►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #49 [2018-11-09]
Description
A
B
A
C
We
got
on
that
issue
that
was
reported
during
DEFCON
on
block
propagation
or
working
on
it,
or
also
talking
to
the
lights
block
I,
believe
their
name
is
the
simulation
tool
to
try
to
see
if
we
can
get
some
simulations
on
what
we're
changing
this
means,
but
yeah
looking
to
get
out
of
fix
it.
Otherwise,
no
major
updates.
D
E
G
Yes,
it's
me
hi
yeah.
We
made
good
progress
on
consider.
No,
we
just
merged
the
create
to
a
code,
and
now
it's
just
a
Scottish
which
has
been
open
and
we're
just
waiting
for
the
tests
and
I
think
that
just
just
got
merge
today
in
those
tests,
or
at
least
some
so
I'm,
confident
that
we
can
do
a
release
in
one
or
two
weeks
on
on
Constantinople.
H
I
It
was
something
to
do
with
rewinding
and
apart
from
that,
I
been
working
on
these
molars
database
that
have
announced
they're,
four
and
four
and
also
I
started
to
try
to
extract
some
data
sets
which
I
will
talk
about,
maybe
in
the
next
meeting
or
something
which
is
de
trying
my
hand
at
using
the
efficiency
of
turbo
gas
in
extracting
all
different
types
of
data
from
the
database,
which
is
a
so
far
we're
looking
pretty
very
good.
So
yeah,
that's
it
for
me.
Thank.
J
J
K
C
Can
I
add
a
small
thing:
I
just
realized,
so
we're
shipping
an
alpha.
It's
just
an
alpha
is
just
for
testing.
It's
like
calling
to
wallets
today.
So
if
people
want
to
be
on
the
bleeding
edge
and
try
some
stuff
out
and
see
if
they
can
break
it,
checkouts
feather
fees,
Google,
parity,
feather
I'm
sure
it
Joseph.
A
L
L
Yes,
so
we
we
publicly
launched
our
test
at
at
DEFCON,
which
we're
pretty
excited
about.
So
that's
live
now.
If
you
plug
in
you
was
not
a
theory,
a
morgue
with
I
think
the
regular
RPC
port,
which
is
eight
five,
four
five
intellect
meta,
mask,
RPC,
etc.
That's
running!
That's
only
on
guess,
right
now,
there's
still
a
few
outstanding
changes
that
are
pending,
I,
think
updates
to
EB,
MC,
etc.
L
So
I
think
we
still
need
to
publish
the
latest
Genesis
data
into
our
like
public
repo
or
whatever,
to
make
it
easier
for
other
people
to
add
nodes
and
we'll
keep
publishing
updates
into
Gator.
Gator
I
am
/,
you
awesome
/
lobby
and
I
guess.
The
other
big
thing
is
we're
still
working
on
something
outstanding
design.
Questions
like
like
a
big
interesting
one,
for
example,
is
like
static
and
dynamic
linking
like
how
do
you
link
multiple?
It
wasn't
contracts
to
each
other
and
I.
L
L
A
Good
alright,
next
up,
we
have
Constantinople.
We
have
a
few
things
about
this
before
we
do
that.
Let's
talk
about
the
Gourley
po8
s
net,
because
that
might
be
somewhat
included
in
the
discussion
about
Constantinople,
whether
or
not
we're
gonna
use
that
as
one
of
the
test
nets
that
we
can
test
Constantinople
on
so
offering.
If
you
can
kind
of
just
give
an
overview
of
Gourley
and
also
tell
me
how
to
pronounce
it
correctly.
That'd
be
great.
M
Yes,
so
girly
was
born
at
the
East
Berlin
hackathon
as
an
idea,
and
initially
we
wanted
to
have
like
a
cross
cross
client
proof
of
a
sorority,
Network
yeah
and
now,
with
the
current
status,
is
that
we
have
two
people
that
stepped
up
to
implement
click,
proof
of
a
sorority
engine
to
to
parity
and
also
with
last
week's
release
of
Pegasus.
We
have
like,
let's
say
two
and
a
half
clients
that
support
click
and
idea.
M
So
far
we
have
like
two
dating
clients
and
girly
and
one
not
really
validating
triumph.
Yeah
ultimate
goal
is
obviously
to
have
for
chestnut
for
all
clients
and
to
answer
your
question
for
Constantinople
I.
Think
purely
it's
not
ready.
Yet
we
are
not
there
and
I.
