►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #65 [2019-07-18]
Description
B
A
C
Okay,
great
good
morning,
/
evening,
everybody
for
cortes
65
pretty
packed
agenda
today.
So,
like
we
talked
about
last
time,
this
is
the
chopping
block
call
for
Istanbul,
so
hopefully
we
can
get
through
all
the
apes
have
been
proposed
and
get
to
agreement
various
on
whether
or
not
we
want
to
include
them
in
the
assemble
upgrade
James.
You
want
to
go
ahead
and
kick
off
the
conversation
on
this.
C
E
If
there
is
someone
here
on
the
call
to
defend
why
they
should
not
need
one
or
why
they
should
be
exempt
from
this
cut,
then
this
is
the
time
to
make
that
defense
and
I'd
like
to
keep
this
conversation
pretty
focused,
because
we
have
a
lot
a
lot
to
get
to
a
lot
to
get
through.
So
the
format
is
gonna,
be
I,
say
the
status
and
I
read
through
all
of
the
e
IPS
and
looked
at
their
reprimand,
their
implementation
inside
the
EFD
IP.
So
if
I'm
out
of
date
on
any
information.
E
Something's
good
yep,
so
I'll
start
from
the
top,
and
then
after
that,
we'll
go
through
the
list.
You
have
ones
to
go
in
deeper
conversation,
but
I
want
to
keep
this
really
moving
along.
So
we'll
do
it
quickly.
So
this
1665
has
a
reference.
Client,
these
seven
routines
and
Static
jumps.
663,
unlimited
swap
and
doop
doesn't
have
a
reference
client.
F
E
You
do
all
right
so
I'll
add
that
one
to
having
a
reference,
a
recommendation
in
Prague
pal
10:57,
has
a
reference
client,
a
reference
implementation,
one
1:08,
replacing
alt
Ben
128
has
a
reference,
client
and
I'm
just
going
down
the
list.
Sequentially
11:09
does
not
have
a
reference
client
that
is
precompiled
opcode
1109.
E
E
G
E
Thanks
Louise
15:59
the
fee
market
change
that
one
doesn't
have
a
reference
client
and
it's
not
close
to
enough
I-
can
give
an
update
on
that
later.
But
I
won't
do
that.
Part
of
as
part
of
this
discussion,
17:17
Oh
to
account
versioning,
has
a
reference.
Client
1706
s
store
disabled
below
gas
left
does
have
a
reference.
Client,
1707
use
version,
byte
prefix
for
contract
account.
Versioning
does
not
have
a
reference
implementation.
E
H
C
E
I
E
I
A
reference
for
that
one
is
I
mean
the
issue.
I
think
right
now
that
my
is
not
in
the
seventy,
the
six
sixty
seventy
nine
least
umber
metal
part
four,
so
I
was
just
not
sure
whether
we
can
get
it,
but
I
do
have
an
intuition
that
if
we
define
a
new
version
that
made
me
if
we
define
a
new
a
conversion
in
the
maybes,
it's
a
good
idea
to
apply
that,
but
anyways,
it's
not
I
I!
Think
it's
going
to
matter
hard
work,
so
it
should.
B
I
E
I
E
I
I
E
E
H
D
E
E
E
D
E
J
Had
yeah,
it
was
posted
this
week
for
like
preliminary
pull,
request
and
test
parity
for
the
brass
implementation
and
were
finished
C++
implementation
today,
which
most
likely
will
be
integrated
and
go
with
cerium
I
mean
it's
up
to
preference
of
ghostery
developers,
whether
we
will
either
integrate
integrate
rust
into
the
compiler
pipeline
to
assemble
or
just
use
a
native
goal
and
compilation
of
C++,
but
in
principle,
will
also
integrate
it
into
the
guess.
Early
next
week.
Okay,.
D
C
E
H
There's
one
complex
about
that,
for
if
you
do
it
only
in
the
idiom
and
it's
fine,
we
don't
even
need
too
hard
for
it.
