►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #64 [2019-07-05]
Description
A
A
A
B
A
C
A
We'll
just
skip
that
one,
then
sorry
if
I
delayed
for
a
while
I
was
also
looking
to
see
someone
saying
that
a
live
stream
isn't
working
or
it's
only
showing
music.
It
looks
fine
to
me
next
perform
a
full
benchmark
of
AIP
1108.
That's
reduce
alt,
being
128
precompiled
gas
cost
I
think
we
have
some
people
in
here
who
can
speak
on
that
right.
A
B
A
couple
of
calls
to
go
I
asked
if
because
they
only,
they
only
displayed
the
results.
For
you
know
the
exact
same
test
vectors
as
another
complete
death
victors,
but
only
the
exact
same
ones
as
I
had
found
were
the
worst
case
like
half
years
ago.
So
I
asked
them
if
they
had
to
post
that
somewhere
in
they
said
yeah
we'll
run
it
yeah.
That
was
not
on
the
last
course
I.
Don't
know.
B
A
I
on
the
wrong
summary,
no
I'm
on
the
right
summary
I
think
it.
What
might
the
minutes
just
might
be
a
little
bit
wrong?
Okay,
the
next
is
the
discussion
required
between
Jordi
and
oxic
for
AIP,
1109
and
VIP
2046.
That's
about
reducing
the
gas
costs
for
static
calls
made
to
pre
compiles
versus
having
a
removing
the
call
wait.
A
second
yeah
tongue-tied
me
accidie
know
what
I'm
talking
about
there.
D
D
A
Got
it
I
have
that
right
here?
Actually,
I
can
paste
it
in
yep
cool.
We
both
got
to
it
thanks
so
much
Brett,
okay,
so
we'll
just
continue
to
discuss
in
that
thread
so
and
the
reason
that
some
of
these
action
items
might
seem
older
or
because
they're
from
two
calls
ago,
not
one
call
ago,
including
that
one,
because
that
was
discussed
two
calls
ago
between
Jordi
and
AXA
cand
there's
been
ongoing
discussions
since
then
on
which
one
to
do
so.
A
A
Okay,
but
so
there's
the
wiki,
the
most
up-to-date
source,
then
yes,
okay,
the
IP
1283.
This
is
action.
Item
62
point
6,
C,
I,
P
1283
requires
a
new
IP
number
and
section
discussing
the
difference
between
the
original
1283
standard,
which
was
removed
for
Constantinople,
and
this
new
VIP
dreams
will
reach
out
to
the
testing
teams
to
understand
the
implementation
difficulties.
A
F
F
So
one
thing
that
would
satisfy
me
is
if
we
extra
section
and
the
Istanbul,
which,
rather
than
saying
add
this
VIP,
it's
a
different
section
that
says
reenable
Yankees
to
make
sure
that
has
to
know
this
is
this
is
the
first
time
we've
done
this
so
I
think
it
deserves
a
special
call-out.
So
if
we
did
that,
we
wouldn't
need
an
entirely
new
VIP
member
does
I
recommend
also
what
to
disable
it.
We
should
have
made
a
new
VIP.
It
says
undo
that
change.
F
G
Wouldn't
necessarily
agree:
the
problem
is
that
you
have
pest
networks,
that's
already
applied
that
EIP.
So
essentially,
you
can
actually
change
the
VIP
content
because
it's
already
applied
all
already
running
on
the
test.
And,
yes,
it
was
reverted,
but
you
still
have
five
months
worth
of
blocks
which
run
at
the
IP
correct.
F
And
this
year
key
would
be
reenable
with
the
other
AIP
that
goes
with
it
to
provide
one
of
the
mitigations
for
what
the
problem
was,
so
it
would
be
relabeled
as
written
and
would
need
to
come
with
this
every
IP.
However,
if
we
want
to
rewrite
it
with
the
IP
and
graded,
as
one
I
too
would
support
anyway.
I
keep
other
solution
is
fine
by
me.
G
H
A
H
Yetee
that
we
can
apply
on
top
of
1283
so
like
this
is
just
documentation
process,
but
we
do
new
yeah
ideas.
For
me,
it
just
feels
like
a
lot
of
confusions
rather
than
clearing
things
up
and
second
I
think
is
quite
important-
that
we
have
specification
in
GIPS
which
defines
how
a
change
actually
is
and
also
hard
work
matter
yet
is
which
defines
what
goes
in
an
artwork,
and
so
we
should
make
sure
that
we
use.
H
D
D
H
So
so
currently
we
have
1283
like
arena
one,
and
we
also
have
7006
was
7006
does.
Is
it's
really
doesn't
change
any
house
in
1283
for
implementations?
That
is
also
the
case.
You
don't
change
anything
in
1283,
but
you
just
add
a
new
like
entirely
different
cause
in
the
in
the
in
the
in
the
top
level
of
cash
metering.
Saying
is
guises
low
these
numbers
and
we,
if
we
just
fill
the
ice,
has
store
I'll
call
from
that
point.
So
it's
like
so
so.
The
thing
is
I.
H
H
Like
right
now,
I
would
propose
to
the
Ambu
the
neck,
guys
continuous
version
like
enable
both
1283
and
7006,
because
this
is
indeed
like.
We
avoid
those
back
workability
issues
like
at
our
best,
and
also
it
also
satisfies
developers.
Thing
is
it's
to
a
frequently
asked
feature,
and
if
those
contracts
are
deployed
with
ability
in
Mandan,
they
can
take
around
existing
contract
can
use
epoxy
or
something
to
take
advantage
of
that
gas
metering
or
through
a
new
contract.
