►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #44 [08/10/18]
Description
A
A
Good
morning,
everyone
or
afternoon
or
evening
I
always
forget
that
it's
not
just
morning
for
everybody
here,
we're
gonna
go
ahead
and
start.
I
think
the
audio
is
working
yep.
The
audio
is
working
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
testing
and
I.
Don't
think
Dimitri
was
able
to
make
it,
but
he
did
have
an
update,
so
I'll
just
kind
of
read
the
high
level
stuff
he
listed,
two
links
to
the
ext
code,
hash
test
list
and
the
create
two
tests
list.
B
Yes,
so,
regarding
this
guinea
crate,
we
haven't
finally
Club
the
actual
formula
for
with
the
address
create
address,
so
there
were
two
options
in
the
eat
and
then
in
the
last
weeks
there
have
been
some
more
discussions
mainly
well.
One
thing
is:
if
we
want
to
include
the
init
code
or
the
hash
of
any
code,
doing
the
calculation
and
the
argument
argument
for
doing
sorry,
only
the
hash
of
the
in
the
code
is
that
it's
easier
well
in
many
situations
is
easier
to
include
the
hash.
B
B
A
B
A
Okay,
thanks
Martin
next
on
Dimitri's
update,
he
has
an
update
on
retest
ëthe.
It
now
supports
client
configurations,
so
you
can
set
the
configs
and
bash
script,
so
it'll
use
and
manage
the
RPC
socket
you
can
also
set
or
you
could
set
the
TCP
socket
to
an
external
IP
address.
So
if
you
look
on
the
comment
that
I'm
about
to
post
in
the
chat
and
and
the
Alcor
devs
chat,
that's
just
kind
of
an
update
on
everything
he's
talking
about.
A
B
Yeah
we're
getting
ready
to
do
cross
testing,
but
there's
not
really
any
point
to
start
with
the
fast
testing
before
the
PRS
are
implemented,
and
it's
are
equally
implemented
in
gas
and
parity
at
least
they're.
Both
Abe
is
possible.
It
needs
to
be
possible
to
configure
Constantinople.
Then
we
can
start
doing
the
processing
as
for
highway,
recently
integrated
Alif,
which
the
new
name
for
CPP
ethereum.
So
it's
running
on
a
speech.
A
C
Yeah,
the
sir
remaining
question
is
like
we
said
in
last
call
that
we
were
going
to
give
a
1087
with
shots.
We
did.
We
found
some
issues,
it
sort
of
prevents
some
optimizations
that
we're
doing,
and
we
will
talk
more
on
this
later
of.
Like
yeah,
we
have
a
proposal
for
our
replacements
yeah.
He
can
talk
more
about
the
trade-offs
there,
but
basically
I
mean
we're
we're
at
a
stage
where
we
could
easily.
A
B
D
E
F
We
are
working
on
downloading
blocks
and
things
like
this
and
at
this
point
we're
also
splitting
up
our
development
resources
into
two
parts.
One
will
focus
on
the
core
chain
here
in
one
query
chain,
whereas
the
other
part
will
focus
on
on
the
charting
chain
and
getting
a
beacon
chain
going
as
soon
as
as
soon
as
we
build
those
primitives.
So
that's!
What's
going
on
on
the
Nimbus
side,
we've
also
open
up
a
getter
channel
status.
F
I
am
/
Nimbus
for
those
day
one
if
you
want
to
get
in
touch
with
us
over
getter,
it's
being
bridged
to
our
right
channel,
which
existed
before
and
I'll
just
make
a
plug
here
for
the
ECDC
videos
that
are
out
link
was
posted
in
the
in
all
coordinates
channel
angular
and
another
one
was
posted
on
on
the
EP
8
status.
Twitter
account
so
check
that
out.
If
you
want
to
see
what
we
did
in
Berlin
last
month,
so
thanks.
G
Hey
everyone
matt
from
Pegasus
here
so
still
working
on
our
main
at
sync.
Last
time,
I
said
we
were
able
to
sync
to
valk
2.8
million.
Now
we're
end
is
able
to
sink
to
4.46
million,
we're
still
implementing
those
ek,
snart's
pre-compile,
but
I
guess
they
haven't
been
executed
on
the
main
shade
to
date.
So
our
sink
continues.
