►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #68 [2019-08-15]
Description
A
A
B
Just
added
the
tracker
to
the
today
that
was
repeated
for
agenda
and
we've
just
implemented
the
chain
idea.
So
far,
I
was
looking
at
the
other
ones,
I
think
three
or
four
remaining
ones.
The
accepted
in
tentative
should
be
pretty
straightforward
for
reducing
all
TN
1
to
8,
we'll
check
our
implementation.
B
B
C
Yes,
oh
sorry,
a
touchscreen
keyboard
appeared
above
the
mute
button.
I
couldn't
pass
it
sorry
about
it,
yeah.
So,
as
for
gas,
I
think
so.
Regarding
accepted
the
IPS
and
sensitive
VIPs
I
think
during
the
last
chord
F
call,
there
was
a
bit
of
confusion
because
we
kind
of
split
Istanbul
into
two
one
of
them
that
we
can
actually
ship
within
weeks,
and
there
were
two
really
big
VIPs
that
would
be
really
nice
to
have
but
require
some
stuff
that
cannot
be
done
within
the
two
or
three
weeks.
C
Time
span,
so
I
think
it
probably
throughout
the
call.
It
would
have
to
do
always
know
whether
we're
talking
about
Istanbul
one
or
Istanbul
two.
So
if
we're
talking
about
Istanbul,
one
I
mean
the
one
that
we
are
going
to
do
in
what.
However,
many
weeks
on
the
test
nook
there.
Essentially,
we
have
I
think
we
had
four
except
deities
and
maybe
two
times
the
ones
for
us
most
of
them
are
already
merged
in.
There
are
two
two
IPS
that
are
not
yet
version.
C
One
of
them
was
the
twenty
2200
that
was
essentially
a
Knicks
net
gas
metering,
yeah
II,
I
P
and
one
day
was
there
were
two
ideas
on
how
to
approach
it.
There
was
the
original
one
I
think
proposed
by
way,
and
there
was
Alex's
version
and
on
Thursday
we
implemented
relaxants
version
inspected
out
just
to
see
how
that
would
work,
because
there
was
no
spec
for
it,
but
realistically
I
don't
think
that
works.
C
So
do
some
problems
were
kind
of
discovered
and
I
think
everybody
agrees
that
we
should
go
with
wise
version,
so
the
current
actual
spec
of
2200,
so
that
that
one
we
still
have
to
implement,
but
it's
fairly
trivial
and
and
the
other
is
Lake.
We
haven't
implanted
yet
because
there
were
some
minor
back
and
forth
with
the
EIP.
So
for
that
well,
it
would
be
really
nice
to
know
whether
the
eyepiece
final
details
are
done.
I,
don't
think
it's
hard
to
implement,
but
it's
kind
of
moving
target
now
yeah.
C
A
C
A
A
C
E
C
Understand
what
they
said
under
p.m.
who
is
that
there
were
two
versions
for
that:
there
was
waivers
and
version
that
is
ready
and
we
will
going
with
that
for
since
forever
and
there
was
a
Lexus
proposal
from
last
week
and
that
was
problematic,
but
I
also
said
that
was
problematic.
So
there's
no
point
in
going
with
that,
one.
A
E
A
A
C
We
are
to
1884
so
repricing
set
about
codes,
I
think,
essentially,
that
AIP
was
scheduled
for
discussion
along
koreff
call
since
for
half
a
year
now
and
every
time
it
was
postponed
simply
because
it
was
a
trivial
AIP
and
it
was
a
key
our
case.
We
didn't
get
it,
but
yeah
I
will
just
cover
it
in
the
next
quarter.
Pole
no.
D
A
A
I
B
B
D
But
it's
not
really
sustainable
to
have
the
cheap
price
on
such
an
expensive
operation.
So
it's
a
kind
of
tough
choice
between
having
an
unsustainable
pricing
or
potentially
break
things,
but
make
it
more
sustainable
going
forward.
But
this
problem
is
not
going
away.
We
don't
have
to
rebalance
it
later
on
unless
we
manage
to
do
some
stage.
Hearing
I'm.
B
Okay
with
it
too,
just
so
it'd
be
great
to
maybe
to
point
at
the
potential
problem
to
people,
so
they
can
review
the
contracts
and
they
are
aware
of
the
change
but
more
that
it
can
affect
them
in
this
particular
way.
Just
because
we
understand
it
can
affect
them
this
way,
and
they
may
not
be
able
right.
We've.
A
Yeah
I
at
least
when
I
was
doing
more
stuff
with
smart
contracts
and
I
would
talk
to
people
about
it.
There
was
kind
of
widely
known
that
it's
not
gonna.
You
know
these
gas
prices
and
stuff
like
that
are
not
gonna
stay
the
same
forever,
depending
on.