If
we
want
to
apply
it
to
the
block
validation
and
apply
the
same
levels
for
the
unquote
time
stamp,
then
we
guess
we
do
NATO
more
hard
work,
at
least
certain
block
and
thus
yeah
foundation,
but
it's
fairly
trivial.
H
E
K
Yeah
well,
nothing
happened
on
that
front,
but
it
would
be
I
guess
on
one
part,
it
would
be
a
recommendation
had
to
extend
the
the
state
with
data
and
the
first
example
for
that
was
the
chain
ID.
But
since
it
really
seems
that
a
different
alternative
implementation
for
the
chain,
ID
selected,
then
I
guess
this.
This
won't
be
needed
right
now.
Okay,
all.
E
Right
well,
thank
you.
Blake
to
be
2024
has
a
reference.
Implementation
2025,
the
developer
block
reward,
has
a
reference
implementation
for
the
one
that
it
depends
on.
Then
this
is
mine,
so
I
would
need
someone
else
to
make.
This
call
not
me
I
think
that
it
is
simple
enough
that
it's
okay
to
not
need
one.
E
E
Then
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
the
you
have
something
that
that
is
has
been
enough
for
the
other
AI
piece
and
I
think
it
would
be.
It
wouldn't
be
fair
to
say
that
all
of
them
need
to
be
up
to
perfection
or
up
to
a
a
complete
status.
Just
a
implementation,
so
I
would
actually
say
that
that
should
still
case
be
the
case
for
2027,
at
least,
if
you
say
that's
fair,
okay,.
E
E
C
C
C
Okay,
so
moving
on
so
to
the
next
section.
This
is
a
bit
the
opposite,
so
these
are
eats
that
have
been
discussed
for
considerations
and
that
may
or
may
not
be
ready
to
make
it
over
the
finish
line
and
to
the
to
be
accepted
for
the
upgrade
so
now
I'm
back
to
the
list
on
the
agenda
for
the
call
I'm
gonna
go
through
them
sequentially.
C
If
anyone
has
thoughts
about
them's
comments,
please
speak
up.
I
gathered
this
list
by
asking
everyone
who
was
on
a
previous
call,
which
eaves
they
thought
were
most
important
to
discuss.
So
there's
no
specific
speaker
assigned
there
there
any
of
them.
So
the
first
one
on
here
is
615,
which
is
in
last
call
right
now.
D
That's
the
one
to
add
a
lot
of
about
10
different
opcodes
on
about
three
different
themes,
which
is
jump
subroutines
and
code
data.
There
are
no
tests
in
this
and
there's
a
little
bit
of
pushback
from
the
IP
author.
When
asked
to
add
tests,
he
wants
to
be
grandfathered
in
under
the
old
rules.
I,
don't
think
it
is
prepared
enough
to
go
into
a
hard
fork
in
about
a
month
or
a
month,
and
a
half
I
think
there's
good
ideas
in
there,
but
I
think
it
would
be
better
served
on
a
future
hard
work.
I.
H
C
Yeah,
okay,
so
I
think
we
have
consensus
on
not
having
6:15
as
part
of
Istanbul
but
not
fully
dropping
the
EEP.
If
in
the
future
it
has
more
tests
like
like
what's
mentioned
next,
one
on
the
list
is
1344,
which
is
a
chain
ID
up
code
and
1965.
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
this
on
the
dealer
in
the
past
week
and
namely
can
we
make
a
decision
on
1344
independently
of
1965,
and
the
author
for
1344
unfortunately
cannot
be
on
this
call.
So
does
anyone
have
opinions
there
can.
D
D
H
So
there's
contract,
which
can
tell
you
what's
the
canonical
hash
of
a
block,
had
a
certain
height
and
we
deployed
that
contract
on
the
obstinate,
rinkeby
and
Maynard,
and
the
thing
is
pretty
nice
to
have
the
same
set
of
a
signer
keys
for
the
Testaments,
so
we
submit
signatures,
I
sign
it
Peter
and
Felix,
and
whoever
signatures
saying
they
are.
This
is
the
canonical
ash
for
block
X
and
when
that
is
validated
on
Jane,
it's
nice.
