►
From YouTube: Eth2.0 Implementers Call #21 [2019/7/11]
Description
A
B
A
Perfect
levels,
look
good,
okay,
let's
get
started.
Everyone
should
have
the
agenda,
255
sharing
it
in
the
chat
right
here
we
will
get
started
with
some
testing
updates.
As
usual,
prismatic
I
think
Terrence
found
an
issue
where
the
calculation
and
slashing
was
due
to
the
way
it
was
formatted
was
overflowing
potentially
overflowing
and
I.
Think
in
a
tester
to
overflowing
the
UN
support,
where
I
have
a
few
relatively
non
substantive
changes,
some
fixes
and
documentation
things.
Thank
you
and
Boozer
8x
branch.
A
A
This
one
seems
relatively
important
to
get
out
so
I
think
I'm
gonna
get
out
this
V
0
8
X
win
the
next
few
days,
which
has
some
of
the
other
minor
things
that
people
have
found.
That's
a
lot
of
fix.
It's
maybe
that
testing
issue.
If
anyone
else
is
running
to
it,
let's
see
proto
do
you
have
any
updates
for
us?
Oh.
C
B
So
the
goal
here
is
to
try
and
provide
the
basic
facing
infrastructure
for
all
the
clients,
so
that
client
implementers
don't
have
to
worry
too
much
about
being
compliant
with
the
state
transition
function,
and
you
can
spend
most
of
your
time
on.
You
know
what
makes
a
client
a
client
I
guess,
like
networking
databases.
B
A
C
F
C
The
input
so
this
the
problem
with
first
thing
is
that
we
have
two
kinds
of
inputs
refer
States
we
have
blocks
and
a
state
itself
is
pretty
easily
randomized
contains
cryptographic
content,
and
it
has
all
these
validity
assumption.
Since
you
already
built
on
solid-state
Preston
blocks,
you
are,
you
can
have
any
kind
bloke
right.
So
these
are
like
the
attack
sector.
You
could
say
so
you're
facing
blocks
now
and
you're
extending
seconds
KOCO
echoes
of
of
the
priests
at,
but
then
only
then
there's
a
Fed
at
post.
C
At
the
extent
this
copper
so
the
like.
Generally,
you
could
say
we
were
mostly
focusing
on
blocks
now
they
are
looking
to
make
this
extension
of
the
state's
more
intelligent.
So
you
could
actually
make
more
progress
in
like
where,
like
a
giant
tester,
you
have
more
different
priests,
that's
being
first.
A
Is
particularly
constructed
tests,
so
given
a
pre
state
and
given
some
input
that
we
want
to
hit
certain
conditions,
certain
bounds,
so
maybe
a
normal
path
or
maybe
testing
right
on
the
boundary
or
testing
right
past
the
boundary
so
they're
they're,
like
particularly
constructed
tests.
You
know
something
that
you
might
write
in
your
own
test
feet,
whereas
these
are
taking
pre
states
and
modifying
blocks
generally
at
random
within
some
some
sort
of
balance
and
just
applying
them
to
test
things
that
we
weren't
necessarily
thinking
about.
H
You
gave
it
and
then
detects
if
it
explores
new
code
paths
and
kind
of
smartly
tries
to
expand
itself
out
to
cover
as
much
code
as
it
can
by
like
randomly
modifying
the
or
deterministically,
but
somewhat
randomly
modifying
the
object
and
then
and
learning
about
how
that
affected.
The
coverage.
Okay,.
G
C
Into
little
bits
here,
that's
you
add.
The
randomization
of
the
book
is
done
by
lip
for
sure
and
that
checks
the
coverage
and
then
tries
to
randomize
it
asbestos
good,
just
the
parts
that
improve
coverage,
but
again
a
sin
you
don't
want
to.
First,
only
one
priest
dies
it's
more
complicated
than
that.
A
I
C
So
I
think
some
people
here
are
already
familiar
with
look
first
bit
for
sir,
we
have
Peter
working
on
this,
with
lots
of
experience
with
its
and
extending
it,
and
so
it's
like,
although
is
just
saying
about
these
two
different
kinds
of
states
are
working
on.
We
have
the
beacon,
States
and
the
block,
and
we
just
don't
want
to
involve
if
off,
only
the
block
inputs,
because
if
you're
always
first
thing
the
same
states,
you
don't
really
get
the
same
coverage
as
you
could,
if
you're
facing
multiple
states.
B
C
Of
our
performance
chefs,
because
back
and
hopefully
also
have
clients
I
think
with
by
spec-
is
that
there's
these
functions
not
really
pleasant
outs.
They
all
inefficiently,
repeat
themselves.
We
not
pretty
computing
anything,
and
now
in
the
next
go
updates
in
goes
back
updates.
I
optimize
your
playing
I
pre
compute
this
week.
We
do
that,
so
we
get
have
almost
client
speeds
back.
I
tried
to
keep
the
sweet
applause
possible
right.
A
G
We
identified
three
bottlenecks
in
process.
Cross
links,
get
cross-linked
deltas,
so
both
come.
While
we
are
the
technique,
speed,
improvement
and
get
cross-linked
committee
via
caching,
we
improved
by
two
weeks
as
2x
the
speed
so
I
can
put
or
PR
in
in
the
chat,
so
that
if
people
are
interested
in
seeing
what
we
did,
they
can
reproduce.
Since
we
follow
the
spec
naming,
it
should
be
very
easy
to
navigate.
Now
we
also
published
metrics
library
for
primitives
compact,
matrix
I'm,
adding
the
link
to
the
chat
as
well.
G
J
K
So,
regarding
to
regarding
spacing
is
he
has
been
synced
to
the
version
0.8
and
the
state
transition
update.
Is
outgoing
I
think
it's
almost
Lera
thanks
to
Alex
and
for
the
networking
side
integrating
with
the
piety
the
library,
and
we
found
some
required
issues
that
we
need
to
fix
on
the
lab
string,
library
and
also
frequency.
We
have
vaccines,
interoperability.
K
F
L
Been
pretty
much
work
on
an
update
to
0.8
spec
we're
almost
almost
there,
but
mrs.
Z
part
is
still
in
work
in
progress.
