►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #55 [2019-02-15]
Description
A
A
B
Okay,
oh
yeah,
no
y'all
could
hear
me,
but
there
was
this
setting
on
the
streaming
software
and
the
internet
can't
hear
me,
but
now
they
can
hear
me
so
yeah
thanks
everybody
for
joining
and
we'll
get
started
on
the
agenda,
there's
kind
of
a
mishmash
of
stuff.
Today,
the
first
one
was
the
Constantinople
Rob
stone
for
and
how
that
went,
and
then
the
status
of
the
Constantinople
heart.
Fourth,
that's
happening
in
less
than
two
weeks,
roughly
yeah,
roughly
two
weeks
or
thirteen
days
from
now.
So
anyone
want
to
go
over
the
particulars
of
that.
B
D
B
Sounds
good
and
then
the
Constantinople
for
coming
up
in
two
weeks,
I
know
that
the
plan
is
for
the
cat
herders
to
start
reaching
out
to
miners.
Probably
a
week
out.
We're
also
gonna
be
posting
a
reddit
and
sticking
a
reddit
thread.
Doing
some
Twitter
reach
out
to
people
to
let
them
know.
What's
going
on
and
I'll
do
a
blog
post
for
the
etherium
gorg
blog,
and
so
that's
that's
what
I
plan
on
doing
does
anyone
else
think
there's
more
that
we
need
to
do
other
than
just
trying
to
let
people
know
to
update.
B
So
today,
Jason
and
Carver
and
Jeff
Coleman
wanted
to
talk
about
the
side
effects
of
create.
There
was
recently
a
and
some
articles
put
out
and
some
other
misinformation
in
the
community
that
there
was
a
bug
found
in
Constantinople
and
then
it
would
be
delayed.
That
was
because
there
was
an
auger
I
guess.
What
is
what
do?
B
So
that's
kind
of
the
reason
for
the
it's
kind
of
a
tricky
prediction
market,
but
it's
not
to
say
that
there's
a
delay
because
of
a
bug,
so
people
got
like
nervous
because
of
that.
So,
but
there
are
some
I
guess
things
that
people
didn't
realize.
We're
gonna
happen
because
of
create
so
we'll
start
with
Jason
and
then
have
Jeff
come
in
to
kind
of
give
both
of
their
perspectives
and
then
we'll
have
other
people
respond.
So
Jason
you
can
start.
F
Sure
so
you
know
I,
don't
think
I
need
to
kind
of
go
over
the
issue
itself.
Just
this.
This
idea
that
you
know
create,
allows
contracts
to
be
redeployed
after
self-destruct
and
with
a
little
bit
of
trickiness
redeploy
different
by
code.
I
think
this
was,
you
know
basically
known
by
the
epass,
but
some
of
the
things
that
makes
tricky
about
auditability
were
fully
fleshed
out
to
the
point
of
like
writing
up
articles
and
making
it
the
communities.
G
Yeah
I
think,
like
Jason,
has
a
really
good
point
that
I
think
there's
some
education
and
awareness
that
we
need
to
build
around
this
I
think
a
lot
of
people
are
not
familiar
with
with
kind
of
the
whole
thing
like.
Why
do
you
even
need
big
crates?
You
have
some
comments
like.
Oh,
you
can't
do
anything
with
great
see
that
you
can't
that
you
can
do
with
create
whatever
and
I
think
like.
G
Not
to
use
self
destructs-
and
this
is
a
much
stronger
reason
and
then
the
second
part
is
emphasizing
that
in
it,
codes
are
really
important.
So
I
guess
one
of
the
things
that
that
is
counter
intuitive
about
creates.
You
is
that,
theoretically,
redeployments
can
change
the
contract
byte
code,
because
the
address
has
only
a
commitment
to
the
inmate
code
and
a
nonce
and
I
think.
G
As
you
know,
any
kind
of
thing
that
you
might
have
where
there's
like
some
some
delegate
call
or
something
inside
of
a
contract
where
that's
that's
a
property
that
someone
could
cheat,
can
use
to
change
things
and
so
like
that,
that's
already
extremely
important,
with
looking
at
Factory
paradigms
and
and
figuring
out.
What
something
is
so
I
think
like
those
two
messages
are
something
we
worked
really
hard
to
get
out
there
and
I.
Think
they're.
G
On
the
question
of
whether
whether
there
could
be
something
pulled
back
about
this,
like
not
only
this
pretty
late
in
the
game,
I
think
there
is
a
really
big
question
here
for
me
as
to
given
the
sort
of
niche
impact
this
and
given
that
I,
don't
think
people
who
are
writing
contracts
and
looking
to
make
them
like
auditable
are
really
impacted
by
this.