H
If
that
signature
also
paints
the
chain
ID,
so
that
no
no
I
can
just
take
the
signature
and
submit
it
and
that
someone
who
validates
it.
The
signature
can
see
that
yes,
this
sign
be,
the
data
was
intended
for
wrinkly
erupts
them
without
actually
knowing
the
address
with
that
contract
is
located.
But
you
seeing
that
yes,
I,
have
three
signatures
and
that's
all
I
need.
I
Okay,
so
I
like
a
Glock
rivet
and
it
has
usage,
but
right
now
the
only
useful
for
me
or
3044
is
that
is
superb.
Stuffication
is
not
really
clear
at
this
moment.
I
think
we,
if
we
just
I,
don't
think,
is
possible
to
define
China
of
a
block,
but
it's
possible
to
define
the
charity
of
a
transaction.
So
if
we
change
34
the
first
destination.
I
H
I
I
Yeah
but
I
mean
it
all,
depends
on
how
how
this
channel
code
is
used.
We
we
do
have
a
lot
other
up
codes
that
is
dependent
on
the
transaction
like
we
can
gather
transactions,
gas
phase
or
some
other
properties
of
the
transaction,
but
like
currently
like
I,
think
if
we
define
chai
tea.
Also
in
that
category
in
here,
a
lot
like
to
you,
rather
than
defining
guys,
are
probably
on
the
vlog
Channel,
because
the
Chinese
highly
change
in
the
future,
but.
O
I
think
it
would
be
the
property
of
the
current
block,
so
it
would
just
be
which
train
ID.
So
if
transactions
specify
a
train
ID,
which
is
the
train
ID
at
that
block,
that's
accepted.
So
if
it's
been
a
hard
fork
later,
you'd
see
that
change.
Now,
the
only
difference
in
practice
becomes
whether
or
not
chain.
Id
returns
zero.
Now
some
kind
of
sentinel
value
to
say
this
transaction
did
not
have
a
train
ID
at
all,
because
they
are
still
accepted.
I.
I
Mean
if
we,
if
we
talk
about
like
also
change
of
charity,
then
the
issue
is:
it's.
May
nodes
like
like
this?
Certain
block
may
have
multiple
Chinese
4x4
capital
issues
like
for
future
Hartford,
maybe
there's
a
chance
plea
and
we
want
to
apply
new
like
additional
replay
protection
that
we
need
to
give
our
new
charity.
But
in
that
case
we
might
still
well
the
old
charity
to
continue
to
work,
because
some
contracts
may
depend
on
that
already.
I
C
I
I
mean
right
now,
if
we
agree
that
for
none
for
for
a
transaction
that
is
not
signed
with
which
we
pre-production
it,
it
has
a
give
if
it's
in
that
transaction,
if
your
couch
ID
return
zeros
and
those
two
every
quiver
equivalent.
But
if,
if,
in
fact,
if
we're
done,
we
play
protected
transaction
for
the
child,
Yokoi
still
return
were
really
different
than
zero
than
those
who
will
be
different.
I
L
So
I
just
reread
the
initial
proposition
for
this.
For
this
change,
and
essentially
the
the
reason
why
it
was
proposed
was
that
smart
contract
wanted
to
ensure
that
a
transaction
which
was
given
to
it
like
a
roar
or
or
signed
transaction
was
actually
was
actually
replay
protected
for
the
current
blockchain.
So
in
this
case
it
does
make
sense.
L
The
chain
ID
returns
the
the
ID
of
the
current
change,
rather
than
the
idea
of
the
current
transaction,
because
otherwise
you
can
trick
the
smart
contract
into
accepting
something
that
it
isn't
didn't
really
want
to
accept
because
they
at
the
moment
the
chain
ID
had
to
be
a
hard-coded
in
the
smart
contract
we
equals
to
1.so.
But
the
idea
was
that
it
would
be
more
generic.
L
L
I
mean
I
mean
I
would
say
that
you
know
we.