If
things
happen,
like
the
attacks
and
Shanghai
or
if
there's
like
more
efficient
ways
and
like
things,
we
can
do
to
change
it
to
make
it
better,
so
I
think
people
would
be
okay
with
it
personally.
D
B
D
B
Yes,
as
we
have
it,
we
as
we
had
it
with
1
to
8
3
now,
2,200
I,
think
just
this.
This
analysis
of
the
existing
contracts
stopped
us
from
releasing
during
Constantinople
and
followed
us
to
make
improvements,
so
maybe
the
same
tools
that
were
used
at
that
time
can
be
run
like
the
analysis
of
the
expectation
for
the
students
to
be
enough
article
on
cost
alone,
I'm
not
really
expecting
any
significant
contracts
to
to
experience
that
issue,
whether
like
what
you
call
significant
contract,
it's
a
bit
of
political
things.
B
A
A
A
So
I
talked
to
Dmitri
recently
and
he
had
concerns
that
a
lot
of
the
testing,
the
testing
I
guess
load
is
on
him
and
that
he
thinks
in
the
future,
or
even
right
now
that
client
should
be
using
retest
ëthe
to
create
test
cases
for
their
a
IPS
like
the
EIP
champions
or
the
clients.
Implementing
I
would
need
to
go
back
and
look
exactly
at
what
was
said
and
I
wish.
He
was
here
to
speak
on
this-
maybe
he'll
be
here
next
meeting,
but
basically
that
there
can
be
more
clients
making
test
cases.
D
Yeah
I
have
actually
been
writing
cases
using
gas
as
their
transaction
test,
which
128th
and
also
tests
for
a
chain
of
the
up
code
and
tests
for
my
own,
we
probably
repricing
out
and
so
for
us
and
those
are
positively
and
I
awkward
of
Gator
channel
it'd
be
great.
If
someone
some
other
client
can
try
out
the
tests
and
he
is
well
basically
so
I
know
if
they're
correctly
generated
syntactically
and
also
if
they
seem
to
actually
pass
the
tests.
We
find
such
act.
D
And
also
make
right
now
the
fillers
are
on
a
guest
Fork
of
mine
they're,
not
actually
really
up
for
up
yeah.
It's
not
easy
to
run
them.
If
you
don't
know
what
you're
doing
for
them
and
turn
it
into
binary
as
well.
Where
is
that
anyone
can
run
so
there
are
more
options
other
than
the
other
opportunities
we
tested.
A
A
There
is
the
getter
channel
for
etherium
test
that
I
know
Dimitri
and
others
are
pretty
active
in,
and
then
there
is
also
the
retest
death
wiki
for
creating
state
tests
with
retest
death.
I
posted
both
those
links
in
the
zoom
and
I
think
that
that
would
be
helpful
for
people
wanting
to
write
these
test
cases
and
hopefully
get
more
participation.
There
did.
J
K
My
understanding
is
that
the
decision
was
author's,
the
IP
authors
for
for
the
champions
to
make
sure
testings
happenings
for
their
AIB,
but
then
with
the
understanding
that,
since
this
is
kind
of
the
beginning,
that
we
need
to
iron
out
what
that
process
looks
like
and
I've
been
working
with
the
Blake
to
be
guys
and
I.
Think
Lisa's
on
from
2028
there's
still
is
just
a
little
bit
of
onion
clarity
of
how
how
they
they
can
go
through
that
process,
even
the
ones
that
are
willing
to
own
it
themselves.
K
D
D
It
should
be
this
cost
you
tested
with
with
the
exact
cost
when
it
has
to
move
on
below
and
see
that
no
to
get
the
collection
right
and
if
there
are
any
other
quirky
things,
I
don't
think
there
are
with
me,
but
you
know
just
textual
description
of
what
should
be
tested.
That's
a
really
good
step,
even
if
you
don't
go
the
whole
run
testes
and
write
today,
some
stuff,
that's
a
really
good
start.
I
So
Pantheon
we
just
implemented
retouch
that
support
with
our
most
recent
release
and
I've
been
working
on
some
of
these
writing.
Some
new
tests
I've
been
trying
to
get
Blake
to
be.
It's
been
moving
target,
so
I'm
not
ready
to
finalize
the
test
that
I
submitted
into
the
published
a
PR
for
and
I
also,
you
know,
was
on
a
call
of
Lewis
from
start
wear
as
well.
I
Trying
to
get
at
2028
I've
been
working,
but
I
totally
agree
with
Dimitri
that
we
should
move
towards
something
like
be
tested
so
that
all
the
clients
can
support
and
all
the
clients
can
work
on
it.