Also,
we
started
to
work
on
a
slot
clock
mechanism
which
is
based
on
network
adjust
time
proposed
by
vitalik.
We
have
a
PR
so
far
with
basic
implementation
of
that
proposal.
Going
to
take
my
time
on
that
also.
So
we
have
started
a
small
research
to
investigate
into
the
station
aggregation
strategies.
M
Hey-Oh
so
the
same
as
everybody
else
we're
progressing
with
updating
a
lighthouse
to
version
0.8,
which
involves
three
optic.
We
have
to
re-up
demise
out
rehash
caching
to
include
for
more
padding
nodes.
So
what
we
reasonably
doing,
we're
defining
more
extensive
HTTP
api's,
which
is
working
to
improve
dev
experience,
map
from
consensus
or
quilt,
is
building
out
some
SS
ed
partials
in
into
our
code
base,
which
is
good.
M
We've
also
slowly
been
testing
out
our
initial
version
of
discovery
v5
in
small
test
nets,
which
also
seems
to
be
working
hasn't
had
it
too
many
issues
so
far
and
we've
been
walking
working
to
us
standardizing
like
a
lip
kind
of
a
minimal
or
final.
There
p2p
specification
for
clients
that
are
using
the
p2p,
and
in
doing
so,
we've
had
to
update
our
RPC.
M
N
O
Caught
up
to
be
0.8,
we
are
passing
all
the
specs
just
figuring
out.
Some
final
things
in
the
Genesis
trigger.
One
thing
that
we
want
to
bring
up
is
that
we
noticed
that
there's
a
lack
of
coverage
for
some
cases
across
suspect
s.
So,
for
example,
we
passed
all
the
SEC
spec
fest,
but
then
we
were
pretty
surprised
when
we
saw
that
we
that
says
he
failed
in
some
of
the
block
sanity
tests.
O
The
reason
was
because
the
way
python
converts
the
length
for
the
mixing
length
into
bytes
kind
of
did
not
cover
longer
types
of
links
so
like,
for
example,
if
you
try
to
the
way
we
were
encoding
the
length
and
go
like
there
was
a.
There
was
a
list
of
values.
I
was
512
in
length
when
we
included
that
and
go.
It
gave
us
a
different
mixing
length
and
we
did
in
Python
due
to
some
edge
cases
and
putting
variants
so
yeah.
So
we
were
just
pretty
surprised
to
that.
A
Stuff,
nice
Congrats
yeah
I
mean
if
you
do
find
some
lacking
in
the
test.
Please
report
it
and
or
add
tests.
I
definitely
I
see
how
that
could
happen.
The
PI
the
actual
specification
and
test
facilitation
got
a
lot
of
love
and
maybe
not
on
some
other
peripheral
testing.
But
thanks
for
playing
about
cool,
let's
star.
P
In
regards
to
the
client,
though,
we're
comfortable
now
to
start
actually
doing
block
production.
So
as
soon
as
we
finish,
our
upgrade
to
eight
will
actually
start
getting
our
test
net
so
that
we
can
actually
see
kind
of
how
that
will
play
out
and
then
getting
ready
so
that
it
can
work
in
browsers.
So
we
can
have
an
in-browser
natively
written
one
and
and
then
on
the
side.
P
We're
also
hire
a
bunch
of
assembly
secured
we
picking
up
now
that
we've
frozen
again
we're
also
working
and
going
back
into
the
assembly
scripts
and
getting
a
bunch
of
natively
written
code.
So
we
can
execute
blossom
in
some
section,
so
we're
going
to
try
and
see
how
they'll
speed
up
some
of
the
shuffling
and
whatnot
and
also
so
we
can
convert
as
I
said,
into
a
purely
assembly
script
so
that
we'll
have
native
Lee
and
and
see
how
that
increases
speed
in
the
browser
as
well.
N
Atomization
library
last
week,
which
we
hopefully
want
to
extend
that
into
a
food
cache
in
degree,
but
there
are
still
a
few
missing
pieces
there
and
we're
trying
to
update
who's.
Your
quad
8
spec
issue
we
had
was
in
the
SSD,
which
I
think
is
a
quite
substantial
change
for
us.
It's
not
as
a
algorithm
change
or
big,
but
is
that
now
there
are
a
lot
more
types
in
the
specification
requires
configurable
parameters
which
wasn't
expect
because
we
were
using
dynamic,
config
and
that
most
likely
won't
work
for
us
right
now.
N
B
R
R
But
in
general,
like
the
thing
that
we
would
need
to
do
is
to
just
you
know,
in
phase
zero,
including
in
the
block.
Some
of
route
of
the
purse
of
the
persist
across
wing
committees
is
probably
fine
and
then
in
phase
one
just
including
a
root
of
be
persistent
committees,
and
then
we
get
these
a
nice
are
really
efficient
like
clients
that
in
even
in
the
worst
case
or
when
we
slightly
less
get
a
less
efficient,
I
mean
servings
of
flights
per
second
than
Bitcoin.
R
R
Figuring
out
the
exact
structure
of
data
in
cross
links
and
like
basically,
the
trade
off,
it's
me
impacting
the
data
tightly
versus
putting
the
data
for
each
of
the
blog
headers
into
a
consistent
position,
position
and
recently,
I'm,
actually
leaning
towards
just
basically
packing
the
data
tightly,
which
would
require
and
it
having
like,
be
basically
just
taking
the
data
for
each
block
header
in
each
block
and
just
putting
them
beside
each
other.
So
that's
something
that
I
have
a
PRF
for,
but
I
think
that's
it's
one.
Oh
it's
one
of
the
possible
approach.
R
It's
also
not
the
only
not
the
only
approach.
So
that's
the
other
thing.
Otherwise,
there's
not
not
too
much
to
do
on
the
shard
block
side.
I
also
have
a
PR
where
I
mean,
among
other
things,
the
thing
it
does
is
it
switches
from
multiple
data
stations
and
a
proposer
signature
to
just
having
one
signature
that
includes
the
proposer
in
the
at
the
stations.
So
that's
that's
their
arsenal
as
an
option
as
well,
but
generally
I,
don't
think
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
seeing
any
unexpected
difficulties
at
all.