There
was
a
quite
quite
a
lot
of
discussion
about
it
already
in
the
in
the
what
is
it
in
a
gator
and
in
the
magician's
and
nothing
kind
of
people,
but
what
I,
what
I
could
gather?
It
was.
Basically,
you
know
now
we
starting
to
go
around
in
circles
and
trying
to
so
I
would
just
basically
implement
it
as
we
agreed
in
the
chat.
L
I
D
C
Yeah
and
just
to
be
full
of
time
we're
almost
halfway
through
the
call,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
each
to
get
through.
So
is
it
worth
pushing
back
this
discussion
to
eat
magicians
and
yeah
and
follow
following
you
up
on
the
next
call,
unless
we
can
get
like
a
resolution
in
the
next
minute
or
so
I
think
it's
probably
more
productive
to
go
through
all
the
other
VIPs.
C
D
H
C
Okay,
so
agree:
it's
dropped
from
Istanbul.
At
the
very
least.
Next
one
is
1283,
/
1706.
So
for
some
context
there
we
wanted
to
move
the
conversation
on
this
and
try
to
organize
an
AMA
on
each
magicians.
No
one
seemed
to
have
concerns
that
they
brought
up
there
and
Hayden
helped
it's
I
pronounce
their
name
from
uni
swap
came
in
just
to
say
they
supported
this.
So
I
don't
know.
If
anyone
has
opinions
about
that.
1283
I.
I
D
I
D
D
I
It
is
actually
so
the
usually
there's
80
84,
which
changed
the
gas
price
of
a
slot
and
in
that
case,
to
attract
the
28.
He
know
the
1283
has
a
hard
dependency
on
the
old
I,
still
out
gas
cost,
so
it
is
hard-coded
there
and
we
can
change
that
so
so,
if
we
accept
80
84,
then
we
need
to
change
this
bag
of
1283
a
little
bit.
I
So
in
that
case
we
need
a
new
jockey
for
that
and
that
will
be
to
two
hundred
and
regarding
the
issue
of
reference
implementation
at
least
partly
we'll
need
that,
because
our
definition
of
1283
is
actually
the
same,
I
200
so
so
we
just
need
to
change
our
config
from
it
and
leave
that
that's.
Okay,
it's
for
parity.
I
I
It
just
went
to
gas
core
values
of
1283.
First,
when
already
no
value
when
the
current
value
equals
Q
value
basically
means
I,
said
story
said
no
all
the.
In
that
case,
we
always
charge
to
stay
as
ice
load
which
previously
was
200
and
because
we
have
a
ready
for
a
it
becomes
800.
I,
remember
and
another
is
bigger
related
to
the
final
one,
which
is
when
you
set
up
value
using
an
ice
I
store
and
when
you
we
share
that
value.
I
The
refund
also
contents
a
little
bits
of
the
guest
host
of
ice
vart,
so
that
one
that
gas
cost
is
also
change
from
my
visa
is
a
volume
minus
the
ice
to
outcast
host,
which
which
we
need
to
just
take,
take
account
into
the
newest
or
Gaskell's.
So
there's
no
logic
change
like
no
like
nothing.
Nothing
I
was
gently.
Just
the
part
which
it
was
related
to
I
saw
guys
cause
change.
O
O
N
N
B
C
C
I
D
H
N
C
C
F
H
F
F
F
Or
do
I
wanted
to
like
enter
static,
static
mode,
but
then
realized?
Actually
the
logs
must
be
loud,
so
it's
kind
of
like
semi,
static
mode,
so
for
simplicity
out
I
would
suggest
to
disallow
anything
except
for
logs,
so
static
mode
with
locks
allowed,
but
it
was
mostly
for
simple
simplicity.
Maybe
there
are
some
some
cases
where
that
would
be
useful.
You
still
can
do
a
call,
provided
you
don't
send
any
ether
remove
it.
So.
D
I
I
M
C
This
oh
yeah,
this
overall
functionality
will
be
part
of
Istanbul,
will
review
a
Laos
proposal
and
also,
at
the
same
time,
how
we
bundled
it
all,
but
there's
general
agreement
on
the
on
the
functionality.
Does
that
make
sense
you,
okay?
