►
Description
A
A
Hello
is
this
working
yeah,
it's
working,
hi
everybody!
We
are
now
starting
the
meeting.
Let's
just
jump
right
into
it.
There's
two
items
on
the
agenda
talking
about
the
Rob's
tennis,
shoes
and
wind
fork.
So
let's
figure
those
things
out,
so
we
had
the
Rob
stenographer
last
Sunday,
I,
guess
or
Saturday.
So
a
little
bit
of
an
opportune
time.
We
had
some
issues
during
the
during
the
fork
and
if
could
anyone
volunteer
to
just
give
like
a
high-level
overview
of
what
happened?
B
So
I
was
at
home
in
front
of
a
computer
when
I
noticed
that
the
hard
facts
coming
much
yeah
as
we
discussed
last
Friday.
So
it
happened
two
days
earlier
than
expected
from
what
I
understand
on
a
Saturday
Berlin.
It
was
evening
it
was
very
unfortunate
timing
for
myself,
but
I
decided
to
just
sit
and
fall
of
the
computer
and
make
a
nice
screenshot
of
our
successful
yeah.
It
just
never
happened,
you
know.
So
what
happened
is
first
issue
client
releases.
B
We
are
very
late,
so
we
just
released
in
one
week
of
of
the
fork
post
guess
and
he
was
even
will
you
24
hours
before
walk
released
and
nobody
was
mining.
The
Constantinople
shame
from
what
I
could
observe
on
rocks.
The
dashboard
is
that
which
Santiam
chain
was
mind
was
very
higher
hash
rate
and
literally
nobody
was
mining
on
Constantinople.
B
B
A
A
Okay,
cool
yeah
that
that
pretty
much
covers
it.
The
other
thing
would
be.
We
didn't
have
a
lot
of
good
ways
to
monitor
what
was
happening
and
what
was
the
canonical
chain,
not
that
there
was
at
times
a
canonical
chain.
We
kind
of
didn't
know
for
sure,
because
the
split
was
happening
live,
but
we
just
had
a
Rob
Stinson
ATS
page
that
parity
setup
and
we
didn't
have
a
fork
monitor
like
we
usually
do
so
that's
something
we
should
probably
correct
for
next
time.
A
I
think
people
have
been
on
the
agenda
suggesting
different
things
that
we
should
be
accomplishing
and
I
think
that
we
can
definitely
commit
to
some
of
these.
At
the
end,
this
call
as
far
as
we
should
what
we
should
probably
do,
because
we
kind
of
wanted
to
try
to
keep
this
to
about
an
hour
we
might
want
to
skip
and
talk
about
when
the
fork
is
gonna
happen
on
main
net.
A
A
A
C
Yeah,
just
a
thought:
sorry,
I'm,
Samwell
teammate,
adjusting
my
audio
streaming
here,
cool
I,
don't
know
from
my
perspective.
It
might
be
helpful
to
work
backwards
and
figure
out
like
what
things
need
to
happen
in
what
order
right.
So,
for
example,
there's
an
open
question
about
whether
we
want
to
sort
of
redo
a
new
fork
and
does
that
happen
on
to
be
sort
of
rollback?
Perhaps
didn't
do
it
again?
Profs
didn't
we,
you
know
need
to
do
is
come
another
proof-of-work
chain.
C
D
But
so
I
think
there
are
kind
of
several
things
going
on
there.
So
regarding
what
went
wrong
with
Robson
I
would
say
what
went
right
is
that
we
successfully
managed
to
find
a
consensus
error
in
in
the
tested
deployment,
and
that
was
really
good.
What
went
wrong
in
my
view,
was
that
we
kind
of
had
a
disability
into
the
various
Forks
and
it
would
have
helped
us
more
to
have
that
visibility
and,
as
far
as
consensus
testing
goes
I'm
pretty
me
I.
Think
it's
bye-bye
now
pretty
well
tested
the
actual
changes
for
Constantinople.
D
Others
may
have
different
opinions,
but
that's
my
personal
opinion
and
regarding
the
actuals,
you
know
transitioning
from
one
set
of
rules
to
another.
While
that
is
interesting,
I
don't
really
see
how
I
actually
don't
think.