B
B
A
H
F
I
A
A
B
Discussion
as
far
I
don't
care
particularly
either
way.
I
see
12
8
to
3
years
away.
That
I
mean
get
calls,
are
gonna,
get
cheaper,
which
means
there
gonna
be
more
of
them
in
the
block
and
more
state
law.
Basically,
even
though
they're
not
superior
they're
not
really
related,
but
there
seems
to
be
a
lot
of
people
who
wants
this
and
I'm
I'm
a
bit
afraid
that
all
these
people
who
wants
it
because
they're
deaf
developers
and
abusers
they
wanted,
but
they
wanted
on
their
existing
contracts
and
their
existing
kind
of
infrastructure.
B
J
A
J
So
it
looks
video,
but
it's
not
if
you
have
optimized
gas
counting,
so
the
gas
counter.
It's
not
yeah.
It's
not
actually
available
all
the
time
in
the
AVM.
So
it's
much
more
complicated
that
it
looks
so
that's
I'm
not
really
fond
of
it,
because
it
requires
some
additional
complexity
in
the
implementation
of
it
and
and
about
using
account
versioning
I
mean
in
general.
J
So
so
far
we
had
this
progression
of
hard
folks
when
you,
when
you
think
that
the
recent
one
you
not
actually
need
the
previous
revisions
of
EVM
anymore,
and
you
can
even
implement
the
client
in
a
way
that
you
fast
sink
to
the
top
block
and
don't
even
implement
the
the
previous
revision
of
IBM
at
all
and
with
account
versioning
we
starting
to
to
added
this.
This
needs
to
keep
different
EVMS
revisions
around
all
the
time,
because
in
any
point
in
the
future,
you
can
expect
like
at
least
two
different
account
versions
to
be
executed.
B
So
if,
if
we
want
to
go
in
the
direction
where
we
have,
where
it's
possible
to
have
more
just-in-time
compilation
of
contracts
and
some
ahead
of
time,
look
ahead,
where
you
go
a
couple
of
instructions
that
does
the
disable
1706
disable
Esther,
we
guess
that
lower
the
cost
item
cause
problem
in
those
kinds
of
scenarios.
Is
that
what
you're
saying
well.
J
J
I
need
to
apply
the
same
trickery.
To
actually
have
this
value
at
at
I
would
need
to
apply
this
think
for
a
store.
It's
not
like
very
complicated,
but
it's
it's
a
bit
more
complex
that
it
looks
on
the
paper
when,
when
you
have
only
like
additional
check
to
do,
and
in
general
like
well,
it's
I
think
it
would
be
maybe
more
visible
if
actually
the
two
of
these
were
combined
in
the
new
one,
because
then
we
can
see
how
actually
complex
the
whole
thing
is.
J
I
mean
it's
like
I
think
in
in
the
end
internet
gas
drink
wasn't
so
so
trivial
to
do.
There
was
some
like
a
lot
of
different
cases
to
to
check
and-
and
this
adds
another
one
that
country
makes
I
feel
that
they
could
make
reasoning
about
about
how
the
storage
will
cost
we
work
might
make
it
even
harder,
but
it's
that's.
That's
common
is
only
by
intuition
for
at
this
point,
I
I'm
not
prepared
to
go
deeper
into
that.
H
H
G
Rather,
is
that
if
you
want
to
create
a
completely
new
area,
for
example,
completely
new
team
wants
to
write
an
ATM
client,
then,
if
we
keep
just
always
piling
stuff
on,
but
we
need
to
support
all
the
old
stuff
too
that
we
will
end
up
in
the
situation
where,
after
a
while,
the
barrier
of
entry
to
writing
a
medium
is
so
large
that
only
the
established
players
you'll
be
able
to
keep
on
hacking
on
their
own
stuff
and
I.
Think
that's
potentially
maybe.
G
H
B
I
can
app
to
that
so
yeah
outside
the
EVM
is
already
pretty
damn
complicated
and
there
are
lot
of
corner
cases
and
the
more
we
add
the
more
things
that
we
deprecated
in
all
versions,
but
don't
actually
deprecated,
but
instead
keep
around
means
that
there
will
be
more
edge
cases.
We
will
more
people
will
sorry
less
people
will
remember
all
these
old
way
that
things
work
and
we're
late
tricking.
Us
that's
not
really
counter
to
versioning
per
se.
J
J
The
way
I
implemented
I
mean
in
a
bit
different
way
and
like
some
of
this,
this
this
decision
are
made
up
front
before
the
execution,
and
it
just
I
want
to
go
to
the
detour
now
what
it
it
actually
goes,
a
bit
against
what
what
I'm
doing
and
if
there
is
a
way
to
if
there
is
a
way
to
find
a
path
forward
that
is
more
aligned
with
optimization
time.
Applying
TV
mi
I
would
prefer
to
just
different
different
possible
different
options,
but
I
think
it
should
be
enough
for
the
discussion
at
this
point.
J
H
J
B
E
A
A
A
Yeah
Nick's,
coming
in
late,
we
can
bench
this
until
nick
gets
on
the
call.
Let's
do
that
yeah
and
we
should
probably
move
on
to
a
few
other
things
in
the
agenda
too.
So
we'll
put
well
bench
this
one
till
Nick
gets
on
the
call
and
regards
to
1706.
So
the
next
one
is,
let's
see,
engage
with
Ronan,
Sanford
and
Brian
Eisenbach
to
discuss
which
EIP,
1344,
19,
nine
or
1965
should
be
implemented.