Like
just
don't
you
self
destruct,
it's
pretty
simple
way
to
never
never
run
afoul
of
this.
G
I
think
that's
a
really
bad
idea.
There
are
a
lot
of
ways
to
continue
to
break
down
when
we
look
at
both
looking
the
storage
rent
proposals
of
how
we
might
be
stashing
and
retrieving
storage
and
looking
into
things
like
yanking
up
contracts.
Looking
into
things
like
the
generalization
of
accounts
traction
all
these
sorts
of
things
are
gonna,
be
changing
one
of
these
assumptions,
and
so,
when
we
look
forward
to
where
we
want
to
end
up
I
think
the
end
place
that
it
would
be
amazing
to
get
to
on.
G
G
So
if
we
enter
the
place
where
critic
to
the
standard
everyone
sees
and
creates
you
get
rid
of
stuff
strikes
like
stop
using
them
entirely
and
then
have
had
that
beat
the
new
para
and
everyone's
working
inside
it
I
think
that's
that's
a
fantastic
place
for
us
all
to
get
to,
and
then
basically
we
can
throughout
this
idea
of
a
contract,
not
so
obviously
looking
for
that
sort
of
a
thing.
As
a
place
that
we
can
get,
you
I
think
that,
having
creates
you
in
its
correct
form
is
the
best
we
can
do.
G
I
Then
that's
a
way
that
contracts
can
go
from
being
in
the
state
to
being
not
in
the
state
without
a
self-destruct
operation,
and
so
we
would
need
to
be
careful
to
either
just
disallow
but
basically
require
creating
a
con,
a
contract
at
that
point
to
have
merkel
proofs
or
a
beast
proving
that
it
didn't
exist
before
or
some
some
other
scheme
that
that
prevents
contracts
from
like
basically
just
being
popped
into
existence,
most
new
code.
If
that's
not,
if
that's
not
the
way
that
they
were
intended
to
be
set
up.
I
C
Yeah
the
comment
as
well,
so
this
whole
discussion
basically
started
two
years
ago
when
we
talked
about
these
side
effects
on
day
on
the
first
eve
for
creative
and
what
we
really
should
do
in
my
opinion,
is
to
take
when
these
discussion
happens.
Wherever
they
happen,
we
put
them
in
a
condensed
form,
unlike
security
considerations,
what
are
the
possible
side
effects
and
consequences
of
it
Albany,
and
we
try
to
update
that
even
if
it
has
been
finalized.
C
We
could
still
update
that
particular
section
with
the
newly
found
discussion
information,
because
if
the
information
is
spread
out
over
discussions
and
fellowship
discussions,
it
might
be
hard
to
find
enough.
I
guess
that's
the
reason
why
this
has
been
kind
of
refound,
again
and
again
by
different
people.
B
Okay,
thanks
Jason
and
Jeff
for
that
we'll
move
on
to
the
Prague
pal
audit,
so
the
cat,
herders
and
related
parties
have
been
looking
at
doing
the
Prague
pal
audit.
We
are
here's
the
latest
on
that.
Just
been
a
couple
of
minutes,
we
have
found
a
company
who
has
sent
us
a
proposal
to
do
a
bench
series
of
benchmark
testing.
B
I
know
some
of
the
sticking
point
for,
for
some
people
in
the
space
was
that
it
was
not
clear
if
AMD
or
Nvidia
cards
would
be
getting
a
performance
boost
unfairly
based
on
Prague
how
being
implemented,
and
so
this
benchmarking
would
basically
have
some
unbiased
scientific
benchmarking
across
different
video
cards
to
make
sure
that
Prague
pal
works
the
same
or
similarly
across
all
of
them,
and
so
we
found
that
that's
an
easier
thing
to
do.
The
problem
that
we're
having
is.
B
That
we're
having
trouble
finding
an
auditor
or
a
company
or
group
to
look
at
Prague
pal
and
say
things
like
this-
is
how
long
it
would
take
a
Prague
how
ASIC
to
be
created.
Here's
the
things
that
people
would
have
to
do,
here's
the
budget
they
would
have
to
have
some.
You
know
some
other
stuff
that
we're
interested
in
in
order
to,
for
you
know
the
community
to
try
to
make
this
decision
on
whether
or
not
to
go
forward
with
it.
B
So
we're
having
trouble
finding
those
auditors,
if
you
know
of
people
companies
stuff
like
that
who'd
be
interested
in
this
in
the
my
way,
and
we
are
talking
to
a
few
people.
So
it's
not
completely
a
lost
cause,
but
it's
not
looking
very
great
and
finding
those
people
primarily
because
the
people
who
are
the
most
expert
at
the
stuff
have
conflicts
of
interest
because
they're
looking
into
Prague
how
mining
themself,
whether
that
be
GPU
or
ASIC,
so
yeah,
it's
it's
kind
of
complicated.