Think
purely
regarding
the
code
map
will
be
probably
ready
after
Constantinople.
D
M
M
M
We
have
to
get
a
blending
page,
it's
girly
with
o
e,
so
the
things
people
are
complaining
about
this,
this
letter,
with
two
dots
always
to
dot
the
German
ooh,
and
if
in
case
you
don't
have
it
or
like
the
computer
signs
representation
for
that
is
like
Oh
II.
So
you
just
type
girly
was
oh
ye
and
go
on
github
early
test
net,
and
we
have
kita.
M
A
D
D
A
A
G
Yeah
some
comments,
but
no
that's
not
not
really
a
plan
and
I
didn't
really
take
on
this,
and
it
was
I'm
just
coming
from
a
software
engineering
perspective
and
from
my
general
intuition.
This.
This
I
think
this
would
be
a
good
plan,
but
are
a
bit
more
conservative
planned
but
I'm,
for
example,
no
one
who's,
setup,
chestnuts
or
something
like
that
and
I
can't
really
judge
how
much
effort
it
is
to
have
a
new
chestnut
and
also
not
a
heavy
user
of
the
rocks
and
chests
and
so
and
many
open
questions
there.
G
A
Got
it
ok
and
we
had
discussed
the
test
net
last
meeting
and
if
I
recall
someone
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
we
kind
of
said
that
there
is
some
work
to
start
a
new
test
net
and
we
also
like
the
fact
that
number
one
rob
stone
is
heavily
used,
because
that
gives
us
a
lot
of
data
and
like
a
lot
of
scenarios,
that
people
are
testing
to
kind
of
trigger,
bugs
and
then
yeah.
That's
kind
of
the
two
arguments
in
favor
of
keeping
Rob
stand
and
not
starting
a
new
proof
of
work
test
net.
D
So
what
I
wanted
to
add
is
that
at
least
coming
from
the
rinkeby
perspective
after
we
launched
rinkeby
people
started
to
play
around,
but
I
would
say
it
probably
took
at
least
half
a
year
until
it
rinkeby
actually
saw
use
I
mean
real-world
day-to-day
use.
So
if
you
launch
a
new
test
that
before
Christmas
I,
don't
really
think
it
will
have
value
because
nobody
will
use
it.
So
there's
a
huge
developer
inertia
because
everything
is
deployed
on
Rob's
ton,
all
their
setup.
D
B
A
A
J
A
B
I
Yeah
I
mean
there
is
a
difference,
so
it's
Alexi
here,
so
the
the
difference
is
that
there
are
different
parts
of
code.
At-Least
is
the
code
that
I've
looked
at.
There
are
been
activated
during
the
actual
real
time
transition
and
when
you
just
simply
sink
through
the
through
the
fork,
and
one
of
the
things,
for
example,
is
the
when
you
do
it
life.
D
B
B
I
B
I
mean
that
doesn't
even
have
to
be
a
large,
coordinated
public
effort.
Really
it
just
means
that
yeah
we
need
a
Terri,
MJ,
turbo
gas,
I,
guess
yeah
parity
and
whoever
else
wants
to
join
in
and
we
decide
yeah
kick
it
off
on,
like
Monday
or
next
Monday
that
it's
been
for
an
epoch
or
two
and
then
do
the
transition
and
forget.
I
I
D
K
A
B
A
As
far
as
timing
for
the
rest
of
the
stuff,
as
far
as
so
basically
offer
he
just
kind
of
threw
a
date
out
there,
middle
of
January,
January,
6,
tene,
ogre
and
the
event
that
we
were
to
start
a
whole
new
test
net,
which
sounds
like
we're
only
doing
from
a
you
know:
limited
testing
perspective
and
not
a
widely
used
test
net.
He
was
saying
fork
on
the
twelfth.
Let's
just
throw
out
some
dates
here.
A
So
I
guess
the
facts
are
we've
forked
on
Rob's
ten,
we
had
some
issues,
but
ever
since
those
issues
have
been
resolved,
we
haven't
had
any
major
issues
on
Rob
Stan
with
regards
to
the
fork,
and
we
are
starting
up
a
new
proof-of-work
test
net
to
test
some
of
the
transition.
That's
Martin,
Martin's
leading
and
that's
gonna
happen
before
the
end
of
the
year.
Is
the
assumption.
A
L
A
L
Yeah
sorry
I
added
up
the
agenda
I.
