►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #61 [2019-05-10]
Description
A
A
A
Sixty
point
to
a
movie
IP
10:57
into
the
accepted
category.
10:57
is
prague
powell
that
was
discussed
in
the
last
call
decision.
60.3
remove
VIP
six
five
five
four.
Now
as
it's
a
superset
of
1829,
that
was
the
IDI
255
one,
nine
pre-compile
and
I
believe
1829
is
the
is
REM
COEs
general
elliptic
curve,
linear
combination,
VIP
actions
required
did
have
folks
been
reading
through
all
these
at
the
start
of
each
of
these
meetings.
I
don't
want
to
waste
time
on
this.
If
that
hasn't
been
the
case
previously,.
A
A
A
D
A
We
should
write
okay,
we
examine
timing,
Thank
You
Boris,
my
English
parsing
is
not
up
to
scratch
this
morning.
I
need
more
coffee
as
well.
That
makes
sense.
So
it's
not
June
yet
so
I
think
we
can
keep
going
sixty
point
two
daño
to
add
nine
month
out
hard
fork,
kick
off
two
timeframes:
Dano
is
gonna
win
the
call.
A
A
A
A
I'll,
add
it
to
the
agenda
for
this
meeting.
Let's
keep
moving
through
the
action
items,
glad
to
hear
that
Greg
and
Boris
you're
both
here
to
discuss
it
sixty
point
four
down
Oh
to
add
list
of
conditions
for
implementation
and
push
request.
Eap
I
think
it's
pull
request.
Eap
10:57
into
the
hard
fork,
meta
1679,
so
the
IP
10:57
is
prog
pal.
Is
that
now
down
Oh
in
1679,
just
checking
yeah.
B
And
I
put
on
there
to
say
that
it
is
the
security
audit,
above
and
beyond
the
standard
security
audit
requirements
for
the
typically
IP
and
that
it
should
be
considered
before
inclusion.
I
didn't
listen
the
exclusive
reasons,
because
we
don't
know
what
the
audits
gonna
come
back
and
there's
gonna,
be,
of
course,
of
discussion
on
what
constitutes
clean
on
it
and
what's
not
a
clean
on
it.
So
that's
basically
a
discussion
we
need
to
have
when
the
audit
comes
back.
A
Okay,
I
see
that
here
under
proposed
di
keys
under
1679,
which
is
indeed
the
Istanbul
meta
I
posted
the
link
for
that
and
get
er
as
well,
and-
and
there's
that
caveat
that
you
mentioned
a
moment
ago
down-
oh
that's,
very
helpful.
Thank
you.
Should
I
raise
my
hand
before
I
talk,
I,
don't
know
sorry,
we
haven't.
We
haven't
done
that
in
the
past,
Rick
feel
free
to
jump
in
okay.
F
So
yeah
I
mean,
in
addition
to
the
the
code
audit
are,
is
there
discussions
around?
You
know
simulations
and
all
this
other
stuff,
and
you
know
test
net
deployments
and
all
of
that
stuff
or
with
profile
as
well.
Is
that
all
like,
in
the
same,
are
we
thinking
about
all
those
things?
At
the
same
time,
I
think.
D
That's
a
separate
item
in
the
sense
that
I
just
added
to
the
to
the
comments
for
this
thing
is
that
there
is
no
point
of
contact
for
testing
test
net
coordination
or
anything
other
than
dimitris
retest
death
work,
so
I
am
proposing
that
there
needs
to
be
at
least
one
human
who
coordinates
and
cares
about
all
of
those
things.
Yeah.
D
A
A
A
A
G
G
C
A
A
D
Shared
pre
compiles,
or
would
they
only
want
to
have
native
implementations
in
there
in
their
core
client
and
ping
me?
If
you
have
questions
about
that,
I
think
I
said
it
correctly:
okay,
well,
Google
lol,
Thank,
You,
Phil,
Thank,
You,
Boris,
very
helpful
cool
all
right.
That
concludes
actions
from
the
last
call.
So
next.
A
A
A
D
J
Just
putting
something
as
a
placeholder,
there
doesn't
really
help
too
much.
The
EAP
is
ready
when
it's
ready,
so
I,
don't
know
if
there's,
if
I
just
write
a
bunch
of
pieces
and
put
it
there
and
and
that
will
basically
waste
a
lot
of
time
to
be
in
a
discussion
in
court.
Of
course,
like
people
will
try
to
go
through
them
every
single
time
and
then
just
you
know,
but
if
it's
not
specified
like
I,
think
it's
just
a
bit
of
a
waste
of
time.
But
that's
my
personal
view
on
this.
