►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #45 [08/24/18]
Description
A
A
Okay,
I
believe
we
are
live
hello.
Everybody
welcome
to
the
meeting
we're
gonna
go
ahead
and
jump
right
into
the
agenda.
If
I
can
find
the
link
all
right,
we're
gonna
start
out
with
an
update
from
testing
Dmitry.
If
you
want
to
start
with
that
and
then
we'll
get
anybody
else
who
wants
to
chime
in
like
Martin
or
others,.
B
These
are
other
client
developers,
and
this
is
one
thing
I
want
to
ask
from
you.
Is
this
so
last
time,
I
introduced
roadmap
for
the
test
cases
and
I
asked
to
put
some
comments,
is
a
your
ideas
and
test
cases.
So
I
would
like
to
ask
if
it's
working
or
not,
because
I
haven't,
saw
any
comments
on
Google
document
about
that,
and
then
I
also
like
to
tell
you
that
the
RAM
winning
we
need
test
cases
to
cover.
B
B
B
C
B
D
A
We'll,
hopefully
be
able
to
get
an
idea
about
when
block
times
are
going
to
reach
crazy
levels
so
that
we
can
try
to
get
a
a
hard
fork
in
before
that
time.
So,
thanks
for
the
update
and
we'll
we'll
adjust
the
schedule
accordingly,
based
on
testing
and
other
things,
okay,
Martin
or
anyone
else,
do
you
have
a
testing
updates.
E
A
F
G
You
so,
as
for
the
update
just
really
quickly,
we
did
a
huge
rate
major
minor
rewrite
this
week.
Basically,
we
have
released
a
lot,
a
lot
of
fancy
features,
just
mining
on
concurrent
and
multiple
blocks:
trimming,
uncles
and
transactions.
While
my
his
ongoing
push
notifications,
local
account,
prioritizations
and
and
similar
things,
we
a
huge
shout
out
to
Peter
Peter
Fechter,
because
he
was
kind
of
asking
and
directing
us
towards
the
path
of
preparing
this
release.
It
was
really
really
helpful,
they're
kind
of
really
proud
of
this
minor
release.
B
J
A
A
K
L
A
quick
update
for
Nimbus
as
well
from
status,
all
right
cool,
so
we've
been
up
to
our
EVM,
is,
is
nearing
nearing
stability,
so
we've
been
exploring
using
it
through
EMC,
for
example,
would
guess
running
the
chain,
but
using
our
AVM
now,
which
is
pretty
exciting,
we're
working
on
like
clients
and
imperil
threats.
We
have
a
track
going
for
the
beacon
Jay.
That's
it.
M
You
want
to
do
a
quick
update.
Yeah
I
was
trying
to
unlock
Mike
yeah.
We
just
recently
had
a
too
long
week
to
week
long
sprint
and
he
wasn't,
and
we
have
at
this
moment,
running
t-test
and
running
with
Aleph
and
gift.
We
haven't
run
them
together,
yet
but
independently
they
you're
able
to
run
it
wasn't
correctly,
and
we
also
have
a
block
Explorer
for
them
and
they're
able
to
deploy
contracts
metered.
M
A
N
Nothing
crazy
going
on
in
research
a
lot
of
different
efforts
working
on
the
RNG
for
the
beacon
chain,
a
lot
of
implementations
of
the
beacon
chain
and,
as
that
I've
been
doing
that
the
spec
has
really
been
tightening
up
and
there's
an
effort
going
on
for
a
formal
analysis
and
verification
of
the
apocalypse
Casper,
which
is
a
modification
of
F
of
G
that
you
can
see
on
each
research.
Otherwise,
you
can
follow
a
lots
of
little
discussions
on
a
three
search
right
now.
A
B
A
O
Yep
I
did
reach
out
to
both
of
those
organizations
and
they
both
sort
of
caught
up.
The
last
I
heard
from
the
l4
crew
was
that
they're
pretty
comfortable
with
the
proposed
changes.
I
mean
from
spank
chain,
actually
did
post
some
questions,
I
think
to
the
EIP,
but
I
think
he's
actually
still
looking
for
an
answer.
So
we
should
follow
up
on
that.
Okay,.
A
B
B
A
F
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
I
think
we
can
make
time
worst
case
scenario,
and
this
is
just
an
idea.
So
people
can
comment
on
this.
There's
gonna
be
discussions
about
prog
pal,
which
is
a
replacement
for
proof
of
work.
So
if
it's
like
really
hard
to
the
change
is
bundled
for,
like
all
of
these
e
IPS
bundled
for
constantinople,
we
can.
B
A
There
was
and
I
think
things
have
changed,
because
at
the
time
we
had
that
discussion
there
weren't
that
many
IPS
and
now
there
are
more
a
IPS
to
handle
so
I
think
the
discussion
is
shifting.
Now.