Just
it's
super
quick,
so
I
have
spent
some
time
working
on
this
over
the
past
couple
weeks
with
a
few
other
people,
J
rush,
James,
Hancock,
ed
Mazurek
and
QCD
trio,
so
we've
had
quite
a
few
eyes
on
it.
We
also
discussed
it
with
italic
ran.
The
numbers.
Did
some
simulations
and
I'm
pretty
confident
that
the
following
is
going
to
happen?
L
So
if
that
hash
power
were
to
drop
by
something
like
20-25
percent-
and
it
could
happen
in
as
early
as
kind
of
early
April,
so
just
put
things
in
perspective.
We
have
time
there's
no
critical
concern,
but
the
main
point
I
wanted
to
make
is
that
it's
gonna
happen
faster
than
last
time.
For
a
couple
of
reasons,
one
is
that
the
overall
network
hash
power
is
not
rising
like
it
was
in
2017.
L
It
was
rising
very
rapidly
while
the
bomb
was
sort
of
ticking
so
to
speak,
and
also
because
the
total
hash
power
now
is
so
much
higher.
The
total
difficulty
rather
is
so
much
higher
when
the
bomb
does
hit,
it
will
come
faster
so
last
year
it
was
something
like
seven
or
eight
months
until
we
reached
32nd
block
times
this
year.
It's
gonna
be
more
like
four
months,
so
just
just
putting
that
in
people's
minds.
That's
it.
A
I
A
Yeah
we
haven't
officially
done
it.
There's
just
been
some
side
conversations
at
Def
Con
about
it,
but
we
haven't
officially
adopted
it
as
the
main
as
the
main
thing
anymore.
But
the
argument
there
is
since
EOF
t'
the
foundation
and
is
no
longer
involved
in
aetherium
that
we
know
of
he's
no
longer
keeping
up
with
the
yellow
paper
and
the
jello
paper
is
more
up-to-date
and
deals
with
K,
which
I
don't
understand,
all
the
technical
stuff
behind
it.
A
D
And
I
think
the
baseline
was
that
so
the
the
the
problem
that
people
the
community
have
been
telling
us
over
and
over
and
over
again
for
the
past
four
years.
Maybe
you
know
more
is
that
the
yellow
paper
is
extremely
dense
and
it's
extremely
hard
to
follow,
and
the
problem
is
that,
unless
you
are,
unless
you
have
fairly
essentially
only
a
handful
of
people,
have
the
experience
and
knowledge
to
make
any
modification
to
that.
B
Yeah
but
there's
also
another
cool
thing,
which
is
that
this
is
written
in
K,
which
is
language
and
from
this.
So
the
specification
is
also
an
implementation,
and
you
can
actually
take
this
specification
and
subjected
to
tests
and
execute
the
specification
and
see
the
results
of
certain
transactions
or
state
transitions
or
whatever,
which
is
really
powerful
thing.
And
then
you
can
do
formal
verifications
of
things
from
the
specification.
C
Well,
yeah
I
mean
I
agree
with
all
that.
It
just
seems
confusing
to
have
two
separates
efforts
in
different
era
like
why
not
have
one
thing
that
has
both
of
them,
but
it's
like
I,
don't
have
enough
background
on
this
I'll.
Just
I
was
just
wondering
if
anyone
had
like.
Oh,
it
was
clearly
because
of
this
reason,
but
yeah.
D
A
Additionally,
the
jello
paper,
what
the
goal
of
it
would
be
to
add
things
that
the
yellow
paper
doesn't
have
and
take
out
things
that
the
yellow
paper
had
but
are
no
longer
applicable
because
they
change
so
quickly
or
so
often.
So
it
would
basically
be
a
whole
new.
So
the
it
would
have
the
goal
of
the
yellow
paper,
which
is
to
have
a
common
specification
that
clients
can
follow,
but
have
it
be
more
modern
and
have
it
be
up
to
date
with
the
current
standards
would
be
the
overarching
goal.
Fred.
M
So
I
was
following
one
client
team,
that
is
your
own
client
from
scratch
and
what
they
did.
So
when
this
is
a
down
side
of
the
yellow
papers,
they
had
to
basically
compile
different
versions
of
paper
to
implement
an
assumed
client,
because
you
have
like
a
frontier
version
of
the
yellow
paper,
then
you
have
like
a
homestead
version,
then
a
champion
version.