J
B
Your
EAP
is
ready
when
he's
ready
gets
on
the
next
train
and
those
translate
the
station
every
six
months,
and
if
we're
gonna
do
that,
we
need
to
have
some
sort
of
a
roadmap
that
says
you
really
need
to
be
ready
by
this
point
or
you're.
Gonna
miss
the
train
and
that's
really
what
this
is?
It's
not
strictly
a.
If
you
missed
this
by
one
minute,
then
you're
gonna
get
10%
off
your
grade.
B
You're
gonna
fail
the
final
exam
time
deadline,
but
it
is
something
that
people
should
be
working
towards
if
they're
trying
to
make
this
trade
to
try
and
make
it
ready
or
they
need
to
make
a
gut
check
call
that
this
VIPs
not
gonna,
be
ready
for
the
release
of
five
months.
Well,
I
understand
this.
The
the
intention
is
clear
to
me,
but
I
do
not
think
that
AIP
is
the
correct
thing
to
do
to
be
putting
in
because,
as
far
as.
J
I
understand
the
AIP
is
the
specification
of
the
change
and
the
specification
of
the
change
from
my
point
of
view
cannot
be
produced.
Like
you
know,
in
a
high
quality
until
Alexa
the
work
has
been.
Let
me
just
cut
you
off
there.
So
I
understand
that
you
have
a
particular
hang-up
about
any
IP
until
it's
perfect.
So
in
part,
this
is
signaling.
D
To
understand
and
plan
I
personally,
if
you
put
an
e
ba
that
says,
Lexi
will
fill
in
later
with
high
quality,
but
I
intend
to
get
it
into
Istanbul.
That
would
be
awesome
from
a
signaling.
Is
that
ideal,
if,
like
30
different
people
all
put
in
things
that
basically
said
the
same
thing
not
useful,
but
it's
what
we've
got
today
and
I?
Don't
think
I
think
that
if
you
want
to
bring
in
a
neat
past
the
deadline,
it
will
be
considered.
D
H
J
Will
probably
need
to
redefine
what
we
really
want
to
do.
We
want
the
IPS,
or
just
we
want
like
a
couple
of
lines
of
saying
that
this
is
what
I
think
should
be
happening.
Yeah
so
I
think
we're
talking
about
three
different
things
that
are
currently
being
addressed
with
one
document,
and
we
need
to
decide
how
many
documents
we
want
to
make
to
to
address
these
three
things.
One
is
a.
F
C
F
E
B
A
H
G
D
Eats
or
categories
of
heaps
he
thinks
he
can
get
ready
for
Istanbul
I,
think
that
would
be
a
super,
useful
signal
and
I
don't
care
if
he
uses
a
smoke
signal,
but
it
would
be
useful
unless
we're
gonna
change
our
process
in
the
next
seven
days.
Yes,
so
I
can
do
that.
I
can
describe
we're
broth,
ruff
you
what
what
I
would
like
to
get
prepared,
but
I
can't
write
the
IP
because,
from
my
understanding
of
a
peat
has
to
be
a
formal
specification,
so.
D
D
H
H
So
probably
the
draft
mode
doesn't
mean
that
it
is
fully
formally
specified
yet,
but
it
has
the
intention
that
it
will
be
and
with
the
first
deadline,
my
assumption
was
that
whatever
is
proposed
by
the
first
deadline
is
the
list
of
VIPs
which
are
going
to
be
deliberated
on
and
with
very
few
exceptions.
New
VIPs
should
not
be
possible
to
be
proposed
because
that
may
just
lengthen
out
the
process.
In
fact,
they
can
start
being
proposed
for
the
next
part
of
work.
J
G
Try
to
floss
with
and
so
in
working
groups
or
whatever,
to
weed
out
the
details,
even
if
it
isn't
finished
it's
it's
a
list
of
you
know
good
things
that
if
I
want
to
help
out
and
dive
in
these
are
the
things
that
I
should
look
into.
Ok,
so
that's
very
good
to
know.
Thank
you
and
maybe
it's
worth
highlighting
on
the
client
side.
It
kind
of
puts
an
upper
bound
on
the
changes.
C
F
Pedantic,
but
we
have
to
figure
out
what
code
actually
goes
into
the
fork,
and
we
need
to
know
that
sometime
in
advance
and
if
we
just
say
ok
here
is
the
gate,
and
you
know
if
you
miss
the
gate,
you're
not
getting
into
this
forbidden
to
the
next
fork.
I
think
that
simplifies
everything
overall
they'll
be
generally
very
good
to
have
his
deadline
and
at
the
same
time,
the
only
the
only
comment
I
had
before
was
Aris
worried.
