►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #60 [2019-04-26]
Description
A
A
A
A
First
of
all,
one
more
thing:
everyone
hear
me
yeah,
okay
and
y'all-
can
hear
me
on
the
zoom
call
right,
yeah,
okay,
perfect
all
right,
so
the
decisions
made
from
last
time
were
to
stop
the
prog
pack
harbin
vote.
Actually
that
was
made
from
58,
so
anything
from
58
we're
gonna
skip.
It
looks
like
the
actions
required
work
in
progress
for
cat
herders,
updating
the
IP
one.
A
A
A
C
A
A
Eits
working
group
updates,
please
add
more--
ip's
to
1344,
that's
fine
and
then
the
working
group
updates,
which
we'll
get
to
Oh
parity,
etherium
added,
quick
consensus
for
full
support
for
Gourley
tests
net
and
the
beta
and
then
turbo
Gotham
to
do
updates
on
turbo
death,
which
we
will
have
today
if
that
wasn't
already
done
last
time.
Okay,
so
we've
gone
through
the
previous
decisions
now
for
roadmap.
If
you
click
the
link,
it's
gonna
go
to
the
etherium
wiki.
A
D
So
the
link
is
an
ethereal
magicians
link
where
I
put
up
a
schedule.
So
during
the
Berlin
meetup
we
had
a
little
room
call
of
what
we
thought.
An
appropriate
cadence
would
be
after
Istanbul
for
subsequent
hard
Forks,
mostly
room
supported
six-month
hard
Forks,
there's
a
few
people
in
the
room
that
supported
four-month,
hard
Forks.
D
Previous
to
that,
previous
network
upgrade
they're
gonna
lose
time
implementing
the
e
IPS
for
the
next
for
the
next
upgrade,
so
that
would
wind
up
being
a
full
skip,
if
necessary,
to
the
next
hard
fork,
another
four
month
delay.
But
if
we
get
six
months,
we
don't
even
consider
the
EIP
to
the
next
hard
fork
until
the
previous
hard
fork
is
complete
and
I.
Think
that
helps
the
trained
model
of
you
know
having
these
scheduled
ahead
of
time
to
know
when
the
next.
E
C
However,
however,
if
these
people
are
different-
and
this
is
actually
the
model
that
I
would
like
to
see
like
where
that's
why
we're
spawning
all
these
work
groups
will
come
to
this
later
that
in
this
model,
there
is
no
problem
of
overlapping,
because
we
are
having
basically
multiple
people
working
on
this.
It's
not
like
everything
is
bottle.
Next,
on
the
like
a
very,
very
small
group
of
people,
so
yeah,
this
was
my
comment
and
we'll
see.
C
D
E
D
Cadence's,
so
even
six
might
be
a
stretch,
but
as
far
as
we're
lap
on,
if
things
go
well
and
the
test
net
deploys
just
fine
you're
right,
it's
not
the
same
group
of
people,
but
if
things
go
poorly
and
we
need
to
bug
why
we're
getting
consensus
issues
on
the
test
net,
typically,
it
is
gonna,
be
the
developers
deeply
involved
in
debugging
the
consensus
issues
there
give
me
the
same.
Who
is
responsible
for
implementing?
So
that's
where
the
overlap
risk
comes
from.
B
To
say
the
timing
out
loud
to
get
it
into
into
the
notes,
so
April
2020
will
be
the
next
one
of
its
six
months
again.
I
pasted
the
link
into
the
zoom
chat
here.
If
you
want
to
have
a
look
so
realistically,
this
means,
if
there
is
another
core
devs
meeting
in
July,
that
would
be
exactly
nine
months
until
the
next
hard
fork
so
I'm
in
support
of
picking
up
our
pace.
We
just
need
more
people
and
some
more
support
for
tuning
process
so
that
we
can
get
better
at
it.
D
A
D
D
A
A
So,
let's
start
with
the
first
one,
since
it's
getting
close
to
May
I
want
to
put
priority
on
us
figuring
out
which
proposals
are
going
to
be
going
in
or
not.
If
we
can
figure
out,
if
we
can
figure
out
today
which
one
of
these
we
are
popular
or
which
ones
we
can
approve
for
going
in,
we
can
add
it
to
our
list
of
actual
ones.
We're
gonna
implement
so
II
I,
P,
1829
pre-compile
for
elliptic
curve,
linear
combinations.