It's
that
way
when
the
EIP
proposers
start
writing
the
first
reference
implementation,
they
have
their
choice
of
language
of
how
they
want
to
implement
it,
and
it's
a
lot
easier
for
them,
then
create
conformance
tests
on
what
they
think
their
first
correct
implementation
is
so
yeah
I
totally
agree
to
be
test
at.
L
We
he
went
say
that
we
we
try
to
come
in
and
help
and
understand
how
Kinkos
and
there
was
as
we
discussed
there
were
some
confusion
on
the
process
itself
and
I
think
would
be
very
helpful
if
the
quartet
could
lay
out
the
framework
for
to
like
reference
to
like
to
who
need
to
talk
to
how
we
can
help,
and
not
only
for
re
IP
but
in
general.
I
think
would
be
very
helpful
for
the
future.
A
Yeah
I
think
that
would
be
good
for
now,
because
we
don't
have
that.
Demetri
is
gonna,
be
the
best
point
of
contact
for
handling
retests
death
and
the
framework
for
testing
that
you're,
referring
to
Luiz.
So
on
the
zoom
chat.
I
have
the
two
links.
The
wiki
is
not
very
thorough,
but
it'll
be
somewhat
of
a
starting
point.
And
then,
if
you
go
into
the
getter
channel
for
tests,
you
can
reach
out
to
Dimitri
and
ask
for
a
one-on-one
and
I'm
sure
he'll
be
happy
to
do
it.
L
D
Doesn't
so
there
are
specific
sets
of
tests
which
are
called
transaction
tests
and
they
don't.
The
semantics
are
different
from
state
tests
and
with
2028.
We
don't
really
need
state
tests
for
them,
because
we
can
use
transaction
tests,
at
least
for
clients
that
implement
transaction
tests
yeah.
So
that's
what
I
meant,
because
to
validate
the
transaction,
we
don't
need
the
full
state.
We
just
need
transaction.
L
C
So
just
think
so
regard
we
do
not
to
testing.
We
have
kind
of
two
things
that
need
to
be
done.
So,
yes,
somebody,
Demetri
or
somebody
needs
to
implement
the
test
cases,
but
I
do
think
that
somebody
also
needs
to
dream
up
those
test
cases
and,
for
example,
that,
in
my
opinion,
currently
most
of
the
IPS
have
an
empty
slot
for
test
cases.
The
Festina
section
is
kind
of
empty
and
I
know
that
I'm
Dre
I
think
gumbo
from
from
Elath.
C
He
made
a
really
nice
table
for
the
in
that
gas
meter
in
the
IP,
and
that
is,
of
course,
not
enough
to
to
cross
client
testing,
but
it
is
enough
for
client
developed
first
individually,
hacked
together
whatever
unit
testing
their
preferred
programming,
language
actually
tests
that
it
works
and
I
think
it.
That
would
really
be
a
very
important
help
from
from
EIP
authors
to
just
have
test
cases,
even
if
it's
just
a
table
that
okay,
this
is
the
input.
C
I,
don't
know
it's
an
input
for
the
idiom
or
the
input
for
transaction
or
the
input
for
whatever,
and
this
is
what
we
expect
to
happen,
because
if
you
have
last
and
that's
already,
a
very
good
baseline
check
sanity
check
to
make
sure
that
the
implantation
seems
to
work.
And
of
course,
on
top
of
that,
we
can
do
cross
client,
testing
and
all
kinds
of
other
stuff.
But
it
would
really
really
have
to
have
some
fairly
conclusive
test
cases
in
the
Eid.
Even
if
just
in
table
form.
C
Suggest
yeah
I'm
glad
one
more
statement,
sure
just
if
we
are
looking
at
the
context
of
EIT
2028
the
collator,
a
pricing.
It
would
be
really
nice
if,
if
the
EIT
itself
would
have
a
test
where
it
says
that
this
is
the
transaction
arabe,
this
one
should
cost
and
guess,
and
that
would
already
be
a
very
good
sanity
check,
because
then
I
could
just
implement
that
in
Google
and
I
would
see
whether
I
am
committed
to
the
EIP
correctly
or
not.
J
L
A
C
I
think
it's
still
a
bit
in
the
air
originally
I
think
the
original
work
time
for
Istanbul
was
two
days
ago
for
the
test
night
and
about
I
think
chord
F
calls
ago,
I
flat
out
state
that
that
is
not
reasonable,
because
we
don't
have
a
final
list
of
VIPs
and
so
I
asked
people
to
push
it
out
by
I.
Don't
know
a
few
weeks
but
honestly
September.
C
The
4th
is
again
about
two
weeks
from
now
and
given
that
we
just
finalized
the
EITS,
it
seems
a
bit
reckless
to
me
to
pick
a
block
number
now
without
knowing
whether
parity
will
finish
implementing
or
what,
whichever
client
will
finish
implementing
the
stuff
in
time.