Why
Alex
Hayes
changes
were
not
included,
knowing.
K
K
J
D
D
A
But
to
try
to
kind
of
tie
a
bow
on
this.
It
sounds
like
we
are
agreeing
that
there
is
value
in
these
deadlines.
Number
one
number
two
that
this
first
deadline
should
serve
as
an
upper
bound
right.
So
the
idea
here
is
like
this
is
the
maximum
number
of
changes
that
might
go
into
a
subsequent
hard
fork
and
to
Istanbul
in
this
case.
A
But
of
course
not
everything
that
is
proposed
by
that
deadline
will
make
it
necessarily
into
the
hard
fork
and,
furthermore,
that,
as
of
this
particular
deadline,
seven
days
from
today,
these
EIP
x'
may
still
be
in
draft
form.
They're
not
expected,
necessarily
to
be
thorough
and
complete
and,
of
course,
they're
not
expected
to
have
implementations
ready,
because
there's
two
months
following
that
until
July
I
believe
for
that
to
happen.
Anyone
opposed
to
those
that
summary.
E
Someone
volunteer
to
just
help
very
busy
Alexei
with
the
mechanics
of
just
that
di.
What
an
EIP
is
is
actually
very
well
defined
and,
as
someone
just
said,
get
them
going
get
an
abstract
get
them
in.
So
we
have
numbers
to
refer
to,
for
what
Alexi
wants
to
do.
Is
it's
so
important
that
it
gets
done?
It
helps
a
lot
to
have
numbers
to
point
at
and
say
these
things.
E
J
Previous
assumption
was
that
the
IP
is
supposed
to
be
a
formal
spec
and
then
I
wasn't
prepared
to
provide
this
more
formal
spec.
So
if
that
is
relaxed
and
I'm
fine
with
that
alexia
are
you
half
of
happy
with
the
following
statement
and
a
IP
draft
is
not
a
formal
spec,
but
at
the
time
when
it's
merged
slash
accepted,
it
must
be
a
formal
spec,
because
that
helps
square
the
circle
that
I
know
I'm.
A
H
J
Was
that
let's
start
doing
things
in
a
good
way,
but
obviously
the
lots
of
the
process
is
still
going
into
the
sort
of
old
way,
and
so,
if
we
decide
that
we
are
going
to
relax
this
for
now,
then
yes,
I'm.
Okay,
with
that,
no
actually,
the
IP
processes
has
been
made
solid
by
by
we
editors
for
for
a
while
now
and
to
just
put.
E
A
draft
in
the
system:
it
only
needs
to
meet
the
form
of
the
draft,
then
there's
a
long
process
of
getting
the
draft
into
the
the
formal
specification
quality
that
you
mentioned.
If
we
just
need
something
at
the
beginning
of
the
pipeline
yeah
the
very
beginning,
it
only
has
to
meet
the
form,
there's
a
program
which
will
merge
it
automatically.
If
there's
no
problem,
I
think
we're
probably
on
the
same
page,
with
respect
to
draft
and
alexey
has
offered
to
to
create
those
placeholder
EAP
is
boris
has
kindly
offered
to
help
him
with
that
process.
H
H
They
not
don't
necessarily
have
to
find
a
list
of
EIP
numbers,
and
but
by
that
I
mean
maybe
some
of
the
even
current
proposals,
maybe
will
be
split
into
multiple
IPs
and
the
same
could
apply
to
stay
translated,
yeah
peace.
Maybe
it
is
enough
to
have
a
single
state
state,
rent
related
AIP
merged
by
the
17th,
which
defines
the
scope
of
changes
and
maybe
throughout
the
process
of
defining
those
properly
in
the
IPS.
H
J
C
A
A
A
D
Wiki
link
there
that
Trenton
has
just
posted,
have
a
have
an
extended
list
of
other
ones
that
are,
people
are
like.
Yes,
we're
gonna
get
this
ready
and
PR
them
in
as
well,
and
transmitted
and
I
have
been
teaming
up
on
keeping
the
the
wiki
up-to-date
so
that
we
can
get
even
more
of
a
view
on
the
Train
of
other
eeap's.
That
may
still
be
proposed.
B
I
B
A
My
understanding
of
the
status
of
Blake
to
be
is
Virgil,
reached
out
actually
Hudson
reached
out
to
Zuko
and
there's
definitely
you
know.
Zeke
ash
would
obviously
like
to
see
this
as
well,
but
they're
looking
for
a
champion
and
Virgil
has
also
offered
some
funding
and
get
coin
has
offered
some
funding,
but
unless
anyone
has
heard
otherwise
I'm
not
aware
that
this
is
currently
being
worked
on.