Next
one
on
the
list
is
1962.
Does
anyone
have
opinions
on
that
one?
So.
J
So
since
the
last
developers
call
so
there
was
a
kind
of
requirement,
it's
much
easier
to
integrate,
SC
implementation
into
the
existing
gasps
client,
at
least
so
right
now,
service,
SC
implementation,
which
will
be
integrated
and
or
as
well
as
an
alternative
option.
We
can
now
suggest
integrate
buildings,
a
Rast
implementation,
along
with
buildings
going
cerium
itself,
so
it's
actually
up
to
developers
or
what
which
option
is
better,
for
example.
J
But
right
now
there
are
two
implementations
which
are
quite
independent
and
what
we
do
now
is
we'll
basically
facet
test,
some
one
versus
another,
so
if
either
one
of
those
crashes,
for
example,
or
just
if
they
give
different
results.
So
this
is
what
I'm
going
to
do
for
next,
two
weeks,
at
least
with
just
more
computing
power
and
simultaneously
finished
gas
meter.
J
J
So
the
kind
of
the
partisan
strategy
which
was
also
discussed
for
this
forces
precompile
as
its
well
basically
is
the
universality.
The
global
universality
is
the
only
different,
difficult
happening.
It's
implemented.
Every
sin,
elseis
is
three
well
and
you
can
just
take
a
lot
of
existence,
existing
implementations
and
just
tests
and
modes,
and
most
likely
it's
also
already
tested
so
also
a
separate
strategy,
we'll
discuss
it
for
and
if
we
use
the
same
code
base
in
principle
and
continue
to
review
it
and
improve
the
quality,
but
for
next
have
for
card
work.
J
D
This
is
already
the
most
complex
precompile
I've
seen
specified,
and
it's
very
there's
four
direct
branches
based
off
the
first
parameter
with
different
gas
metering
rules.
It's
it's
not
a
it's
deceptive
to
call
it
one
pre-compiled,
it's
at
least
four
different
things
and
then
you're,
adding
on
more
possible
curves
in
the
future.
I
I'm
not
comfortable
getting
it
in
this.
This
one
right
now,
yeah
and.
H
H
To
find
and
trying
to
exit
is
very
devious
because
when
you
submit
a
patch
to
a
library
in
crypto,
it's
pretty
obvious
that
you're
touching
a
little
bit
that
which
can
be
exploited
in
a
second,
so
I'm,
very
wary
of
this
and
I'd
like
to
have
the
two
or
three
implementations
differential
across
I
mean
I,
assume
they
won't
crash,
but
differentially
fast
for
a
long
time.
That's
fine!
That's
my
take
it's
too
soon
focus
on
mobile.
It's
my
opinion.
You
know.
J
J
Well,
I
means
a
binary
interface.
Well,
it
just
depends
how
what
you
define
as
a
totally
different.
The
binary
interface
is
different,
but
those
are
for
developers
and
most
likely,
those
will
be
just
hard
coded.
The
first
part
will
be
hard-coded
by
developers
well
in
a
smart
contract
just
from
in
terms
of
arithmetic.
It's
actually
not
that
different
altogether,
but
this
is
a
not
part
of
the
main
discussion.
That's
why
what
I
think
is
kind
of
optimal
s
to
even
while
we
still
will
test
for
kind
of
complete.
J
J
But
we
can
just
limit
those
parameters
to
use
a
list
which
will
correspond
you
instantiation
of
this
well,
six
to
eight
curves
and
the
least
of
those
is
public
well
known
and
like
for
people
who
would
want
to
use
it
as
also
the
most
interesting
ones,
and
it
will
kind
of
exponentially
reduce
the
scope
of
the
precompile
for
an
X
for
ik.
And
then,
if
we
refer
a
satisfied
with
equality
of
the
testing-
and
maybe
we
will
get
me
at
some
day
at
some
point-
one
more
alternative
from
the
mutation
in
Thomas
language.
J
Maybe
then
it
can
be
kind
of
this.
