►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #34 [02/23/18]
Description
A
Okay,
hi
everybody
I
just
switched
over
on
the
stream,
so
we
can
start
thanks.
Lane
for
making
the
agenda
lanes
gonna
be
helping
me
out
Lane
ready
for
the
next
at
least
couple
of
times
and
potentially
be
my
backup
or
just
kind
of
take
over.
As
far
as
running
these
meetings,
we
might
also
just
do
them
together.
You
know,
have
a
collaboration
going
so
yeah
everybody
'welcome
Lane.
He
works
for
the
etherium
foundation,
kind
of
Foundation
wide.
B
A
A
As
far
as
what
changes
need
to
happen
to
e
IPS
and
we
think
the
best
first
steps
are
the
following:
making
a
chatroom,
making
a
reddit
post
that
we
can
link
to
Twitter
and
other
stuff
at
a
chatroom
for
people
to
discuss
changes
in
governance,
there's
already
a
governance
channel
and
an
e
ip's
channel,
so
we'll
just
have
to
figure
out
which
one
of
those
we
want
to
use
on,
getter
or
I
also
heard.
Maybe
a
discord
was
being
set
up,
so
I'm
kind
of
investigating
what
everyone's
doing.
But
the
main
point
is.
A
Additionally,
there
is
a
group
called
the
Fellowship
of
ethereal
magicians.
They're
gonna
be
presenting
a
workshop
at
FCC
and
I'm
gonna
post
kind
of
a
link
to
their
document,
but
it's
basically
yeah.
They
talk
on
the
governance,
get
her
a
lot
and
they
are
a
self-organizing
group
to
maximize
technical
opportunities.
It's
something
that
Jamie
Pitts
and
Greg
Colvin
have
mostly
come
up
with,
and
I'm
gonna
paste
that
link
in
chat
and
Greg.
If
you
want
to
say
any
words
on
it,
feel
free.
C
Yeah
good
morning,
think
of
it
as
an
IETF
for
aetherium
ITF.
For
those
who
don't
know
is
the
internet
Engineering
Task
Force,
it's
a
self-organized
group
of
engineers
and
scientists
under
technologists,
who
basically
keep
the
internet
running,
make
sure
that
the
that
the
consensus
is
reached
to
make
sure
that
all
of
our
all
of
our
equipment
speaks
the
same
protocol
and-
and
here
we
are.
A
A
C
A
Yeah
there
we
go
anyways
so
that
documents
there
for
everybody
to
kind
of
take
a
look
at
and
comment
on.
Additionally,
we're
going
to
be
we're
going
to
be.
You
know,
having
that
meeting
at
FCC
we're
gonna
be
having
discussions
in
a
chat,
room
I'll,
be
doing
a
reddit
post
to
invite
the
community
to
participate,
and
hopefully
we'll
get
a
few
things
changed.
Maybe
not
a
full
overhaul
or
anything
like
I
was
kind
of
thinking
we
needed
before,
but
something
something
a
little
bit
better.
C
A
C
A
D
D
G
A
A
So
my
understanding
from
talking
to
you
each
he
is
he's
still
figuring
some
stuff
out
personally,
legally
and
I.
Don't
think
that,
for
my
understanding,
he's
completely
against
participating
in
the
future,
I
think
that
at
this
time
he
just
is
choosing
not
to
from
my
talking
to
him
until
he
gets
some
more
advice
from
from
legal
interest.
Other
things
in
his
life
so
I
think
that
it's
not
that
he'll
never
join
again,
because
I
did
check
on
that
to
make
sure
that
they're
everything
was
facilitated
for
him
and
everyone
else
in
the
meeting.
C
D
H
H
H
H
Talks
about
and
with
something
with
people
she
really
read,
because
it
makes
you
really
good
points
about
how
consensus
is
not
about
majority,
though
it
was
not
about
nobody
objecting.
It's
about
making
sure
the
very
technical
concerns
people
have
raised
to
be
resolved
remain
either.
These
are
fixed
in
the
standard
or
them
to
be.
D
A
H
So
anyway,
I
think
they
should
be
really
explicit
about
the
thing.
But
writing
Andy
is
the
standardization
process
and
doesn't
it's
going
to
be
adopted
and
a
handful
for
the
network,
simple
process?