It
is
very
interesting
to
do
that
in
real
time.
Something
interesting
is
doing.
You
know
observing
this
little
work
that
we
got
and
how
different
clients
react
and
when
they
try
to
reorder
and
forth
and
hammer
out
those
kind
of
issues,
but
I
don't
know.
If
that's
particularly
you
know,
it
doesn't
really
have
anything
to
do
with
Constantinople
per
se.
D
A
Can
you
speak
to
the
status
of
the
different
fuzzers,
including
guiteau's
fuzzer,
because
I
had
a
conversation
with
casey
the
other
day
and
it
sounded
like
from
his
perspective
there
needed
to
be
a
little
bit
more
time
to
get
whatever
I
think
it's,
maybe
just
limp
fuzzers.
What,
whichever
one
Ito's
fuzzer,
is
up
and
running
again,
because
it's
a
little
bit
unmaintained.
Is
that
accurate?
A
D
A
D
Wouldn't
say
that,
but
I
mean
we
have
the
manual
tests
that
are
still
being
written,
we
have
the
actual
rollout
on
Rob's
stem
and
we
have
the
first
tests.
Of
course
it
would
be
great
if
we
can
also
have
the
more
refined
fastest
from
Lib
Foster,
and
it
would
be
great
if
we
had
even
more
people
to
write
manual
tests
about
but
I
mean
at
some
point.
We
have
to
say:
are
we
satisfied
now
or
do
we
feel
that
there
are
more
quirks
that
need
to
that?
We
need
to
find.
A
Okay,
interesting,
so
we
have
kind
of
an
overview
of
where
we
are
testing
wise,
which
I
think
is
another
good
place
to
kind
of
approach
in
this
meeting,
so
something
else
that
went
wrong
as
we
weren't
coordinating
with
minors
on
the
test
net
until
the
very
last
second,
so
I
know
the
foundation
had
a
minor
that
we
started
running.
So
we
have
that
resource.
We
have
some
minors
in
the
ecosystem,
who
came
in
and
helped,
and
that
was
really
important.
A
A
lot
of
it
might
just
default
to
me
because
I'm
doing
these
and
stuff
and
kind
of
assessing
or
afterwards
like
looking
at
the
notes
and
seeing
what
went
wrong
but
I'm
definitely
happy
for
anyone
else
to
kind
of
speak
up
and
say:
I'll
take
this
piece
of
it,
especially
for
things
like
the
fork,
monitor,
I,
actually,
I.
Think
Nick
Johnson
originally
made
that
and
I
don't
know.
If
anyone
keeps
up
with
it
now
or
if
we
even
have
a
repo
of
it,
that's
the
focus.
Yes,
the
fork
monitor
the
one
I
yeah.
A
Thanks,
okay,
so
that's
something
we
need
to
fix,
I
think
before
the
next
time
we
test
again
on
on
a
test
network
from
or
not
from
scratch,
but
the
next
time
we
launch
a
test
on
a
test
network.
That's
if
we
decide
not
to
roll
back
Rob
Stan
or
are
we
rolling
back
Rob
stand?
Is
anyone
have
an
opinion
on
that?
Cuz
I
heard
that
mentioned
a
few
times,
but
I
didn't
think
it
was
that
popular
of
a
position.
Oh.
C
C
I
ask
a
follow-up
question:
Hudson
yeah
sure,
but
the
role
you
were
describing
a
moment
ago,
I
think
historically,
it
was
the
case
that,
like
3m
upgrades
are
hard
courts
had
some
person
designated
as
like
a
release
manager
or
something
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
do
think
that
someone
in
some
sort
of
a
project
management
role
here
to
coordinate
a
lot
of
this
stuff
would
be
helpful.
Doesn't.
F
A
A
I
didn't
call
myself
that,
but
I
think
I
kind
of
acted
in
that
role.
Yeah
I,
like
helped,
monitor
and
got
a
lot
of
the
groups
together,
so
yeah
I
pretty
much
acted
in
that
capacity,
but
I'd
love.
Someone
else
who
is
more
technical
than
I
am
and
understands
the
network
more
to
either.