Besides
that
we're
working
on
stabilizing
our
networking
code
and
json-rpc
support
and
all
that
good
stuff,
nothing
on
Constantinople,
okay,.
H
H
Yeah,
not
a
ton
to
report
on
our
side
still
working
on
some
tooling
around
rust
and
assembly,
scripted
in
particular,
which
which
is
pretty
exciting.
So
we
hope
to
have
more
to
share
on
that
stuff
soon,
including
implementing
some
of
the
pre
compiles
in,
like
in
rust,
for
example,
primarily
focused
on
test
net,
getting
kind
of
a
public
test
that
up
and
running
and
kind
of
DevOps
e
fooling
stuff
around
that.
H
The
other
thing
I
would
say,
is
we've
been
thinking
a
lot
about
the
design
kind
of
this
EEI
aetherium
environment
interface,
design
and
in
particular,
kind
of
versioning
around
it
and
modeling
this
a
little
bit
after
kind
of
the
EIP
process,
but
again
kind
of
with
the
nice
nice
addition
of
like
versions.
So
we're
kind
of
like
sealing
off
the
current
version
of
what
that
spec
will
look
like
and
beginning
to
put
it
in
place,
the
next
core,
the
roadmap
kind
of
going
forward.
H
H
A
A
I
I
A
A
Okay,
we
may
have
to
table
that
one
again,
then
cuz
I,
don't
think
there's
really
been
any
changes
to
it.
Another
AIP
was
created
to
disable
the
bomb
and
I
didn't
put
that
on
the
agenda,
because
we
decided
last
time
too
disabling
the
bomb
was
off
the
off
the
off
the
table.
So,
let's
see
we
might
just
jump
into
Constantinople
then,
unless
anyone
had
any
other
stuff
on
the
block,
reward
reduction
or
increase.
So.
A
That's
a
good
question.
Part
of
what
I
was
thinking
is
getting
people
who
really
care
about
it
and
getting
them
on
the
call
and
seeing
what
their
opinions
are
or
coordinating
with
some
of
the
researchers
like
Danny,
who
have
looked
into
this
and
written
up
reports
to
see
what
their
thoughts
are,
because
if
we
have
anybody
with
a
strong
opinion,
it
might
just
go
through
because
no
one
has
an
opinion
right
now.
That's
very
public.
A
They're
definitely
gonna
have
a
say
in
this
as
well:
I've
been
meaning
to
reach
out
to
some
of
them
and
get
their
opinion.
I
know
that
some
of
them
have
commented
on
github
I,
don't
know
if
they've
revealed
that
they're
miners
or
not
but
I,
know
some
comments
on
some
of
the
IPS
have
been
from
miners.
C
A
I'll
hook
up
with
you
after
this
call
then
and
we'll
figure
it
out,
but
yes,
they
shouldn't
be
on
this
call,
giving
their
opinion
on
it.
I
know
a
couple
of
miners
from
some
of
the
pools
and
so
I
can
reach
out
to
them
as
well.
So
maybe
next
meeting
will
be
really
like
that'll
be
the
biggest
topic
of
discussion
as
far
as
implementation
of
this
it's
very
trivial.
I
Well,
I,
remember
that
in
case
she
was
the
case.
He
was
saying
that
the
changes
which
included
to
include
the
formula
of
difficulties
they
they
have
some
problematic
bits
about
testing
him
and
he
was
was
it
him
he's
saying
that
the
basically
is
like.
Sometimes
you
have
to
pray
that
this
is
going
to
work,
because
it's
very
difficult
to
test
in
a
test
net
but
but
I
may
be
mistaken.
B
Yes,
I
think
the
problem
is
not
I
said
we
in
order
to
test
the
difficulty
calculation
formula
we
can
draw
on
the
regular
block
test
because
we
need
like
millions
of
box
so
for
last
fork.
We
implemented
a
new
kind
of
tests
and
it's
in
there
is
standard
test
case
repository,
but
it's
not.
It
doesn't
resemble
the
existing.
B
So
it
was
not
something
which
we
could
run
black
box
like
we
do
with
the
high
octane
tests.
Yes,
that's
problem
this
time
around.
It
should
be
easier,
since,
hopefully,
all
trying
to
implement
this
already
have
that
have
implemented
those
test
cases.