We
need
to
be
explicit
about
what
companies
for
adopt
images,
I,
think
other
people
make
a
good
point
that
15
y/o
jihad
for
well
as
the
ultimate
governance
mechanism
is,
you
know
blunt
instrument,
and
so
maybe
we
need
a
way
to
get
reliable
community
consensus
on
how
popular
a
proposed
deep
is
or.
A
H
D
C
A
C
H
J
E
Just
just
one
of
the
things
I
found
interesting
about
next
read
was
the
idea
where
you
should.
We
should
try
to
separate
comments
from
arguments,
the
idea
being
that
you
can.
You
can
merge
things
once
every
objection
has
been
addressed
and
it's
I
think
it's
hard
to
do
that
exactly
because
you
can
always
like
try
make
the
same
objection
in
a
different
language
in
a
different
way.
Your
earth
and
say
your
objection
is
new,
just
because
it's
slightly
different
relation,
it
would
be
interesting,
maybe
two
to
one.
Oh
one
of
the
ways
to
do.
E
Greg's
nation,
on
separating
a
draft
from
our
Trouville
I,
think
it's
I
think
it's
hard
to
do
it.
I
I
agree
it's
hard
to
do
it,
because
if
you
make
a
proposal
that
let's
say
someone
things
that
is
inherently
a
bad
idea,
nobody
should
adopt
that
standard.
Then
you
clearly
them
on
that
to
be
a
standard
right,
so
I
think
I
I,
don't
want
to
come
like
AI
want
to
go
into
specific
examples,
but
I
think
it's!
E
C
Workflow
is
clear:
you
go
from
once
against
a
draft,
it
can
be
deferred,
it
can
be
rejected,
it
can
be
accepted,
but
and
until
it's
a
draft
it
doesn't
have
an
EIP
number
and
it's
not.
You
can't
even
refer
to
it.
In
order
to
make
these
arguments
it's
just
a
nebulous.
You
know
you
can
argue
about
it
in
the
community,
but
in
the
EIP
process
becoming
a
draft
is
the
first
stage
to
even
have
an
official
document
to
argue
about,
and
if
you
hate
it,
then
you
argue
that
it
should
be
rejected.
H
C
That's
an
interesting
point
and
that's
why
we
need
some
sort
of
deliberative
body
where
we
can
have
these
arguments
in
a
civil,
deliberative
way
and
comment
threads
on
the
on
the
EIP
pages
or
are
not
the
best
place,
especially
at
the
pre
draft
stage.
You
know
once
it's
a
draft.
The
debate
can
spread
out
into
all
kinds
of
channels
that
exist.
A
B
A
J
J
L
I
At
least
income
in
combination
with
some
of
the
like
various
other
kinds
of
community
polling
but
I
mean
I,
do
also
feel
like
our
currents,
sort
of
de
facto
approach
or
aware
that
sort
of
stuff,
as
has
only
really
been
invoked
for
stuff.
That's
really
genuinely
actually
controversial,
like
the
dáil
for
candy
issuance
reduction,
might
make
more
sense
and
using
it
for
everything.
E
Well,
the
program
is
proposing.
A
new
mechanism
is
because
we
have
everyone
start
like
we
start
getting
into
more
complex
and
interesting,
like
algorithm
is
like
prediction,
market
feature,
markets,
etc,
and
the
problem
is
that
most
of
them
are
still
untested.
So
it's
a
sort
of
argument
where
we
it's
sort
of
an
argument
where
we
can
say:
okay,
so
let's
wait
five
years
and
until
war
to
better
tutor
or
made
and
better
tools
are
available
when
they
are
tested
for
smaller
things
that
you
can
use
them
for
bigger
things.
D
G
I
I
I
mean
technically
the
carbon
vote.
It
has
been
tested
twice,
which
is
why
it's
like
I
think
it's
like
obviously
hazards
for
us
and
we
shouldn't
listen
to
it
as
a
sole
signal.
But
it
is
you
know
what
what
one
of
several
like
some
okay
toll
since
you.
As
long
as
you
recognize
it's
only
one
of
several.
J
E
About
hundred
people,
maybe
were
responsible
for
80%
of
the
of
the
of
the
voting
power
and
I.
Think
that's
that's
inevitable
because
of
the
of
the
Pareto
distributions
of
tokens
in
general
and
because
a
lot
of
people
are
a
lot
of
smaller
people
will
not
care
to
go
there
and
do
the
voltage.