J
H
J
J
H
J
H
J
When
something
is
really
actually
happened,
and
you
should
be
discussing
because
wise
we're
going
to
be
spending
the
entire
time
I'm
just
going
through
the
lists
and
going
to
the
same
list,
it
will
be
super
boring
as
well.
So
yes,
it
so
that
in,
like
we've,
said
the
the
gate
thing
a
couple
of
times.
So
the
next
thing
that
people
need
to
do
is
get
things
into
an
accepted
state.
So
they
need
to
sign
up
to.
D
An
all
core
devs
say
I
would
like
to
review,
eat
xxx
and
propose
it
for
acceptance.
That
is
the
next
step.
If
people
don't
get
it
through
acceptance,
and
all
of
this
also
essentially
relies
on
champions
to
keep
pushing
it.
So
we're
actively
trying
to
weed
out
the
things
that
people
aren't
going
to
work
on.
It's
not
arbitrary.
D
A
Great
I
think
we're
we've.
We've
talked
this
topic
to
death.
It's
obviously
a
very
important
topic
and
I
think
that
we
should
continue
conversation
on
the
Fellowship
of
etherion
magician's
forum
and
maybe
on
future
coordinates
calls
as
well.
Let's
keep
moving.
So
the
next
agenda
item
is
alexey,
x',
blog
post,
which
I
think
came
out
just
a
day
or
two
ago
on
changing
processes
in
eath
1x
alexei.
Would
you
like
to
just
briefly
share
this?
A
J
So
it's
just
aetherium.
But
to
me
it
was
more
than
just
a
list
of
items.
It's
actually
the
attempt
to
change
the
process
and
I
described
it
in
a
blog
post.
So
you
can
read
it.
The
biggest
thing
is
that
it's
not
something
that
I
premeditated
like
from
the
start.
It's
actually
something
which
sort
of
organically
fell
fell
out
of
what
we
are
trying
to
do
so,
for
example,
from
the
work
and
tried
to
organize
the
working
groups
around
the
certain
changes.
J
And
then
the
next
question
was
where's
like
who
is
gonna
pay
for
this
work,
and
then
another
question
was
like
I
realized
that
a
lot
of
people
who
were
coming
and
trying
to
do
the
work
they're
already
doing
something
else,
and
we
have
a
very
limited
pool
of
people
who
actually
think
they
can
work
on
stuff.
And
so
then
I
started
to
think.
J
We
also
have
a
some
sort
of
a
bottleneck
that,
in
up
in
in
in
the
past
that
most
of
the
prototyping
was
actually
done
by
the
by
the
three,
usually
one
of
the
three
implementation
teams,
and
that's
also
a
bottleneck
because
they
were
historically
quite
busy
with
the
optimization
of
the
clients
remember
between
the
Byzantium
Constantinople.
So
it
was
kind
of
unrealistic
to
expect
them
to
also
do
all
like
a
tons
of
implement
tons
of
VIPs.
So
we
want
to
remove
I,
mean
I,
think
we
want
to
remove
these.
J
J
J
D
Hub
call
one
of
the
things
that
was
happening
there
is
that
there's
a
group
of
people
there
that
want
to
help
tell
the
story
of
aetherium
and
I.
Think
that's
where
the
context
of
some
of
this
stuff
comes
from
I'm
happy
to
basically
have
other
people
help
tell
the
story
of
what's
going
on,
and
hopefully
people
can
look
at
the
blog
post
that
you've
written
and
take
that
in
and
help
us
as
a
community
tell
the
story
better.
D
The
one
point
that
I
will
make
is
that
if
you
haven't
already
there's
the
concept
of
the
Osborne
effect
where
basically
it
was
a
PC
in
England,
where
they
had
a
current
version
that
was
selling
really
well,
and
then
they
announced
a
new
version
and
sales
on
the
current
version,
totally
dropped
off
and
killed
the
company,
and
that
is
relevant
context
for
exactly
what
we're
working
on
here.
I.
Don't
know
how
to
fix
it
other
than
I.
J
He
was
saying:
oh,
the
actual
meaning,
or
if
you
one
acts,
really
changed
since
the
beginning
of
the
year,
and
a
lot
of
this
change
was
happening
in
like
in
a
couple
of
people's
heads,
not
in
like
we
weren't
really
talking
about
these
kind
of
changes.
So
I
hope
that
now
it's
a
bit
more
in
the
open,
so
it
was
my
kind
of
hubris
to
try
to
actually
presume
that
everybody
is
following
me
on
this
mental
journey,
but
actually
I
realize
no.
No.
No.