Do
it
or
help
out
so
I
think
someone
will
probably
step
up
between
now
and
the
next
time
we
have
a
problem,
I
hope
so,
we've
kind
of
just
to
recap
what
we've
talked
about
so
far:
we're
not
rolling
back
Rob
Stan.
A
A
A
D
Another
option
would
be
to
well
I
mean
Constantinople
is
already
the
functionality.
Is
there
and
all
the
clients?
We
could
add
a
command-line
switch
so
that
when
you
start
it,
you
tell
it
the
fork
number,
and
thus
it
would
be
up
to
the
users
to
specify
or
override.
Maybe
that
would
be
one
naive
option
of
doing
it,
which
means
that
we
would
have
to
actually
have
to
issue
that's
clients
if
we
want
to
push
their
release.
Could.
D
A
G
A
G
G
H
So
I
just
want
to
provide
some
some
ideas,
but
I
think
if
we
want
to
do
manners.
Similarly,
it
would
always
meet
like
at
least
some
changes
for
the
for
other
clans,
so
it
it
probably
requires
like
at
least
a
month
or
something
development
time.
So
the
first
idea
is
I
mean
those
two
should
workers
like
crime,
so
the
first
idea
is
just
to
take
to
put
the
signaling
into
the
actual
death
data
of
haider.
So
that
means
this
would
work
for
all
the
light
clans
that
at
least
downloads
all
the
his
about
headers.
H
So
let's
just
allow
me
to
do
that.
Another
probably
more
reliable
way
is
to
hard-code
a
version
number
into
the
header,
but
that
requires
changing
the
format
of
the
header.
But
in
that
way
you
a
flight
plan
doesn't
download
all
the
flow
headers.
This
will
still
work
for
them,
but
just
20
years,
but
those
will
always
require
some
like
at
least
some
a
IPS
and
development
work.
For
this
before
we
can
gather
some
final
tests,
and
oh
man,
that
I.
C
Mean
these
are
really
interesting
ideas,
but
it
just
strikes
me
that,
like
they're
designed
to
fix
a
problem
which
I
don't
know,
how
big
is
that
problem
that
we
need
to
like
push
back?
You
know
a
fork
on
a
test
net
and
can't
we
just
isn't
it
just
simpler.
Just
cut
a
new
release,
I'm
just
worried
about
introducing
a
bunch
of
new
idea,
key
stuff,
yeah.
I
I
C
A
J
A
A
A
Before
we've
kind
of
done,
if
it,
if
it
a
if
it
has
ten
percent
of
the
network
or
more
which
at
points
harmony,
has
we've
kind
of
set
death,
parity
harmony
in
the
past,
so
you're
right,
that's
another
interesting
idea
and
I
think
we'll
have
more
court
have
meetings
to
discuss
this
more
in
depth.
Definitely,
but
what
we've
done
is
identified.
C
It
seems
to
be
working
quite
well,
but
at
the
very
least,
some
sort
of
quasi
official
source
of
truth
about
things
like
black
members
about
which
work
is
canonical,
I,
think
a
fork
monitor
would
help
also
you
set
up
a
hack
and
be
done
on
those
fed
if
they're
in
other
work,
which
was
really
helpful,
and
in
fact,
if
that's
the
answer,
that's
fine.
Maybe
that
just
becomes
what
we
do
in
the
future.
But
I
was
struggling
a
bit
to
find
link
canonical
source
of
truth
during
this
fork.
C
A
Yeah
I
think
utilizing
the
tools
we
already
have
would
be
good,
like
that
hack
in
the
document,
having
like
a
shared
document
that
people
crowdsource
the
information
for
what's
canonical
and
not
because
it's
real
hard
to
find
that
information
and
a-rollin
chatroom,
especially
one
that
was
as
active
as
the
core
dev
chat,
was
during
the
event
so
yeah,
that's
another
good
idea,
and
so
we've
kind
of
yeah
we've
gone
over
some
stuff.
Lane
was
this
kind
of
sufficient
from
what
you
said
earlier,
which
was
before
talking
about
when
the
next
fork
should
be.
C
Wasn't
so
much
about
reflection,
it
was
more
about
what
needs
to
happen
between
now
and
I
mean
that
release
that's
right,
I
think
I
think
Martin
spoke
to
that
like
there
are
certain
things
need
to
be
done
and
actually,
like
all
the
big
ones.
