.
N
N
If
you
see
what
I
mean
I
mean
can
be
live.
You
can
be
safe
that
a
single
miner
has
taken
ownership
of
an
ocean.
Okay,
I'm
speaking
about
the
old
version
of
Casper,
effigy
in
hand
that
was
supposed
to
go
on
top
of
focus
off
work,
I
feel
about
this,
and
we
found
that
two
electrons
speaking
about
I
referred
that
some.
If
you
please
likeness
and
substitute
notes
on
us,
but
we
have
some
or
some
homes
in
the
suspension
right.
A
K
Like
I
guess
so
far,
all
that
we
really
have
to
work
off
of
our
kind
of
existing
arguments
that
we
know
of
about
ghosts.
The
one
thing
that
still
makes
me
feel
uncomfortable
is
kind
of
the
stitching
between
the
ghosts
and
fortune
or
fortress
rule
and
the
finality
gadget,
and
that
seems
to
be
like
if
there
are
issues
that
seems
like
one
of
those
areas
where
there
Creek
there
could
be
some
weird
king.
That's.
K
J
But
on
the
topic
of
the
problem
with
bloc
opposes
having
this
monopolistic
issue,
because
you
only
have
a
single
proposal
has
full
control
over
the
next
block.
I
agree
with
Danny
I
think,
to
a
very
large
extent
that
has
been
addressed
with
at
the
stations
and
I
another
name
for
the
stations
that
I,
like
is
Co,
proposes.
K
Don't
really
like
that
way
of
phrasing
things,
because
the
proposer
does
have
like
very
real
power
of
choice,
about
what
things
go
in
the
block
and
realistically,
the
tester
is
basically
a
close
to
zero
leverage
to
influence
that
decision.
The
best
that
they
can
do
is
reject
the
block
if
it's
invalid,
co-signers
yeah
well,
I
don't
like
ho,
because
the
word
Co
implies
a
relationship
of
equality
like
I.
Think
whatever
word
we
use
should
imply
an
explicitly
subordinate
relationship.
A
P
Not
really
maybe
one
thing
I've
talked
to
Felix
a
little
bit
and
he
was
very
happy
if
we
that
we
considered
shooting
and
recovery
version
5
and
he
we
basically
discussed
how
we
can
help
and
how
to
get
the
spec
ready,
and
he
mentioned
three
things
that
we
can
do.
The
first
one
is
finding
gaps
in
the
spec,
so
things
that
I'm
not
talking
about,
or
only
touch
briefly
upon,
sexiest
formulas,
which
I'm
not
sure
how
we
can
do
this
mess.
P
I
guess
that's
for
later,
and
the
third
thing
I
can't
remember:
oh
yeah,
why
I
prefer
there's?
No,
there
are
no
messages
or
anything
defined,
so
this
is
also
something
that
we
have
to
work
on.
Yeah,
that's
all
as
and
if
we
want
to
open
issues
and
to
talk
about
this
kind
of
stuff,
it's
best
to
do
this
in
the
Imperium
does
p2p
repository.
Q
A
L
A
Yeah
I
mean
there.
There
is
definitely
a
world
in
which
somebody
can
run
a
node
and
sell
data,
say
to
validators,
so
they
can
sign
their
own
messages
and
broadcast
them
without
having
to
handle
the
full
requirements
of
running.
You
know,
in
that
case
that
assumption
fails
in
the
case
in
which
validators
running
their
own
setup
and
yeah
many
validator
entity
is
tied
to
a
node,
would
be
corrupt,
flawless
truck
very
lucky
in
terms
of
incentives
and
security
I'd
like
to
try
to
construct
the
system
in
which
it
aligns
to
validators,
not
outsourcing.
L
L
A
K
Well,
it
were,
it
comes
close
to
requiring
you
to
be
a
full
node,
at
least
in
the
downloading
sense,
for
all
the
way
up
until
we
start
talking
about
state
execution,
I
mean
in
general,
if
the
it's
hard
to
incentivize
the
property
of
actually
being
a
node
in
the
sense
of
serving
other
nodes
in
protocol,
because
you
could
always
just
basically
tend
to
serve
yourself.
So
if
that
ends
up
being
necessary,
that
the
only
realistic
way
to
do
that
is
to
basically
have
things
like
markets
for
we're.
A
M
M
K
M
M
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Yeah
I
think
that's
fair
I
do
want
to
move
towards
the
the
plus
I
think
that
we
did
add
that
a
few
spots
but,
as
Paul
pointed
out
that
anything
coming
in
from
a
user
might
actually
just
be
very
high
values
that
mess
up
that
Plus
and
cause
overflows,
even
though
they're
highly
unlikely,
because
most
of
them
are
related
to
slots.