Now
it
concert
in
open,
so
I
think
Pro
for
the
yellow
papers,
that's
assuming
readable,
but
the
corners
like
you
have
no
versioning
on
it.
A
I
Also
would
wanted
to
say
that
I
think
that
they
I
don't
know
what
like
what
is
the
who's
actually
working
on
jello
paper,
but
I
assume
in
at
the
moment
there's
nobody.
So
it
has
been,
but
it
kind
of
suggested
as
the
specification
but
I
don't
know
do
we
know
who
is
actually
working
on
it,
because
we
can't
simply
wait
and
courage
to
to
fix
itself
right
are.
A
B
Yes
and
additionally,
they
they
plan
to
actually
build
well.
There
is
action,
implementation
of
ethereum
client,
which
uses
the
kay
engine
and
put
that
through
the
high
tests
and
put
it
through
the
Lib
foster,
stuff
and
actually
physically
vacation.
So
their
plans
pretend
that
they're
maintaining
it.
A
So
we
don't
need
to
decide
on
this
today
at
all,
but
we'll
see
what
happens
when
the
jello
papers
updated
will
start
getting
runtime
verification
and
the
calls
and
go
from
there
so
back
to
the
hard
fork
timing.
Do
people
have
opinions
on
that?
Otherwise,
I
can
just
say
what
I'm
thinking
who
wants
to
throw
out
dates
or
I,
guess
yeah
dates.
J
A
J
B
K
G
K
A
To
the
me
tree,
I
think
we're
on
tap
on
track
to
get
it
ready
at
least
a
month
before,
and
there
I
think
most
of
them
are
done
is
what
he
said
he
had.
He
said
he
only
had
a
few
weeks
to
go
to
finish
the
rest
of
them
when
we
had
our
last
call
about
a
month
ago,
so
I
don't
know
if
I
was
able
to
but
yeah
yeah.
G
Yeah
I
can
say
something
about
it,
because
I
just
have
taken
on
some
some
additional
responsibilities.
They
also
work
on
the
on
the
chests
repository
and
doing
some
additional
coordination
there
and
then
help
Demetri
bit
with
with
all
the
other
stuff.
None
implementation-specific
yeah
and
actually
we
today
Dmitri
merge
the
Xcode
of
initial
Scottish
tests
and
other
tests
are
now
in
the
work
from
Adrian
from
Pantheon
has
joined
for
helping
out
and
to
go
from
Eve,
awesome
and
I
think
we're
we're
on
a
very
well
track
to
get
these
tests
done.
G
We
also
just
one
other
thing:
we
we
changed
is
that
we
now
introduced
a
releases
for
tests
for
the
tests,
so
we
started
with
it
started
with
a
version
600
beta
one,
and
so
so
that
the
client
can
actually
synchronize
their
the
testing
efforts
and
we
can
compare
better
the
different,
the
different
test,
results
and
I
think
we
should
go
to
a
kind
of
like
main
release
or
like
six
level
release
and
in
the
next
two
weeks
or
so.
Yeah
I
think
there's
this
one
a
good
trick.
D
B
So
currently,
it's
gues
imperative.
I
know
that
Alice
has
kind
of
those
capabilities,
at
least
to
spit
out
the
common
data
format.
But
as
far
as
I
know,
it
cannot
execute
on
a
rural
state
test.
In
order
to
do
that,
we
can
run
it
in
testes
but
test
if,
as
far
as
I
know
spits
out
and
a
big
blob
which
doesn't
work
well,
if
there's
20,
50
thousand.
K
B
D
A
It
edge
cases
okay,
so
it
sounds
like
we're
kind
of
mostly
agreeing
on
mid-january
for
the
for
the
date.
Do
we
want
to
wait
till
next
meeting
to
decide
an
exact
date
when
we're
kind
of
seeing,
if
there's
any
more
issues
that
pop
up
or
do
we
want
to
decide
it
now,
I
guess,
what's
two
weeks
from
now,
that's
like
mid
mid-november
or
so
that's.
A
A
D
D
K
J
A
A
F
Well,
from
my
perspective,
we
have
three
deaths
from
party
from
from
from
Goa
turbulent
and
myself
that
we're
working
on
implementing
the
CPU
part
of
the
program,
CPU
implementation.
Let's
call
it
this
way
and-
and
we
kind
of
have
agreement
on
what
what's
the
output,
the
results
are
like
we
are
in
the
sink,
but
the
spec
is
not
finalized
yet,
and
there
were
some
changes
recently
to
that
and
some
some
tweaks
and
tyrannous
and
so
on.