Does
anyone
have
any
idea
or
comments
on
that,
especially
if
we
add
Mori
IPS
having
two
hard
Forks,
not
necessarily
constantinople,
one
and
two,
but
just
constantinople
with
the
e
IPS
we
have
and
then
the
second
one
for
like
1218
or
any
of
the
e
IPS
that
don't
get
done
in
time.
I.
G
Well,
just
to
support
the
other
side
of
the
spectrum.
I
think
it's
kind
of
important
to
realize
that
it's
Constantinople
I
think
we
wanted
to
do
discuss
a
simple
fork
at
the
beginning
of
the
year.
So
the
fact
that
we're
at
the
end
of
the
year-
and
we
didn't
do
it
yet
speaks
volumes
of
how
well
we
organize
hard
Forks.
Basically,
what
I
want
to
say
is
that
it's
fine
to
postpone
certain
features,
but
we
should
be
aware
that
if
we
postpone
it,
then
realistically
it
won't
happen
for
another
year.
G
A
I
C
Almost
all
of
our
teams
operate
on
continuous
integration,
so
we're
always
ready
to
ship.
We've
got
a
lot
of
features
that
are
really
quite
independent
and
get
rolled
into
code
bases
independently,
but
we
insist
on
acting
like
a
big
corporation,
rolling
out
releases
with
the
ton
of
features
all
at
once
and
then
being
unable
to
roll
it
out,
because
we
can't
get
all
of
the
features
ready
to
go
at
the
same
time
and
I.
Don't
know
why
we
have
to
do
it
that
way,
except
that
we're
afraid
of
making
hard
Forks.
A
A
R
A
E
E
A
C
I
I
B
We
can
have
more
people
help
with
that
if
anyone
on
the
call
just
like
that,
if
they
can
help
with
some
adding
some
test
cases,
that
would
help
a
lot
adding
the
test
cases
I
not
necessarily
mean
writing
the
test
case
and
executing
it
just
putting
this
idea.
What
was
the
test
guy
should
do
and
then
I
write
the
actual
test.
A
B
A
Writing
test
for
create
and
I
saw
the
commits
merged
in
CPP
year,
so
I
saw
it
was
already
accepted,
same
condition.
Okay,
then
that
could
be
on
there
as
well,
so
that
would
actually
be
all
of
them
that
we've
already
decided
on
so
really
the
only
one
we'd
be
delaying
is
the
one
that
Zolt
was
talking.
A
B
B
B
A
I
Should
be
discussed
in
the
context
of
pushing
the
difficulty
gone
back
and
so
for
shooting
for
a
twenty
nine
does
that
push
us
on
like
a
12
month,
difficulty
bomb
to
kind
of
force
the
hands,
and
so,
if
you
delay
the
eight,
then
you
have
to
at
least
pork
by
the
twelve.
Is
that
reasonable,
rather
than
like
a
16.
A
N
C
G
G
Yes,
exactly
great:
okay,
we
haven't
even
well
with
emergencies,
wouldn't
be
bad.
Yeah
I
agree
the
date
your
date
for
eight
will
keep
showing
up
at
different
times
and
it'll
always
be
when's
the
next
one
when's
the
next
one.
Instead
of
like
you
know,
it's
July,
here's
your
fork,
yep
exactly
okay,
I'm
comfortable
with
eight
months
there
will
be
emergencies.
A
P
Okay,
it
might
be
a
stained
bull.
Everyone's
gonna
have
to
learn
how
to
spell
that
one
too.
Okay,
let's
talk
more
about
this
next
week,
reason
being
we
need
to
get
some
time
in
for
the
issuance
reduction
chat,
but
it
sounds
like
people
are
trending
toward
an
8-month,
Constantinople
Forks.
So
if
you.
I
P
A
Great
so,
let's
move
other
than
potentially
the
issue
introduction.
Yes,
mam,
yeah,
exactly
okay,
yes,
potentially
those,
so
that
would
that
would
be
something
we
would
need
to
decide
on
today,
because
that
would
also
affect
testing
am
I
right
Dimitri.
If
we
do
an
issuance
reduction,
that's
gonna
affect
testing
pretty
greatly
I.
A
B
A
To
reduce
it
to
two
eath
per
block
and
then
twelve
ninety-five
is
to
keep
the
reward
at
three
eath,
but
to
change
other
factors
such
as
the
powa
incentive
structure
involving
uncles
and
nephews.
So
if
it
especially
for
1295
that
one
goes
a
little
bit
more
in
depth
because
it
is
not
a
reduction,
if
you
all
could
open
that
and
kind
of
browse
over
the
motivation
and
the
abstract,
because
that'll
be
a
more
technical
argument,
but
we'll
start
with
just
a
quick
introduction
of
the
people.
A
I've
brought
on
to
to
talk
about
this
stuff,
so
we'll
go
alphabetical
order,
I,
guess
and
just
talk
just
twenty
second
introduction
about
who
you
are
and
who
do
you
feel
you
represent
and
if
you
support
one
he
IP
over
another.
So
basically
there's
people
here
who
are
miners?
There's
people
here
who
are
investors
and
there's
people
here
who
are
from
the
F
minor
or
Prague
POW
community.