They
don't
have
a
large
eater.
J
Maybe
maybe
we
could
model
is
like
the
World
Wide,
Web,
Consortium,
w3c
and
kind
of
like
how
they're
able
to
like
you
know
like
implement
web
assembly
is
like
a
protocol
specification
and
then
start
to
the
clients
to
adopter
that
yeah
I
feel
like
as
a
thing
gets
more
popular.
You
guys
will
just
get
more
like
random
feature.
Requests
through
the
eyepiece
death
seems
to
be
working
so
far.
What
you
guys
have
been
doing.
I
Yeah
well
just
to
repeat
what
I
said
on
skype
was
the
problem
with
prediction:
was
that
for
any
curl
any
of
those
designs
to
work?
We
have
to
agree
on
objective
function
and,
like
some
people
might
say,
the
price
of
user,
but
I.
My
impression
of
the
etherion
community
is
that
it's
not
just
about
trying
to
optimize
the
price
of
ether.
So
it's
sound
like
once
you
one
move.
K
I
A
I
I
actually,
personally
think
that
in
general,
our
governance
mechanism
house
so
far
as
it
is
the
as
it
is
de
facto
well,
is
really
not
that
bad.
Probably
the
main
flaw
is
actually
not
so
much
in
what
the
mechanism
is
as
it
is
and
how
we
communicate
it.
So,
like
you,
for
example,
the
biggest
points
that
we've
seen
in
regarding
the
standardized
recovery
is
like
not.
C
I
Like
it's,
basically
that
by
apparently
getting
annoyed
getting
merged
like
what,
basically,
the
the
impression
that
a
lot
of
community
members
forgot
from
the
outside
is
that
it's
a
lot
closer
to
being
words
or
being
like
actually
implemented
or
like
actually
finally
accepted.
Then
anyone
involving
involved
in
the
decision-making
process
actually
intended
the
signal,
but
it
is.
A
Yeah-
and
we
can
fix
that
by
having
notes
at
the
bottom
of
the
PRS
that
says,
although
this
is
becoming
merged,
that
does
not
imply
that
this
is
any
more
closer
to
accept
it.
It
just
implies
that
it
has
been
moved
to
draft
status,
so
that's
kind
of
something
we
can
do
until
the
process
becomes
ingrained
that,
even
though
it's
myrrh
it
doesn't
mean
it's,
you
know
necessarily
close
to
being
accepted
just
like
VIPs.
I
I
H
Just
briefly,
I
see
a
lot
of
people
advocating
don't
formalize
them
because
it
will
be
subject
to
institutionalization
and
capture
and
so
on,
and
my
concern
is
that
not
formalizing,
something
just
means
that
those
same
pressures
exist
if
they
just
release
transparent,
I.
Think
ad
hoc
government
systems
aren't
actually
more
secure.
It's
just
harder
to
tell
when
your.
A
Yeah
I
could
see
the
point
both
ways,
but
in
general
my
personal
perspective
is
what
I
do
for
most
things
in
life,
which
is
everything
in
moderation.
So
in
general
something
needs
to
be
at
least
somewhat
formalized
just
like
we
have
these
meetings
and
we
schedule
them,
but
you
know
having
something.
That's
super
strict
would
probably
be
a
strain
on
those
involved
in
silence.
Some
voices
and
perspectives.
I
Yeah
and
I
generally
agree
like
having
these
having.
These
calls
is
good
and
having
the
ability
for
these
calls
to
kind
of
to
give
different
levels
of
indications
about
whether
about
the
status
of
the
area.
These
is
good,
but
at
the
same
time
like,
if
all
of
the
participants
of
this
particular
call
decide
to
approve
any
API,
if
it's
really
terrible
that
you're
not
actually
correlate
with
a
hundred
percent
chance,
it's
going
in.
E
Like
irrelevant,
so
someone
open
a
new,
your
European,
also
I,
think
sort
of
as
a
joke,
but
the
potato
was
standard
response
for
for
recovering
Forex,
which
was
basically
saying
that
it's
a
new
standard
where
the
standard,
the
rest
and
the
response
for
that
other
standard
should
be
always
and
I.
Think
that
I
I
think
that
was
a
joke.
But
it's
it's
might
be
a
good
way
to
show
that
when
standard
doesn't
you
can
have
like
controversial
one
standard,
engaging
the
others
and
both
can
be
approved
to
the
draft
status.