They
all
have
to
do
with
chain
code,
IDs
I.
Think
Ronan's.
Here
are
you
here,
Ronan
yeah.
K
B
K
It's
basically
to
bring
fairness
to
every,
for
so,
let's
say
I'm
a
minority
and
and
then
but
I
don't
have
to
be
following
some
reason.
But
the
idea
is
not
that
it
will
happen
or
not.
Is
the
ability
to
this
kind
of
community
to
form
without
a
being
a
deterrent
and
with
which
is
basically
the
idea
that
if
you
use
one
three
four
four
you
can't
have
exact
switch
at
which
something
is
valid.
You
will
have
a
gap
of
block
number
I
mean
I.
Guess
it's.
K
B
B
Iii
check
is
this
actually
sign
for
me.
Is
this
sign
for
this
chain?
Id
is
assigned
per
minute
or
societal,
Rob's
them
I
mean
we
already
solved
transactions.
What
you're
trying
to
do
is
also
solve
the
problem
that
if
we
in
the
future
wants
to
change
the
chain
ID,
which
has
I,
mean
it
that
has
never
previously
happen-
form
a
network
scientists,
nuts,
that's
the
kind
of
problem.
The
extended
problem
which
your
EOBs
tries
to
solve
am
I
right
about
that.
Yes,.
G
Just
add
the
dough
so
currently,
if
a
minority
fork
so,
for
example,
let's
say
somebody
wants
to
for
coffee
theorem
and
create
a
chain
idea
on
5.15,
then
you
still
have
the
so.
The
problem
is
that,
even
if
we
implement
the
fancier
a
fancier
solution
on
chain,
the
transactions
won't
have
this
capability.
So
I
think
it's
from
practical
perspective.
It's
cleaner
to
say
that
while
transaction
signing
and
data
signing
have
the
same
capabilities
versus
saying
that
yeah
data
signing
can
do
a
tiny
bit
more,
but
exactly.
K
B
K
B,
that's
the
idea.
If
you
use
the
IP,
then
you
don't
need
to
work.
That's
the
whole
point
of
this.
Yet
well
with
one
three
four
for
you
most
most
contract
will
might
actually
use
it
as
a
value
or
they
might
use
a
caching
mechanism
which
doesn't
properly
suppose
that's.
Why
is
this?
A
IP
is
very
specific
function
to
allow
contract
rate
or
to
not
there.
We
basically
support
them
or
the
way.
A
G
Yeah
Peter
I
just
wanted
to
be
bring
up.
Some
a
political
argument
against
more
complex
form
is
that,
as
basically
from
my
understanding,
the
goal
is
to
allow
key
theorem
chain
to
be
split,
I
mean
to
minority
Forks
to
split
up
they
split
up
easily
and
in
all
honesty,
I'm,
not
sure
that
that
is
something
that
we
should
promote.
I
mean
if
somebody
wishes
to
for
coffee
theorem.
G
A
Okay,
thanks
for
that
spicy
political
opinion
Peter
and
next
we
have
action
items.
62.8,
VIP
1352
needs
more
work
done
to
answer
the
question
posed
in
the
core
dev
meetings
and
that
one
is
called
sorry
martin,
I
forgot
to
say
the
name
of
it:
restricted
address
range
for
pre,
compiles
and
system
contracts.
The
seemed
easy
at
first
and
then
I
think
we
needed
to
have
more
discussion
and
ethnic
issues
because
it
had
some
weird
edge.
Cases.
Is
that
right.
A
D
F
F
B
J
G
So
I
just
to
give
a
concrete
example,
for
example,
if
puppet
grades,
it
does
not
work,
notably
rinkeby
and
I-
think
maybe
even
Gurley
was
created
in
such
a
way.
Then
it
initializes
the
first
256
account
with
one
way.
The
reason
was
that
if
we
ever
start
putting
the
pre
compiles
there,
then
we
then
we
sort
of.
Essentially
we
had
that
issue
between
parity
and
gas,
with
one
of
the
pre
campus
getting
deleted
intact.
G
We
will
have
those
accounts
as
existing
and
if
they
will
ever
say
that
they
don't
exist,
and
the
problem
is
that
the
DC
IP,
all
of
a
sudden,
oh
those
one
256
accounts,
get
a
bit
more
special
meaning
and
depending
on
implantation,
for
example,
when
we
will
retrieve
the
code
hash.
Previously
they
returned
the
code
hash
of
the
empty
account
because
the
account
existed,
but
they
were
empty
but
as
far
as
I
know
retrieving
the
code.
Hash
for
precompile
doesn't
return
empty.
Rather,
it
returns
all
zeros
or
something
like
that.
F
A
D
F
A
Okay,
so
the
next
one
is:
let's
see
we
just
talked
about
1352
right
yeah,
so
we
are
going
to
62
point
nine
action
item
which
is
e
IP
2045
needs
further
discussion,
that's
on
particle
gas
cost
and
that's
had
a
really
good
conversation
recently
between
Dan,
oh
and
Paolo,
and
Martin
and
others
and
Casey.
So
is
there
an
update
on
that
at
all
that
anyone
can
kind
of
say,
based
on
the
form,
I
haven't
been
able
to
read
it
thoroughly.
A
The
next
action
item
is
62
point
11
discussion
and
inclusion
of
a
IP,
1962
and
I
thought
we
already
talked
about
1962
a
little
bit.
Oh
no!
That's
that's
the
ec
arithmetic
and
pairings
and
runtime
definitions
by
Alex
blasts
off
who
I
think
is
on
this
call
Alex.