J
D
A
Let's
continue
that
conversation
in
other
places
to
keep
moving
through
the
agenda.
I
did
just
make
a
couple
of
updates
to
please
refresh
if
you're
looking
at
it
just
things
that
had
been
missed
previously
in
the
comments.
The
next
item
is
working
group
updates,
Aleksei
or
anyone
else.
Do
you
have
updates
to
share
on
the
heath
Linux
working
groups.
A
J
But
now
we
realize
that
the
the
penalty
of
the
block
proofs
is
quite
large,
so
an
average
is
going
to
be
about
300
kilobytes
for
actually
one
megabyte
per
block
proof
per
block
as
it
stands
now,
oh,
and
if
we
just
do
it
further
for
the
contract
storage,
it
will
be
about
300
kilobytes.
But
this
is
it's
possible
to
reduce
this
by
essentially
making
the
status
client
slightly
more
state
stateful.
J
J
What
is
the
sweet
spot,
how
much
stateful
we'd
want
to
be
and
how
much
of
the
blob
proof
is
going
to
reduce,
and
so
the
the
general
idea
that,
if
you
have
a
net
peer-to-peer
network
like
an
aquarium,
and
so
each
tier,
would
would
define
what
they
statefulness
level
would
be
like
it.
That
means
that
how
many
like
how
many
block
crews,
essentially
they
would
in
aggregate
I,
would
store.
Let's
say
that
somebody
decides
that
they
work
in
a
store,
1,024
previous
block
proofs
in
aggregated
format.
J
So
that
means
that
if
something
has
been
accessed
within
the
last
1024
blocks
or
something
has
been
created
within
these
blocks,
you
don't
need
the
proofs
for
that
anymore,
because
you
have
seen
that
already.
So
only
give
me
the
new
stuff
which
hasn't
been
accessed
or
changed
in
the
these
blocks,
and
so
that
dramatically
well,
hopefully,
the
data
will
show
that
that
dramatically
reduces
the
the
overhead
and
a
bandwidth,
but
also
it
means
that
the
peers,
who
have
a
bigger
statefulness.
J
Let's
say
that
you
have
a
like
a
real
big
peer
with
lots
of
memory
that
they
would
say,
I
would
keep
16,000
blocks
and
they
would
provide
too.
So
let's
say
that
this
pure
is
surrounded
by
the
smaller
peers
that
can
only
they
say:
I
only
want
to
store
256
blocks,
then
the
big
peer
would
actually
be
able
to
generate
the
troops
for
the
smaller
peers,
which
is
going
to
be
larger.
J
So
this
is
what
I'm
trying
to
trial
at
a
moment
so
that
the
data
structure
which
allows
you
to
flexibly
to
basically
generate
the
proof
of
any
level
of
statefulness.
So
that
appears
essentially
agree
with
each
other
like
I'm
gonna,
be
this
stateful
and
I'm
gonna,
be
that
stateful
and
depending
on
how
the
like
what
is
the,
what
is
the
minimum
statefulness,
they
will
exchange
different
walkthroughs
so,
but
this
is
really
tricky
and
that
I'm
still
debugging
through
some
some
edge
cases.
J
But
hopefully
that
would
finish
soon
and
then
there
then
I
will
put
this
weak
output.
The
first
Ti,
please
into
the
state
rent,
which
will
essentially
only
deal
with
some
accounting
of
the
of
the
of
the
of
the
of
the
state,
and
also
they
will
put
the
groundwork
for
introduction
of
some
of
the
penalties
for
the
state
extension
or
for
exte.
State
expansion,
like
creation
of
the
new
accounts,
will
become
more
expensive
and
the
creation
of
new
storage
items
will
become
more
expensive
in
the
first
hartford.
J
According
to
my
plan,
but
the
biggest
biggest
change
in
a
trend.
A
proposal
with
an
aversion
for
would
be
that
it
is
very
likely
that
we
will
not
charge
the
rent
proportionally
to
the
size
of
the
contract,
but
simply
proportional
to
let's
say
it's
the
code
of
contract.
So
that
would
mean
that
we
will
not
have
a
vulnerability
to
the
dust
Gryphon
attack
and
we
will
use
the
state,
semi,
stateless
client
approach
to
or
to
sort
of
to
mitigate
this
anyway.
F
Basically,
we're
still
talking
with
different
groups.
Looking
for
funding,
we
have
some
devs
lined
up,
but
we
would
like
more,
you
know
we're
constructing
a
budget,
so
you
know
having
a
pool
of
devs
available
and
interested
in
doing
the
work
would
help
with
that.
It's
a
fairly
complex
change.
I
mean
it
changes
how
transactions
are
priced.