R
R
B
B
It
looks
fine
in
the
various
ways
and
there's
very
security
mechanisms
that
we
can
put
in
place,
but
it
would
still
be
good
to
have
an
auditor,
because
if
it's
not
it's
an
assumption
which
is
not
necessarily
used
in
production
right
now,
I
guess
one
of
the
things
that
the
research
team
is
also
doing
in
parallel
to
phase
one
and
phase
two
is:
is
more
education
about
phase
zero,
so
various
people
have
made
educational
documents
I'm
working
on
one
as
well,
and
on
July
15th
at
1:00
p.m.
GMT.
B
B
S
So
we
can
I,
guess
kind
of
rally,
people
around
testing
or
having
something
more
tangible
to
test
various
environments
and
and
other
assumptions
so
because,
in
general,
the
Scout
code
bases
and
rest
and
we've
been
we've
been
rest
focused
will
be
going
ahead
and
building
that
off
of
the
work
that
was
done
or
so
will
I
kind
of
go
ahead
and
extend
on
that
to
build
the
prototype.
So
we
are
kicking
that
off
this
this
next
week
also,
we
started
diving
into
some
research,
that's
connected
to
batalik
s'posed
on
state
schemes
and
I.
S
Think
we,
you
know,
I
need
a
pretty
novel
or
interesting
idea
of
how
to
iterate
on
that
and
how
to
kind
of
build
a
this
on
chain.
Multi
shard
state
scheme
that
can
support
generalized
contracts,
and
so
we
in
this
off
was
kind.
The
delayed
state
execution
model
so
we're
pretty
we're
pretty
excited
about.
That
will
be
we
posted
kind
of
first
half
on
e3
search
yesterday
and
then
we'll
be
posting,
the
second
half
and
the
applicability
to
state
schemes
and,
if
and
multi,
shard,
behavior
and
and
what
that
can
open
up.
S
So
we're
definitely
looking
forward
to
hear
hearing
feedback
from
people
on
this
as
there's
there's
some
pretty
cool
applications
there,
the
fee
market
stuff,
we
didn't
continue
diving
as
deep
into
it.
This
last
a
couple
weeks,
we've
been
in
transition,
but
that
that
should
we
should
be
able
to
look
into
that
again
it
these
these
coming
weeks.
S
Other
thing
are
our
team's
growing,
so
we've
we've
had
John
John
Adler,
he's
on
the
call
he's
clapping
with
us
now
and
enjoying
the
crew
and
we're
I
guess
trying
to
grow
for
rust,
rest-based
researchers
as
well,
and
so
we're
trying
to
kind
of
do
more
research
projects
on
phase
one
phase,
two
more
phase
to
focus
in
parallel
and
try
and
expand
a
lot
of
this.
So
yeah.
T
V
So
we
have
this
formalization
in
K,
so
in
the
cake
framework
which
is
directly
based
on
the
specification,
we
have
we've
done
the
migration
to
point
eight
and
what
we
are
trying
to
do
at
the
moment
is
have
something
that
is
meaningfully
testable,
at
least
at
that
at
this
stage
and
then
going
from
there.
There
is
also
the
the
there's
also
an
abstract
model
of
the
specification,
but
that's
that's
a
lower
priority
type
of
development
at
the
moment,
but
but
we
believe
that
this
is
going
to
be
helpful
also
on
the
in
the
future.
So.
A
Great
yeah,
thanks
Musab,
is
with
the
runtime
verification
team
working
on
the
K
model,
bazooka
chain.
Sorry,
I,
didn't
I,
didn't
see
there,
otherwise
would
have
given
you
a
chance
yeah.
So
the
intention
is
to
build
out
this
formal
model
and
and
then
utilize
it
to
verify
various
properties
about
the
specification
for
the
downline.
Thank
you
any
other
research
updates.
A
W
Yeah,
okay,
so
we
do
have
a
couple
of
updates.
So,
first,
just
on
a
grants
front
the
the
grant
that
we're
making
to
harmony
for
them
the
minimal
JVM,
the
p2p
that
was
mentioned
earlier.
That
should
be
finalized
like
Monday.
So
that's
that
one's
in
good
shape,
then
on
Jas,
the
p2p
there
was
I
want
to
ask
this
group
a
question
about
six
weeks
ago.
W
There
was
some
discussion
on
this
call
about
jeaious,
Lib
p2p,
specifically
not
being
quote
unquote,
production
ready,
and
so
we,
what
we
did
was
we
went
to
the
chain
flow
folks
who
were
working
most
closely.
I'm,
sorry,
I'm,
sorry,
chain,
safe,
I
have
a
different
company
on
on
my
brain
yeah.
We
went
to
the
chain
say
folks,
who
are
working
most
closely
with
J
slip,
p2p
and
asked
them.
W
Just
would
like
to
include
everything
is
sort
of
an
everything
anyone
feels
is
necessary.
I
just
I
will
add.
Just
live.
Iv
has
been
in
production
on
ipfs
for
a
couple
of
years,
at
least
so
you
know
it's,
it's
not
something.
That's
totally
untested,
but
I,
but
I
do
understand
that
if
you're
him,
you
know
might
have
different
requirements.
W
Yeah,
if
you
want
to
follow
up
with
me,
my
name
is
just
Mike
gelser.
Just
one
word
on
telegram:
I
mean
the
there's
like
eath
to
loopy,
to
be
shared
channel
I
mean
that
one
yeah
so
just
yeah.
If
anybody
else
has
concerns
about
Luka
p.j,
a
slim
p2p,
specifically
yeah,
just
bring
that
up
with
me
and
then
I
guess.
The
last
thing
is
we're
working
with
the
I
think
we'll
probably
say
more
about
this
on
the
next
call,
but
we're
working
with
the
etherium
community
to
like
answer
some
questions
about.
W
W
I
think
we
we
haven't
done
a
great
job
of
that,
not
because
we're
trying
to
actively
trying
to
hide
anything
but
more,
but
out
of
neglect,
so
I
think
that,
should
that
process
is
playing
out
right
now
and
what,
when
we
have
a
written
when
we
have
written
answers
to
all
the
questions
will
share,
it
will
make
it
public
to
share
with
the
whole
community,
but
so
you'll
probably
hear
about
that
next
call.