So
we
are
not.
F
We
are
not
directly
wherever
the
spec
is
so
this
is
like
one
of
the
issues
is
spec
is
not
finalized,
not
also
because
properly
I
described
at
this
moment,
and
it
doesn't
include
any
test
vectors,
so
that'sthat's
main
struggle.
We
have
I
think,
but
besides
that,
I
think
we
are
in
good
condition
on
this
on
this
yeah
in
this.
In
this
part,
some
other
related
infrastructure
updates
would
be
we
just
proposed.
F
I
Just
wanted
to
say
that
it
was
a
actually
talk
at
DEFCON.
Four
I
think
it
was
an
ultraviolet.
I
just
got
walked
injured
accidentally.
That
was
a
presentation
about
profile
and
I.
Remember,
I
sat
through
it
and
they
included
the
saturation
numbers.
I
think
the
ones
that
we
so
I
was
suggesting
they
would
produce.
So
they
actually
had
saturated
numbers
in
the
presentation
and
I
think
they
were
pretty
high.
So,
yes,.
B
A
Yeah
the
talk
was
an
ultraviolet
Oh
got
a
girl
presented,
and
those
videos
for
dev
cards
should
hopefully
be
out
in
the
next
two
weeks,
depending
on,
if
my
internet
works
again
I'm
about
to
give
up
on
my
ISP
and
move
to
a
different
one.
But
the
issue
was
like
that.
The
other
ISP
also
sucks
so
like
my
choices,
are
very
limited.
So
if
I
can
get
my
ISPs
all
figured
out
and
get
my
upload
speed
above
one
megabyte
per
second,
then
I
can
upload
the
videos.
L
L
K
A
A
D
So
one
of
them
was
that
our
API
is
the
RPC
api's
eath
underscore
network
currently
returns
three
parameters
for
ET
hash.
My
name
and
we've
been
approached
by
a
few
mining
pools
that
this
is
problematic
because
it's
a
both
parity
and
gas
when
they
start
mining
on
the
block
periodically.
They
recreate
the
block,
even
though
nothing
was
mined.
D
Yet
this
might
happen
because
a
new
uncle
arrives,
or
it
might
also
happen
if
periodically,
you
just
receive
a
ton
more
transactions,
and
if
you
recreate
it,
it
might
actually
be
more
optimal
for
you,
I
mean
for
the
minor
and
for
that
for
the
minors.
It
generally
helps
to
know
whether
this
is
a
new
round
of
work
and
they
should
quickly
abort
mining
on
the
old
one
or
whether
it
is
still
the
same
round
just
an
alternative
block
and
the
solution
that
I
think
parity.
D
D
So,
of
course
we
can
add
it
and
we
added
it,
but
since
there
are
actually
two
more
already
two
clients
on
the
network
which
work
according
to
this,
and
it's
generally
useful
for
everybody,
I
thought
it
would
be,
might
as
well
just
update
the
spec
or
json-rpc
spec
so
that
it
actually
requires
returning
a
fourth
parameter.
When.
D
D
K
D
Essentially,
for
example,
we
have
absolutely
no
process
on
how
we
are
doing
Forks.
So
it's
kind
of
these
ad
hoc
things
where
everybody,
just
we
just
talk
on
chat
and
try
to
do
something
meaningful
and
then
hope
nothing
blows
up,
which
didn't
really
happen
during
Roxton,
and
then
the
idea
was
that
it
would
actually
be
nice
to
try
to
somehow
define
a
few
processes
around
important
repeatable
actions,
for
example
the
glowing
an
artwork
and
we've
had
we
discussed
it.
D
So
it's
a
proposal
that
I
would
like
to
it
would
be
nice
to
have
this
playbook
so
to
say
that,
okay,
if
we're
doing
a
hard
fork,
how
do
we
go
about
it
and
in
in
my
my
suggestion,
it's
a
proof
of
concept,
again
I
kind
of
highlighted
that,
for
example,
it
would
be
nice
to
first
do
a
do
a
simple,
hard
fork
on
a
on
a
private
network
so
to
say
that
client
setup
between
each
other.
Because
then
we
can
tell
these
transitions
and
catch
obvious
errors.
D
Blog
def
dependent
errors
without
messing
with
everybody
and
even
afterwards.