A
This
also
is
something
that
Kasey
is
talking
about
later
in
the
call,
and
this
actually,
let's
first
kind
of
figure
out
what
what
people's
feelings
are
for.
Pre
compiles,
cuz
historically,
what's
happened
is
we
had
a
different
time
line
for
II
was
before
or
something
like
that
and
now,
since
things
are
more
up
in
the
air,
it
might
be
good
to
put
pre
compiles
in
in
a
way,
that's
a
little
bit
better
and
not
wait
for
he
was.
F
F
C
Yes,
so
basically
yeah,
that's
what
martin
said
is
just
completely
true
and
the
reason
for
this,
and
obviously
the
people
who
are
trying
to
make
this
happen
because
I
talked
to
Alex
blossom
yesterday
about
it,
because
basically
I
suggested
him
to
create
a
working
group
on
this
to
actually
complete
all
the
work
that
is
necessary
for
this
yeah.
It
should
be
ready
and
because
basically,
there's
a
lot
of
work
and
as
people
might
remember,
back
from
design
team
and
it's
not
trivial,
so
it's
it.
C
So,
as
a
output
of
that
working
group,
we
should
see
the
appropriately
done
the
IP,
whether
it
will
be
proposed
by
May
or
not
or
later
I,
don't
know,
but,
as
I
said
in
Berlin
and
I,
don't
want
to
be
fixated
on
this
particular
date,
because
when
if
the
IP
is
well
specified
and
properly
prepared,
then
the
implementation
can
go
much
faster
and
especially
if
the
tester
is
also
generated
for
it.
A.
B
C
C
B
F
No
I'm
not
against
it
as
a
concept,
not
at
all,
but
I'm,
not
a
cryptographer,
and
for
me
this
is
kind
of
I
have
a
hard
time
to
decide.
If
it's
worth
it
about
so
it
I
need.
It
would
be
good
for
the
people
of
Champions
face
to
explain
to
us
non
cryptographers
why
this
is
so
great
and
why
it's
so
useful
and
you
know
motivate.
B
C
So
I'm
going
to
probably
publish
this
announcement
today,
because
I
didn't
want
to
do
like
multiple
groups
per
day,
but
the
leader
will
be
like
Sandra
blasts
off
and
I
will
put
his
details
on
the
whatever
we're
gathering
it.
And
obviously,
if
this
is
the
the
working
group
and
then
especially
if
it's
actually
also
at
least
partially
funded,
then
you
could
expect
this
kind
of
accountability
of
answering
that,
like
providing
the
all
the
materials
and
stuff
like
that,
so
yeah,
it's
Alexander
Vlasov,
who
is
a
de
facto,
is
already
working
on.
E
So
just
one
example:
with
the
elliptic
curve
multiplication
on
BN
128,
it
was
added
as
a
pre
compile
and
because
it
was
assumed
that
implementing
an
EVM
wouldn't
be
wouldn't
be
performant
enough,
and
what
happened
was
somebody
came
along.
You
know
exactly
Williamson
from
Aztec
and
did
an
implementation
in
EVM.
That
is
actually
cheaper
and
gas
cost
for
I
mean
for
just
one
one
point:
it's
it's
almost
the
same
and
then
for
two
points
or
more,
it's
cheaper
than
the
pre-compile
yeah.
E
So
the
proposal
for
a
pre-compile
for
Blake
to
be
is
one
that
I'm
skeptical,
because
there's
there
is
an
implementation
and
solidity
with
a
lot
of
inline
assembly
and
the
gas
cost
is
cheap
enough
to
do
up
to
some
number
of
you
know
of
input,
bytes
and
I.
Think
it's
up
to
the
the
champion
to
demonstrate
that
for
one
the
the
use
case
they
want,
the
implementation
is
eat
and
EVM
is
not
sufficient
for
the
sizes
that
they
need,
that
they
need
to
hash
and
also
that
they've
done
a
best-effort.
C
Anyway,
oh
yes,
oh
yeah,
Thank,
You,
Keisha
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
it's
probably
most
monstro
the
Blake
to
be
is
out
of
scope
for
the
for
the
Working
Group
I
mentioned,
and
the
reason
being
is
that
they
basically
choose
chose
to
work
on
this
specific
pre-compiled,
which
is
generic
elliptic
curve
support,
and
so
as
otherwise.
Because,
basically
you
can't
just
leave
the
IPS
and
then
you
know
nobody
is
working
that
there's
no
use.