But
that's
going
on
right
now:
Ronald
did
you
want
to
add
anything
I.
T
Know
I
think
it
was
a
question
about
the
secure
transport
which
it's
now
being
used,
that
I
think
Chanel
we
mentioned
earlier
that
we
should
address
in
this
block
optical,
so
I'll
just
go
just
go
for
it.
We
are
respect
the
insecure
transport
that
was,
that
was
a
bug
that
didn't
another
receiver
and
of
the
connection
to
know
about
the
PID
that
was
establishing
a
connection
to
them.
T
Therefore,
something
for
painting
and
go
duty
to
be
which
made
it
difficult
to
produce
our
ability
tests
now
with
what
going
to
be
to
be
using
the
insecure
transport.
So
when
you
want
to
remove
sex
IOT
or
the
encryption
channel
out
of
the
question
and
just
test,
you
know
whether
you're
multiplexing
is
working.
Then
this
is
a
good
approach
to
do
so.
So
we
are
hopefully
between
today
and
tomorrow
will
be
adjusting
go.
T
J
J
W
Yeah
yeah,
yes,
sir
I
understand
your
question.
Now:
yes,
so
initially
J
asleep
p2p
was
a
part
of
ipfs.
It
was
specifically
broken
and
out
into
a
separate
system
separately
of
the
Borg
everything
and
but
that
version
that
broken
out
version
is
the
one
that
J
ipfs
is
builds
with.
Now
or
sorry,
it's
Chava
scripts,
it
doesn't
know
compiled,
but
that's
the
one
that
Jas
ipfs
uses
today,
both
the
node
version
and
the
in
browser
JavaScript
version.
J
W
No,
you
remembered
it
right
yeah
this,
the
history
of
all
ipfs
implementations,
history,
they
started
the
history
of
the
all
that
started
out
in
in
in
in
ipfs
are
JSA,
let
p2p
and
go
let
p2p,
but
were
both
broken
out
of
the
respect
their
respective
ipfs
implementations.
Then
the
third
implementation
was
the
rust
implementation
that
was
written
from
scratch
by
parody
and
then
every
subsequent
language
implementation,
like
the
the
all
the
other
ones
you
hear
about
on.
W
E
F
Ahead,
sorry,
I
have
another
quick
question:
what
is
the
current
state
of
the
spec,
because
I'm
probably
gonna
have
to
start
implementing
it?
If
I
want
my
clients
to
be
able
to
talk
to
other
clients
last
time,
I
looked
at
it,
it
was
kind
of
like
not
that
great,
so
I've
been
working
off
the
go
version,
which
is
also
seemingly
like
going
through
a
refactoring.
What
are
the
states
on
those
two
things.
W
Yeah
I
think
well
so
I'll
give
my
take
on
it
in
Rome
I'd
be
able
to
fill
in
some
some
more
specific
details.
Yeah
we're
definitely
the
the
we
would
like
to
be.
We
would
like
for
the
p2p
to
be
a
spec
first
project,
and
so
we
have
one
DOX
writer
and
he's
going
through
and
opening
PRS
on
the
specs
repo,
which
is
just
lit
p2p,
slash
specs,
to
define
the
correct
behavior
based
on
what's
happening
in
the
go
implementation
for
different
parts
of
the
system.
W
I,
don't
that
effort
is
not
complete
yet,
but
it
has
he's
making
progress.
In
the
meantime,
what
we've
been
recommending
to
people
is
to
refer
to
the
go
implementation
which
we
consider
it
sort
of
the
reference
implementation.
So
then
you're
asking
okay,
but
that
seems
to
be
undergoing
a
lot
of
refactor
I'll.
Let
Ron
speak
to
this,
but
the
only
major
refactor
I
know
about
was
called
the
core
refactor,
where
we
pulled
out
a
bunch
of
interfaces
into
their
own
repo
and
that
actually
didn't
that
that
didn't
change
anything
in
the
wire
protocol.
W
T
Yeah,
that's
actually
correct,
so
we
there
are
gonna,
be
further
changes
to
literally
all
of
those
as
like.
There
are.
There
are
basically
suggestions
to
bring
in
you
know,
different
different
constructs
and
different
approaches
to
do
connection
management
to
handle
the
ps4
and
other
things
those
are
going
to
be
spec
first,
so
you
should
not
any
longer
expect
for
an
implementation
to
change
under
your
feet
any
longer
without
there
being
a
spec
up
front.
T
We
are
being
very
strict
about
this,
so
things
like,
for
example,
can
SS
have
connection
management
peers
towards
and
some
things
that
are
first
being
discussed
as
a
spec
working
right.
So
this
like
this,
this
the
situation
where
you
see
yourself
where
you
have
you
need
to
follow
the
need
of
a
particular
implementation
should
not
happen
anymore.
T
The
core
refactor
itself
was,
as
Mike
said,
restructuring
of
code,
but
the
principles
and
the
concepts
and
in
general
you
know
the
the
relationships
between
the
different
components
of
the
b2b
remain
the
same
then
right
now
in
just
one
record
instead
of
fifty
proposed.
So
this
makes
life
much
easier
makes
removes
a
lot
of
friction
for
people
approaching
that
b2b,
like
Eugene
and
so
on.
There
are
a
number
of
specs
that
so
there
is
this
process
by
which
we
draw
a
line
in
the
sand.
T
We
said
everything
that
were
you
going
to
do
from
now
onwards.
It's
gonna
be
speck
forest,
but
of
course
we
need
to
look
back
from
that
line
in
the
sand
as
well
and
bring
up
everything
that
has
been
done
so
far
up
to
the
level
of
specking
that
we're
imposing
ourselves
now
and
this
work
is
in
progress,
and
this
is
what
yourself
is
working
on
the
person
that
that
might
prefer
it
to
go
through
the
Libby
to
be
specs
record
you'll,
see,
there's
a
lot
of
updates
there.
There's
Mellon
index
specs
are
much
more.