B
Okay,
great
so
the
next
item
Pavel
commented
that
he
wants
to
reject
eip
135.
The
et
hash
won
a
VIP
that
does
just
a
slight
tweak
to
make
et
hash
break.
The
current
Asics
I
think
he's
the
author
of
that
and
I
think
he
just
wants
to
reject
it
because
he's
the
author
of
it
and
it's
not
going
to
be
useful
anymore.
Now
that
we're
looking
into
other
things
like
prog
pal,
so
he's
not
here
to
really
talk
about
it.
So
we
can
skip
that
item
and
I.
B
B
J
D
C
B
D
D
B
Saying,
oh,
oh
sorry,
I
didn't
see
his
comments
at
all
requesting
to
add
the
agenda
and
the
scope.
I
believe
the
main
speaker
is
Alexei.
Okay,
yeah
Alexei
is
not
here,
and
so
because
of
that
we'll
skip
this
item.
For
now,
until
Alexei
can
come
on,
I
know
he
came
out
the
other
day
with
version
3
of
the
state
state
fees
proposal
which
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
look
over,
but
he's
iterating
on
that.
B
B
E
To
be
clear,
the
main
technical
challenge
in
doing
that
is
creating
a
viable
light
client
for
the
beacon
chain,
which
is
something
that
we
are
actively
pursuing
with
a
couple
of
the
clients.
So
this
is
very
technically
feasible
and
seems
very
much
like
it's
something
that
the
community
wants.
So
our
intention
is
to
continue
putting
the
pieces
in
place.
That
would
allow
us
to
do
that.
I
E
I
I
Yeah
I'm
in
the
process
of
writing
up
this
like
clients,
synching
talk,
it'll,
probably
take
a
couple
of
days,
but
then
the
one
good
thing
is
that
the
interface
is
fairly
clean,
which
is
a
32
byte
state
which
is
just
like
the
latest
known
hash
and
a
pure
function
verifies
a
certificate
for
updating
it.
So,
theoretically,
once
that
function
and
then
once
that
cure
function
is
done,
then
you
can
shove
it
into.
One
of
these
leaves
mark
tools
and
see
how
long,
how
feasible.
E
I
E
I
Sure
am
one
actually
thing.
That's
kind
of
relevance
to
this
is
that
these
white
wine
certificates
are
could
potentially
be
kind
of
fairly
big
in
size,
so
I
think
up
to
something
like
500
kilobytes,
every
nine
days,
so
in
an
absolute
sense,
pretty
small,
very,
very
small
in
terms
of
load
but
in
a
canoe
in
a
burst
sense.
That's
still
about
ten
times
bigger
than
the
curtains
and
the
current
block
size
limit.
So
this
is
one
of
the
reasons
to
maybe
potentially
thing
think
about
some
of
the
stuff.
H
I
F
E
I
B
Okay,
cool.
The
next
topic
is
the
working
group
updates,
so
Alexie's
not
here,
so
we
were
not
gonna.
Do
the
state
fees.
We
already
talked
about
the
stay
in
for
meetings,
overview,
I,
don't
know,
I
think
we
left
that
on
for
some
reason.
Unless
anyone
else
had
anything
to
say
about
that,
do
we
have
anybody
else
from
a
working
group
that
has
any
relevant
updates
since
the
last
time
I,
don't
I
wouldn't
expect
there
to
be
any
I.
B
And
then
I
know
Boris
asked
at
a
comment
down
here:
should
there
be
a
cadence
for
in-person
meetings
and
what
would
what
would
that
look
like,
and
do
we
want
to
meet
up
in
person
regularly
or
things
like
that?
What
are
people's
thoughts
on
meeting
up
in
person
will
probably
Rio
approach
this
later
after
we
get
through
some
of
the
working
group
stuff
in
future
meetings,
but
does
anyone
have
an
appetite
for
meeting
in
person.
B
B
H
Martin
has
no
major
issues.
His
client
passing
the
test.
I
think
it's
ok,
because
all
the
tests
updated
for
a
couple
of
weeks
now
and
I
was
updated
and
it's
everything
being
run
on
different
clients
or
the
tree
in
decline,
has
raised
an
issue
of
creating
this
mineral
and
another
scheme
for
us
to
initialize
the
Genesis,
and
there
is
a
function
on
RPC
protocol
and
a
test.
Rpc
protocol
itself
is
about
to
be
discussed
for
implementation.
B
C
A
A
M
We're
using
the
one
get
this
because
not
enough
informations
come
out
about
the
new
hybrid
sync.