So
we'll
start
with
Andre.
A
M
A
S
Is
which
may
be
the
economic
implications
about
the
reduction
in
the
reward
or
keeping
of
it?
Actually
given
the
conditions
of
the
market?
I,
don't
believe
that
a
reduction
of
the
reward
would
help
anyway,
the
miners,
whether
they
use
an
algorithm
or
another,
or
they
they
they
use
any
AZ
compliant
devices
or
whatever.
This
is
my
personal
opinion.
I
think
I
will
anyway
here
other
opinions
before
adding
some
some
something
else.
Sorry
for
my
English,
but
it's
very
good.
It's
very
I
have
very
tired
yeah.
S
Thank
you.
No
problem,
Brian
you're
next
good
morning.
Everyone,
my
name,
is
Brian
ventura.
I
am
the
CTO
of
atlantic
crypto.
We
are
a
large
GPU
mining
organization
based
in
the
u.s.
prior
to
founding
atlantic
crypto.
I
ran
a
systematic,
fundamental
natural
gas
and
electricity
hedge
fund,
based
in
New
York.
Prior
to
that
I
worked
for
a
large
environmental
asset
manager
where
we
invested
in
Kyoto,
Protocol
Clean
Development
Mechanism
projects
throughout
the
developing
world,
I
believe
net
net
we
reduced
carbon
emissions
in
the
atmosphere
by
over
a
hundred
million
tonnes.
A
T
T
Alright
Alex
might
not
have
his
mic
were
his
or
her
mic
working
Carl.
You
can
go
next,
yeah
hi
hi.
My
name
is
Carl
arson,
thanks
for
inviting
me
on
Hudson
and
so
I've
been
involved
in
the
etherium
community.
Since
the
beginning,
I
started
the
earth
Draper
subreddit
and
help
moderate.
That
and
prior.
U
U
A
A
X
Y
I
am
most
likely
going
to
continue
mining
either
way
purely
out
of
speculation.
I
think,
depending
on
price
fluctuation,
I
might
decide
to
take
that
money
from
electricity
turn
off
the
miners
and
just
buy
at
the
market,
depending
on
the
way
things
go.
But
beyond
that
you
know,
I
have
no.
Nothing
is
likely
going
to
stop
me
from
mining.
One
other
piece
of
contacts
I'm
up
here
in
Washington
state
electricity
is
cheap.
Most
most
of
our
electricity
comes
from
renewable,
renewable
energy.
Y
Ceo
of
sparkle,
which
is
one
of
the
largest
mining
pool
in
the
world
country.
We
we
are
supporting
more
than
20%
of
the
heart
rate,
currently
avi
theorem,
with
with
spark
for
brand.
We
we
control
now
we
control,
or
we
have
about
300k
rigs
involved
and
connected
to
our
money.
For
every
day.
My
my
personal
experience
is
aqua.
Z
Which
is
actually
the
the
first
and
the
largest
Chinese,
if
they're
in
Cranford
community,
so
we
did
not
start
with
a
money
pot.
We
start
the
business
as
a
side
project
as
we're
beginning,
after
all,
of
course,
I
support
with
the
delay
of
the
Ice
Age,
typically
pumped,
and
we
prefer
VIP
one
two,
nine
five.
If
I
have
to
choose
one
two
three,
yes,.
Z
Okay,
thank
you
and
then
I
have
a
quote
or
a
statement,
I
suppose
from
ether,
mine
Peter
from
ether
mine.
He
they
control
30%
of
the
hash
power
and
they
said
the
following.
We
have
reached
out
to
our
miners
and
from
their
response.
That
is
clear
that
the
most
important
point
for
them
is
to
include
a
Pio
Pio
W
change
to
obsoletes
Asics.
Regarding
the
block
reward,
their
opinion
is
somewhat
ambivalent.
Some
prefer
an
increase.
Obviously
some
argue
for
it
to
remain
the
same
and
a
small
fraction
want
it
to
be
reduced.
Regarding.
A
The
difficulty
bomb
most
of
the
argument
for
a
delay
most
argue
for
a
delay
and
not
complete
removal.
This
is
also
the
position
of
ether
mine.
The
position
ether
mine
will
take
as
a
proxy
for
our
miners
Hudson.
We
also
have
Alex
thorne
here
posted
a
text
looks
like
as
Mike's
not
working.
Do
you
see
that
in
the
chat
stream?
Here,
let
me
look
for
it.
A
It's
not
working
we're
ready
to
take
a
fir.
We
aren't
ready
to
take
a
firm
stand
on
these
E
IPs,
but
in
general
we
favor
1295.
Ok,
so
thanks
everybody
for
the
quick
intros.
We
only
have
about
35
minutes,
so
we're
gonna
have
to
get
next
on
this.
Oh
yeah
I
skip
you
yeah.
You
did
sorry
go
ahead,
no
problem.
A
AA
AA
AB
AB
AB
A
A
Cooperation
of
the
network
is
an
eleven
point:
four
percent
issuance
reduction.