Is
there
an
update
for
that
or
was
that
the
one
that
the
bigger
a
IP
I
think
goes?
2028
takes
over
all
of
that?
A
L
L
So
the
update
is
a
polling
principle.
It's
ready
and
the
results
it
kind
of
this
fact
which
is
being
written
much
more
formal
than
before,
including
the
binary
interface
and
the
movement
and
quite
a
lot
of
edge
cases.
The
results,
a
separate
telegram
channel
was
which
has
much
I
think
most
part
of
the
discussion
of
the
is
material
forum,
but
actually
a
telegram
channel.
L
On
top
of
this,
ever
mainly
one
major
decision
is
whether
it's
necessary
to
make
a
separate
implementation
for
a
kind
of
alternative
implementation,
and
this
alternative
implementation
should
be
actually
as
performant
as
a
one
which
is
already
available
and
kind
of
well
relative
to
it
as
a
question
whether
you
actually
in
the
next
work
to
give
access
to
any
arbitrary
curve
or
for
an
export
which
says
it.
Let's
say,
let's
give
eight
this
curves,
which
almost
like
is
almost
needed
for
developers
and
we
kind
of
eliminate
them
and
say
you
can
call
any
of
them.
L
B
L
Regarding
the
size
of
the
code
I'm,
sorry,
it
really
also
depends
how
I
kind
of
style
its,
but
in
principle
it's
maxims,
weeds
house
and
lines.
Everything
else
which
is
a
repository
is
a
huge
amount
of
tests
and
for
every
test
which
you
have
to
assemble.
It
just
have
quite
a
lot
of
lines
of
code
just
to
actually
run
it.
So
it's
not
that
insane
number
beginnings
of
fuzzing
I
myself
will
eventually
get
to
it.
L
But
for
now
my
target
is
to
is
to
run
the
gas
between
procedure
first
and
then
actually
start
making
say
a
fuzzy
tester
which
has
not
just
taken
some
taking
some
input
data
and
making
it
into
some
form
of
garbage,
but
actually
trying
to
poke
some
specific
parameters
into
the
invalid
alleys.
Oh,
but.
N
We
need
to
add
one
very
important
point
to
the
discussion
here:
it's
not
C
code,
it's
all
written
in,
say,
frost
code,
so
we
don't
have
even
even
any
non
c'è
frost
locations
except
for
the
C
expert
interface,
where
we
receive
the
string
of
input
data
from
from
the
color
which
we
have
to
check
for
length,
and
then
we
convert
it
into
safe
code,
and
we
only
execute
your
say
for
us
code.
So
we
can
guarantee
that
there's
gonna
be
no
corruption
of
memory.
N
No
memory
outside
of
stack
is
used
lately,
stateless
and
it
cannot
panic
like
only
a
few
lines
of
code
use
constructions
with
good
theoretical
banging
like
accessing
some
optional
value,
but
we
will
replace
most
of
them
with
just
returning
error
and
a
top-level
there's
gonna
be
catered
for
for
anything.
So
if
you
can't
counter
up
memory
it
carrots
and
blow
our
memory
in
with
memory
leaks,
yeah,.
B
I
would
still
say:
I
mean
that's
good.
It
removes
one
class,
the
vulnerabilities,
but
I
still
think
it
sounds
optimistic
if
you
have
something
which
is
today
only
implemented
in
rust,
to
think
that
we're
gonna
roll
about
on
all
the
time.
The
next
hard
work
without
having
a
parallel
implementation
and
having
done
differential
passing
this.
N
L
L
F
I've
always
thought
that
one
of
the
core
values
that
aetherium
had
over
most
other
block
changes
that
we
celebrate,
having
multiple
implementations
and
having
multiple
clients
so
to
encourage
people
to
use.
Just
one
library
starts
to
chip
away
at
that
so
I'm
a
little
hesitant
to
recommend
that
to
developers,
because
that's
that's
one
of
the
things
that
you
know
we're
sure
of
our
consensus,
because
we
do
it
multiple
different
times.
I
think
that's
one
of
the
things
that
makes
it
very
valuable.
Oh.
L
Yeah
I
mean
it's
more
about
it
for
now
kind
of
come
up,
I
would
say
to
people
who
work
on
this
and
I
can't
guarantee
that
I
will
be
able
to
provide,
go
implementation,
support
of
same
reasoning.
Why?
Maybe
it's
not
actually
a
good
idea
to
have
many
multiple
implementations,
for
this
particular
case
is
it.
L
L
Then
sorry,
I'm,
I'm
I'm,
not
following
this
too
much
but
yeah
sure
it's
just
that
in
this.
For
this
particular
case
it
may
be,
it
may
worse,
to
push
as
much
effort
and
one
implementation,
a
reference
implementation
which
will
be
kind
of
supported
and
review.
It
then
trying
to
make
two
or
three
of
those.
N
Just
to
stress
it
there
there
will
be
a
separate
implementation
in
any
case
in
Python
or
in
sage,
which
will
be
intensively
used
for
cross
checks
so
that
there's
gonna
be
a
very
intense
fuzzy.
Testing,
with
lots
of
different
inputs
for
both
implementations
will
be
compared,
but
it
just
won't
be
a
implementation
which
can
be
included
in
and
because
it's
not
gonna
be
as
performant.
It's,
where
we're
talking
about
really
hardcore
atomization
for
all
this
heavy
arithmetic
operations,
which
crust
is
really
hard
to
beat
and
like
compared
to
Python
its
orders
of
magnitude
different.
N
B
So
I
would
I
don't
think
that
the
argument
holds.