F
So
obviously,
I
have
concerns
with
that
around
testing
deployment.
You
know
test
net
deployment,
I
think
that
we
should
build
a
reference
wallet
to
show
while
it
developers
how
to
interact
with
these
new
transaction
types
effectively.
That
obviously
needs
to
also
be
sort
of
technical
requirement
discussions.
We
need
to
actually
nail
down
exactly
which
features
which
which
parts
of
the
proposal
we're
trying
to
implement
exactly.
There's
a
there's,
a
lot
of
it.
I'd
I'm,
pretty
clear
to
me
that
it's
not
really
possible
to
get
it
into
his
temple.
F
A
F
Sorts
of
things
so
I
I,
don't
have
any
experience
myself.
Nor
does
anyone
in
my
staff
really
do
that.
Wow
sorry.
That
was
probably
really
loud.
No
one
myself
nor
any
one
of
my
staff
does
that
sort
of
solicitation.
If
someone
wants
to
actually
that's
not
entirely
true,
we
have
one
person
who
might
be
working
on
that
in
the
future,
but
we're
not
quite
there
yet
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
at
least
one
commitment
so
we're
funding
before
we.
You
know
start
spending
time
going
out
and
thrash
in
the
bushes.
D
And
he's
sort
of
quarterbacking
that
and
keeping
everyone
updated,
and
at
least
on
our
case
with
the
EVM
evolution,
we've
been
feeding,
Alexi
updates
and
so
we're
working
on
six
one,
five
to
the
level
that
we
can
and
it
tend
to
merge
it.
We
can
talk
about
that
in
in
the
next
section,
with
that
you
know
light
work
on
coordinating
in
the
sense
that
the
pre
compiles
the
big
question
related
to
EVM
evolution
is
there
will
be
certain
things,
including
the
the
Blake
pre-compiled
that
may
not
need
to
be
a
pre-compiled.
D
D
L
D
D
F
D
Separately,
you
know
I'll,
make
sure
to
add
the
link
actually
again
to
the
voting.
There's
the
thread
in
ethereal
magicians.
So
I'd
really
appreciate.
If
everyone
has
a
look
and
leaves
a
comment
and
just
sort
of
yeah,
your
name's
like
nah,
let's
just
be
online,
that's
totally
cool,
then
I
don't
need
to
keep
bringing
it
up.
But
if
people
do
want
to
meet,
we
should
decide
soon.
L
A
E
E
H
A
A
M
M
We're
testing
against
ganache
that's
using
go
aetherium
to
crash
there,
they're
going
through
him
instance,
so
I
just
wanted
to
figure
out
one
way
or
another
which
which
way
things
should
go
there.
Spec
should
be
updated
or
maybe,
if
this
issue
at
go
aetherium
only
go
through
him
like
this
and
I,
think
they
try
the
P
or
against
they
go
there
and
I.
Don't
think
needs
to
be
for
the
Pope
I
think
I
got.
G
I
In
reality,
they
are
actually
numbers.
So
all
three
values
are
numbers,
so
I
mean
I,
don't
care.
Honestly,
we
can
go
with
either
decision.
We
can
fix
it.
It's
just
that
these
used
for
chain
ID
from
the
from
the
ERP
that
was
defining
the
chain
differentiation
and
signatures.
We
started
using
poppy
as
the
chain
ID
number.
K
K
M
I
I
G
M
B
I
J
Sort
of
the
JSON
RPC
has
kind
of
grown
organically
as
far
as
I
understand
and
the
in
the
beginning.
That
was
no
standard
and
then
now
it's
actually
quite
hard
to
do
force
the
standard
open,
the
the
claims,
so
what
I
suggest
I
mean
so
I
only
started
thinking
about
it,
the
if
we
want
to
start
up
to
create
the
proper
standard.
J
I
J
J
We
just
create
the
similar
one
with
a
similar
kind
of
flavor
of
commands,
which
could
query
the
data
out
to
the
node,
and
that
would
be
the
standardized
way
to
get
data
out
like
about
transactions,
blocks
what-have-you,
like
storage,
and
then
we
put
the
essentially
the
layer
of
JSON
on
top
of
that,
and
so
if
people
don't
want
the
JSON,
they
won't
need.
So
it
will
be
like
an
adapter
like
a
module
kind
of
thing
and
we
keep
the
standard
really
tight
on
the
one
arrow
p1.
I
D
Interested
in
this
Oasis
is
looking
at
potentially
helping
spec
json-rpc.