It
addresses
the
issuance
reduction
through
incentive
through
a
current
incentive
misalignment,
where
the
mining
community,
whether
they're
doing
it
or
not,
is
currently
a
sent
device
to
maximize
uncle
rates.
The
greater
number
of
uncles
the
network
has
the
higher
the
total
issue
and
it's
tired.
The
total
aetherium
and
u.s.
dollar
award.
Currently
fourteen
point:
four
percent
of
all
aetherium
issuance
goes
to
ancillary
rewards
like
uncles
and
Oakland
inclusion
reports.
T
Ew
1295
adjust
the
uncle
structure
to
incentivize
up,
will
note
configuration
and
decentralized
mining
when
I
say
decentralized
mining.
What
I
really
mean
is
that
anytime,
you
have
a
large
pool,
you're
centralizing,
the
delivery
of
work
packages
to
your
miners
anytime.
You
do
that
you're
going
to
increase
latency
to
your
miners.
It's
just
the
round-trip
time
it
takes
to
get
that
work
package
and
to
deliver
a
share
that
will
increase
Uncle
rates.
T
T
It
leaves
top-line
incentives,
which
is
the
block
reward
in
place
to
minimize
security
risks
the
network
as
we
go
forward
going
forward.
We
have
a
couple
of
points
here,
we'd
like
to
make
one.
We
suggest
that
we
adopt
a
I
tweet
yeah
be
1295.
Now
we
believe
it's
in
line
with
Danny
Ryan's,
Casper
FFG,
VIP
proposal
we're
and
it's
pretty
close
to
the
issuance
schedule.
Therefore,
year
one.
We
also
believe
it
potentially
provides
natural
natural
issuance
reduction
when
the
nodes
are
actually
going
to
be
optimized
to
reduce
the
uncle
rate.
T
We
think
that
rate
can
get
down
to
5%
five
to
10
percent,
which
is
pre
metropolis.
We
think
there
are
a
couple
extra
steps
after
this.
The
second
is
to
commit
to
a
change
in
the
proof-of-work
algorithm,
which
I
believe
we're
going
to
talk
about
later.
I
think
we
target
a
q1
2019
roll
out
for
that
and
the
third
and
most
important
piece
here
that
we'd
like
to
talk
about
is
after
this
is
done
and
targeting
the
heart
for
work
at
this
time
next
year.
T
T
Does
anyone
have
a
comment
on
that
and
a
particularly
technical
or
more
technical,
slash
economic
crypto
economic
comment
on
what
that
would
do
to
the
network
regarding
a
long
term
policy
before
we
do
that,
can
we
get
a
high-level
overview
of
all
of
these
before
we
go
into
any
depth
on
any
of
them?
Ooh.
That's
a
good
idea,
the
author
of
858.
Can
you
give
a
quick
overview
of
yours?
U
And
wishing
to
to
reduce
those
and
looking
at
the
reward,
is
the
lever
to
to
do
that?
Okay,
thank
you
and
then
offeree.
If
you
want
to
go
over
one
two,
three
four
quite
similar
to
eight
five,
eight
I
proposed
to
reduce
the
block
devoted
to
either
and
to
delay
the
difficulty
bump
by
three
million
blocks.
So
around
1.5
years.
N
About
the
network,
keep
the
network
secure
until
we
get
to
that
point,
and
so
I
don't
think
we
can
begin
to
really
talk
about
long
term
monitory
colony
until
we're
talking
about
person
to
take
and
Sheridan
hey
Danny,
it's
Brian,
so
I
understand
those
points.
We've
got
some
ideas
that
we're
gonna
roll
out
after
we
get
through
this
fork
here
of
ways
to
kind
of
I'm
gonna
say:
introduce
monetary
policy
to
deal
with
the
stopgaps.
N
Our
main
goal
here
is:
we
don't
want
to
have
an
unlimited
amount
of
issuance
before
proofs
take
happens
right
as
we
believe
there
should
be
a
hard
cap
of
issuance
that
goes
to
the
mining
community.
It's
up
for
debate.
It's
gonna
be
a
long
debate.
It's
kind
of
why
I
set
a
one-year
time
frame
for
that
to
be
rolled
out,
but
I
do
think
that
is
a
very
important
conversation
and
I
think
that
it
would
be
very.
T
Beneficial
to
the
whole
community,
if
we
didn't
have
to
do,
would
do
this
every
three
months
or
six
months
and
just
kind
of
had
that
roadmap.
Everyone
agreed,
we
can
talk
offline
about
it.
I
think
this
is
I
just
hope.
This
is
the
start
of
that
conversation.
I
just
want
quickly.
Add
one
thing
to
this:
so
I
heard
the
same
comment
from
some
of
the
F
minor
deaths
that
they
would
much
more
prefer
to
have
a
hard
cap
of
the
supply
down
manipulating
day.
The
block.
T
B
C
D
D
A
T
A
new
hardware
may
not
be
there,
but
those
incentives
aren't
there
right
now.