D
A
A
So
let's
go
through
some
of
the
other,
a
IPs
again,
especially
now
that
we
have
someone
to
represent
the
research
team
with
metallic
to
kind
of
talk
about
some
of
these,
so
II
I,
p210
block
hash
refactoring.
My
understanding
about
this
EW
is
that
let
me
paste
the
address
of
this
inside
of
some
of
this.
A
I
Yeah
on
chain
contracts,
training,
realism,
people
only
purpose
of
the
EIT,
but
it's
definitely
one
of
the
benefits,
so
the
other
benefit.
Basically,
guess
that,
like
you,
gain
access
to
walks
that
are
much
further
in
the
past,
which
is
a
good
thing
for
just
both
various
kinds
of
applications
that
want
to
do
things
based
on
black
ashes,
also
a
certain
kind
differently,
genomic
white
clients
and
also
like
certain
kinds
of
proof
of
work
based
my
clients.
G
G
I
I
As
far
as
different
difficulty-
and
there
is
already
an
implementation
with
like
that
piece
of
EDM
code
right-
so
it's
even
basic-
we
were
just
wants
to
write
a
hold
on
a
whole
bunch
of
tests
for
it
and
then
I,
know
I
think
it's
already
been
already
been
implemented
in
at
least
a
couple
points.
It's
just
like
basically
sitting
there
with
a
sports
number
of
like
student
100,
identify
that
so
far,
it's
never
going
to
happen.
I
want
to
only
agree
otherwise.
G
M
I
would
like
to
see
that
the
specification
being
finished,
but
it's
kind
of
hard
to
get
it
done.
I,
don't
know
why,
but
like
I
write
some
comments
many
many
months
ago
and
still
didn't
get
answer
to
them.
I
think
that
should
be
at
least
merge
as
a
draft,
so
I
can
place
direct
requests
to
fix
some
small
issues,
because
now
I
have
pre
quest
requests
and
nobody
actually
can
review
them.
So.
M
I
A
I
Like
if
everyone
else
me,
you
mean
at
Yeti
210
right,
maybe
just
like
walk
through
it
again
and
I
really
like.
If
other
people
don't
see
any
issues,
then
well.
Actually,
maybe
I
will
be
good
to
also
have
some
more
someone,
independent
rights
and
passport
and
when
basically
I
would
ideally
prefer
not
to
actually
merge
until
there
is.
You
know
a
very,
very
high
chance
that
the
EDM
code,
exactly
as
written
with
the
correct
EVM
code.
M
So
there
is
at
least
one
back
I
think
in
the
contract
and
like
it
would
be
easier
if
there
if
the
document
is
inside
the
repository
already
and
I,
can
send
requests
to
it
instead
of
having
that,
mostly
in
the
comments
and
all
of
them
are
in
the
same
place.
Instead
of
having
individual
issues
addressed
as
separate
for
requests
and
so
on,
that's
the
member.
M
M
M
A
H
I
A
G
A
Yeah
I
wish
I
would
have
looked
over
this
before
the
meeting,
but
I
think
I
can
just
quickly
look
at
some
of
the
charts.
The
best
threshold
is
zero,
a
it
does
not
create
problems
with
destroying
of
someone's
money,
but
it
does
introduce
the
possibility
of
where
you
play
attacks
which
can
be
mitigated.
A
K
G
I
Well,
I'll
use
my
under
the
only
to
determine
how
many
speech
we
nodes
rather
than
accountants
would
be
cleared
okay,
so
the
no
accounts
would
basically
drop
basically
drops
by
half
as
soon
as
we
do
even
one
way
and
then,
if
they're
at
shirt.
So
if
this
one
seems
to
stop
at
ten
gray,
is
there
one
that
goes
up
that
actually
goes
up
to
like
four
427.
I
Basically,
keep
it
but
I'm,
not
as
much
Indian
like
that
elephant
concerns
about
distracting
destroying
people's
money
or
really
that
relevant,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day
like
this
VIP,
you
will
only
don't
delete
your
money
if,
at
the
end
of
a
transaction,
your
accounts
Hausa
lessons.
What
do
you
want
that
was
in
finance
a
gas
price
which
means
in
a
worst-case
scenario,
the
worst
thing
that
this
accountant,
possibly
or
the
worst
thing
of
this?