In
this
case,
this
restriction
can
be
lifted
and
then
users
will
cap
in
principle
the
same
code
base
with
the
same
rules
for
gas
metering,
which
is
still
quite
universal,
but
not
too
complex.
But
then
there
will
be
kind
of
much
smaller
chance
that
there
is
some
financial
problem
which,
what
wasn't
seen
to
implement
something
just
for
a
set
of
specific
errs,
especially
if
they're
already
implementation
for
in
two
separate
languages
which
are
not
kind
of
direct
relatives
from
one
another.
It's
actually
not
this
difficult,
I.
L
Wanted
to
suggest
something
that
you
know:
I
want
to
suggest
the
kind
of
them
for
now
the
optimistic
approach,
because
the
so
to
me
it
looks
like
this
is
the
this
is
really
a
very
attractive
change
and
also
I
can
see
that
the
the
the
the
guys
are
working
on
it
are
really
seems
to
be
really
productive
and
actually
doing
lots
of
stuff
in
a
very
short
time.
So
I
think
we
should
just
wait
and
see
what
happens
and
what
they
can
show
us,
instead
of
being
a
super
defensive,
I.
D
One
of
the
questions
I
asked
on
eighth
magicians
wasn't
answered
was
why
you
know
the
the
parameterizing,
the
curves
I,
get
as
fine
as
parametrized
parametrizing,
the
four
distinct
separate
operations.
Those
should
really
be
forward,
distinct,
but
interrelated
pre-compile
contracts
and
as
a
developer,
I
would
have
a
nightmare
trying
to
have
to
cram
all
of
my
parameters
into
this
binary
string
and
I
would
like
to
hear
what
what
the
solidity
and
Viper
team
thinks
about
the
usability
of
this
interface.
So
beyond
the
cryptography,
I
think
there's
issues.
C
J
Okay,
well
I
just
wanted
penny.
Is
there
too
much
time
when
there
is
sorry
was
the
only
question
I
would
like
to
clarify
from
the
core
developers.
It's
like
what
is
the
kind
of
suggested
time
for
a
fuzzy
testing
in
terms
of
like
CPU
days,
in
a
multi-core
core
system
or
like
what
was
their
previous
experience
for
this
purpose?.
H
L
Question
is
from
the
perspective
that
if
we
increase
the
parallelism
of
the
fast
testing,
we
can
run
it
on
multiple,
very
powerful
machines.
Then
we
can
just
have
but
years
in
in
very
short
time.
So
you
would.
The
question
is
like:
if
we
can
define
some
criteria
by
them
like
in
the
next
call
or
in
during,
if
magicians,
then
we
will
just
know
what
that
seconds
criteria
are
and
I
mean.
L
H
Yeah
I'm
sorry
I
can't
give
in
a
such
figure.
But
if
you
put
some
code
is
published
on
the
steps
for
doing
the
testing
and
how
to
set
up
your
I
mean
the
type
of
fussing
you're
doing
and
how
the
integration
is
done,
so
that
anyone
else
can
take
it
for
a
spin
and
see
I
mean.
Do
you
actually
hit
the
right
things
or
could
we
modify
the
passing
settings
to
make
sure
that
they
get
good
coverage
are
great
but
stuff
like
that?
I
think
it
would
help
yeah
I
can't
give
it
a
hard
metrics.
N
E
C
E
K
D
L
L
K
Yeah
I
would
believe
it
has
to
be
some
kind
of
a
library
and
it
doesn't
need
language
support.
If
the
question
is
about
the
the
overhead
of
crafting
the
message,
then
it
doesn't
really
matter
if
that
single
first
byte
is
there
because
the
rest
of
the
encoding,
my
tape,
might
have
an
overhead
anyway
in
EVM.
D
Concern
is
reading
it.
You
have
to
have
a
library
through
the
precompiled
call.
That
makes
me
think
that
the
pre-compiled
is
too
complex
at
the
interface
level,
there
should
be
40
different
calls
one
for
each
principle
operation
and
we
can
parametrize
and
it's
easier
to
read
when
we
see
we're
doing
an
ad
multiply
exponentiation,
it's
something
I
would
expect
in
the
name
of
the
function,
not
in
the
value
of
the
first
parameter
of
the
function.