We
would
love
to
do
it,
but
a
lot
of
the
stuff
that
we
would
need
for
a
future.
Hybrid
sync
is
also
needed
at
this
fast
Inc,
so
it
gets
us
closer
to
where
we
need
to
be
to
get
a
better
fascinate
going
on
we,
you
know
we
want
on
something
faster
than
a
full
sync
and
a
full
archive,
which
is
why
we
went
ahead
with
it.
C
Yeah
so
the
future
hybrid
sync
at
least
one.
What
Peter
has
been
proposing?
It's
basically
first
a
leaf
sync
and
then
to
fill
the
blanks
she
needs
to
a
fasting
kind
of
way
and
because
the
first
think
is
kind
of
self-healing.
This
day
try
and
so
that's
a
good
start,
even
even
for
them,
for
the
next
type
of
sync.
B
N
I
Sure
so
I
think,
since
the
last
call
one
major
piece
of
news
is
that
this
phase,
the
fee,
the
first
release
of
the
phase
zero
spec
home,
was
made
and
since
then,
which
basically
includes
all
of
the
kind
of
proof
of
stake
parts
of
the
sir
serenity
a
really
release.
So
it
does
not
include
the
charting
specific
bits
which
are
in
phases
one
and
two,
and
when
we
made
that
initial
release
I
think
we
mentioned
that
there's
a
couple
of
new
feature
is
that
without
that,
we're
still
missing
where
one
of
them
was
mandatory.
I
Deposit
ordering
and
the
other
was
a
more
efficient,
shuffling,
algorithm
and
I
think
since
the
net.
Since
the
rule,
the
release,
that's
that
you
know
it's
either
right
after
that
it
was
just
about
to
go.
That's
also
going
to
be
included
so
fee,
basically,
phase
zero
is
definitely
well
into
refinement
mode
at
this
point
and
challenges
are
starting
to
move
move
into
things
like
finalizing
the
wire
protocol
and
testing
and
other
things
that
are
probably
more
even
a
client
implements
or
updates
more
than
research
updates.
I
At
this
point,
I've
been
starting
starting
work
on
phase
one
and
which
is
basically
a
short,
the
charting
of
data
and
not
charting
of
computation,
and
this
one
from
a
specification
points
is
actually
very
simple,
or
at
least
very
simple.
Given
all
of
the
end
of
work,
that's
already
been
done
on
the
phase
zero
side.
The
one
hard
thing
is
that
it
basically
involves
specifying
the
the
full
proof
of
Custody
game
which
I'm
still
in
the
process
of
doing.
I
I
So
there's
a
huge
amount
of
opportunity
for
doing
them
in
parallel
and
I
would
argue
this
the
time
to
start
having
a
real
and
of
discussions
on
concrete,
a
fiying
the
what
go
is
say.
What
phase
two
is
going
to
look
like
in
kind
of
even
the
fine
details
is
basically
now
so
I
mean
I've
been
starting
to
reach
out
to
one
point
next
people
more
on
some
things,
and
it's
also
been
put
up
in
ether,
research
post.
That's
like
talking
about
cross
your
transactions.
I
One
interesting
thing:
that's
brought
that's
worth
getting
a
lot
of
people
as
input
is
basically
what
would
a
kind
of
dream
replacement
for
a
our
seats?
Why
do
you
look
like
that
would
be
done
on
top
of
Phase
two,
both
because
it's
just
something
that
a
lot
of
people
obviously
wants?
But
it's
also
a
kind
of
just
quick
test
of
whether
how
kind
of
easy
it
is
to
build
things
that
are
actually
interesting
and
useful
on
top
of
the
EFI.
I
K
I
I
Basically,
because,
like
the
thing
was
face
to
be
in
terms
of
specification
right,
that
specification
of
phase
2
basically
needs
to
start
today,
as
what
I'm
trying
to
put
what
I'm
trying
to
say
here,
I
guess
not
something
that,
because
we
know
that
phase
2
has
a
large
specification
challenges
to
it.
That
and
phase
1
is
I,
never
relatively
heavy
on
implementation
versus
s
of
peer-to-peer
network
stuff
versus
specification,
whereas
phase
2
is
relatively
light
on
that,
and
it's
heavier
on
these
other
complexities.
I
B
E
I
E
B
E
E
B
O
I
I'd
also
add
that,
in
the
at
least,
the
current
kind
of
vague
and
nebulous
set
of
proposals
pays
to
create
to
is
the
only
kind
of
creation
opcode.
So
the
that
makes
this
kind
of
issue
of
basically
helping
helping
people
and
navigate
and
navigate
their
way
around.
How
creates
you
based
contract
systems
that
work
even
more
important.