So
it
should
be
just
a
matter
of
adding
new
of
the
same
kind.
I.
A
See:
okay,
so
does
that
mean
that
it
is
easier
than
it
was
last
time?
Is
that
that's
kind
of
what
I'm
reading?
Yes,
okay
good,
so
we'll
definitely
have
a
lot
of
people
on
next
time
to
talk
about
this.
Does
anyone
else
have
comments
on
this
or
any
ideas
on
the
way?
We
should
resolve
this
side.
I
love
suggestions
too,
for
that
yeah.
H
Philosophical
economic
for
the
reason
is
described
like
it's,
not
technically,
it
shouldn't
be
at
least
super
challenging
and,
as
Martin
said,
hopefully,
this
sort
of
test
harnesses
are
already
in
place,
and
so
I
don't
know,
given
that
we
have
Greg
and
Jamie
and
and
sort
of
Boris
here
from
fellowship
with
the
theory,
magicians
I
mean
I,
guess
sort
of
Fe
M
is
also
a
mostly
technical
initiative,
but
I'm
just
I'm.
Just
raising
this
open
question
and
I
don't
have
an
answer
right.
What
is
the
right
channel
for
having
these
conversations?
H
A
H
Just
add
one
more
thing,
so
it's
not
that
people
don't
have
opinions
about
this.
Clearly
there
are
sort
of
you
know.
We
now
have
sort
of
four
or
five
competing
EIP
is
so
I
think
Hudson.
We
should
definitely
bring
this
up
on
the
next
call
and
I
think
we
should
make
an
effort
to
get
those
champions
like
if
possible,
sort
of
roughly
one
from
each
of
those
VIP
is
to
make
the
case
I
don't
know
if
we
have
any
of
those
people
on
this
call.
That's.
A
A
good
point:
we
should
bring
the
champions
from
the
IPS
there,
cuz
yeah
there
are
and
I
guess.
When
I
said
earlier,
there
weren't
opinions
on
this
I
meant
purely
from
the
core
developers
who
from
last
call
in
this
call
but
yeah.
Obviously
we
need
to
get
more
voices
in
here
to
kind
of
shape,
shape,
how
people
are
thinking
about
this
issue
and
make
sure
everyone's
heard
so
yeah
great
comments
there
and
we'll
definitely
try
to
do
that.
L
I
would
like
to
add:
maybe
it's
a
problem
in
ioan,
but
I
think
the
way
to
solve.
That
is
if,
within
a
if
we
delay,
let's
say
six
months,
the
difficulty
in
some
way,
we
should
try
to
keep
that
they're
synthetic
total
supply
that
the
difficulty
bomb
gives
constant.
So
we
should,
we
should
produce
little
bit
the
block
reward
in
order
to
keep
you
know
the
total
supply
at
the
moment
that
the
difficulty
ball
clock
starts
happening,
I,
don't
having
exactly
the
same
that
having
exactly
the
same
total
supply.
I.
H
B
C
A
B
J
A
A
J
I
M
N
A
H
A
I
A
Okay,
so
let's
go
ahead
and
get
into
Constantinople
on
the
agenda.
There
is,
if
you
click
on
Constantinople
or
the
link
that
says
Constantinople
progress,
you'll
get
a
chart
of
where
people
are
implementation,
wise
and
I
totally
forgot
to
edit
its
gonna,
create
two
and
I'll
say
under
discussion
all
right,
so
I
just
updated
it.
So
it's
we're
aware:
that's
gonna
create
two
is
not
finalized
at
all,
but
it
looks
like
there
were
some
issues
with
skinning
create
two:
the
implementation
of
it.
I
know,
parity
had
an
issue
and
then
Martin.
A
O
O
We
also
support
EAP
86
in
our
land
right
now,
so
that
creates
some
issues,
but
it's
minor
issues
and
and
actually
those
problems
are
ready
to
like
the
the
stuck
stuck
odor
is
different
or
the
yeah
and
the
RLP
for
my
creation
or
dress
format
is
different.
That's
to
usually
have
under
create
rule
of
code.
O
A
A
B
So
I
would
suggest
that
the
first
decide
should
we
show
to
read,
include
the
inner
code
or
sha
of
the
inner
coat
and
for
context
old
e86
uses
the
show
of
the
init
code,
so
I
would,
and
that's
also
what
Sergio
thinks
is
a
good
idea,
and
it
has
a
nice
property
that
the
inputs
to
the
final
shop
function
has
a
fixed
link,
which
is
nice,
I.