That
is
a
good
thing
that
there's
only
one
implementation,
because
it
means
we'll
have
consensus,
because
that
means
we
might
have
a
an
incorrect
implementation
as
our
reference,
implementation
and
I.
Don't
think
that
I
think
it's
better
to
take
it
one
step
at
a
time,
I,
first
produce
a
couple
of
implementations
then
make
sure
that
they
are
consensus
compliant
through
extensive
fuzzing
and
then
talk
about
including
them
in
clients.
B
So
I
think
it's
too
optimistic
to
try
to
get
this
into
the
next
heart.
For
because
it's
a
very
complex
and
one
of
the
reasons
that
I
think
you
haven't
gotten
a
go
developers
I
mean
existing
ethereum
go
developers
to
implement.
This
is
because
this
is
advanced
cryptography
and
most
of
us
are
not
cryptographers.
So
it's
it's
pretty
hard
to
implement
this
stuff
correctly.
B
G
Wow,
so
generally
cooling,
for
example,
to
see
method
from
go
is
about
twenty
times
more
expensive
and
calling
a
go
method
from
go.
So
is
there
is
definitely
an
overhead
now,
if,
if
that
method
is
basically
just
calling
a
pre
compile
and
which
executes
some
number
crunching
and
returns
that
probably
number
crunching
outweighs
the
function,
call
so
from
that
point.
From
that
perspective
is
not
that
relevant,
so
including
C
code
in
bingo
is
fairly
doable.
So
we
had
previously,
probably
the
not
exactly
curve
is
to
say
found
a
seat.
G
So
that's
that's
fine,
however,
including
for
example,
Roscoe
going
to
go.
That's
a
problem
because,
though,
does
not
support
I
mean
by
default
building,
runs
to
the
only
way,
for
example,
to
include
rusting
and
gas
would
be
to
create
a
whole
new
build
pipeline,
which
first
builds
the
rest
library
into
shared
thingy,
and
then
that
imports
that
shared
library
into
in
to
go
as
a
kind
of
like
I,
went
as
a
static
library
and
that
one
also
drinks
it's
good.
It's
a
few
other
potential
problems
were
protecting
with
go.
G
We
can
cross
compact
a
whole
lot
of
platforms
and
go
takes
care
of
all
the
figuring
out
which
the
compiler,
which
flags
etcetera
to
use.
Now,
if
we
start
adding
rust
since
go,
is
unaware
of
rust.
It
means
that
all
of
a
sudden
we
have
to
maintain
the
cross
compilation
for
every
single
platform
that
the
standard
library
up
until
now
supported
out
of
the
box.
So
it's
a
it
is
probably
doable,
but
it's
probably
painful
to
do.
I.
L
Mean
it
sells
kind
of
related
to
the
case,
for
me,
I
mean
most
likely
what
else
about
expensive
performance
to
be
quite
different
between
platforms
in
this
case,
while
usually
all
the
gas
between
happens
and
on
one
reference
kind
of
reference
platform-
I,
don't
know
if
it's
also
related
and
kind
of
this
is
a
great
feature
which
is
available
for
a
stream
in
principle,
but
this
one
was
also
kind
of
troubles.
B
was
a
gas
between
sheep
also,
for
example,
happen
at
some
alternative
platforms
or
not.
A
J
Comment
completeness
sure
so
I,
like
Alex,
created
DMC
kind
of
bindings
to
this
VIP,
so
we
can
load
it
as
a
other
kind
of
evm
that
supports
only
it
is
the
single
address.
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
I
think
that
might
be
considered.
I'm
not
show
itself
any
of
the
problems,
but
this
work
has
been
finished.
So
it's
also
something
you
can
take.
A
look.
Fun
did.
J
A
L
L
The
full
spec
is
not
yet
available,
but
it
will
include
kind
of
almost
step-by-step
arithmetic
implementation,
guidance
for
the
same
purposes
or
kind
of
people
who
are
not
deep
into
cryptography
are
never
implemented.
It
is
not
I
mean
not
not
kind
of
not
never
implemented
it
before,
which
are
not
that
familiar
with
the
subject.
So
if
it
helps
for
Google
developers
to
actually
try
to
make
another
complication,
just
tell
me.
A
B
To
go
from
that,
the
last
comment
is
from
Felix.
Three
weeks
ago,
I
tried
this
against
a
couple
of
clients
and
they
all
returned
quantity,
encoding,
I'll,
bring
up
respect
and
the
next
four
quartiles
call
to
make
sure
we're
not
shaping
up
anyone
else,
but
it
should
be
really
really
be
fixed
in
the
spec.
Instead
Felix
hasn't
been
present.
G
Just
to
expand
a
bit,
so
the
issue
is
that
when,
for
example,
the
transaction
signature
is
returned
from
the
RPC,
the
RSV
values
are
returned
separately
and
the
spec,
the
J
suspect
states
that
aren't
as
far
binary
blobs
32
byte
blocks
and
V
is
a
value
and
cryptography
autograph
eclis.
Actually,
all
three
of
them
are
values,
so
it's
the
spectrum
is
a
bit
weird.
Probably
somebody
saw
that
hey
these
look
like
32
bytes,
so
let's
just
make
them
binary
anyway.
G
The
problem
is
that
if
you
interpret
them
as
numbers
as
a
quantity,
then
you're
not
you
have
a
zero
prefix,
whereas
if
you
interpret
them
as
as
a
binary
block
and
you
have
to
pad
it
to
an
even
number
of
hex
characters
and
that
this
is
where
gas
and
ganache
tripped
up
on
each
other,
because
ganache
assumes
it's
essentially
ganache
follows
the
spec
and
get
follows
the
theory
that
these
are
numbers
cryptographically
and
the
question
was:
who
is
at
fault
and
fixing
either
of
them
is
trivial.