So
when
we
look
at
the
emission
kind
of
impact
of
the
etherium
network,
it's
about
4.2
million
tons
a
year.
The
etherium
network
can
be
powered
by
one
combined
cycle
natural
gas
plant
in
America,
and
you
look
at
all
the
large
miners.
Everyone
wants
to
find
renewable
energy
resources
as
fast
as
they
possibly
can,
because
it
is
the
cheapest
most
available
power.
T
The
the
environmental
implications
of
the
current
network
versus
Bitcoin
are
I,
would
almost
argue
de
minimis
just
wanted
to
make
that
point.
Okay,
thank
you.
Let's
go
to
someone
else.
Oh,
go
ahead.
Peter
I
just
wanted
to
nitpick
a
bit
with
this
argument.
I,
don't
think
it's
it's
a
good
strategy
to
say
that
class.
Since
Bitcoin
does
it.
We
can
also
do
it
a
little
bit.
Cohen!
Does
it
worse.
So
nobody
cares
about
ether
so
I.
T
G
About
in
terms
of
the
minors
leaving
and
going
to
other
networks
and
I
would
ask
to
look
at
you
know
by
my
calculation.
Aetherium
is
roughly
65
percent
of
the
of
the
GPU
mining.
I
mean
it's
sort
of
the
market.
Cap
of
aetherium
dwarfs
the
combined
market
cap
of
other
GPU,
my
noble
coins,
so
you
know
maybe
some.
A
U
Miners
and
so
I
would
expect
some
mining
definitely
expect
some
mining
to
to
drop
off
totally
so
and
and
the
the
electrical
that
you,
the
electrical
consumption
that
you
can
attribute
to
that
mining.
You
would
also
expect
to
be
removed
and
and
to
the
point
regarding
using
renewable
energies,
I
I
don't
buy
that
renewable
energy
is
always
used
for,
for
you
know,
for
to
power,
miners
and.
U
U
D
D
V
Greg
kitchen
me,
please
I've,
run
I,
just
want
to
say,
seems
like
a
reasonable
compromise
to
me
and
an
investigation,
and
maybe
a
somewhat
of
a
commitment
to
try
to
do
prog
pound
eight
months
also
seems
like
a
reasonable
element.
I
go
take
care
everyone,
bye-bye
Danny,
listen
just
to
respond
to
Danny's
comment.
There
I
think
that
going
from
three
to
two
is
going
to
do
a
couple
things
to
hardware
composition
on
the
network.
T
Reduction
when
we
understand
what
the
ASIC
implications
are
the
ASIC
participation,
the
network
was
which
may
be
the
middle
of
next
year,
the
end
of
next
year
as
part
of
my
idea
behind
the
monetary
policy
roadmap,
but
I
think
that,
right
now,
without
putting
security,
the
network
at
risk
and
the
composition
of
the
network
at
risk.
Reducing
to
two
is
probably
the
wrong
move.
I
believe
that
1295
makes
a
technological
advance
in
changing
the
incentive
structure
for
miners
and
mining
pools,
while
also
reducing
issuance,
but
by
a
pretty
sizable
amount.
T
If
you
go
to
from
3
to
2,
and
you
don't
change
uncle
rewards,
you
go
from
3
to
2,
the
network
is
going
to
be
incentivized.
To
have
the
highest
uncle
rate
possible
right
issuance
will
be
higher
than
what
we
can
ask.
A
question
sure
class
ask
the
question:
first:
real,
quick
and
yeah,
just
in
case
somebody
who
can
talk
a
bit
more
to
the
to
the
Asics.
That
kind
of
running
around
I
mean
my
impression
was
that
the
ant
miner
III
the
running
efficiency
is
about
on
par
with
current
GPUs
and
the
a-10
is.
T
That
is
not
is
not
even
released
released.
Yet
so
do
people
have
data
on
the
a-10,
because
it
it
claims
that
it's
gonna
have.
You
know,
sort
of
a
2x,
improved
running
efficiency.
You
have
read
yeah.
Let's
have
Tim
go
first
Tim.
What
was
your
perspective?
I,
don't
have
an
obviously
donate
10
or
have
any
date
on
the
a-10.
I
do
have
an
e3.
What
I've
noticed
is
so
my
GP
rigs
are
all
a
gpus.
T
Each
rough
cost
in,
given
all
the
pieces
that
we
have
to
put
together
is
about
$2,500
the
price
for
the
III
when
I
bought.
It
was
in
the
first
round,
which
was
800
bucks,
but
still
around
2000.
So
there's
a
there's,
a
smaller,
a
cheaper
cost.
The
efficiency
after
you
tweak
the
the
GP
rigs
to
work.
The
way
that
they
should.
The
efficiency
is
roughly
about
the
same,
especially
if
you
get
the
right.
Gpus.
U
Out
of
it
now
the
thing
that,
for
me,
the
only
difference
like
we
reduce
it
to
two
or
even
one,
like
maybe
I'm
a
special
case
of
mine
or
something
I'm
gonna
continue
mining
with
use
TPU
rigs.