I
D
G
G
H
G
So
yeah
what
I
was
going
to
survive?
Is
that
I
think
if,
if
we
have
a
dynamic
limit,
where
we
clean
out
stuff,
I,
think
that
David,
hairy
and
potentially
subjected
to
attacks
so
I
would
feel
a
lot
more
comfortable
if
we
set
a
hard
limit
as
protocol
parameter
and
then
we'll
some
future
hard
work,
I
mean
if
we
start
setting
it
to
0
and
then
sometime
later,
set
it
to
100,
shabbos
or
whatever
I
think
that
would
be
more
less
risky
approach.
F
It's
also
questionable
how
much
benefit
clearing
the
dust
accounts
would
actually
have,
because,
according
to
Andres
post
without
the
full
database,
size
is
nine
point:
seven
gigs
with
dust
without
dust.
Seven
point
three
gigabytes.
So
that's
only
a
two
point:
four
gigabyte
savings
I
know
during
the
the
state
bloat
do
s
attacks.
They
took
up
a
lot
of
size,
but
yes,.
I
F
I
I
D
F
I
I
mean
I
guess
there
is
an
argument
that
like
if
we
do
account
extraction,
then
this
won't
get
rid
of
a
quarter
of
the
or
whatever
of
the
current
state
space.
But
yes,
we
look
three
years
from
now.
The
state
space
is
going
to
be
like
three
times
bigger
native
extracted
accounts
and
the
eventually
gained
illegal
accounting
I
like
seven
or
eight
percent,
which
you
know
like
that's
the
only
time
this
would
be
better
spent.
You
know
making
tests
for
FG
better
or
starting
or
whatever
mmhmm.
I
So
yeah
there
are
intermediate
versions
that
we
can
consider
as
well.
So
like
one
example,
is
that
if
at
some
point
we
end
up
upgrading
transaction
format,
so
then
that
would
be
any
kind
of
great
opportunity
during
which
you
can
do
without
worrying
about
really
protection
issues
so
like
at
that
point
of,
like
the
it
was
maybe
two
three
times
simpler
to
implement
and
yeah
one
time.
I
found
clear
of
some
kinds
which
would
make
it
easier
to
actually
do
well.
I've
got
a
longer-term
thing.
H
I
No
because,
like
remember
that,
when,
when,
in
account
an
account
going
from
broad
existence
to
existence,
is
not
something
that
offended
that
that
the
owner
of
the
account
can
do,
because
you
can
only
send
each
transaction
from
an
account
if
yet
defer
to
pay
for
it,
which
means
it
can
only
send
the
transaction
from
that
account.
That
already
exists,
which
my
show
is
one
other
people
so
much'
to
it.
Yep.
I
A
A
J
H
A
I
I
I
It's
an
opportunity
to
do
a
bunch
of
things
like
one
of
them
is
it's
an
opportunity
to
do
a
kind
of
one
time
kind
of
like
hard
block
where
transactions
before
it
clearly
can't
be
replayed
after
it,
which
could
be
using
the
resources
to
delete
a
bunch
of
accounts?
There's
also,
we
in
theoretical
Easton
it's
an
opportunity
to
do
a
situation.
Nonce
mechanism,
though
alternative
leave
and
I,
mean
if
we
want
to,
could
basically
just
change
the
format
without
doing
any
of
that
either.
E
Just
one
when
one
objection
lay
ahead
on
that
is
that
there
is
always
a
chance
that
people
would
move
their
F
to
rap
F,
for
instance,
would
not
be
affected
by
that
and
in
the
end,
if
a
lot
of
people
do
it,
then
of
course
there's
no
dust
cleaning.
There
is
no
dust
for
just
claiming
for
tokens
and
in
the
end
we
can
have
more.
G
Yeah
I,
don't
think
people
would
mind.
You
know
if
the
dust
was
clean
because
I
think
most
of
the
dust
is
actually
leftovers
from
people
trying
to
move,
although
all
day
or
the
ether
out
of
their
accounts,
but
they
don't
use
big
uns
in
JavaScript.
So
they
cannot
make
some
miscalculation
with
inaccurate
numbers
and
it
happens
to
be
a
few
way
over
and
they
don't
I.
Don't
think
people
actually
care
about
that
money
sitting
there
I,
don't
think
they
would
take
steps
to
protect
a
couple
of
hundred
ways.