If
we,
if
we
decide
if
you're,
going
forward
of
forking
a
test
that
Lane
had
this
brilliant
idea
at
Def
Con
that,
instead
of
doing
a
live
for
covetousness,
we
can
do
a
shadow
fork
whereby
we
set
up
a
few
forking
clients
that
just
fork
away,
whilst
still
leaving
the
real.
That's
not
on
its
original
path,
and
this
allows
testing
quite
a
few
nifty
things.
For
example,
testing.
D
Whether
clients
can
cleanly
separate
from
the
other
network
or
if,
if
there's
a
stronger
network
going,
then
all
hell
doesn't
break
loose,
and
there
are
lots
of
these
scenarios
that
I
described
in
this
document.
So
my
request
is
just
maybe
have
a
read
at
this
document:
figure
out
whether
different
or
other
clients
or
ecosystem
participants
would
be
on
board.
In
doing
such
a
document
and
trying
to,
for
example,
have
hard
fork
follow,
display
plating,
playbook,
and
if
there
is
a
traction,
then
we
can.
D
We
can
possibly
work
out
all
the
kinks
and
make
it
expand
it
to
whatever
ether
we
need
and
one
more
thing
that
people
were
quite
a
few
people
asked
me
why?
Why
there's
a
need
to
do
a
separate
process
thing
instead
of
just
filing
an
EIP,
mm-hmm
and
I?
Don't
this
is
again
debatable.
Let's
get
the
document
on
first
and
then
we
can
see
whether
it's
actually
fits
into
any
yeah
IP
or
not.
My
initial
idea
or
initial
reasoning
is
that
the
IP
is
more
like
a
specification.
D
I
mean
kind
of
functionality
spec,
but
it
doesn't
really
tell
you
how
to
do
it,
whereas
this
process
documents,
the
goal,
would
be
to
have
a
step-by-step
checklist
where
you
can
just
go
through
and
just
tick
the
boxes
that
hey
did
go
aetherium
I,
don't
know
report
to
the
status
page.
No,
then
we're
waiting
on
tilde
reports,
then
these
kinds
of
boring
stuff
that
aren't
really
specification
rather
just
mundane
tasks,
caters.
D
D
That's
actually
part
of
part
of
the
consensus
and
part
of
should
be
part.
This
whole
process
document
that,
if
we'd,
if
we
decide
that
the
hard
work
needs
to
have
a
heartful
coordinator,
and
in
my
opinion
it
should
have
one.
Then
probably
we
can
also
add
that
to
the
to
the
doc
that
yes
first
step,
step.
Zero
is
the
point
somebody
who's
willing
to
coordinate
the
entire
thing.
I.
D
The
only
ideas
that
I
think
it's
a
if
we
kind
of
agree
in
advance
to
some
document
on
how
hard
Forks
are
going.
It's
everything
can
go
much
smoother
because
everyone's
on
the
same
page-
and
everyone
knows
that
okay,
then
in
two
weeks
we
need
to
launch
a
private
network
and
in
four
weeks
we
need
to
do
a
shadow
for
cardfight
of
the
rock
stone.
L
We
discussed
a
lot
of
these
ideas
at
the
I
guess
the
East
2.0
gathering
it
was
called
in
Prague
and
there's
definitely
a
lot
of
support.
There
seem
to
be
consensus
that
the
coordinator
role
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
so
I
just
wanted
to
add
my
voice
and
or
I
guess
the
voice
of
all
the
people
who
were
part
of
that
conversation.
Of
course,
you
know
figuring
out
who
that
person
should
be
in
the
process
by
which
they're
chosen
and
whether
it's
one
person
or
a
group
etc
is
complicated
and
I.
L
Don't
think
we
should
take
up
too
much
more
time
in
this
call.
I
think
it's
a
great
idea
and
Peter
I
think
that
you
know
checklists.
If
you
look
at
other
professional
engineering
or
you
know,
fields
like
medicine
or
I,
guess
that
the
canonical
example
here
is
like
the
pilots
checklist
in
aviation
I
think
it's
a
fantastic
idea
and
I
love
the
idea
of
having
a
meta
conversation
not
around
this
particular
hard
fork,
but
around
sort
of
a
platonic
hard
fork
right.
L
What
that
should
look
like
what
the
steps
should
be
the
roles
etc,
and
one
final
thought
which
is
you
know:
we've
discussed
many
times
now,
splitting
already
the
AI.
Sorry,
the
ER
C's
out
of
the
EIP
repository,
which
I
personally
think
is
a
good
idea.