J
D
C
G
Yeah
just
here
to
present
so
about
eight
twenty
twenty
eight,
we
released
two
reference
implementations
that
are
available
on
the
on
github
and
I,
think
are
already
pushed
on
like
available
somewhere,
it's
very
late,
where
I
am
so
I'm.
Sorry,
please
apologize
for
the
beautiful
confusion,
and
today
we
release
also
the
analysis
justifying
the
new
price.
G
C
D
K
D
K
G
So
we
so
the
the
reason
why
we
came
with
16
is
4
because
we
wanted
to.
Since
there
was
a
short
time
before
he
stumble.
We
came
up
with
very
conservative
numbers
and
there
was
discussion
about
the
IP
150th
1559,
benign,
which
would
you
what
we
want
to
use
further
reduction
for
identity
for
the
new
IP?
G
H
C
G
Yeah
for
exist
country,
the
numbers.
The
reason
is,
we
managed
to
make
so
the
technique
we
used
was
so
we
secure
it.
So
the
main
impact
of
2028
would
be
security.
If
we
dismiss
history,
which
we
explain
why
security
would
be
a
measure
by
uncorrect,
as
everyone
agrees
and
on
the
call
and
what
we
did.
G
G
G
G
G
So
what
we
did
was
creating
a
random
string
of
bytes
replace
all
the
zeros
in
the
random
streak,
with
other
random
bytes
from
from
0
to
255,
and
then
what
we
did
is
randomly
look
choose
an
index,
add
a
0
and
add
16
zeros
at
the
up
and
16
0
at
the
end
of
the
string
and
show
for
the
whole
thing.
So
by
doing
so,
we
have
data
that
are
compressed
by
snappy
by
this
50
only
by
50%,
roughly,
which
is
more
or
less
a
ratio
that
some
blocks
on
unmended
are
currently
facing.
G
Does
no
so
since
blocks
are
blocking
blocks
are
defined
by
block
limit.
There
is
what
we
say
that
we
should
reduce
the
size
of
the
code,
the
cost
of
coordinator
and
and
although
and
that
we
just
reduce
that
we
try.
Once
again,
we
are
being
concerned
for
a
very
simple
reason
that
DC's,
ipcc
IP
is
very
easy
need
by
every
layer
to,
and
we
are
looking
for,
the
most
conservative
numbers
we
we
could
find
and
from
our
deal
as
minus
4,
like
the
deviation
by
4,
is
pre
conservative
based
on
our
experiment.
N
G
N
G
That
our
compression
algorithm
works,
compression
algorithm,
look
for
patterns,
they
don't
really
care
about
the
exact
bytes,
so
I
could
share.
My
I
could
actually
show
you
I
mean
the
snappy
compression
for
our
for
our
strings
and
they
are
exactly
the
same
ratio.
You
can
actually
take
them
with
the
blocks
that
the
data
is
happenin
in.
So
there
is
an
address
in
the
post.
You
can
look
at
any
transaction.
There
is
the
extra
data
film
is
filled
with
our
blocks.
G
G
So
so,
once
again,
the
pricing
of
0
doesn't
seems
to
make
a
lot
of
sense,
and
it
was
already
discussed.
Last
will
last
week
last
time
on
on
the
on
the
court
on
the
court.
They've
call
the
we
don't
want
to
change
it,
for
it,
for
exit
for
compatibility
and
for
existing
contract.
We
actually
use
that
fact
to
to
do
no
analysis.
So
this
is
completely.
G
N
Sure,
yeah
I
guess
just
to
explain
you
know
doing
an
even
more
aggressive
cost
reduction.
There's
it's
only
been
proposed.
You
know,
in
the
context
of
also
having
an
explicit
maximum
block
size
which
yep,
which
would
be
conservative
but
yeah
I
mean
obviously
I
mean.
You
know
strongly
support
the
course,
but.