Think
so
I
would
propose
that
views
to
show
how
shall
be
in
it
code.
A
O
C
A
H
I
Oh,
you
can
just
assume
that
if
they
weren't
happy
that
would
have
told
us
that
was
my
opinion.
Apart.
Apart
from
that,
it's
I
could
I
could
see
the
the
you
know
to
be
honest:
I,
don't
really
see
a
big
difference
in
these
things.
I
definitely
agree
that
pretending
they
0xff
is
a
good
idea
and
there's
an
option
to
in
the
IP
in
terms
of
hashing
of
in
it
code,
I
think
it's
yeah
I,
don't
actually
I
mean
I.
I
Don't
go
didn't
go
deep
enough
to
understand
why
it's
better
but
agree
could
be
okay,
but
in
terms
of
what
way
is
saying
it
looks
to
me
like
they
have
already
a
lot
of
code
which
was
trying
to
implement
different
AP
and
you
try.
You
basically
have
a
conundrum
whether
to
keep
that
code
or
just
throw
it
away
and
then
write
everything
from
scratch
right.
H
B
A
O
Justjust
just
curious
on
this
I
don't
have
really
strong,
any
of
which
should
we
use,
but
but
what?
What
are
the
problems
that
will
out
the
encoding
in
green
because
our
existing,
the
so
the
current
wave
equation
or
grad
stream,
as
scheme
already
used
the
arrow
key
encoding
and
yeah?
So
just
curious?
What
what
are
the
problem
like
if
we
use
a
continue
to
use
arrow
key
encoding
so.
B
Currently,
if
you
want
to
implement
the
current
address
scheme
and
do
it
on
chain,
you
need
to
take
the
nonce
into
account,
so
you
need
to
dynamically,
you
need
to
know,
I
mean
if
the
nonce
is
larger
than
I,
don't
know
o
X
80,
then
you
need
to
or
LP
store
that
in
figured
differently.
So
you
can't
just
naively
I
mean
yeah.
It's
it.
I
I
I
would
add
as
well
that
the
reason
why
it
is
kind
of
important
to
be
able
to
do
it
on
chain.
Well,
that
might
be
wrong,
but
I
think
because
this
my
main
goal
of
this
grade
2
is
the
counterfactual
kind
of
association
so
that
in
most
cases
this
will
never
actually
be
in
most
cases
when
the
the
state
channels
were
created,
then
the
Creator
will
never
actually
go
and
change,
but
in
the
case
of
arbitration
they
will
have
to
be
able
to
compute
the
addresses
of
the
contracts
unchanged.
B
A
B
I
A
I
H
A
A
O
Mean
I
mean:
is
it's
more
like
I
think
I
think
if
we,
if
we
decided
the
best
way
to
do
the
skinny
created
and
the
thing
for
us
is
that
we
probably
want
to
get
yet
he
86
to
be
compatible,
so
it
maybe.
If
no
one
cares
about
yeah,
he
886
right
now
them
probably.
We
can
modify
that
to
to
to
be
the
same
Isis
in
equal
to
that
would
save
save,
ask
some
problem
or
getting
the
to
just
KK
toes
yeah.
It's
fake
and
skinny
way
to
implementation,
to
gradual.
I
What
I
would
say
about
EAP
86,
because
I
was
trying
to
revive
it
at
some
point
and
I
found
it
was
pretty
difficult
to
do
so.
I
would
just
completely
ignore
the
EIP
86
for
now,
because,
even
if
it
does
come
back,
it
will
have
to
come
back
when
have
completely
different
revised
form.
So
I
would
just
suggest
that
we
kind
of
don't
mix
it
in
right.
No.
C
C
A
We
don't
have
a
process
right
now
for
putting
rejected
or
withdrawn.
We
really
need
one
because
that's
actually
any
IP
one
and
that's
also
something
the
fellowship
of
ethereal
magicians
discussed
I,
believe
so
they
might
touch
on
that
later.
Potentially.
But
yes,
that's
a
good
idea.
Let
me
put
that
to
withdraw
86
since
we're
now
kind
of
busting
out
pieces
of
it
that
that
would
be
a
good
idea.