I
personally
think
the
EE
P
should
be
separate
as
well.
K
One
possible
way
for
us
to
fill
this
role
would
be
for
companies
in
the
space
who
have
existing
knowledgeable
project
managers
on
staff
to
donate
one
of
them
at
the
time
that
we
are
entering
into
Hartford
range.
So
if
there's
companies
out
there
who
would
think
that
they've
got
somebody
who
would
be
good
at
this
and
they
would
be
willing
to
donate
to
the
public
good.
That
might
be
a
good
way
to
do
that.
So
I.
D
I,
don't
really
understand
this
line
of
thought
with
the
project
manager
thing
and
somebody
being
good
at
it,
because
I
guess
the
whole
point
would
be
to
create
a
document
where
everybody
can
be
as
dumb
as
it
gets
and
still
be
able
to
say
tell
whether
you're,
following
through
the
thing
or
not.
So
that's
the
whole
point
that
you
don't
want
smart
people
who
make
decisions.
You
want
a
document
that
it
just
tells
you
what
to
do.
And
if
you
follow
it
to
the
letter,
then
it
will
just
work
out.
Fine.
Sorry.
K
I'm
not
suggesting
somebody
who's
a
decision-maker
exactly
this
is
coordination,
so
somebody
who's
keeping
track
of
whether
we've
done
the
things
making
sure
that
it's
clear
what
comes
next
all
of
those
things,
but
that's
it
just
helping
all
of
us
who
are
busy
doing
things
that
sometimes
we
don't
pay
attention
to
the
process.
It's
nice
to
have
somebody
to
help
hold
a
hand
every
once
in
a
while
I.
L
Publicly
asked
if
anyone
had
that
set
of
experience
and
wanted
to
contribute
at
one
of
the
'if
magicians
events
in
Prague
and
I
had
four
or
five
people
I
think
reach
out
subsequently
and
and
say
they'd
be
interested
in
helping
a
number
of
them
said:
they'd,
be
interested
in
volunteering,
their
time,
Hudson
and
maybe
Piper.
It
might
be
good
for
us
to
set
up
a
call
with
some
of
those
people
or
at
least
discuss
amongst
ourselves
offline
and
see
if
we
wouldn't
want
to
accept
some
of
that
help.
L
D
A
C
Yeah
I
think
the
main
issue
here
is
that
in
the
past
that
wiki
has
been
completely
ad-hoc
edited
by
anyone
I
think
it's
still
publicly
editable
by
anyone.
So
I
think
it's
more
it's
following
sort
of
due
process
to
notify
a
I
think
this
should
be
changed
on
the
wiki
and
then
change
it
once
there's
agreement.
So
I
think
it's
more
we're
now,
starting
to
do
that.
It
doesn't
really
fit
in
within
the
AIP
framework,
but
I
still
think
it's
something
we
should
do
and
I
think
yours
quite
doing
it
right
away.
C
F
From
my
point
of
view,
it's
this
is
very
useful
information.
Probably
so
it
affects
how
we're
going
to
do
a
hard
work
if
any
to
two
different
proof
of
work.
Algorithm
and
also
propo
takes
the
block
number
as
their
as
an
input
to
the
hash
function.
So
this
is
almost
requirement
for
that,
and
also
block
number
is
much
more
useful
than
the
it's
called
C.
A
Great,
it
sounds
like
we're
all
good
then
and
then
I
think
everyone
was
kind
of
giving
positive
vibes
behind
the
eat,
tripoli.
So
let's
go
ahead
and
try
that
I
don't
see.
Why
not
a
worst-case?
We
abandon
it
if
it's
not
working
and
then
we'll
get
with
Blane
and
Piper
and
others
about
the
project
manager
position.
I
know
there
were
some
other
people
who
approached
me
via
email
and
in
person
at
Def
Con,
so
I
have
some
names
as
well
and
then
was
that
what
did
I
miss
anything
Peter.
C
A
K
K
L
I'm
not
super
keen
to
go
into
great
depth
on
this
I.
Don't
know
if
this
is
the
right
moment
or
the
right
forum
to
talk
about
this,
but
I
had
there
was
a
conversation
about
this
I
can't
remember
exactly
with
whom
or
exactly
we're
at
DEFCON,
but
I
mean
the
idea
is
like
separating
consensus.
Critics
like
stuff
that
falls
within
consensus
from
stuff
that
falls
outside
of
consensus.