C
D
D
H
H
C
L
So
there
was
only
one
which
basically
was
kind
of
implement
auto-fire
that
I've
written
and
my
only
one
has
been
implemented
so
I.
As
I
said,
there
are
last
time
I'm
not
really
kind
of
pushing
very
hard
for
them
to
be
included,
given
the
amount
of
things
that
are
already
in
so,
but
we'll
see
how
you
know.
L
L
Well,
not
sure
I
think
I
want
to
first
finish
the
the
fourth
version
of
the
say
drain
proposal,
which
is
basically
depend
on
how
the
data
from
the
stateless
client
is
going
to
go,
because
this
is
what
what
drives
more
changes
in
it.
Yes,
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
just
to
reserve
something
yet,
but
we
yes,
so
potentially
it
will
go
to
the
next
one,
and
we
don't
know
when
the
next
one
is
going
to
be
Adam.
C
Okay,
and
so
aside
from
state
trends,
the
next
big
one
was
Prague
pal
Hudson
being
away
I
pinged
him
and
Charles
who's
also
been
working
on
the
audit,
and
they
wanted
to
discuss
the
idea
of
including
Prague
Valley
in
Istanbul,
with
the
condition
that,
if
somebody
something
negative
comes
out
of
the
audit,
we
would
pull
it
out.
So
they
were
both
curious
about
people's
thoughts
on
that.
D
So,
a
few
all
cortez
calls
ago,
I
expressed
concern
about
a
chain
halting
attack
that
could
be
declared
a
tower.
I
posted
something
on
earth
magicians
on
the
discussion
thread
now,
I
haven't
heard
back
from
anyone
on
that.
That's
one
of
the
things
that
I
put
into
how
the
auditors
look
at
and
that's
something
I'm
actually
concerned
about.
If
we
implement
it,
as
is
without
changes,
there's
some
mitigations
we
can
do,
but
that's
why
I
was.
C
H
C
D
So
I
do
think
it
Prague.
How
should
go
in
I
am
skeptical
that
it
would
be
responsible
to
do
it
in
Istanbul
without
the
audit
findings,
and
if
we
let
it
work
into
the
test
net,
we
permanently
got
it
coded
in.
So
if
we
were
going
to
put
up
last-minute
emini
test
net
and
then
I'm
concerned,
I'm
gonna
put
flags
to
fork
or
not
fork,
I
think
we're
adding
unnecessary
complexity.
Plus
I
still
would
like
to
get
feedback
on
my
concern
about
the
mitigation
for
the
channel
teen
attack,
I.
C
H
H
C
C
L
O
C
D
C
Okay,
so
I
love,
Istanbul
and
on
a
hard
for
as
soon
as
yeah,
that's
ready,
I
think
we'll
probably
need
a
further
discussion
about
whether
or
not
this
is
a
special
single
II,
a
hard
fork
or
not
so
we're
at
an
hour
and
a
half
we've
made
it
basically
three
point
one
on
the
agenda
to
be
mindful
of
people's
time.
Is
there
anything
else,
especially
related
to
Istanbul
that
someone
wants
to
discuss
that
they
feel
is
very
important.
C
C
C
G
C
D
P
C
So
there
was
some
concern
about
whether
the
chain
ID
should
be
in
the
transaction
or
in
the
block.
I
think
that
was
the
biggest
contention
point
and
we
agreed
to
take
that
conversation
on
offline
to
still
keep
this
as
a
consideration
for
Istanbul.
Given
how
simple
of
a
change
it
is
yeah,
but
it
just
sort
this
issue
out:
async,
okay,.
Q
Q
Would
say
like
two
minutes:
it's
just
about
adding
a
mandatory
security
considerations
section
to
the
ERP
requiring
this
to
be
filled
out.
It
is
intentionally
being
very
leg
relaxed
so
that
we
can
slow
start
bringing
more
security
into
the
process
and
that's
what
it
is
meant
to
be,
and
it
will
at
some
point
before
that
by
a
guideline
and
we're
currently
gathering
some
information
about
that.
So
there
will
also
be
some
one
of
us
at
an
ITF
meet
up
in
Montreal
I.