T
You
know
this
like
much
more
easy
to
approach
in
general
because
there
was
an
index,
that's
a
table
of
contents
and
as
well,
go
through
the
through
the
open,
PRS
right
now
in
the
spectra
in
the
specs
purple,
because
there's
several
specs
that
are
being
worked
on
right
now
that
are
in
one
stage
or
another.
We
also
a
few
weeks
ago
introduced
because
some
of
these
specs
were
being
kind
of
like
over
arriving
to
like
a
stage
of
a
lot
of
Mike
chatting
and
so
on,
and
it
was
a
bit
unhealthy.
T
Some
specs,
you
know
remained
and
kinda
like
a
drop
stage
for
very
long,
so
we
introduced
a,
and
this
was
because
we
lacked
a
process
to
define
specs
maturity.
So
you
know
it
was
very
difficult
for
it
for
somebody
to
just
say:
hey,
I,
fully,
agree
or
I.
Don't
agree
with
this
when
there
are
different
shades
of
gray
and
a
spec
should
be
giving
room
and
time
to
mature
as
the
community
sees
it
so
and
makes
adjustments
to
it.
T
So
this
is
now
we've
merged
the
specs
lifecycle
and
maturity
in
meta
spectrum,
though
things
are
getting
much
more
structured
in
this
department,
one
spec
that
I
think
we
did
it.
We
haven't
made
a
good
job
of
announcing
because
I
think
it's
pretty
important
and
it
unifies
a
lot
of
concepts
in
terms
of
like
how
connections
are
handles,
how
streams
are
handled,
how
the
connection
upgrade
process
works
is
the
one
that
I'm
posting
right
now
on
the
chat
box.
T
F
Kind
of
still
don't
understand
what
the
maturity
of
the
current
spec
is.
So,
if
you
guys,
are
still
working
on
the
go
Docs
because
from
my
experience
from
going
through
the
go
code,
what
ends
up
happening
whenever
I
debug
is
I,
hit
some
kind
of
interface
and
then
I
end
up
playing,
find
the
implementation
to
try
and
figure
out
what
the
p2p
code
does.
T
T
So
what
I
suggest
is
you
know
it's
very
difficult
to
give
you
a
generic
answer
because
of
what
specs
are
modular
and
specs
are
not
like
monolithic
documental
corpus,
so
it
just
peak
so
a
spec
will
have
like
a
different
maturity
behind
it
and
it
should
be
tabbed
upfront,
like
other
top,
so
what
I?
What
I
suggest
is?
Maybe
we
get
an
a
call
off
line
and
we
we
we
go
through
like
where
you
are
right
now
and
we
provide
we
establish
that
channel
of
communication.
T
Channel,
yes,
totally
big
notice
do
not
use
in
production.
This
is
only
for
testing.
It
was
intended
only
for
testing
and
precisely
that's
why
it
doesn't.
It
didn't
work
in,
though
the
PTP
with
other
against
other
clients
against
other
implementations.
I'd
only
worked
internally,
but
it
is
true
that
you
know
now
that
we
have
a
more
hybrid
echo
system.
T
There
are
others
that
are
trying
to
sort
of
like
test
their
inner
pieces
that
they're
implementing
that
come
after
you
know
the
the
handshake,
the
security
handshake
that
do
not
rely
on
a
secure
channel
like
multiplex
a
other
protocols
or
whatever,
so
it
there
is
some
value
in
having
a
standardized
and
secure
transport.
Only
make
head
like
babe,
make
big
notice
on
front
only
for
testing
purposes.
T
T
T
U
X
W
Yeah,
that's
a
fair
point:
I
understand
where
you're
going
yeah
I
mean
there
are
some
features
that
aetherium
who
cares
about
that
are,
although
they're,
like
you
know,
part
of
the
citizen,
ipfs
isn't
really
battle,
testing
them,
so
yeah,
the
modular
nature.
The
system
means
that
there
are
some
things
like
that
and
I
do
agree.
We
need
to
do
some
testing
on
gossips,
so
yeah.
T
And
for
the
record
at
the
EDI,
FST
would
be
super
super
happy
to
intake
gossip
sub
and
to
add
an
experimental
flag
to
enable
it
just
like
the
go.
Id
offense
solution
is
very
project
has
done
and
and
even
conduct
interoperability
testing
out
in
the
world,
with
ipfs
I'm
positive,
enabled
both
goal
in
Jas.
P
T
Yeah,
so
this
several
terminal
things
here,
first
of
all,
I
would
definitely
have
I
would
I
would
definitely
start
a
conversation
to
integrate
your
work
concept,
selves
into
JSI
DFS
as
a
medium
before
shipping
into
an
actual
finished
product
to
the
world.
Secondly,
we
are
working
on
a
test
lab
infrastructure
that
would
allow
us
to
deploy
different
clients
at
scale
and
test
the
interactions
between
them
and
measure
and
so
on.
So
that
would
be
another
another
avenue
to
conduct
this
testing
and
yeah.
T
Then
we
can
even
look
at
you
know
different
other
projects
that
are
using
J
has
to
be
to
be
out
there.
There
are
several
of
them,
including
that
come
on
skin,
and
so
on
that
we
could
then
are
specifically
using
pops
up
as
well
that
we
could.
You
know
potentially
like
how
the
conversation
worth
doing
great
gossips
tested.
Y
W
Actually,
we
were
just
having
this
conversation
yesterday.
We
we
don't
have
a
date
that
we've
committed
to
yet,
but
but
we're
thinking
that
we
should.
We
should
create.
One
I
mean
you
know
to
font,
define
a
date.
So
the
answer
is,
we
don't
know
the
answer
yet,
but
this
was
one
of
the
questions
that
came
up
with
just
about
project
transparency
and
stuff
in
general.
So
now
we're
thinking
about
that.
So
maybe
we
could
update
you
again
next
time
on
what
what
decisions
we
make
there.
Yes,.
W
I
just
put
out
on
just
on
the
subject
of
specs
for
one
second,
the
biggest
bottleneck
for
us
is
actually
we
need
to
hire
a
second
specs
writer,
and
so,
if
anybody
on
this
call
has
anyone
you
can
refer
to
us
who's
looking
for
a
job
and
who
does
you
know
technical
documentation,
writing
that
that
would
be
really
awesome.