A
A
A
Great,
is
there
anything
else
that
I
missed?
It
hasn't
been
figured
out
about
this,
of
course,
pending
all
the
counterfactual
people
chiming
in
on
which
I
guess
would
be
an
which
one
to
use
out
of
Sergio's
list
for
the
encoding
or
the
other
cases
for
create
two
addresses
there.
Anything
else,
I'm
missing.
A
A
I
C
A
A
Great,
so
the
chances
of
this
getting
into
Constantinople
are
rapidly
decreasing,
as
time
goes
on,
because
we
don't
want
to
be
adding
anything
too
late,
and
this
is
already
pretty
much
too
late,
but
it's
still
good
to
get
opinions
and
see
about
throwing
this
in
the
biggest
reason
to
not
have.
This
is
because
the
testing
team,
which
is
pretty
much
Dmitri
right
now
said
we
shouldn't
include
it.
So
obviously
we
don't
want
to
kill
it
if
there's
a
major
reason
to
put
it
in,
but
right
now,
I
think
that
we
haven't
heard
enough.
A
Okay,
so
for
now
we're
gonna
get
some
more
feedback
from
people.
The
next
one
is
net
gas
metering
for
s
store
operations.
I
know,
parity
team
was
having
some
issues
implementing
this,
and
so
basically
for
the.
If
you
look
at
the
chart,
the
people
who
have
implemented
this
are
trinity,
aetherium,
j
s,
sorry,
I'm
looking
at
the
wrong
one.
Where
is
that
no
one's
fully
implemented
it
yet,
but
I
can
tell
but
I
know
guest
was
not
having
problems
with
it
and
aetherium
J.
You
said
you
weren't
having
problems
with
it
either
right.
Yes,.
A
If
that's
the
case
in
parities
having
issues
what
they've
done,
is
they've
developed,
a
IP,
1283
or
not
developed
I
should
say
I,
don't
know
whether
did
that
were
their
implementation.
Isn't
that
but
they've
written
1283
as
an
alternative,
so
I
think
Weig
wrote
that
do
you
want
to
kind
of
go
over
the
reasoning
behind
that
e
IP
and
what's
going
on
with
it.
O
O
So
we
just
yeah
so
just
kind
of
a
performance
issue
for
us
and
I
know
we
had
different
opinions
on
how
much
performance
impact
is,
but
this
is
indeed
a
concern
and
I
think
in
the
future,
if
other
clans
also
implement
this
optimization,
this
kind
of
also
be
a
optimization
blockers,
so
we
can
kind
of
want
to
yeah.
So
so
so
we
got
another
draft,
the
IP
VIP
1283.
O
There
are
two
version
provided
here.
Basically,
what
it
does
is
it
twists?
The
tuple
of
starch
original
value,
current
value
and
the
new
value
as
a
state
machine,
and
you
you
don't
need
any
dirty
maps
or
anything.
You
just
use
this
as
a
state
machine
and
issue
test
use,
forecast
refund
and
in
this
case,
Alexei
found
found
out
that
its
cover
sold
cases
for
yet
he
87.
So
yes,
so
right
now
talking
about
the
version
two
after
yet
he
1287
and
80
83.
O
O
O
I
So
it
means
that
the
IP
1283
sometimes
might
require
to
post
more
gas
upfront
than
the
gas
than
the
AIP
1
0
68
86.
This
is
for
87,
but
what
I
think
we
should
do
is
that
we
should
I
try
to
try
to
do
that.
We
if
we
formally
prove
that
they
actually
equivalent
then
I,
would
just
say
that
the
issue
will
become
much
more
trivial
because
we
won't
need
to
be
the
question
won't
be
about
which
one
is
better,
because
they
would
be
they're
doing
it's
pretty
much
the
same
thing
so
I
and
I.
I
B
D
I
We'll
try
to
I
mean
when
I,
you
know
if
I
have
time
and
I
will
coordinate
with
with
the
way
I
think
I
might
we
might
try
to
find
out
some
kind
of
way
of
proving
it,
but
it
might
be
for
me,
I
wanted
to
give
it's
like
go
and
see
if
it
works
and
by
the
way
I'm.
Just
talking
from
the
call.
Thank
you
very
much
guys.
Bye
thanks.