A
Since
there's
not
really
agreement
on
this,
we'll
just
go
on
to
the
next
one
too,
for
the
purpose
of
time
account
abstraction.
Here
we
go
again
so
a
cat
abstraction.
Is
this
something
I
think
the
last
time
we
discussed
what
we
kind
of
came
to
is
that
there
would
be
a
choice
to
be
made
between
account,
abstraction
and
having
resources
and
time
spent
on
that
versus
on
Kaspar
and
other
similar
efforts
going
into
clients.
Does
everyone
think
that's
still
the
case,
in
which
case
account
abstraction
would
be
tabled.
I.
I
Mean
so
if,
from
one
thing
that
is
going
to
happen,
it
is
that
it
has
abstraction
or
get
implemented
inside
of
the
sharding
system,
so
the
like
in
some
ways
regardless
really
it
will
exist
in
stuck
in
some
clients
and
in
some
form,
and
so,
if
we
want
to
difference
for
the
main
as
well,
then
at
some
point
it
would
like
be.
The
the
code
would
be
basically
most
mostly
written
in
that
it's
a
little
bit
of
time
away.
Yes,.
I
Were
to
try
to
implement
it
really
quickly
for
the
next
artwork,
then,
essentially,
there
might
like
one
what
would
mean
we
might
need
to,
but
it
is
a
fairly
substantial
undertaking
right,
especially
because
of
thing
of
things
like
minor
strategies.
So,
but
if
we
try
to
do
it
very
quickly,
we
won't
get
won't
be
able
to
get
the
benefit
of
piggybacking
on
that
works.
It's
been
already
done
on
the
show,
I,
think
side,
I.
D
I
I
No
I
guess
the
main
main
reason
to
do
something
similar
would
be
because,
like
there's,
if
there
is
some
kind
of
urgent
need
for
a
specific
warship
for
a
specific
application,
the
critic
advantage
of
abstraction,
but
if
some
not
to
learn
in
my
case,
there
may
also
do
some.
They
may
also
be
simple
way:
supervisor
or
the
needy
kinds
like
here.
We
simple
clutches
that
just
provided
with
option
protocols,
mmm-hmm.
A
Yeah,
it
definitely
sounds
like
this
is
something
that
would
and
I
mean.
We
heard
Peters
comments
from
last
meeting
and
other
people's
comments.
So
it
sounds
like
this
would
be
a
substantial
enough
undertaking
that
it
is
not
worth
it
for
Constantinople,
but
should
be
reassessed
after
Constantinople,
especially
depending
on
where
sharding
is
at
that
time.
I
Superset
of
the
early
extraction
proposal,
because
I'm
basically
one
when
I
was
making
the
abstraction
proposal
and
particularly
when
we
were
doing
VJ
chain
ID
replay
protection
for
a
beer,
so
I
do
not
be
replayed
to
aetherium
classic
when
we
basically
have
to
do
a
bunch
of
collages
where,
like
some
variants,
some
numbers
will
be
set,
such
as
zeros.
In
some
cases
like
the
V
value,
DV
purpose
and
a
chain
idea,
then
the
V
value
would
be
like
the
G
and
idea
times.
I
2
plus
27
plus,
you
know
I'm,
not
signature
bit,
and
it
got
a
bit
too
complicated.
So
the
idea
was
to
just
make
a
kind
of
Queen
new
type
of
transaction.
Where
you
know
the
first
number
would
always
be
the
transaction
version
number,
which
would
be
basically
a
transaction
type.
The
second
value
would
always
be
the
network
idea,
then,
from
there
just
an
unlevel.
The
transaction
type
is,
and
the
benefit
is
that
this
is
just
like
way
more
forward
compatible.
Anything
you
might
want
to
do
in
the
future.
I
G
A
Okay,
cool
all
right
so
now
we're
on
the
timing
phase,
and
it
looks
like
the
only
things
that
we've
really
agreed
on
certainly
is
the
IP
145
and
that
IP
210
is
something
that
we
need
to
work
on
some
more.
But
it's
kind
of
seeming
like
it's
going
in
the
direction
of
being
approved
for
the
next
hard
fork.
I
A
N
I
Like
a
large
increase
and
if
we
know
that
most
of
the
clients
have
done
that,
then
I
think
we
really
should
consider
a
substantial
reduction
in
the
gas
box
of
those
awkward
because
right
now
and
I'm,
basically
Jason
orcs
and
any
kind
of
racing
insurers.