So
I'm,
just
thinking
that
with
previous
heart
works
after
everybody
implemented,
we
had
literally
months
of
testing
period
before
rolling
out
to
the
test
nut,
and
now
we
just
came
up
with
the
final
list
of
VIPs
and
we
want
to
fork
in
two
weeks.
That's
that's
a
big
break.
C
A
A
So,
in
that
case,
let's
just
scrap
that
date
and
since
we
won't
be
able
to
think
of
another
date,
I
mean
I'm,
assuming
we
shouldn't
think
of
another
date
today.
Until
we
get
more
information
on
how
quickly
the
other
all
the
clients
are
implementing
the
e
IPS
that
we
should
at
the
earliest
next
meeting,
decide
but
yeah
just
kind
of
leave
it
at
leave
it
at
that.
For
that
for
today's
meeting,
anyone
have
any
opposition
to
that
or
a
different
idea
or
anything.
C
Really
opposition,
maybe
a
bit
of
a
note,
is
that
if
we
just
say
that
are
people
going
to
wait
on
to
everybody
implements
it
then,
and
we
don't
care
about
anytime
timelines,
then
we
kind
of
run
the
risk
of
the
whole
thing.
A
few
delays
right
lot.
If
we
know
motivation
for
clients
to
actually
implant,
so
I
would
still
try
to
somehow
figure
out
the
target
that
okay
for
the
next
product,
the
one
that
will
be
all
the
clients,
should
have
everything.
B
K
A
A
Okay
and
that
call
will
primarily
are
number
one
agenda
item,
for
that
call
will
be
deciding
the
block
for
the
test
at
fork
and
we
can
also
deal
with
some
stuff
around
naming
and
the
second
part
of
this
Stan
bowl
or
whatever
that
might
get
renamed
to,
and
things
like
that
so
and
we've
already
agreed
to
split
a
stain
bowl
into
two
forks.
It
looks
like
or
just
create
a
second
fork
that
has
other
stuff,
but
not
calling
it
Istanbul.
A
C
C
Pre-Compiled
and
the
problem
with
both
of
these
were
that
they
are
kind
of
done.
They
are
kind
of
almost
ready
to
be
used,
but
they
need
some
work
that
that
we
don't
know
when
it
will
happen
for
crop
out.
We
need
the
security
order
to
be
completed,
which
will
be
done
whenever
and
for
easy
arithmetic.
There
are
still
some
back
and
forth
on
the
IPS
and
and
then
the
reason
why
we
chose
to
do
a
second
Istanbul
hard
for
us,
because
we
really
would
like
to
get
these
in,
but
they
definitely
want
to
make
Istanbul.
M
C
But
if
we
say
that
okay,
these
are
got
dropped
out
of
Istanbul
and
then
after
we
do
this
to
heart
form,
we
start
planning
the
next
one
fully
publicly
whatever.
Whenever
then,
we
kind
of
run
the
risk
of
essentially
delaying
these
two
for
maybe
another
year
or
half
a
year
or
whatever,
and
then
the
idea
was
that
after
Istanbul
is
done,
we
should
all
teams
should
kind
of
focus
on
getting
these
two
pushed
through
and
then
during
the
last
quarter
hold
for
some
reason.
640I
bees
got
pushed
into
this
bucket
I.
Guess
it's
fine
ish!
A
A
I
A
Do
it
during
this,
if
we
have
the
time
I
kind
of
just
browsed
that
briefly
and
it
looked
really
cool
the
to
the
other
thing
that
was
requested
was
x''k
requesting
talking
about
the
naming
and
the
eighth
magicians
forum
posts
that
they
did
for
the
name
naming
so
I.
Think
that's
something
we
couldn't.
We
have
enough
time
to
get
to
both
of
those
I
think
before
the
meeting
is
done
so,
which
one
should
we
do
first?
Let's
do,
let's
do
the
timing,
one
first
from
Martin,
so
Martin.
A
D
Yeah
make
the
process
simpler
for
everyone,
so
we
don't
have
to
rush
to
get
things
in
right.
Now
we
get
kind
of
into
a
race.
We
accept
a
number
of
each
and
we
hope
to
get
everything
ready
by
a
certain
time,
and
my
proposal
is
to
change
it
and
we
accept
the
eve.
Don't
say
that
good,
we
think
it's
yeah.
D
D
And
yeah
everything
is
fine
and
then
the
other
people
or
those
who
are
have
an
interest
in
it
pushes
through
with
the
PRS
they
make
the
testing
happen
and
once
they
think
that
they
are
complete
with
all
of
that
they
tell
the
court
of
Channel,
hey
everything
is
done.