E
A
Ok,
so
it
sounds
like
we
have
way
and
Alexei
looking
to
compare
the
two,
which
would
be
very
helpful,
so
that'll
work
out
just
keep
us
updated
in
the
awkward
Debs
chat
way,
especially
with
updates
to
the
e
IP,
and
we
can
discuss
it
on
the
next
coordinate
call
hopefully
Nickleby
there
to
discuss
it
as
well,
and
I
might
try
to
reach
out
to
him
between
now
and
then
to
let
him
know
kind
of
what
discussion
went
on
in
the
core.
Dev
call.
B
O
A
L
Well,
mainly,
it's
a
very
easy
IP,
mainly
what
it
is
is
just
to
remove
the
gas
cost
of
the
calls
to
the
precompiled
smart
contracts.
The
big
problem
is,
for
example,
sha-256
compared
to
smart
contracts.
It
costs
only
sixty
units,
but
the
same
cow
just
for
calling
it
because
700,
so
it
makes
absolutely
no
sense
at
all
and
because,
when
you
are
coming
as
precompiled
smart
contract,
you
have
to
load
anything
because
it's
in
the
same
code
in
the
client
code,
I
think
it
makes
no
sense
to
charge
with
these
gas
costs.
L
B
A
B
G
So
I
left
a
comment
on
that
PR
right
before
this
call,
I
guess
an
alternative
approach.
I,
don't
know
if
you
considered
it
as
to
leave
the
call
semantics
the
same
but
add
a
pre-compile
opcode
to
the
EVM.
That
then
just
does
the
the
price
of
the
the
pre-compile
it's
been
called.
It
seems
like
it
might
be
a
little
easier
on
the
the
call
logic
and
not
have
to
you
know
you
don't
have
to
set
up
all
that
scope
and
stuff,
depending
on
your
implementation.
L
For
I
think
it's
it's
fine,
also
itself
exactly
the
it's
ably
good,
so
for
me,
I
think
it
would
be
good
also
to
have
a
different
knob
code,
and
the
thing
is
that,
although
all
the
pro
combines
my
contracts,
they
already
have
a
cost.
Depending
on
does
my
contract
so
yeah
we
can
set
up,
maybe
a
minimum,
but
then
it
should
be
added
to
the
gas
cost
of
the
specific
smart
preoccupied,
smart
contract.
G
Yeah,
absolutely
maybe
something
along
the
lines
of
your
first.
You
put
one
item
on
the
stack
and
that's
going
to
be.
You
know
the
the
pre-compiled
address
you
ought
to
call,
and
if
it's
there,
then
it
uses
the
existing
pre-compile
gas
calculation
mechanisms
and
if
it's
too
large,
then
it
has
an
exceptional
halts.
Otherwise
it
it
executes
stit.
And
then,
if
this
precompiled
contract
is
not
there,
then
maybe
there's
zero
gas
cost
and
it
just
executes
as
if
there
was
a
no
op
or
something.
L
L
A
G
G
A
D
The
VM
doesn't
know
that,
and
that
would
be
also
different
depending
on
the
chain
configuration,
so
that's
complicated,
so
so
I
I
liked
what
I
heard
I
liked
the
version
with
additional
adding
new
opcode.
For
that
it
seems
quite
quite
better
and
something
alternative
I,
just
figure
out
would
be
to
allow
pre
compiles
to
to
refund
some
of
the
gas,
because
the
refound
counter
it's
it's
mostly
handled
by
it
handled
paid
per
transaction.
D
So
it's
it's
on
the
on
the
boundary
between
EVM
and
the
client,
so
that
it's
something
that
it's
not
strictly
know
that's
EVM
is
not
strictly
responsible
for
and
from
the
implementation
perspective,
it
might
be
easier
to
actually
add
some
grass
to
the
refound
counter
in
the
pre-compiled
implementation,
or
something
like
that
and
and
get
it
back
at
the
end
of
transactions.
Oh
yeah,.
B
D
G
L
Yeah
I
want
to
add
that
on
these
yeah
it
depends
on
the
smartphone
depends
on
the
precompiled.
Smart
content
has
already
a
different
cost,
so
IBM
should
know
that,
because
it's
calling
a
difference
mark
on
track
of
it.
They
know
it
right
now
and
about
the
removing
you
know
the
adding
and
then
removing
part
the
problem.