However,
the
thing
that
the
III
machine
has
over
a
GPU
rig
is
that
the
GP
rig
has
you
know,
47
different
moving
parts
and
so
management
of
those.
That
hardware
is
much
harder
than
just
plugging
in
the
III
machine
and
letting.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Let's
call
it
three
times
as
efficient
as
current
as
a
GPU
rig.
We've
got
a
couple
GPU
rigs.
We've
got
probably
three
thousand
of
them
so
before
machine
learning,
artificial
intelligence
and
those
use
cases
are
just
beginning
to
show
up
and
they
are
projects
on
the
etherium
network.
There
are
folks
who
are
looking
at
this
hardware
and
saying
that's
a
resource.
I
can
use
he
a
network
of
Asics.
Y
If,
when
this
network
does
go
to
proof
of
steak,
very,
not
usable
right,
so
incentivizing
are
allowing
the
build
of
a
network
of
Asics
I
mean
it
seems
to
me
like
you're,
leaving
nothing
except
for
waste
behind
we.
We
made
the
choice
when
we
started
this
business
that
we
did
not
want
to
invest
in
a
sick
mining
in
aetherium
and
look
at
ASIC
monitoring
and
aetherium
because
of
the
flexibility
of
the
GPU.
T
Back
I
was
gonna,
have
Chen,
give
a
hit
their
perspective
from
the
spark
pool
perspective
on
some
of
these
issues.
If
you
have
any
sure
there
are
two
major
points,
I
want
to
say-
and
it
says
China
angle,
firstly,
is
about
environmental
I-
think
it's
to
ideal
to
think
that
that's
the
GPU
miners
out
or
cuts
to
the
heart
rate
will
help
with
environmental
problem,
because
at
least
from
my
understanding,
all
the
Chinese
miners
are
using
non-renewable
energy.
T
T
Z
Now
we
have
hundred
soldiers
and
that's
we
have
in
the
world,
but
if
we
cut
40
of
them
out,
then
it's
not
about
if
we
have
enough,
if
the
enemy
or
the
fat
people
have
enough
soldier
to
attack
this
because
before
they
have
zero,
now
we
have
forty,
they
have
the
chance,
they
have
the
once
they
have
the
capital.
We
can
always
have
the
choice
to
hire
those
soldier,
all
those
heart
rate
to
attack
them.
Z
So
my
major
point
is:
if
there
never
has
been
secure
or
safe
to
to
now,
it's
not
because
of
attacked
a
theorem
cost
too
much.
It's
simply
because
of
not
all
heart
rates
are
on
if
you're
in
network
and
no
one
has
extra
heart
rate
to
attacked
it,
and
even
though
we
have
enough
money,
it's
not
gonna
happen.
That's
ninety
major
points.
So
far,
okay,
so
some
some
of
the
things
I'm
hearing
are
actually
Karl.
You
still
had
a
point
to
go.
First,.
Z
Yeah
well,
the
point
I
wanted
to
make
was
that
going
forward,
we're
we're
I
think
we
can
sort
of
concern
ourselves
with
the
the
current
hash
rate
and
the
current
miners
and
their
running
efficiency
and
to
you
know,
in
order
to
you
know
we
don't
need
additional.
Do
we
need
additional
hash
rate
like
are
we
talking
about
kind
of
wanting
to
grow?
It
continue
to
grow.
Z
Can
I
make
a
quick
point
on
that
I,
don't
understand
the
rationale
for
building
either
a
sick
or
GPU
mining
rigs.
At
this
point,
my
calculation
on
the
III
is
that
it
would
take
roughly
two
years
to
pay
for
itself
unless
something
extraordinary
happens
to
the
valuation.
Am
I
am
I
getting
this
right.
For
me,.
U
U
Rather,
study
from
very
specific
or
comprehensive
article
about
why
a
sick
miners
exists
and
how
the
ASIC
manufacturers
making
money
essentially
on
the
ASIC
manufactures
they
don't,
they
are
not
responsible
to
the
miner
once
once
the
miner
boxer
rigs
out
their
profit
and
and
the
costs
will
be
paid
off
right
after
people
made
the
pre
pre
bio
whatever.
So,
essentially,
all
the
money
well
be
correct.
All
the
capital
and
other
prophets
before.
AB
Y
AB
Z
Okay,
I'd
like
to
I'd
like
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
okay,
I'd
like
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
sort
of
our
background
of
why
we
think
a
reduction
is
appropriate.
We
did
a
reduction
from
five
to
three
I.
Think
probably
most
everyone
involved
with
etherium
would
agree
that
that
reduced
issuance
so
we'd
reduce
the
amount
we
were
paying
for
security
and
we
did
not
have
a
negative
effect.
Y
AC
D
X
At
the
margin
that
will
reduce
the
incentive
to
put
more
buy
more
mining
equipment,
more
or
hash
power,
more
electricity,
we're
currently
way
over
paying
the
miners
based
on
you
know
we're
basically
talking
about
seven
percent
seven
and
a
half
percent
per
year
of
the
market
cap
of
the
cerium
is
being
paid
to
miners.