But
if
it's
user
supplied
data
they
can,
they
can
cause
that
so
it
doesn't
fully
fix
it.
M
R
M
A
I
think
I
generally
agree
I
in
terms
of
where
these
information
might
live,
and
you
might
be
an
accompanying
document
rather
than
embedded
into
the
phase.
Zero
document
and
I
mean
if
you
want
to
begin,
delete
the
charge
on
that
I'm
very
open
to
incorporating
a
separate
document
that
kind
of
defines
some
of
these
values
for
the
community
and
decisions
at
all.
M
A
G
J
A
A
A
Okay,
I
was
for
doing
another
form,
we'll
meet
up
and
get
together
or
conserve
a
concentrated
whatever
you're
getting
us
all
together
in
a
physical
location
on
the
research
team,
were
erring
on
the
side
of
not
doing
anything
in
q1.
That
kind
of
causes
us
all
to
gather
in
one
location,
specifically,
obviously,
there's
always
kind
of
stuff
going
on.
So
some
spontaneous
meetups
happen.
What
can
happen
but
we're
thinking,
maybe
in
April
that
we
target
April
to
get
everyone
together.
You
know
and
keep
q1
just
like.
H
I
just
wanted
to
tell
you
about
topping
it's
been.
You
know,
it's
been
a
freaking
question.
Getting
outs
to
us.
A
prismatic
so
would
expect
to
like
issuance
overall
for
aetherium
I
mean
the
idea.
Is
that
eventually
you
know,
people
that
have
their
private
keys
will
have
the
same
amount
of
e
as
they
did
on
81.0
once
we
migrated
the
whole
state
of
1.0
2.0.
H
So
the
question
is
in
the
meantime,
before
we
might
have
in
this
state,
there's
going
to
be
an
allowed
leaders
earning
rewards
basically
and
overall,
the
issuance
of
etherium
the
cumulative
issuance
will
go
up
right
so
I
mean
have
you
guys
thought
about
this?
How
the
transition
will
happen?
What
will
happen
to
the
economics
of
heat
throughout
that
process,
etc?
He's
wanted
to
spark
a
discussion
around
that
topic.
A
You
know
the
community
seems
to
like
reducing
issue
and
so
I'm
gonna
prove
or
change
so
maybe,
depending
on
the
economics
over
there
and
depending
on.
If
that
proposal
adopted,
the
community
might
push
for
further
issuance
reductions
on
the
report
chain.
I'm
not
going
to
be.
You
know,
charging
for
that
political
justice,
I'm
gonna,
stick
with
something
technicals
overtime.
A
Ultimately,
issuance
will
go
down
when
this
entirely
quickly
through
the
state
and
during
that
time,
yes,
validators
can
move
steak
over
through
this
deposited
contract.
But
when
state
execution
exists
on
sharp
chains
there
will
likely
be
another
enshrined
transfer,
contract
or
deposit
mechanism
to
move
from
f-102
to
there's
a
lot
of
little
things
to
think
about
and
how
that
transition
happens.
But
I
I
don't
know
if
I'm
gonna
sell
all
good.
H
A
Think
we
should
go
live
with
phase
zero
because
getting
a
live
proof
of
stake
chain
is
no
small
feat
and
keeping
managing
complexity
in
such
a
way
that,
like
we,
can
make
sure
this
works,
and
we
can
add
this
and
make
sure
that
works.
We
can
have
this
and
make
sure
that
was
I.
Think
is
it
rather
than
doing
it
doing
it
in
a
slightly
semi-main
net
and
conditions
is
I,
think
gonna
give
us
much
more
valuable
feedback
and
rather
than
waiting
till
phase
one
or
phase
two
a
swatch
anything.
A
Cool,
and
also
with
respect
to
just
interest
rate
and
issuance
in
this
is
full
proof
of
six
system.
There's
an
issue
open
in
the
two
aspects,
repo
about
discussion
on
this
there's,
a
guy
Eric
or
his
last
name,
who's
running,
github,
I,
know
not
gonna
eat
hub
and
running
Etha
and
he's
been
doing
a
lot
of
different
economic
analysis
and
stuff
and
I
think
there's
so
much
room
for
the
community
involved.
In
that
conversation,.
A
A
The
holidays
are
coming
up,
so
I'm,
not
sure
exactly
when
we're
gonna
have
our
next
meeting
likely
first,
a
second
week
of
January,
rather
than
in
the
you
know,
end
of
December
really
generating,
but
we'll
we
can
communicate
on
the
sharding
getter,
as
always
be
in
touch
a
lot
of
excellent
work
going
on.
Let
me
know
if
you
have
any
questions
comments
this
mean
now
and
then
and
stay
tuned
is
like
those
facts
all
that.
Thank
you.
Everyone.
It's
good
meeting
talk
to
you
soon.
Thanks.