Anything
in
that
category
is
like
extremely
expensive,
and
if
price
of
that
goes
down
by,
let's
even
a
factor
of
three,
then
it
would
improve
by
usability
quite
a
lot
that
will
be
like
just
right
doctor
we
trivially
I,
did
take
into
our
it's
a
hard
work.
G
A
G
Basically,
I
think
from
where
this
whole
thing
stems
from
is
that
we've
been
exploring
on
the
swapping
out
our
own
BN
256,
carbon
plantation
to
an
optimized
one
from
actually
from
clouds
there,
and
with
that
we
still
have
to
swap
out
the
curve
so
I
don't
know
how
much
work
that
would
be
and
how
stable
that
will
be.
So
it's
big
question
mark,
but
essentially
their
performance
is
about
eighteen
times
faster
than
our
current
implantation,
which
means
that
if
we
can
integrate
that,
then
from
our
perspective,
gas
prices
can
go
down
significantly.
G
A
G
A
G
G
A
A
A
L
A
L
I
started
to
work
on
this
new
approach,
which
will
allow
us
to
generate
the
consensus
test
from
any
client
that
implements
this
new
RPC
test
methods,
and
it's
just
an
idea
and
I
still
need
time
to
write
this
tool
and
see
which
actually,
which
methods
do
I
need,
in
order
to
replace
the
current
version
of
test
it
with
a
new
one.
But
you
could
start
their
discussions
and
then
make
your
proposals.
So
what
kind
of
method?
How
would
they
look
like
what
would
be
better
to
cause
a
RPC
protocol.
L
A
J
I
The
new
transaction
type
is
basically
a
cosmetic
change,
whereas
the
ETP
realisability
thing
actually
involves
deep
changes
to
architecture,
and
it
involves
very
significant
changes
through
a
protocol
guarantees
because
you
can
basically
have
just
arbitrary
function
across
contract
calls
fail
if
they
go
outside
the
access
list.
It
actually
brings
us
back
to
a
situation,
but
I
think
it's
equivalent
to
what
we
had
before
the
tangerine
whistle
hard
work.
I
When
you,
when
you
could
do
a
call,
stack
depth
attacks
like
I'm,
pretty
sure
that
any
attacks
agrees
with
that
with
against
them
B,
but
the
kind
of
attacks
that
this
the
access.
What
subscription
lets
you
do
is
an
exact
same
same
sort
of
stuff
that
the
kind
of
taxi
be
do
a
call
stack
death
attacks.
So
the
account
of
the
security
countermeasures
are
exactly
the
same,
so
I
would
and
the
deep
changes
are
basically
that
you
know
the
parts
that
involve
actually
paralyzing.
I
All
the
transaction
execution
in
the
accesses
I
mean
I
would
say
it
definitely
totally
find
her
people
to
try,
implement,
implementing
going
imperious
and
what?
What
kind
of
realistic
how
you
would
test
it.
Asians,
with
what
realistic
strategy
review
is
for
testing
and
what
kind
information
you
want
together
with
that.
I
I
I
So
basically
it's
like
it
also
lets
you
make
a
transaction
which
call
some
contract,
and
if
that
project
is
going
to
call
another
contract
and
the
a
transaction
might
could
just
have
that
that
second-degree
call
we
be
outside
the
access
lists,
all
of
the
internal
fails,
so
it
gets
basically
the
exact
same
kind
of
attack,
so
it's
no.
It
does
become
a
bit
easier
to
set
up
because
they
don't
need
to
do
this
in
23,
def,
sculpt
out
or.
F
I
Yeah
when,
basically
the
idea
that,
with
the
paralyze
ability
proposals
aim
with
the
call
stack
depth
limit,
you
cannot
assume
that
any
call
will
actually
succeed
until
you
have
to
handle
the
case
where
tails
and
to
be
here
was
before
we
did
the
Santa
Rita
104,
which
ended
up
just
making
the
problems
not
not
exist
anymore.
We
did
come
up
with
a
bunch
of
countermeasures
on
the
area
of
smart
contract
only
level
and
black
defense
coding
standards.
So
let's
do
Italy
surmountable.