The
other
thing
that
I
have
to
say
is
that
there's
many
more
stakeholders
around
the
JSON
RPC
layer,
like
wallet
providers
and
other
middleware,
so
I
think
we
should
encourage
those
people
to
form
around
it
and
create
a
spec
and
work
with
clients,
including
how
to
do
vendor
extensions
or
extensions.
As
far
as
I
know,
those
efforts
are
ongoing,
so
that
is
happening
right
now
and
they're
going
to
do
PRS
against
clients.
D
The
there's
some
coordination
factors
in
the
sense
that,
if
clients
randomly
change
json-rpc
at
different
times
than
the
higher-level
middleware
gets
into
a
bunch
of
issues,
but
that's
also
something
that
I
think
those
stakeholders
can
figure
out.
I
mean
I'm
in
favor
I'm
in
favor
of
others,
decide
amongst
themselves,
but
I
would
like
to
get
any
IP
or
something
I,
don't
know
quite
what
to
call
it
to.
F
Unify
this
back
as
one
of
these
middleware
providers,
the
the
difference,
the
difference
between
the
clients
is
like
really
frustrating
because
a
lot
of
it's.
Needless.
So,
if
we
could
someone
start
some
sort
of
project
to
unify
that,
it'd
be
appreciated.
I'm
happy
to
do
that
for
certain
things
like
Pippin
Elias,
but
not
for
everything.
D
I
Actually,
the
test
case,
a
test
suite
that
can
actually
that
knows,
implement
the
proper
are
received
and
corely
and
I
know
that
at
a
certain
point
we
did
a
few
explorative
things
on
hive
on
top
of
hive,
but
basically
didn't
really
have
the
manpower
to
keep
maintaining
them,
but
I
think
if
we
could
clean
up
and
maintain
a
proper
test
suite
for
our
PC.
That
would
be
actually.
I
That
would
be
the
way
to
do
enforce
that
every
client
implements
a
proper
RPC
and
whether,
if
some
somebody's
wrong,
then
we
can
fix
it
immediately,
instead
of
because
currently,
it
kind
of
boils
down
to
random
people.
Like
you
guys,
opening
an
issue
that
hey
this
doesn't
confirm
to
parity
and
oh
yes,
it
doesn't,
then
it's
there's
just
no
form
around
it.
I
So
I
think
it
would
be
really
really
useful
to
spin
a
thousand
separate
read
want
to
actually
put
somebody
behind
it.
Who
can
create
the
perfect
my
sweets
cool,
all
right
in
the
interest
of
time?
Let's
keep
moving
we'll
add
as
an
action
item
to
come
back
to
this
topic
in
one
or
two
meetings
from
now.
So
we'll
also
include
the
link
to
the.
A
A
This
was
brought
up
on
the
last
meeting,
I'm
just
going
to
read
what
Brooklyn
said
on
the
last
meeting
on
this
topic,
so
exci
six,
one
five
is
VIP
subroutines
and
static,
jumps
for
evm
from
Greg,
Brooklyn,
Pavel
and
Chris,
and
on
the
last
call
it
was
said
that
this
was
discussed
in
Berlin.
Some
concern
was
raised
specifically
about
the
complexity
of
a
number
of
the
opcodes
discussion
about
perhaps
breaking
them
out
into
separate
pieces
still
hoping
to
get
this
into
Istanbul,
Brooklyn,
Greg
etcetera.
N
To
pushing
this
forward
to
Istanbul
there's
a
couple
like
literally
one
or
two
holdouts:
that's
are
very
unhappy
with
a
number
of
changes
in
it.
So
there's
still
some
discussion
about
pulling
other
things
out
into
other
AI
peas,
but
really
fundamentally,
this
work
does
come
as
one
chunk
and
I.
Think
Gregg
may
be
able
to
speak
to
that
even
more,
but
yeah.
We're
very
much
at
this
point.
Happy
with
how
its
dads
and
hoping
to
push
forward
for
Istanbul.
E
It
stands
together
as
one
piece
and
when
you
go
to
implement
it
it
it
really
doesn't
take
very
much
code
and
what's
the
core
things
are
done,
the
little
things
people
want
to
split
out
or
just
not
that
hard
to
implement
once
you've
had
the
core,
so
I
don't
see
pushing
do
cut
things
now.
Just
push
word
on
to
the
solidity
and
other
compiler
authors
and
when
they
start
into
that
work,
they'll
probably
wish
we
hadn't
split
those
out
cool
so
just
to
be
explicit.
E
D
A
L
So,
on
the
on
the
last
call,
I
talked
about
hiring
a
developer
to
help
argument.
A
lot
of
these
and
I
think
I
found
a
pretty
good
guy,
so
we're
gonna
push
a
ball
on
that.