We
have
it
in
these
four
clients
we
have
the
reference
tests
and
the
clients
pass
the
test
and
all
the
work
for
those
has
to
at
that
point
is
to
say:
okay,
so
let's
schedule
it
or
whenever
and
that's
that
call
it
800.
D
C
I
On
my
internet
was
going
on
stable,
but
now
I'm
back
what
I
like
about
this
model
from
the
way
we've
been
doing
it
before
is
the
IPS
are
accepted
and
they
progresses
they're
ready
versus
before
they'll
be
accepted
for
a
particular
UI
key
and
if
they
failed
and
they're
back
to
the
beginning.
So
this
way
we
move
it
through
as
they're
ready
and
then,
when
things
are
ready,
we
pick
it
up
and
go
I
think
that
is,
that
is
the
the
major
change
of.
K
A
Excellent,
my
main
concern
everything
looks
great
on
this.
I
love
it,
but
this
seems
like
it
would
cause
more
rapid
and
more
like
basically,
more
rapid
and
more
hard
Forks
in
general,
which
I
feel
like
would
put
a
lot
of
people
who
run
a
theory
and
client
software
like
having
to
rush
to
keep
up
with
the
stuff.
So
yeah,
that's
kind
of
a
concern.
I.
C
Don't
think
this
this
model
actually
wants
to
make
Forks
more
frequent,
so
you
wouldn't
work
for
every
IP
when
it's
ready,
rather
essentially,
all
the
IPS
would
progress
in
the
individual
into
this
ready
state.
And
then,
whenever
you,
you
pick
that
okay,
we
want
to
hard
fork
in
half
a
year,
then
you
just
pick
the
25
VIPs
that
are
ready
at
the
time.
C
D
L
So,
from
a
perspective
of
anonymity,
nur
of
client
and
people
wants
to
propose
the
IPS
I
really
like
the
model
because
it
doesn't
eat
the
law
you
to
apply
anytime
and
start
working
on
it
and
say:
okay,
making
progress
and
now
I'm
in
queue
to
get
accepted,
whereas
today
it's
more
like
oh
there's,
this
deadline
and
I
need
to
get
everything
ready
for
it.
I
think
much
better
mother
from
Athens
incentive
for
people
to
off
to
propose
the
IPS.
H
I
think
there's
this
value
in
this,
and
maybe
we
need
to
make
it
very
clear
that
that
accepted
step
is
that
it's
the
time
that
no,
no
once
we
once
we
reach
accept
or
whatever
the
particular
wording
is
for
that
status-
that
it
will
go
into
a
release
at
some
point,
it's
just
a
matter
of
when
now
and
that
might
be
enough
to
focus
it.
But
that
I
think
is
the
element
we
need
to
watch
it.
E
Another
risk
potentially
run
is
that
because
it's
the
IP
singly
a
key
focus
that
in
these
all,
the
tests
are
focused
on
just
that
II
I
P,
which
means
that
if
we
bundle
them
together
at
the
last
minute
into
the
next
release,
then
we
haven't
done
any
cross
testing
between
the
beeps
necessarily
until
right
at
the
moment
that
we've
decide
to
package
them
all
in.
So
just
something
we
have
to
think
about.
As
we
shift.
D
F
Servant
interruption
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
the
EIP
process
was
supposed
to
be
similar
when
the
last
call
feature
was
introduced
at
the
end
of
the
last
call
for
a
corey
IP,
it
would
go
into
an
accepted
state
or
there
was
an
attempt
to
redeem
that
to
ready,
but
basically
that
would
be
the
state
where
it
would
be
considered
for
implementation
in
clients,
and
then
it
could
be
considered
for
adoption
in
a
Hartford.
But
so
basically
the
the
process
should
be
already
similar,
but
nobody
enforced
this
at
all.
F
But
the
issue
people
face
when
they
propose
in
the
IP
and
I,
don't
see
that
this
proposal
would
address
that
in
any
form.
Yet
instead
had
to
capture
the
attention
of
the
core
devs
earlier
in
the
process
yeah,
because
Martin's
proposal
has
stage
where
the
core
devs
bless
a
proposal
aka
how
the
proposer
that
its
support,
why
to
work
on
it,
but
that
should
be
early
enough
I
guess
it's
not
well
defined.
Yet
what.
D
F
D
Would
happen
so
actually
yeah
I
haven't
asked
so
I
think
the
problem
with
eeap's
is
that
not
everyone
monitors
the
EEP
tapes
basically
and
when
there's
the
last
call
what
everyone
is
attention,
because
it's
it's
not
really
mandatory
for
us
to
do
that,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
other
things
to
do.
For
this.