A
G
F
But
but
the
other
thing
about
the
EEP
648
is
it
until
we
know
for
sure
the
bottleneck
about
about
disk
I/o
and
how
that
can
be
optimized
648
is
not
really
gonna
improve.
You
know
it
doesn't
make
it
possible
to
increase
the
block
cast
limit
on
without
some
of
the
some
of
the
other
disk.
I/O
optimizations
like
are
being
explored
with
turbo
gasps.
A
M
I
D
I
A
A
I
G
Not
sure
in
the
context
of
what
I'm
eating
yes,
we
could
release
one
eight
zero
and
one
eight
one
following
your
kind
of
happy
that
the
live
client
is,
is
again
seemingly
functional.
There
are
some
rough
edges
and
there
are
some
bugs
that
we
discovered,
but
we're
kind
of
happy
with
it.
With
respect
to
this
cord
of
coal
I
think
the
only
thing
that
might
be
interesting
is
that
we've
merged
in
Martin
actually
implemented
emerged
in
the
bit
shifting
operation.
Eip
I
mean
if
the
implantation.
A
D
O
L
Epc
no
update
so
I'm
using
CPP
client
to
develop
those
new
APIs
images
and
then
the
test
each
tool
is
now
separated
from
the
CPP,
client
and
I
will
use
this
to
generate
the
test.
We
are
air
PC
me.
This
also
needs
this
new
repository
called
retest.
It
is
the
one
we
shall
be
working
on
and
and
the
current
version
of
tested
and
supported
by
og
in
his
fork
of
a
city
PCM
reppin.
So
we
learn
to
remove
the
test
it
from
CBP
client
and
make
it
more
simple.
F
F
A
B
B
So
one
thing
that's
happened
is
we
decided
to
it
was
decided
to
merge
that
branch
into
the
master
on
the
grounds
that
none
of
the
work
being
done
in
sharding
should
effect
kind
of
the
main
IBM
stuff
anyway,
I
think
that's
still
a
bit
of
a
work
in
progress,
there's
I've,
maybe
a
few
conflict
that
need
to
be
worked
out
there
and
I
think
the
two
big
things
that
are
happening
right
now
on
IBM
and
Trinity
are
the
networking
code.
That's
definitely
a
work
in
progress
and
some
asynchronous
kind
of
fun,
with
Python.
A
I
Yeah
so
whispering
I
think
that
I
believe
aetherium
J
is
close
to
being
ready
to
having
something
tech
net
compatible
and
there's,
like
one
more
round
of
charting
protocol,
updates
that
we
need
to
do
at
some
point
soon
and
we're
kind
of
like
zeroing.
In
on
the
exact
details
of
that
on
the
sorting
side
of
us
over
the
last
couple
of
years
and
compliance
right
over
the
last
couple
of
weeks,
you
can
find
a
lot
of
it
on
research,
talking
about
specific,
charting
designs
and
trying
to
figure
out
like
what
what
makes
sense
to
do.
I
First,
what's
forward
compatible
with
what
and
kind
of
charting
the
right
path
from
me
like
one,
we
senses
with
MVP.
What
makes
sense
is
like
stage
one
and
stage
two
so
that
we
can
both
get
kind
of
like
reasonably
good
suitability
I'll
quickly,
but
at
the
same
time,
not
like
seriously
delay.
These
are
the
goal
of
getting
like
the
stronger
capabilities
out
as
soon
as
possible
as
well.
So
that's
kind
of
being
discussed
a
lot
between
myself
and
Justin
and
probably
continue
going
forward.
A
I
I
know
what
Casper
was
just
not
like
here
is
that
numbers
look
swollen
moving
toward
the
last
round
of
changes
to
expect,
at
least
before
you
know,
like
anything
like
watching,
EE
auditors
suggest
and
the
theory
mga
is
moving
in
as
I
as
I've
been
watch.
What
your
stand
is
pretty
close
to
something.
That's
like
that
compatible.
A
A
M
A
No
problem
thanks,
everybody,
the
next
agenda
topic
and
the
last
one,
is
that
FCC
is
in
two
weeks,
I've
counted
and
about
fourteen
people
who
are
usually
on
the
core.
Dev
call
are
gonna,
be
at
FCC,
maybe
fifteen.
If
I'm,
including
people
who
are
attending
but
not
giving
talks.
So
should
we
skip
the
next
core,
dev
meaning
and
just
have
it
a
month
from
now.