We
just
need
to
decide
which
one
to
fix.
B
A
G
A
B
O
G
A
A
I
know
that
there's
some
people
today
who
are
tuning
in
for
or
who
have
joined
the
call
I
should
say
for
a
IP
2028
and
I
think
thats
related
to
1962
the
one
about
the
stark
where
rust,
library
for
ec
precompile
or
ec,
arithmetic
and
pairing
calculations
that
Alexie's
involved
in
and
I'm
a
my
conflating
two
things
together
or
is
that
right?
No,
you
think
you
are
yes.
So
basically
someone
was
talking
about
EIP
2028
that
there
were
some
people
on
the
call
today.
A
A
A
Q
Q
I
R
Gas
cost
of
the
transactions
which
originate
from
the
from
not
with
it
from
the
contract,
but
from
the
external
account,
because
within
the
contract
cause
this
there's
no
charge
as
far
as
far
as
I
understand
only
the
data
that
are
basically
included
into
the
blocks
and
made
their
way
to
the
to
to
kind
of
de
to
the
frontier
of
the
EVM.
This
is
what
changes
so
I
would
say
it's
a
reduction
of
the
call
of
transaction
data
not
to
call
data
yeah.
So
it's
a
bit
confusing,
but
yeah.
G
Said
that
we
could
reduce
it
by
as
much
as
4x
so
that
in
theory,
if
we
stick
to
the
8
million
guesstimate,
that
would
allow
more
transaction
to
be
to
a
half
a
megabyte
at
max,
yes
or
a
block
I
mean
a
block,
would
be
half
a
megabyte.
Yes,
yes,
that
probably
we
want
to
I
mean
I,
so
I
have
two
issues.
One
of
them
is
the
state
growth
so
or
the
chain
growth.
So.
P
Average
size
the
block,
is
around
twenty
five
kilobytes
and
it
depends
on
what
we
are
looking
for.
Do
we
are
talking?
Would
we
want
to
do
chain
growth?
As
you
know,
there
is
an
archive
node
and
also
as
a
part
of
the
state's
growth.
In
our
case,
we
claim
that
the
increase
of
the
increasing
capability
of
like
sending
merchant
transmission,
we
actually
reduce
the
just
a
growth.
P
G
P
P
Not
it's
more
like,
but
weekly
roughly
by
it's
more
like
the
block
size
impact
for
today
for
30
percent
or
40
percent
like
during
break
dock
numbers,
but
of
the
actual
size
of
a
block
or
the
like.
The
data
itself
roughly
represents
three
percent
and
so
increasing
by
four.
We
only
roughly
grow
by
by
half
the
torch.
P
G
G
Out
the
transaction,
so
it's
correct
if
they
propagate
much
less,
but
it's
my
point,
but
that
I
wanted
to
raise
is
that
yes,
it
is
of
course
doable
to
raise
the
limits,
but
it
does
have
two
caches.
One
of
them
is
it's
a
always
a
denial
service
possibility.
So
we
need
to
be
careful,
and
the
other
is
that
the
network
from
a
network
bandwidth
perspective,
transaction
propagation
cannot
a
certain
take
a
lot
more
take-up,
local
band.
G
So,
for
example,
if
we
allow
a
single
transaction
to
a
half
a
megabyte,
that
I
mean
that's
not
a
that's
a
non-trivial
amount
of
data
to
shuffle
through
the
network,
especially
since
notes
kind
of
propagate
this
in
logarithmically.
So
essentially,
if
you
had
a
25
years,
then
I
don't
know
you
will
actually
propagate
the
same
transaction
across
your
internet
connection,
kind
of
five
times
four
or
five
times
so
that's
already
two
to
two-and-a-half
megabyte
of
data
just
for
single
transaction.
G
So
what
I'm
actually
saying
is
that
we
do
need
to
be
careful
about
the
network
traffic
because
you
might
end
up
creating
transactions
that
just
clog
the
whole
network.
We
we
agree
on
that,
and
it's
exactly
the
reason
why
we
we
are
making
simulation
with
wide
block.
It's
you're
either
test
we're
gonna
run
this
week
started
to
be
started.
P
This
week
and
continue
next
week
and
to
also
to
actually
point
an
element
on
that
part
is
we
looked
also
at
the
block,
the
historical
uncrate
versus
block
size
on
ani
theorem
and
since
the
update
of
parity.
There
is
a
very,
very
weak
correlation
between
block
size,
aunt
and
uncle
rate
and
an
existing
blocks
on
existing
blocks.
So
the
so.
The
range
of
existing
blocks
range
between
15k
kilobytes
235,
and
there
is
a
very
weak
relation
on
them.
P
G
P
G
P
P
Using
that
the
the
zero
bytes
require
bytes
elements,
but
the
point
is
here
the
first
first
of
all
that
we
have
today
to
pricing
their
different
17-time
different
from
zero
bike
and
non
zero
bike,
and
to
be
to
be
honest,
we
I
worked
on
it
and
I'd
understand.
Why,
and
the
second
part
is
we
could
to
the
create
custom,
rocks
and
custom
transaction
that
will
go
over
the
Wonder
and
20
and
would
still
be
a
potentially
a
problem.
P
Q
By
actually
doing
this,
you
might
actually
making
the
system
more
secure.
But
of
course
we
need
to
address
this
point.