The
first
acceptance
something
I
wrote
there
is
that
the
client
developers
express
that.
I
One
of
the
things
the
enterprise
etherium
Alliance
does,
during
their
regular
calls,
is
they'll
list
out
the
names
of
the
IPS
that
are
in
final
call,
there's
no
discussion
about
it.
It's
just
as
simple
here's.
What
we're
discussing
final
call
and
if
we
could
add
that
into
this
meeting,
like
at
the
top
of
the
meeting
at
the
bottom
of
the
meeting,
that
might
help
visibility
among
the
authorized
for
the
Yankees
the
to
go
and
call.
D
D
F
But
the
issue
I'm,
seeing
and
I
might
be
wrong-
is
that
a
lot
of
people
come
up
with
a
IP
ideas,
but
they
fail
to
engage
with
any
core
devs
to
get
some
feedback
on
that
idea
and
they're
not
really
encouraged
to
fully
develop
the
IP
and
maybe
do
some
tests
and
and
any
kind
of
implementation
before
getting
any
kind
of
feedback.
Whether
this
is
a
really
bad
idea-
or
this
is
something
we're
trying
to
to
look
at
yeah
I.
C
To
that,
so
one
thing
that
the
measure
essentially
is
my
problem.
My
personal
issue
with
the
wholly
active
process,
is
that
it's
essentially
the
whole
process
is
untrackable.
From
my
perspective,
personal
perspective,
maybe
it's
probably,
but
so
what
I
see
is
that
we
have
this
sound
e,
IP
repo.
We
have
hundreds
of
open
e
IPs.
Some
of
them
have
are
just
ideas.
Some
of
them
are
well
developed.
C
Some
of
them
have
been
even
been
proposed,
but
not
discussed
for
two
months,
and
my
main
issue
is
that,
for
example,
if
I,
let's
say
skip
to
code
of
codes
because
I
couldn't
attend,
then
I
will
have
absolutely
no
idea
of
what
a
IP
in
what
state
is.
So
maybe
one
thing
that
would
really
help
if
we
could
have
some
visual
representation
of
of
the
progress
that
eg
IP
is
having,
so
that
you
know
that.
Okay,
there
are
these
four
e
IDs
that
were
proposed
when
one
of
the
most
proposed
one
month
ago.
C
The
other
one
was
proposed
yesterday,
but
these
four
e
IPs
are
in
a
particular
state
where
you
kinda
should
take
a
look
or
maybe
in
a
state
where
Dimitri
as
a
tester
should
take
a
look
or
etc.
So,
if
we
get
if
we
could
have
some
visual
list
of
that,
constantly
updating
that,
maybe
that
would
help.
Otherwise
it's
really
hard
to
do
no
evil,
Gucci
eyepiece,
to
take
a
look
at.
J
C
K
K
B
If
we
create
a
checklist
for
the
AP
champions
for
what
exactly
they
need
to
achieve
for
the
excepted
States,
then
that
checklist
can
also
be
used
by
us
as
a
dashboard
for
the
progress
for
the
clients.
So
if
the
checklist
contains
things
like
defined,
spec
defined
tests
confirm
with
Dmitry
and
testing
on
availability
of
the
reference
test.
B
Have
two
major
client
implementations
to
implement
the
AIP
and
get
the
acceptance
for
the
inclusion
in
the
next
Hartford,
and
this
checklist
will
be
easy
to
follow
for
the
champions
and
they'll
have
the
feeling
that
they
know
exactly
what
to
do,
which
is
great.
When
we
see
what
Louie
did
40
20
28
like
he
followed
with
all
of
us
to
to
get
the
full
understanding
of
what
we
need
for
for
DP
to
be
introduced.
J
A
F
Have
one
last
suggestion
that
I
wonder
if
it
would
be
possible
to
maybe
have
like
one
or
two
ip's
taken
up
on
awkward'
ev's,
freshy,
IPs
and
people
would
need
to
read
the
abstract
and
make
a
decision
whether
it
makes
any
sense
to
for
the
champion
to
work
in
the
div.
Just
to
give
an
early
indication
to
the
champion
that
this
is
worth.
And
this
could
be
the
very
first
step
for
any.
A
That
sounds
reasonable
to
me
personally,
because
if
I'm,
an
EIP
writer
I
want
some
kind
of
indication
which
I
mean
that
step
one
is
that
indication
to
an
extent
that
things
should
go
forward,
but
I
think
elaborating
on
that.
A
little
more
would
help
people
understand
what
a
green
light
actually
means
so
and
that
might
be
in
Martin's
full
write-up
I'll
need
to
reread
it.