That's
sort
of
the
biggest
so.
W
W
T
I'm
thinking
what
I'm
thinking
about
Mike
and
Antoine
is
now,
we
can
potentially
create,
like
that's
pipeline,
that
we
have
in
this
sort
of
like
calendar,
that
we've
discussed
we
can.
We
can
make
that
public
and
create
kind
of
like
a
like
a
stasis
matrix
where
people
can
see
what
the
status
of
each
element
that
you
know
has
been
sort
of
like
in
the
pipeline
to
spec
is
and
get
involved.
U
Yeah
and
I
don't
know
if
you're
looking
to
hire
I,
don't
know
if,
if
I
hires
going
to
work
out,
I
know
the
local
lads
at
grants
to
help
kind
of
implement
and
develop
the
ecosystem.
So
I
know
for
a
fact
that
there's
several
actors
in
the
same
community
would
be
willing
to
put
themselves
to
work
on
that.
So
I
don't
know.
Do
you
want
to
open
some
get
coin
grants
or
bounty
system
that
might
actually
help
speed
up
the
whole
thing?
Yeah.
W
We
would
definitely
be
open
to
making
grants
yeah
yeah.
So
far
we
have,
we
haven't
been
using
it
get
coin.
We
would
like
to
we
just
Esther
haven't
had
time
to
yet.
But
yes,
if
there
are
people
who
are
interested
in
grant
based
work
on
the
improving
this
badness
yeah,
we
would
definitely
you
sniffing
I
get
in
touch
with
this.
A
Okay,
we
have
some
other
things.
I
want
to
take
care
of
today.
Do
you
have
obviously
is
continuing
a
conversation
on
the
PAP,
specs
development,
etc.
We
touched
me
reach
out
to
Rob.
Rob
will
reach
out
to
Mike
I.
Do
want
to
highlight
this
PR
that
actually
was
the
combining
of
two
other
PRS.
That
age
has
up
right
now,
there's
already
some
good
conversation
on
here,
but
I
do
want.
A
Generally,
you
know
someone
from
each
team,
that's
on
the
networking
side
to
take
a
look
at
this
participate
in
the
conversation,
because
we
some
of
this
stuff-
it's
not
majorly
important
from
certain
respective
but
very
important-
to
conform
on
and
get
people
talking.
So
it's
something
I
want
to
get
merged
relatively
soon.
We
can
continue
to
iterate
on
it,
but
we
want
to
kind
of
get
the
bones
in
some
of
these
core
directions
in
place.
So
please
take
a
look
at
pull.
Requests.
A
M
Not
really
as
it
as
you
said,
it's
pretty
iterative
so,
ideally
if
people
could
have
a
look
and
just
put
their
own
opinions,
I'm
sure
people
have
got
their
own
implementations,
which
may
be
difficult
to
change
to
what
we've
written
here
so
I
know
that
I've
had
to
rewrite
a
lot
of
stuff.
So
if
that's
the
case,
just
let
us
know
we
can
modify
it.
E
A
E
A
A
All
right,
no
yeah
I
know
an
update
on
discovery.
B5
is
that
helix
is
I.
Don't
know
there
is
an
engagement,
but
there's
discussions
with
some
people
who
are
gonna
do
an
audit
of
the
protocol.
He
expects
probably
some
iterative
a
little
bit
of
iterative
stuff
on
the
actual
spec
itself
after
that
finishes,
and
then
he's
gonna
be
on
that
probably
do
conform
assistant
was
like
that
cool.
Any
other
updates,
any
other
movement
on
networking
things
that
people
wanna
discuss.
Sure.
U
I
can
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
the
effort
that
took
place
last
week,
internal
that's
of
interest
yeah,
so
internal.
Last
week
we
had
three
common
themes
in
same
room.
We
had
Artemis,
we
have
prismatic
labs
and
we
had
lodestar
sitting
in
Toronto
at
the
chainset
office.
Thank
you
folks,
for
hosting,
so
we
were
able
to
have
an
exchange
of
handles
between
prismatic
and
Artemis,
using
the
simple
hobbits
approach.
U
U
What
does
it
take
to
create
a
test
bench
where
we
would
be
able
to
really
create
genesis
event,
make
it
possible
for
all
the
peers
to
recognize
each
other
even
over
static
steering
is
fine
for
now
and
to
start
having
an
exchange
of
blocks
at
the
stations
so
that
we
can
really
make
sure
that
this
is
working
all
the
time.
So
there
are
two
efforts
in
separate
on
parallel.
One
is
to
work
on
that
gusset
being
approached
right
now.
The
Gustav
is
extremely
simple.
U
U
We're
working
on
creating
all
sorts
of
utilities
and
tools,
so
it's
possible
for
the
community
to
run
at
net
with
the
various
clients.
So
there
are
a
number
of
stylization
items
around
the
keystore
around
making
sure
that
we
can
all
generate
the
same
genus
event
and
that
you
can
work
with,
for
example,
a
gift
note
on
the
local
network.
They
can
generate
that
from
from
a
state
from
the
from
a
contract
being
deployed
there.
One
thing
I
should
note
that
at
white
block
we
have
the
ability
to
snapshot
the
state
and
so
recreate
des.
U
A
U
We
this
to
a
point
where
it's
very,
very
simple:
for
the
reason
of
just
handing
into
a
party
the
way
it's
going
to
be
the
way
being
able
election
time
election
time.
You
might
want
to
use
something
as
good
as
gossip
sub
or
even
just
episode,
where
we
have
the
ability
to
really
tune
in
the
number
of
years
and
have
propagation
in
a
way
that
it's
impossible
to
stop
from
a
net
that
cure
perspective
the
propagation
of
a
message,
but
also
it's
much
easier
in
the
network.
J
Yes,
I
was
gonna,
say
I'm
and
Preston
might
want
to
jump
in,
but
it
was
that
it
was
that
Preston
suggestion
that
we
that
we
simplified
the
gossiping
mechanism
I
think
he
was.
He
was
saying
that
the
if
they
you
know
the
egress
or
ingress,
you
know,
charges
really
high
on
GC,
PE
and
and
that
methodology
hoped
to
cut
the
cost
down
or
something
is
that
is
that
right.