As
Louis
said,
we
already
pushed
patch
to
remove
this
sort
of
artificial
limit
on
gif,
and
you
know
make
sure
that
this
happens
so
that
there's
no
disparity
between
parity.
If
the
other
implementations
and
then
everyone
has
a
larger
transactions
and
will
simulate
and
measure
and
we'll
be
working
very
cautiously,
he
don't
want
to.
We
only
want
to
improve
stuff.
Q
E
A
E
Group
that
was
also
looking
to
do
tests
for
e
IP
s,
and
perhaps
that
part
of
the
the
DevOps
that
aetherium
has
could
be
extended
to
some
of
these
groups,
and
this.
This
is
the
group,
so
oh
great
cool
and
from
the
conversation
last
time,
I
did
talk
to
the
dev
ops
team.
A
little
bit
just
like
introductory
about.
A
Maybe
having
foundation
resources
deployed
to
help
test
for
e
IPS,
whether
that
be
server,
time
or
different
like
nodes
getting
spun
up,
or
things
like
that,
probably
things
that
are
much
beyond
that
and
beyond
what
I
even
understand
how
testing
would
work
getting
that
under
the
foundation's
umbrella
and
the
initial
conversations
were
good.
We
basically
said:
let's
look
into
this
more
over
time
and
see
what
the
requirements
are
and
see
how
we
can
help
so
nothing
concrete
there
yet,
but
that's
just
an
update
to
our
conversations
from
last
time.
A
M
With
a
get
client
get
now
could
generate
state
test
and
block
chain
test,
and
we
are
planning
to
make
workshop
in
Berlin.
This
August
was
a
test
teams
and
people
who
might
work
want
a
test
implementation
for
EAP
that
you
mentioned.
Oh,
that's,
great
it'll
help
people
be
able
to
make
tests
more
more
easily.
A
B
Ability
to
run
status
where
the
fork
identifier
is,
for
example,
Constantinople
plus
1884,
so
we
can
have
status
which
says
the
based
fork
and
a
particular
e
or
a
couple
of
Eve's,
and
that
means
people
could
start
producing
status
right
now
and
not
good
Istanbul
in
because
we
don't
know
how
is
the
bow
eventually
will
be
defined
thickness
that
put
Constantinople
plus
each
number,
and
that
could
make
it
easier
first
of
all
to
get
tests
ready
early
on,
if
the
other
notes
also
implement
these
kinds
of
test
harnesses.
That's
it
great.
B
A
As
far
as
all
the
state
rent
stuff
goes,
is
there
any?
Realistically,
the
question
is
in
the
comments
realistically:
do
you
think
it
is
worth
pursuing
any
of
the
state
rent
proposals
for
Istanbul
if
we
stick
to
the
October
release
deadline?
Okay,
so
the
there's
there's
about
five
of
the
ApS
that
I've
written
and
then
I
didn't
hope
that
they
all
going
to
go.
We
will
have
the
time
to
prepare
them.
R
More
so
at
the
moment
we
have
done
the
implementation
of
one
of
them,
which
is
the
2027
which
is
basically
introducing
a
storage
size
accounting.
But
what
I've
noticed
is
that
it's
actually
kind
of
conflicting
with
the
with
the
current
implementation
of
account
versioning,
which
is
basically
adding
another
field
into
the
account.
So
unless
we
basically
generalize
it
somehow,
it
will
be
basically
because
the
the
account
version
is
the
fifth
field
and
the
storage
as
the
fifth
field
as
well.
R
So
they
have
to
be
reworked
it
or
we
have
to
find
some
sort
of
general
way
of
doing
it,
but
I
for,
for
the
others,
I
mean
we
could
do
the
implementation,
but
I
with
the
current
state
of
the
ýstanbul
reparation
I.
Don't
think
that
it
will
be
because
basically
became
it
became
a
focal
point
for
basically
anything
that
so
the
focal
point
for
anything
that
people
want
to
change
in
aetherium
and
I.
R
Think
somebody
pointed
out
that
initial
plan
for
like
in
when
we
were
doing
it
from
DEFCON
four
and
in
in
back
and
Stanford,
is
actually
the
the
initial
plan
was
to
basically
treat
it
as
an
emergency
measures
to
basically
stop
the
chain
from
from
dying.
But
now
I
can
see
that
it
became
more
as
a
focal
point
for
anything
that
people
would
like
to
change.
H
Yet
last
week
and
right
now,
if
you
be
compatible
with
with
any
additional
account
for
you,
so
this
is
pretty
simple
way.
Just
first
parse
the
face
field
to
travel
exists,
it
exists,
we
parse
a
dice
version
and
then
they
interpreted
any
additional
account
fuse
as
defined
by
that
version.
So
in
that
case
it
can
be
compatible
with
the
state
runs
that
accounts
field
yah-tchi.
R
State
of
mind,
which
is
still
my
focus,
but
unfortunately
there
was
a
lot
of
stuff
in
between,
but
I'm
still
looking
to
do
that.
So
you
have
a
specification
so
that
if
people
want
they
can
implement
in
a
compatible
way
in
other,
you
know
in
in
any
kind
of
client
I'm
trying
to
avoid
the
word.
The
word
find
yeah
anyway.
R
So
that's
basically
it
so
we
still
the
work
is
still
going,
but
it's
I'm
not
very
worried
about
not
some
of
the
stuff
not
getting
in
Istanbul
because
essentially,
but
you
know,
if
I
get
you
if
I
start
getting
worried,
then
there's
not
there's
no
good
gonna
come
out
of
it.