A
C
C
Implementing
the
the
net
S
store,
update
and
I
know
that
I
personally
posted
at
least
static
comments
on
the
on
the
github
yeah
on
the
EIP
for
requests
and
those
were
quite
beefy
updates
and
variations
and
I
went
back
and
forth,
had
ideas
and
then
went
back
on
those
ideas
and
essentially
everyone
is
doing
that
and
obviously
that's
how
the
ideas
evolved.
But
I
think
this
is
kind
of
a
problem
because
then
somebody
else
comes
along
and
then
there's
this
huge
discussion.
C
And
then
you
will
need
to
read
all
the
discussions
and
go
understand
every
single
rationale
for
every
people,
and
only
essentially,
unless
you
read
everything
you
won't
know
what
the
discussions
ended
up
being
and
and
I
don't
know.
Maybe
we
should
somehow
figure
out
a
way
so
that
we
can
support
discussions.
C
But
after
some
result
was
obtained
via
those
discussion,
somehow
move
those
results
back
into
a
more
condensed
form
so
that
other
client
implementers
don't
have
to
read
the
entire
thread,
just
to
figure
out
what
the
end
result
was,
for
example,
in
the
nest,
or
this
case
I
think
the
the
result
of
the
whole
discussion
was
that
Alex's
idea
has
certain
limitations
and
then
it's
not
the
best
choice.
But
you
kind
of
need
to
read
everything
to
understand
that
and
that's
an
issue.
I.
A
Think
there
is
a
feature
in
aetherium
magicians
because
they're
using
something
what's
the
form
they're
using.
What's
the
software,
it's
called
I
can't
remember
this
before,
but
I
thought
it
had
discord.
Yeah
I
thought
it
had
a
feature
where
you
could
see
a
summary
of
like
what
people
have
been
saying
and
I.
Don't
know
if
that
feature
is
turned
off,
because
I'm
looking
now
and
I
can't
find
it,
but
I
thought
that
was
a
really
cool
feature
if
we
had
that
enabled
there
so
I'm
gonna
ask
about
that
from
Jamie.
C
Yes,
that'd
be
a
good
idea
right,
the
changelog
and
then
essentially
just
say
that
okay,
the
last
one
week
or
two
weeks,
there
are
some
discussions.
Maybe
a
few
links
here
and
there
and
then
just
summarize
it
that
where
are
we
at
current?
It's
just
to
try
to
cut
through
all
the
crafts
and
just
get
to
the
the
point.
A
H
A
M
F
A
A
D
I
My
concern
is
that
it
makes
the
code
that
we're
gonna
have
to
write
in
testing
and
in
software
and
then
we're
gonna
have
to
maintain
in
our
Genesis
files
a
little
hard
to
understand
unless
you
are
very
deeply
invested
in
knowing
what's
what
and
I
you
know,
increases
that
the
mental
burden
and
I
think
public
names
are
great.
You
know
give
it
these
names,
like
you,
know:
Berlin,
London,
Shanghai
and
all
those
other
fun
names,
because
it
makes
great
conversation
in
marketing
and
we're
talking
about
these
in
public.
I
D
Yeah
yeah
I
agree
with
you,
I
think
that
kind
of
separates,
because
I
think
internally,
I'm
gonna
have
to
have
a
reference
map
anyway,
and
it's
super
awesome.
If
all
clients
can
just
if
you
can
configure
any
client
to
know
that
yeah,
it's
Sarah
one
sort
of
seriously
but
I
still
think
we're
gonna
need
to
have
the
public
names.
That's
what
I
thought
xyx
proposal
was
about
the
public
names
and
I'm
all
for
having
numbered
internally.
A
Yeah
I'm
getting
warmed
up
to
the
public
names
being
the
Devcon
cities,
but
how
many
okay,
you
already
expanded
that
we'll
run
out
of
that
we
won't
run
out
of
names
anytime
soon,
so
that's
pretty
cool
and
let's
see
okay
and
then
the
numbering
system
that
Dana
was
talking
about
that
sounds
good.
Is
there?
Is
there
like
I've,
only
worked
in
a
true
corporate
professional
software
environment,
not
to
say
this
isn't
professional
but
like
one
that
has
like
version
number
naming
for
certain
major
releases
like
I've,
only
done
that
for
a
couple
of
years?
I
Semantic
versioning
and
it's
gonna
develop
quickly
down
to
a
single
implementing
number,
the
first
number
increments,
when
there
is
a
breaking
backwards,
change,
which
is
the
very
definition
of
the
hard
work,
the
second
ones,
a
minor
upgrade
which
might
correspond
to
Bitcoin
Softworks
and
the
third
one
is
basically
bug
fixes.
But
since
every
upgrade
we're
doing
is
gonna
be
a
breaking
backwards.