We
also
released
our
open-source
testing
framework
so
check
that
out
we're
incorporating
a
lot
of
those
tests
into
it.
So
another
thing
I
need
is
like
I'd
like
input
from
each
team.
You
know
we
need
to
know
who
identified
who
the
testing
lead
is
going
to
be.
L
So
we
can
all
coordinate
and
I
think
that
we
should
have
a
kickoff
call
like
next
Thursday
at
around
this
time
and
I'll
share
the
link
in
the
chat
the
date
prior
and
week.
The
day
of
so
please
take
me
if
you'd
like
to
coordinate
on
all
of
this
stuff
and
I'll
post
a
summary
and
start
a
working
group
ring
on
hearing
magicians
but
yeah.
That's
about
it.
L
A
B
L
Those
talks
too
so
in
terms
of
test
nuts,
like
another
goal
where
we
have
at
the
EA
is
launch
a
test
net
by
q4,
but
I.
Don't
think
it
really
makes
sense
to
try
to
duplicate
all
these
efforts.
I
think
that
it
would
be
better
if
we
had
a
bridge
between
the
EA
and
the
the
public
if
they're
in
community.
Just
you
know
it
doesn't
make
sense.
A
A
F
L
F
L
L
L
A
J
Available
at
the
moment,
but
we'll
come
back
so
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
that,
essentially,
is
the
part
of
my
blog
post
I.
Talking
about
that,
the
testing
is
definitely
a
bottleneck,
and
one
of
the
reasons
is
that
it's
only
like
the
aleph
is
the
only
implementation
which
currently
allows
generation
of
these
consensus
texts,
and
obviously
that's
not
good.
You
should
be
able
to
generate
consensus
test
out
of
any
reference
implementation
so,
and
so
Dimitri
has
been
working
on
this
thing
called
we
tested,
which
is
basically
Jason.
J
So
it's
trying
to
do
the
trying
to
figure
out
whether
we
can
do
it.
Syrian,
for
example,
and
I've
been
working
on
this,
and
this
is
where
I
sort
of
started
stumble
upon
lots
of
things
about
non-standard.
Today,
non-staff
Jason
and
actually
Jason
be
in
a
really
bad
format
for
the
for
this
anyway,
because
for
example,
if
you
do
it
over
IPC,
then
you
cannot
predict
how
long
the
messages
and
I
know
that
goes.
Human
deals
with
that.
J
So
after
kind
of
observing
for
a
lot
of
this
for
a
long
time,
I
would
say
that
if
we
want
something
to
be
used
for
testing,
it's
either
has
to
be
like
a
super
robust
and
high
quality
like
let's
say
that
Awas
or
Google
Cloud
or
it
has
to
be
absolutely
everything
open-source,
because
we
have
to
have
the
ability
for
anybody
to
run
this
stuff.
So
if
it
requires
some
kind
of
whatever
something
as
a
service,
but
it's
not
very
robust
and
it's
not
to
go
it's
it's
no-go.
J
A
I
Not
was
upgraded
to
the
Saint
Petersburg
for
essentially,
the
reason
it
wasn't
updated
along
with
Constantinople
is
because
we
wrote
that
Constantinople
half
a
year
ago
and
three
months
before
st.
Petersburg
was
actually
special.
So
now
we
actually
did
update
rinkeby
key
back
and
I
did
see
that
a
lot
of
people
have
not
yet
updated
during
cable
notes.
So
just
a
public
shout
out
that
you
might
want
to
update
otherwise
you'll
notice
just
hanging
there
stuck
in
the
network.
So
please
update
people,
that's
it!
I
I
J
For
it
yeah,
so
essentially
this
is
what
I
mentioned
the
agenda.
So
I'm
gonna
try
to
prepare
like
a
little
workshop
for
the
for
the
Def
Con
in
Berlin,
which
will
be
in
the
21st
23rd
of
August,
and
essentially
the
idea
is
to
try
to
teach
people
how
to
become
core
developers
to
basically
to
remove
this
kind
of
the
mantle
of
Dark
Arts
and
trying
to
figure
out
what
it
does.
J
What
does
it
take
to
become
one,
obviously,
with
some
prerequisites,
it's
a
super
experimental
and
I
probably
will
be
looking
at
for
some
help
and
I
think
the
first
workshop
will
be
probably
based
on
Goa
cerium
and
some
sort
of
testing
infrastructure
and
I.
Think
mitri
will
be
helping
me
as
well
so,
but
I
will
be
like
you
know.
I
probably
will
be
reaching
some
of
the
go
same
team
to
help
to
help
me,
but
you
know
I
hope
that
people
like
this
idea.