That's
that's
too
much.
Bitcoin
is
paying
a
lot
less.
This
is
a
competitive
marketplace
for
crypto
in
a
bear
market
like
we're
in
now
a
lot
of
that,
especially
from
the
big
miners
from
bit,
Maine,
etc.
X
Almost
all
that
is
going
straight
to
the
exchanges
and
getting
dumped,
and
that
has
a
negative
effect
on
everyone's
ability
to
keep
working
in
this
space
over
a
long
period
of
time.
So
we
don't
want
to
be
radically
overpaying
for
something
that
we're
trying
to
get
away
from
anyway
yeah.
So
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
time
left.
X
So
what
I
wanted
to
do
was
this
I
from
talking
to
certain
amounts
of
miners
I've,
seen
that
there
is
a
greater
need,
in
their
opinion,
for
a
switch
to
a
different
proof
of
work
algorithm
in
order
to
make
Asics
less
profitable
or
not
profitable
at
all
so
miners
in
the
room
one
by
one.
If
you
cough
hash
that
would
make
mining
with
Asics
less
profitable
or
not
profitable
at
all.
X
So,
basically,
could
there
be
a
compromise
where
there
is
an
issuance
reduction,
but
also
a
switch
to
something
like
prog
POW
in
the
next
eight
months
or
ten
months?
Actually,
is
that
something
that
would
be
agreeable,
we'll
start
with
Brian?
What
what
would
we
think
on
that
so
I'm
in
favor
of
an
issuance
reduction
paired
with
a
change
to
the
program
to
the
proof-of-work
algorithm?
X
The
caveat
with
that
is
that
I
believe
that
1295
is
a
great
stopgap
before
that
proof-of-work
change
happens.
If
the
community
would
like
to
go
from
make
an
additional
reduction
at
that
time,
I'm
in
favor
of
an
additional
reduction
when
the
proof-of-work
change
happens,
we
just
don't
understand
the
extent
of
the
ASIC
participation
at
the
moment.
So
I
think
that
a
good
compromise,
in
my
view
would
be
1295
today,
proof-of-work
change
at
some
later
date,
along
with
an
incremental
reduction
on
the
block.
Okay,.
A
So
in
general,
other
talks
we
had
today
is
nice
to
have,
but
now
our
security
is
not
being
here.
We
cannot
just
use
single,
simple
math
to
calculate.
There
is
a
tipping
point
once
we
reach
that
tipping
point,
everything
will
break
down
and
instantly
and
when
it
happens,
we
can
never
move
back
to
the
talking.
That's
that's
one
thing.
I
really
want
to
make
no
matter
what
yeah,
so
it
sounds
like
our
Asics,
a
bigger
threat
or
as
an
issue
at
issue,
its
reduction,
a
bigger
threat
to
that
security.
A
In
your
opinion,
in
my
okay,
the
the
the
trend
officer
as
well
be
a
big
big
impact
to
the
security,
because
no
I
know
no
one
can
simply
calculate.
What's
gonna
happen
in
the
future
with
math,
okay.
Well,
we
can,
we
can
look.
Historically,
we
can
look
historically,
it's
what's
happened
in
2017.
You
know
we
dropped
from
five
to
three
and.
T
You
know
you
Asian
was
largely
what
it
is
now
really.
You
know
the
the
the
you
know
that
was
January
when,
when
things
you
know
showed
up
beyond
kind
of
the
300
level,
I
have
a
I
can
post
a
a
link
to
a
chart
that
has
both
the
and
there
has
both
the
hash
rate
and
the
the
issuance,
but
the
issuance
converted
into
the
eath
in
dollar
terms.
Z
The
issuance
reward
really
just
kind
of
wasn't,
even
even
playing
field
for
all,
whereas
you
know
doing
it
now.
Only
the
strongest
ie,
most
profitable
miners
ie
Asics
would
survive,
but
Asics
don't
have
at
the
moment
nobody's
demonstrated
that
a
zzyx
have
a
running
cost.
A
significant
running
cost.
In
fact,
any
running
cost
efficiency
improvement
over
GPU,
so
human
that
there's
that
they
don't.
You
know
yeah
from
what
I've
heard
Carl
is
that
they're
on
par
with
more
the
top
of
the
line,
rigs
GPU
rigs
that
are
out
there
now,
but.
Z
U
U
Yeah,
so
it
was
prog
pal.
Have
you
explored
prog
pal,
and
is
that
something
that
would
be
a
solution
or
not
not
really
a
price?
Well,
it
does
a
couple
of
things:
I
think
it
reduces
a
dag
size
and
it
tries
to
exploit
more
of
the
circuitry.
That's
that
exists
on
current
GPUs
of
you
know,
making
it
more
difficult
for
an
ASIC
to
reproduce
nevertheless
possible,
and
also,
if
you
think
about
it,
the
shortest
time
you
can
deliver
an
ASIC
is
about
three
months.