So
I
I'm
just
going
to
be
continuing
what
I'm
doing
and
I
understand
the
realities
of
our
situation.
So.
R
Raising
the
cost
of
s
load
and
an
imbalance
which
was
conflicting
with
my
other
IP,
which
I
don't
think
it
will
be
ready
for
Istanbul,
so
I
would
basically
say
you
know
just
ignore
it
for
now.
So
the
other
I
don't
remember
the
number
now
I
think
it
was
like
28,
35
or
30
for
whatever
so
I
think.
If,
if
you
want
to
propose
I
think
you
already
did
the
equation
of
a
store
and
balance,
you
know
just
go
for
it.
It's
load,
yes
and
then
just
go
for
it,
because
I
don't
think.
R
R
R
If
we,
if
we
want
to
rethink
it
and
then
bring
it
back
to
the
to
the
minimalistic
set,
then
we
should
be
able
to
do
something
like
within
within
18
months,
but
and
also
it
depends
on
how
we
well
we're
doing
with
the
testing,
and
we
were
ability
to
deliver
multiple
of
the
changes
at
once
and
I.
Also,
as
Mitra
mentioned,
we
did
some
work
on
that
with
it
with
a
theorem,
but
there's
lots
of
more
more
work
required
and
I
myself.
R
You
know
we
even
with
with
the
people
who
helped
me
I,
don't
know
how
long
it's
gonna
take
to
prepare
both
stay
trend
and
trying
to
change
the
process
to
to
accommodate
older
all
the
things
that
people
want
to
put
in,
because
I
said
it's
becoming
what
it
became
quite
a
large
thing.
So
that's
I,
don't
know.
Basically
the
answers.
I
don't
know,
I
have
to
see
what
happens
when
I
stumble.
R
A
F
F
C
C
R
F
A
B
L
Tests
like
what's
in
the
spec
in
principle
also,
it
can
be
also.
You
can
call
the
reference
implementation,
that
kind
of
full
set
of
separate
implementations
in
all
different
clients,
and
this
is
actually
implementation
in
a
client
which
show
two
other
node
implementers.
Ok,
so
how
do
we
integrate
this
and
what
parts
need
to
be
touched?
Is
it
I
mean
for.
B
What
for
some
of
them
is
just
changed
a
constant
in
a
gas
table
or
the
pre
compiled
some
test
cases
and
you're
done
and
for
other
ones
it's
a
lot
more
complex.
You
have
to
change
the
something
something
in
a
in
the
block
below
or
whatever
so
I
would
say:
full
pull
them
in
full.
Embedding
of
the
eep
inside
a
node
that
we
might
take
I
when
I
was
writing.
So
to
answer
this
question
my
way,
sorry
for
the
interruption,
so
the
when
I
was
writing
this
blog
post
about
the
the
process
of
each.
R
One
X,
so
my
definition
of
reference
implementation
was
that
the
implementation
which
is
able
to
generate
the
conformance
test
is
the
reference
implementation
and
so
far
we
only
had
Alice
as
the
reference
implementation,
because
all
the
tests
would
rated
off
that.
But,
as
the
Mitra
mentioned
now
guess
is
also
could
be
used
to
produce
a
reference
implementation
because
you
can
generate
conformance
test
from
it.
M
Alexi
I
mentioned
that
he
has
idea
how
to
improve
the
protocol
using
some
as
a
communication
channel
deaf
p2p
only
p2p
I
think
yeah.
If
way
I'm
going
to.
If
you
want,
we
can,
we
can
talk
about
it.
Offline
I
can
explain
you
what
what
we
didn't
go
is
here
and
you
can
probably
we
can
probably
transplant.
R
K
E
E
I
D
D
A
I
B
Is
that
oxic
pointed
out
that
xcode
hash
should
get
the
same
increase
from
four
hundred
seven
hundred
as
balance
it
was
priced
in,
it
was
reduced
in
Constantinople
Xcode
hash
at
400,
with
the
reasoning
that
it
should
be
the
same
as
balance
so
I
plan
to
update,
if
it's
possible,
to
update
the
finalized
date,
the
repricing
to
also
increase
xqo
from
400
to
700.
Just
like
balance,
it's
a
bit
more
than
trivial,
though,
because
it
also
introduced
self
balance
and
very
cheap,
so
yeah.
B
B
A
A
Attend
the
meeting
to
defend
yourself
and
say
this
is
why
it
doesn't
need
one.
Let's
do
that
and
then
for
the
ten
that
have
reference.
Implementations
will
try
to
discuss
that
as
much
as
possible
offline
and
then
during
the
meeting
try
to
have
you
know
more
focused
conversation
on
it,
sound
good
everybody
yeah.
F
A
G
Guess
most
people
don't
really
care,
but
the
question
is:
if
anyone
sees
anything,
obviously
wrong
with
it
or
on,
and
has
some
obvious
if
you
wouldn't,
then
just
please
write
it
down.
I,
honestly,
I,
don't
think
it's
worth
too
much
time
to
think
about
it,
because
it's
just
a
no-brainer
definition
of
something
that
might
be
useful
yep.
A
H
A
Head
was
spinning
and
then
the
EIP
2025
that
one
is
block,
rewards
proposal
for
eighth
funding
for
one
X,
I
think
other
than
that
we
got
everything
done
if
you
want
to
talk
about
that.
Real
quick,
I
think
James
right.
You
have
that
on
the
table.
If
you
want
to
just
talk
about
that,
while
everyone's
still
on
and
then
we'll
sign
off-
or
you
can
wait
till
next
time,
it's
up
to
you.