Well,
maybe
the
problem
on
that
is
that
there
are
some
intensive
firm,
for
example,
let's
say
checking
a
miracle
proof
or
a
long
miracle
proof
in
the
chain.
L
This
is
a
very
intensive
sha-256
call
that
case
and
this
you
will
have
to
add,
like
a
lot
of
upfront
gas.
That
part
can
be
returned
to
that
I.
Think
I,
don't
know
if
it's
good
idea
on
that
I
think
it's
better
just
to
charge
what
it's
supposed
to
be
the
same
way.
For
example,
this
is
a
j-3,
the
difference,
sha-3
Sony,
it's
very
in
dust-
and
you
know
at
the
tools.
H
L
J
N
Yeah
I,
don't
have
a
lot
to
say
because
for
personal
reasons,
I
haven't
contributed
all
that
much
since
the
first
meeting
in
Paris,
so
mostly
I've
just
been
gratified
that
it's
rolled
on
without
me
and
just
the
desire
to
get
a
forum
going
where
people
can
meet
in
person
and
work
together,
plus
organize
their
work
in
between
meetings
and
I
seem
to
get
the
feedback.
The
people
are
really
enjoying
doing
that,
enjoying
the
opportunity
to
meet
in
person
enjoying
having
slightly
more
structured
forums
to
work
in,
and
there
seem
to
be
working
out.
J
Great
well
that's
a
good
overview,
so
yeah
I
guess
I'll
talk
about
the
basic
mission
and
principles
of
the
organization.
Basically,
the
idea
is
the
we
want
to
nurture
community
consensus
and
the
technical
direction
of
aetherium,
and
we
do
that
through
ultimately
producing
high-quality
EIP
he's
and,
of
course,
I'll.
J
We
have
our
wiki,
where
we
keep
our
information
and
we
have
the
forum,
which
is
etherium
magicians,
org
and
in
there
are
a
lot
of
discussions
about
all
the
different
e
IPS
and
other
issues
in
the
community,
and
it's
a
threaded
forum
and
it
it
forms
a
better
place
to
to
discuss
things.
Then,
then,
the
github
issues
have
been
it's
okay
there,
but
and
when
you
have
a
multi-threaded
forum,
its
issues
get
hashed
out
a
lot
better,
where
you
give
users
a
lot
more
ability
to
to
to
guide
the
conversation
and
and
add
content
things.
J
M
If
it
went
well,
you
know,
Berlin,
we
had
about
70
people
over
two
days
at
sea
bass,
lots
of
things
got
hashed
out,
including
really
that
people
had
a
desire
to
do
more
work
into
volunteer.
I
think
what
was
interesting
is
that
a
lot
of
non-technical
people
showed
up
as
well
I
think
we're
still
struggling
even
just
on
this
call
with
with
what
non-technical
means,
but
essentially
there's
lots
of
people
that
want
to
get
involved
and
want
to
help.
And
ideally
we
can
do
that.
M
So
we
have
a
github
repo
where
a
wiki
that
got
formed
at
in
Berlin,
we
have
some
rings
which
are
working
groups.
We
see
those
working
groups
really
much
like
Hudson
already
drives
the
calls
and
asks
for
consensus
for
people
working
on
particular
eeap's.
It
can
potentially
pay
scale
technical
improvements
by
having
the
people
who
are
interested
in
certain
areas,
having
ways
to
gather
together
and
come
to
consensus
around
that
and
when
it
comes
up
and
impact
score,
devs
and
and
core
clients,
then
we
have
a
set
of
experts
who
have
hashed
through
it.
M
Already
we
just
announced
Prague
we're
gonna,
do
the
same
thing
in
Prague,
ahead
of
Devcon.
If
will
not
be
like
DEFCON
content
in
that
we
actually
do
work
and
then,
and
and
to
make
progress
on,
eats
and
and
and
ERC's,
so
welcome
everyone
to
get
involved
and
hope
we
can
help
support,
basically
scaling
and
improving
some
of
the
technical
discussion
and
decision
making
whether
we
really
includes
anyone
who
wants
to
get
involved
cool
thanks.
You
guys
that
that's
really
exciting
I
have
just
a
couple
of
questions
before
we
end
this
out.
A
Devs
call
was
discussed
a
bit
at
the
meeting
in
Berlin.