Pretty
much
have
been
done,
it's
more
repeating,
rinse
and
repeat,
and
you
know
to
make
sure
we're
super
confident
that
there
are
no
remaining
issues,
so
yeah
I
think
the
answer
is
yes.
Sorry.
D
B
A
A
A
As
long
as
we
have
like
a
Hackham
D
file
or
something
that
can
be
a
source
of
truth
for
what's
going
on,
and
if
we
have
someone
who's
kind
of
wrangling
things
and
for
previous
major
incidents,
it's
usually
me
or
offer
free
or
both
kind
of
handling,
a
lot
of
the
calms,
at
least
externally,
to
like
exchanges
and
miners
and
another
groups,
major
groups
like
in
fira
and
my
crypto
and
stuff.
So
we
can
probably
just
continue
with
that
role.
A
I'm
thinking
unless
offer
you
want
to
throw
in
the
towel
now,
but
yeah
I
think
we
can
just
continue
doing
that
for
the
moment
and
having
other
people
help
in
volunteer.
So
that's
the
other
thing
that
there's
gonna
happen
between
now
and
the
now
in
the
fork
to
have
a
little
bit
more
of
a
defined
roles
than
that
in
that
sense,
but.
C
Is
there
a
master
somewhere
like
like
everything
you
just
said
is
super
helpful?
Is
exchanges
for
miners
there's
in
fear?
Oh
there's,
my
creds,
oh
yeah
I
mean
no.
This
is
an
institutional
knowledge
and
yura.
Now
freeze
heads
I'm
just
wondering
if
this
is
like,
if
there's
a
master
list
like
which
exchanges,
for
example,
which
miners.
A
We
could
write
it
down,
but
it's
basically
writing
down
some
Skype
channels,
I,
don't
know
what
exchanges
or
miners
or
in
these
channels,
which
actually
is
good
so
that
I'm
not
just
one-on-one
talking
with
a
million
people,
but
whenever
major
incidents
happen.
We
have
a
way
to
reach
out
to
these
people,
which
I
think
is
good
without
it
being
too
coordinated
or
centralized.
C
A
C
You
can
have
like
a
maybe
we
can
take
this
conversation
offline,
but
I
do
think
there's
best
practices
here
from
the
world
of
project
management.
You
know
you
can
have
like
a
chain
that
I
don't
like
the
word
command,
but
basically
a
chain
of
communication.
Let's
call
it
and
you
can
feel
bacon
redundancy
so
that
one
person
doesn't
need
to
be
the
central
figure.
There's
just
a
bot
yep.
B
B
A
A
D
D
A
C
A
C
A
Yeah
and
that's
kind
of
what
I
was
gonna,
ask
everybody:
how
does
everyone?
What
does
everyone
think
of
pushing
this
I?
Guess
that
would
be
January
or
February
which,
at
which
point
the
block
number
becomes
an
issue?
I,
don't
know
how
big
of
an
issue,
though,
or
the
author
block
number
the
what's
it
called
when
things
slow
down
nice
agent
stuff.
So.
D
B
That
makes
sense
to
some
degree
if
we
delay
Constantinople
further.
We
just
have
to
keep
in
mind
that
adding
new
features
to
Constantinople
also
increase
the
burden
of
testing,
and
it
might
it
even
though
we
delay
it
now,
it
might
even
delay
it
more
for
yet
more
and
prop
powers,
probably
quite
involved
for
what
I
understand.
A
B
D
Actually,
that's
not
quite
true,
so
me
and
Powell
and
Andre
and
unrepentant
party
have
been
hashing
it
out
fit
and
with
it,
the
authors,
so
they
are
updating
these
specifications.
And
meanwhile,
the
three
implementations
in
CBP
go
and
rust
are
in
agreement
with
each
other
and
the
remaining
parts
for
rust.
As
far
as
I
understand,
it
is
not
actually
the
algorithm,
but
the
changes
to
actually
integrate
it
into
eat
hash,
which
should
be
the
smaller
of
the
two
tasks
I
mean
implementing
preparing
is
the
bigger
one
and
actually
integrating
it
into.