It's
a
development.
W
U
W
AB
Look
at
proof
of
work
from
the
same
perspective,
because
currently
so
miners,
don't
just
blindly
by
all
the
GPUs
they
can
get,
they
probably
benchmark
them
and
probably
selected
those
that
had
the
highest
memory
bandwidth
and
reach
the
highest
hash
rates.
Now
at
when
you
are
actually
changing
the
proof
of
work
algorithm
it.
It
means
that
certain
GPUs
that
were
insanely
powerful
beforehand
might
be
insanely
suboptimal,
because
maybe
they
have
an
insane
memory
bandwidth,
but
they
have
a
crappy
computational
unit.
AB
And
basically
my
point
is
that
it
kind
of
seems
it
seems
a
bit
naive
to
say
that
if
we
to
switch
from
et
hash
to
pro
proof-of-work
that
all
of
a
sudden
miners
with
GPUs
will
be
happy
because
I'm
quite
certain,
some
of
them
will
not
get
happy
from
the
results.
So
that's
probably
something
that
would
also
need
to
be
investigated
is
now
yeah.
I
think
we
should
also.
We
should
also
look
into
the
new
developments
with
like
this
gtx,
2080
and
stuff
like
this.
This
is
just
coming
out,
so
maybe
we
should
wait.
D
Changes
that
we
make
before
we
start
making
them
interesting.
Ok,
so
we're
pretty
much
out
of
time,
we'll
probably
go
on
a
few
more
minutes,
but
what
I
was
wanting
to
get
some
suggestions
on
from
everybody
here?
Do
you
think,
does
anyone
think
there's
an
optimal
way
to
figure
out
sentiment
and
to
make
a
decision
on
this?
G
Would
have
a
great
ever
Oh
Greg,
a
useful
straw
poll
is
yes
no
and
over
my
dead
body,
so
you're
talking
about
rough
consensus
there
we
you
can
handle
no
is
over
my
dead
bodies.
You've
got
a
try
to
avoid
yeah
who's
who
of
the
mining
pools
or
miners
here
would
leave
if
we
did
an
issuance
reduction,
no,
no,
not
I.
G
So
if
you
it
depends
on
the
reduction
cuts
them.
Okay,
if
you
go
to
one
we're
probably
I
mean
we've
got
really
low
power
prices
and
we're
probably
not
economic
at
one
yeah
at
two
we're
going
to
explore
every
alternative
use
case.
We
possibly
can
without
a
shift
and
proof
work.
Yeah,
cuz,
I,
not
I,
vote
was
in
line
with
what
Brian
just
say
going
from
three
to
two
so,
and
would
this
be
well?
This
also
be
dependent
on
the
price
of
ether,
though
absolutely
right
we're
just
talking
about
this
moment
in
time.
G
AC
A
T
S
However,
once
the
issuance
changed
I,
don't
think
the
post
post
you
have
that
much
power
or
weight
to
support
anymore,
because
once
the
issuance
change,
the
won't
leave
the
pool
to
do
something
else,
but
once
those
hot
power
goes
to
market
anyone
who
is
enough
capital
I'll
have
the
money
to
purchase
the
power
and
the
tax
the
network.
It's
important
that
so
still
my
point
is
this:
the
network,
security
power
or
the
problem
is
not
not
on
me.
No,
you
cannot
just
cover
it
with
math.
V
Honestly,
don't
know
how
to
make
a
decision
on
this,
so
we
don't
really
know
where
we'll
go
from
here.
I
have
some.
Maybe
we
should
just
wait
and
evaluate
Tom
this.
This
new
proc
proof-of-work
works
and
maybe
look
into
this
a
bit
more
and
then
come
back
and
then
make
a
decision
yeah.
So
the
problem
with
that
is
that
we're
kind
of
so
we
kind
of
need
to
make
a
decision
for
Constantinople
hard
fork
and.
A
Z
Up
he's
gone,
never
mind
yeah.
What
do
you
think
you
say?
Martin
yeah
I
would
like
to
propose
that,
as
we
draw
near
to
commit
to
an
action,
hard
work,
that
we
have
more
regular
meetings
and
perhaps
have
that
every
other
week
we
have
a
technical
meeting
and
discuss
the
you
know
test
cases,
implementation
where
we
ask
potential
details
that
need
to
hammer
it
out
in
the
eaves
and
then
every
other
week
we
have
I,
don't
know
more
general
talks
like
we're.
Z
Having
now
high-level
talks,
okay,
so
you're
saying
that
we
should
have
a
meeting
in
a
week.
Yes,
I,
guess
what
I'm
saying
I'd
be
down
for
that
it's
in
the
technical
detail
and
fix
all
those
quirks
that
we
don't
really
have
time
to
talk
about
on
these
calls.
I
I
would
second
that
that
gives
us
a
week
now
that
we've
heard
everybody's
cases
and
motivations
to
dig
into
the
eats.