Was
there
any
really
good
ideas
or
suggestions
or
things
that
people
might
have
somewhat
come
to
consensus
about
about
how
either
the
all
core
devs
call
interacts
with
the
rest
of
the
ecosystem
or
changes
that
can
happen
that
make
it
a
little
bit
better,
because
we
really
want
to
be
kept
in
the
loop
on
that
we
being
the
kind
of
the
core
devs
and
myself
so
that
we
know
kind
of
our
role
in
the
whole
thing
or
what
people
think
our
role
should
be.
A
M
M
Eeap's,
theoretically,
are
the
things
that
need
core
protocol
changes
in
the
ERC's
are
the
things
that
are
more
rough
standards
at
different
layers
and
I.
Think
mainly,
it
was
more
like
this
would
be
helpful
if
it
was
written
down
somewhere
because
right
now,
people
don't
know
the
answers
to
these
things.
So
I
think
there
were
more
questions
than
answers
and
an
offer
to
help
figure
some
of
those
things
out
and
that
even
just
things
like
eat,
process
and
rejected,
and
so
on.
M
J
You
know
wide
recognition
that
they're
what
they
come
to
consensus
to
is
is
the
community
consensus
so
long
as
the
process
is
open.
So
you
have
a
ring,
let's
say:
there's
the
wallet
ring
and
they
they
come
to
consensus
on
something,
and
there
might
be
all
the
what
you
know.
The
majority
of
the
wallet
implementers
are
involved
and
there's
open
process,
and
then,
if
they
reach,
you
know
if
they
have
their
their
flow.
J
That
might
be
very
similar
to
the
way
the
core
devs
or
the
EIP
editors
have
their
flow
for
reaching
final
on
an
EIP
that
that
that
would
be
widely
recognized
and
implemented.
So
you
know
that
process
needs
to
you
know
solidify
and
I
think
that
the
all
core
deficit
have
done
a
really
good
job
too,
either
way,
as
have,
of
course,
the
EIP
editors
and
so
the
more
education
there
is
like
that's
big
component
of
of
magicians.
J
J
A
H
J
Or
anything
else
existed
that
makes
decisions
about
the
the
protocol,
as
defined
in
the
IP
one
and
I.
Think
as
such,
you
know
it's
established
many
of
the
conventions
that
we're
all
following
so
I
think
the
more
that
the
Chordettes
can
describe
its
process
through
articles
or
more
more
documentation.
The
and
yeah
I
think
that
would
be
very
helpful
for
the
wider
community
that
the
wider
community
could
see
what
what
makes
the
Chordettes
work.
Why
is
it?
Why
is
this
working
so
well?
J
Why
and
yappi
editors
have
done
better
with
this
in
particular,
because
they
have
obviously
IP
one
and
all
all
of
what's
going
on
in
the
issues,
so
I
think
the
more
that
can
be
done
in
that
regard
like
just
documenting
and
and
participate.
You
know
just
showing
up
really
to
the
open
process
that
the
magicians
and
contributing
to
that
and
and
changing
that
in
a
way,
because
I
think
the
experience
here
is
so
great.
J
J
N
This
is
decentralized.
There
is
no
organization
controlling
it.
We
we
can't
really
call
it
money
or
anything
like
that,
and
so
the
openness
and
decentralization
really
counts,
and
you
know
to
a
large
stand
core
developers
simply
by
as
developers
participating
in
the
rings
of
you're
relevant
to
the
IPS
that
are
relevant
to
them.
Just
means
that
by
the
times
things
get
to
the
core
devs,
a
lot
of
stuff
has
been
hashed
out
and
it's
just
much
easier.
N
The
core
devs
aren't
aren't
facing
controversial
choices
as
often-
and
this
is
what
happened
with
the
IB
editors-
we
got.
You
know
some
very
controversial
proposals
slammed
into
us
and
we
had
to
clean
up
our
process
such
that
we
could
handle
those
and,
to
some
extent,
The
Magicians.
You
know
took
on
handling
that
sort
of
controversy
and
to
some
extent
we
tried
to
draw
lines
and
say
we're
only
handling
tactical
controversies.
You
can
take
your
political
arguments
elsewhere
and
I,
don't
know
where
elsewhere
is,
but
it's
not
here.