A
A
C
Just
going
back
to
the
working
backwards
point
and
your
point
about
the
quality
bomb,
Hudson
I
do
think
that's
I
mean
obviously
our
hard
deadlines,
no
pun
intended
I'll.
Do
some
math
on
that
after
this
I.
Don't
want
to
do
it
during
the
call,
but
I
do
think.
We
need
a
particular
point
in
time
at
which
there
must
be
a
feature
freeze
and
there
must
be
like
tests
must
be
done
so
that
we
don't
bump
into
that.
There's
just
a
thought.
So,
like
I,
don't
know
exactly
when
that
is,
we
still
have
some
leeway.
C
A
A
C
Again,
I,
don't
know
the
numbers
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
hypothetically,
let's
say
that
we
do
the
math
and
we
figure
out
that
a
lot
of
times
will
double
in
like
June
that
keep
like.
We
need
maybe
three
months
of
leeway
before
that.
Just
for
testing-
and
you
know
maybe
the
next
test
that
hard
for
fails
again
or
something.
So
that's
our
suggesting.
A
C
A
D
F
F
K
F
F
B
Totally
agree
is
so
four
weeks
is
a
minimum
time.
We
need
between
release
and
and
hard,
and
if
we
want
the
in
November,
then
we
need
to
prepare
these
releases
within
two
weeks.
This
means
tests
manual
tests
needs
to
be
ready
within
two
weeks.
Clients
need
to
be
as
test
needs
to
be
integrated
into
clients,
the
clients
need
to
create
releases
and
publishers,
and
since
we
totally
collide
with
Def
Con,
so
I'm,
not
the
one
saying
over
my
dead
body,
but
I
would
probably
die
in
this
process.
So.
C
D
L
I
can
always
say
for
us
that
it
would
be
pretty
tight,
but
we're
looking
pretty
good
as
far
as
these
features,
but
we're
leading
up
to
our
release.
It
calm
and
we're
expecting.
You
know
a
whole
bunch
of
activity
right
after
that.
That's
still
free
minor
and
big
grand
scheme
of
things,
but
that
going
into
the
end
of
November
is
pretty
tight.
What.
K
For
the
past
few
weeks,
I've
added
this
in
Us
store
tests,
especially
after
you
discover
this
back
after
I'm
launching
on
Roxton,
oh
I
mean
I've,
been
thinking
of
working
on
Xcode
here,
but
I
change.
It
and
I.
First
I'm
demanding
tasks
or
tests,
so
X
cold
fresh
tests
are
not
implemented
and
a
few
more
s
store
tests.
I
want
to
German
to
merge
and
in
transition
tests
in
evolution
does
new
remain.
K
A
K
K
B
D
K
K
A
A
C
We've
sort
of
historically
shied
away
from
like
trying
to
reduce
the
number
of
hard
forks
and
that's
understandable,
because
there's
a
lot
of
work,
testing,
coordination
and
cetera
that
goes
into
them.
But
if
we
get
good
at
this
and
we
streamline
this
process
a
bit
along
the
lines
we're
discussing,
then
maybe
it's
not
such
a
big
deal.
If
there's
like
tui
or
instead
of
one
years,
just
just
a
thought.
A
So
it
sounds
like
a
lot
of
so
the
the
mood
I'm
kind
of
getting
from
this
and
the
the
feeling
is
that
we
don't
want
to
do
this
at
the
end
of
November
and
that
at
the
earliest
we
would
have
a
hard
fork
in
the
end
of
January
or
in
January.
Is
that
am
I
kind
of
feeling
that
the
right
way
everybody
agree.
F
L
A
A
Which
we
just
released
some
or
we're
actually
having
a
Def
Con
AMA
today
at
4:00
Eastern,
so
come
with
your
questions.
Anybody
in
this
call
or
listening
in
okay,
I
think
that
we've
decided
then
that
the
earliest
we'd
have
it
is
January.
We're
gonna
have
an
all
core
dev
call
a
couple
of
weeks
after,
like
actually
maybe
a
week
after
DEFCON
I
forgot
it
the
exact
timing,
but
actually
I
can
pull
it
up
right
now.
We're
having
a
meeting.