I
Change
we're
changing
things
that
are
gonna
change,
fundamental
rules
of
the
consensus,
I
think
the
easiest
thing
to
do
is
just
you
know,
start
from
start
from
Olympic
or
homestead,
and
every
time
that
we
upgraded
a
test
net
with
intensive
going
to
made
that
we
incremented
by
one
and
that's
where
the
number
comes
from.
It's
just
a
simple
count
of
how
many
times
that
we
try
to
hard
work.
C
C
So
they
have
a
few
VIPs
that
they
applied
independent
of
may
not
and
that
kind
of
been
problematic,
because
if
we
say
that
okay
I
don't
know,
Istanbul
is
version,
6
I
just
had
a
number,
and
then
we
define
version
7
as
whatever,
and
then
one
of
the
test
nuts
introduces
in
between
a
fork
to
handle
some
scenario
and
then
their
version
7
will
be
different
from
our
version
7
and
it's
debatable
that
will
cater
7.
But
it's
going
to
get
things
messy.
C
C
I
What
Coburn
could
do
is
usually
they
would
be
doing
their
VIP,
so
it'll
be
off
of
a
particular
main
hard
work,
so
you
could
call
there
is
a
6-1
or
eat
six
Cove
and
one
to
show
that
it's
based
off
of
this,
but
then
it's
their
own
split
off
of
it.
The
downside
is
Kovan,
won't
be
able
to
tell
where
the
gaps
are
where
they're
skipping
forks
then,
where
they're
speaking
reason,
but
we're
gonna
have
to
do
that
anyway,
because
we're
skipping
Constantinople
for
most
of
the
main
net
to
go
straight
to
Constantinople,
fix.
C
Yeah
but
I
guess
for
me
that
you
could
always
say
that
you're
going
from
version
five
to
version
seven.
So
that's
that's
kind
of
doable,
but,
for
example,
if
what
happens,
if
for
program
apparently
decides
that
they're
going
to
ship
all
the
EITS
for
if
your
own
version
seven
but
they're
going
to
skip
one
of
them
so
they're
going
to
ship
almost
all
of
the
IPS,
then
you
can
actually
call
it
version
7,
because
it's
not
really
all
of
it.
But
you're
not
going
to
add
it
anyway
in
later
point
in
time
either.
C
I
C
B
D
A
D
B
B
A
B
A
A
C
C
A
D
C
But
so
these
were
all
so
all
the
decisions
are
about
Istanbul
too,
and
they
essentially
about
these
VIP,
so
I
created
a
if
you
look
at
the
gas
issue.
Tracker
for
Istanbul
I
have
a
list
of
issues
for,
for
the
second
part
of
Istanbul
act
as
as
far
as
I
know,
all
these
discussions
are
talking
about
the
Berlin
parts,
yeah.
C
C
So
I
think
what
this
decision
wanted
to
say
is
that
all
the
AIP
is
that
word
is
that
relates
to
gas
cost
and
we're
hanging
in
the
air.
They
have
been
moved
to
tentatively
accepted,
so
they
do
not
want
to
downgrade
already,
except
to
the
abbeys
rather
upgrade
hanging
once
but
again,
these
are
about
the
burden.
Foreman.
A
Let's
see,
EW
1559
stays
withdrawn.
His
decision
sixty
seven
point.
Four,
sixty
seven
point:
five
used
retest
death
to
generate
reference
test
for
all
tentatively
accepted
and
accepted
he
IPS.
We
already
talked
about
that
and
then
finally
decision.
Sixty
seven
point:
six,
the
next
all
court
dev
meeting
to
be
last
call
for
something
to
go
from
tentatively
accepted
to
accept
it
to
be
included
in
the
october
fork.
That
was
also
completed.
A
A
I
don't
know
if
anyone
has
any
more
information
on
this,
but
there
was
the
eath
1x
finality
gadget
working
group
got
restarted
by
and
there's
they
had
their
first
call
earlier
and
I
think
that
was
Alex
Stokes
doing
it
I
think
they
either
got
some
funding
or
someone
just
step
stepped
up,
and
does
anyone
have
any
information
on
that?
I
have
I
haven't,
followed
it
yeah.
I
I
One
thing
that
I
think
is
relevant
to
all
korjev's,
as
they
were
concerned
about
the
timing
of
the
hard
forks
in
Casey
need
to
do
hard.
Forks
for
these
and
I
think
they
were
still
operating
on
the
nine-month,
fixed,
cadence
schedule
and
I.
Let
them
know
that
we
are
going
to
discuss
Martin's,
cool
idea
and
point
it
out
that
what
we're
doing
to
prod
pal
you
know
that
for
big,
important
ones
like
the
finality
gadget
would
be
big
and
important
that
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
fork
when
needed.