I
Sorry,
my
mic
was
muted,
so
I
need,
like
your
furnace
when
we're
doing
the
announcement
messages.
So
if
we,
if
you
know
created
a
new
blog,
will
announce
the
hash
of
it,
which
is
you
know,
constant
size,
and
then
that
gets
gossip
through
the
entire
network
and
if
people
hear
it
redundantly
they're
not
getting
this
redundant.
Large
data
they're
only
getting
a
small
piece.
So
I
tell
you
this
new
block
and
if
you
want
it,
you
dialed
back
and
asked
me
what
what
the
data
is.
I
A
There,
what
I'm
saying,
though,
is
that
announcement
of
identifiers
and
then
subsequent
requests,
although
it
does
save
bandwidth
I,
think,
is
going
to
induce
way
too
high
of
agencies
on
the
network
and
that,
if
anything,
essentially
a
high
I
mean
yes
the
beginning.
No
one
knows
about
it,
so
you're
you're
strictly
wasting
time,
so
there
potentially
is
a
hybrid
strategy
where
maybe
portion
to
the
slaughter
only
identify
a
gossipping
identifier,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
the
extreme
on
the
end
of
strictly
you
got
something
identifier.
At
the
beginning:
it's
gonna
yep
the
property.
I
Would
without
for
four
blocks,
because
those
actually
have
some
simple
agency,
but
Franta
stations,
it's
not
as
urgent
and
you
can.
You
can
still
get
away
with
broadcasting
like
a
subset
of
it
without
having
to
do
the
full
full
data.
So
it's
yeah
it's
worth
looking
into,
but
I
agree
there.
So
there's
now
like
a
round-trip,
if
you're
turning
it
blocks
out
there
pretty
quickly
and.
I
Z
Piss-Up
is
different
from
from
what
Danny
just
suggested,
because
it's
not
based
on
timing.
So
if
I
understood
correctly,
then
he
wanted
to
basically
send
four
blocks
in
the
first
half
of
the
slot
and
then
only
hashes
in
the
second
half
there's
an
episode.
You
just
keep
track
of
what
information
you
received
from
which
P
and
then
you
decide
on
on
that.
What
to
sent
to
that
P.
J
Again
yeah,
but
it
still,
it
still
has
the
ability
to
do
the
hybrid
approach
mean
it's
still
a
hybrid
approach,
because
you
have
the
you
know
the
actual
gossiping,
the
full
block.
If
it's
a
eager
peer
and
then,
if
it's
a
lazy
peer,
you
know
you
just
tell
it:
hey
I
have
this,
and
so
it's
kind
of
kind
of
splits,
the
differences.
My
point,
the.
U
AA
U
U
T
Like
eternity
of
episode
yes
and
the
sub
was,
if
I
read
book
correct,
it
was
a
was
an
idea
that
you
want
to
work
on,
particularly
that's
in
the
pipeline.
That
is
not
necessarily
being
highly
priorities
right
now,
because,
if
I
recall
correctly,
the
trade-off
there
is
that,
for
episode
to
be
an
the
use
case,
where
episode
is
mostly
optimal,
is
where
you
have
very
stable
dissemination
patterns
in
the
network.
T
So
there
are
very
few
producers
in
the
network
and
then
of
concealers,
therefore
episod
by
using
by
using
the
tree
and
the
broadcast
screens
and
so
on,
you're
able
to
figure
out
so,
if,
like
the
best
spanning
tree
across
the
network,
to
disseminate
messages
that
have
coming
from
a
very
small
set
of
producers.
So
in
you
know
what
use
case
this,
we
don't
really
have
that
pattern.
That's
why
we
haven't
really
prioritized
it
much,
but
if
this
is
the
case
for
you
2.0
then
definitely
I.
Think
it's
worth
is
worth
reactivating
this.
J
AA
T
T
J
J
J
A
U
I
mean
that'sthat's,
valid
and
I.
Think
one
way
to
address
that
yes,
ik,
is
to
make
sure
that
whatever
gossiping
polical
we
end
up
choosing.
We
have
this
baseline,
where
it's
always
possible
to
go
back
to
flooding
in
and
it
works
right.
So
we
should
have
an
adaptable
approach
where
we
always
start
by
flooding
in
an
region
which
is
maybe
optimize
a
little
bit
down
the
road.
U
But
we
need
to
test
that
as
far
as
I
can
tell
when
you
did
some
testing
of
flats,
other
wedlock
does
not
perform
in
the
span
of
time
with
the
number
of
bytes
which
are
required
for
blocks
genetic
stations
for
the
Eve
to
pelacone,
but
I
might
be
wrong.
I
think
there's
more
research
needed
and
more
testing
needed
there,
but
we.
This
is
what
I
think
we
know
at
this
point.
U
T
K
K
T
Know
the
keys
of
the
city
here,
so
you
just
broadcast
messages
to
every
single
peer
that
you
connected
to
that
you
believe,
is
interested
in
that
message.
However,
that
introduces
a
massive
amplification
factor
arise
so
massive
right
amplification
on
IO,
which,
depending
on
the
traffic
and
the
volume
and
the
size
of
messages-
and
you
know
the
latency
of
the
links
and
a
number
of
things-
could
potentially
harm
more
than
it
could
benefit,
but
it
does
provide
the
security
aspects
right.
T
So
that
is
one
trade-off
then,
as
you
start
like
trying
to
cut
down
on
the
amplification
factor,
because
we
say
well,
you
know
if,
like
these
miss,
if
these
beers
are
supposed
to
be
well
redundantly
connected
and
indirectly
redundantly
connected
to
see
so
a
particular
gossip
message
might
travel
through
the
network.
The
end
of
arriving
at
a
particular
period
way
too
many
times
due
to
the
amplification
factor.
T
Then
you
do
want
to
start
getting
like
more
intelligent
about
how
you
tell
peers,
hey,
stop
sending
me
this
kind
of
message,
because
I'm
already
subscribed
to
that
I'm.
Already
it's
receiving
it
earlier
from
another
peer
that
I'm
subscribed
to,
and
that
actually
has
a
closer
off,
so
I
mean
that
and
that's
when
you
start
becoming
more
intelligent,
because
your
trade
off
there
or
in
your
priority
could
be
to
reduce
frightened
presentation
right
and
and
an
overall
traffic
in
the
network.
T
So
it's
definitely
a
matter
of
trade-offs,
but
like
I'm
happy
to
have
you
know
to
continue
having
this
discussion
there
were
things
about
the
gossips
of
measurements.
That
need
to
be
revisited.
Is
that
we're
testing
the
wrong
things,
but
this
has
been
already,
you
know,
has
come
up
in
different
forums,
so
so
yeah,
the
numbers
that
we
have
on
call
sets
up
I'm,
not
particularly
realistic.
T
In
terms
of
you
know
what
the
testing
and
how
they're
testing
it
so
I
wouldn't
use
that
as
a
deciding
factor
right
now,
but
definitely
open
to
you
know,
exploring
different
different
approaches
and
really
understanding
training
down
to
the
requirements
to
understand.
If
you
know
a
hybrid
of
gossip
serve
and
happy
serving
flood
serve
as
like
a
fallback
and
so
on
could
could
be.
You
know
something
that
even
advances
the
state
of
the
art
in
the
way
that
these
hardware
could
be
prevented
at
scale.
A
Thank
you.
Okay,
we
gotta
move
on
gossiping
is
complicated
and
important.
So,
let's
cool
general
spec
discussion,
the
one
thing
that
I
know
a
lot
of
employment
brought
up
is
as
a
Z.
There
were
a
couple
of
more
skin
types
that
were
added
to
sse,
specifically
the
bit
listed
by
vector
that
moved
some
of
the
low-level
validation
of
bytes
out
of
the
spec
and
into
the
typing
system.
A
This
was
done
one
to
make
the
spec
focus
more
on
stuck
things
and
on
the
level,
byte
manipulation
and
byte
validation,
and
was
also
done
in
an
effort
to
potentially
provide
a
valuable
set
of
types
and
SSE
that
might
be
used
in
other
places,
such
as
the
application
area,
the
idea
there
being
if
there
is
byte
levelness
validation
and
manipulation
that
you'd
want
to
be
doing.
Why
have
to
repeat
the
logic
and
multiple
places
instead
put
it
in
the
type
system?
That
said,
there
are
obviously
some
pain
points
and
issues
there.
A
So
I
want
to
open
it
up
for
a
quick
discussion.
This
is
something
that
we
want
to
figure
out
if
it's
gonna
stay
in
soon,
so
that
we
can
fix
the
speck
in
the
before
word.
If
we
need
to
doctored
I
know
you
did
a
lot
of
work
on
that
and
I
know.
You
also
facilitated
some
a
conversation
right.
Do
you
have
anything
to
add.
AB
Yeah
I
mean
I
think
like
clearly
one.
We
want
to
be
open
here
to
like
understand
what
people's
pain
points
are
there
I
guess
like
we
didn't
do
that
enough
back
when
we've
first
put
this
to
do
the
spec,
but
yeah
I
mean
like
so
yeah.
Let's
start
that
conversation
I'm
I
still
think
that
it's
a
valuable
thing
to
have
in
the
SSDs
packet
I
think
it
can
avoid
some
errors
but
like
of
course,
we
don't
want
to
make
life
super
hard
for
implementers.
So
yeah.
A
AB
A
Okay,
if
there
is
precedent,
are
you
and
not
muted,
you
look
unmuted.
Are
you
talking
No?
So,
yes,
no
problem
to
pump
just
want
to
make
sure
this
is
something
that
I
don't
want
to
leave
hanging.
So
if
there
is
continued
conversation
that
needs
to
be
had,
let's
have
it
over
the
next
seven
days
in
an
issue.
So
if
someone
still
feels
fired
up
about,
this
still
feels
that
it
should
be
changed.
Please
make
a
new
issue
and
we'll
discuss
there.
A
Otherwise
this
is
very
critical
for
getting
in
line
with
consensus
test.
So
I
don't
want
to
leave
this
hanging
for
too
too
long.
So
Preston
just
posted
the
original
discussion.
We
can
either
reopen
that
issue
if
somebody
wants
to
or
to
make
a
new
issue.
But
again,
let's
keep
the
conversation.
Let's
make
the
conversation
happen
in
the
next
seven
days.
G
Just
as
a
comment,
some
more
types
we
have
defined
in
the
SSD
spec,
more
efficient
or
code,
at
least
in
name-
can
be
in
terms
of
both
code,
size
and
performance,
because
we
don't
have
to
check
out.
We
have
much
less
to
check
and
we
can
directly
insert
the
proper
disser
lysing
code
in
your
code
base.
AC
Yes,
I
see,
there's
this
minor
thing
where
we
can
have
fixed
size,
empty
containers
and
empty
vectors.
It's
a
kind
of
troublesome
and
I
know
we
don't
really
have
them
currently
in
spec.
I
just
wanted
to
address
it
so
that,
as
a
suspect
can
be
complete
but
to
clients
like
best.
We
want
to
make
empty
factors
in
Eagle
or
do
we
want
to
make
lists
containing
them
illegal.
AC
AB
Think
the
problem
just
came
so
before
containers
and
empty
vectors,
empty
containers,
empty
vectors,
they're,
both
illegal
and
now
we
added
this
new
thing
that
lists
actually
have
a
limited
size
and
suddenly
we
have
the
question:
can
that
size
be
zero
and
it
actually
doesn't
cause
the
same
problems
as
it
does
for
for
vectors
or
containers,
because
it
would
still
be
a
variable
size
type.
So
all
the
information
would
still
be
needed.
The
questions
just
is
it
kind
of
weird
that
we
like
forbid
one
thing
and
not
the
other
like
yeah.
AC
I
wanted
to
say
we
already
discussed
this
in
this
issue,
but
they
do
want
to
bring
it
up
and
if
any
implementers
of
like
opinions
here
or
they
see,
if
sometime
in
the
future
very
good
needs
this
kind
of
type.
The
please
do
join
the
issue
on
the
specs
repository
and
you
can
discuss
other
I
also
think
it's
just
like
not
to
importance.