C
But
if
somebody
actually
committed
to
work
on
this
specific,
recompile
and
I
think
it's
it's
warranting
the
group,
wherever
you
cannot
really
force
them
to
work
on
other
pre-compose,
because
you,
yes,
if
you
find
people
who
are
happy
to
work
on
others
and
yets
fine.
But
at
the
moment
that
I
should
ask
but
I
think
they
only
mean
the
elliptic
curve.
Pre-Compose.
A
A
C
A
G
A
D
E
D
F
A
F
D
D
D
D
A
Why
it
was
on
the
top
of
it
was
on
the
tip
of
my
tongue?
Oh,
if
we
do
the
Rob's
10,
if
we
didn't
Rob
Stan
and
we
do
Prague
POW
on
their
and
then
we
decide
not
to
put
it
in
like
late
July,
early
August
and
just
take
it
out
of
the
hard
fork.
Could
we
then
revert
back
to
ET
hash,
or
is
that
kind
of
one
of
those
hard
things
to
do?
That's.
E
E
A
F
Other
comments,
yeah
change
that
would
be
concerning.
Well
we're
changing
the
proof
of
work.
We
could
actually
switch.
So
it's
because
if
you,
if
you
provide
a
fast
thing
to
ahead-
and
the
first
thing
you
do
is
verify
that
head
and
the
proof
of
work
fails,
then
your
hope
is
they're
gonna
search
for
the
right
head
instead,
so
we're
not
gonna
wind
up
in
the
situation
that
you're
fasting
to
the
wrong
the
wrong
tip
and
have
to
go
back
and
forth
fast
think
will
still
work.
F
D
F
B
A
Was
just
about
to
do
that?
Well,
wait!
Sorry!
I
have
to
get
Scarlett
to
get
the
whole
thing.
The
Telex
instinct
is
that
doing
another
saint-petersburg
style
backwards
hard
for
contests
net
is
too
much
extra
work.
It's
a
bit
tricky
and
because
Prague
POW
is
two
times
harder
per
hash.
If
he's
asking,
if
that's
correct,
I,
think
that's
what
y'all
just
talked
about
right
right.
D
A
A
Well,
we
don't
have
to
decide
that
portion
today,
it's
more
if
we
want
Prague
how
to
go
forward
at
all
into
the
next
hard
fork.
So
is
there
anyone
in
this
call
who
is
gonna
voice
opposition
to
including
hard
POW
in
the
next
hard
fork,
and
the
reason
I
asked
that
is
I
haven't
heard
any
coordinate,
opposition
that's
been
loud
and
I
might
have
missed
it,
but
I
haven't
heard
any
court
have
opposition
that's
been
loud
and
the
opposition
I've
heard
from
the
public,
and
my
opinion
was
that
they
weren't
filled
in
on
this.
D
I
I
A
So
looks
like
that
one
is
official
for
the
next
hard
fork
as
of
right
now
and
that's
more.
It
depends
on
your
perspective.
It's
either
a
reiteration
that
it's
going
forward
and
it's
no
longer
just
a
proposal
or
you
can
say
that
it's
a
new
decision,
whatever
you
all
want
to
whoever
whoever's
listening
to
this,
you
can
decide
for
yourself,
Hudson.
B
Just
a
point
of
process,
so
we've
got
the
two
three
three
changes
merged
in,
so
the
the
wiki
is
still
a
decent
overview
right
now,
but
ideally,
someone
will
have
to
champion
prompt
out
and
actually
PR
it
into
the
hard
fork
meta
got
it:
okay,
you're
right.
That
is,
that
is
the
next
step.
So
technically,
this
would
now
be
moved
into
accepted
and
be
listed
in
that
category.
A
A
J
No,
no
it's
fine.
The
the
linear
elliptic
curve
is,
is
a
superset
of
the
previous
one
been
basically.
In
short,
it
allows
you
to
to
interact
with
with
with
with
TLS
sister
certificates
and
DNS
X
zone.
Signing
probably
the
most
obvious
thing
would
lie
to
do
so.
So
you
know
you
know
how
you
can
get
an
identity
like
the
HTTP,
extended
validation
certificate
like
when
you
go
to
paypal.com,
it
says,
is
it
says,
like
PayPal
link
and
the
in
the
address
bar?
F
A
I
guess
the
one
thing
to
put
into
consideration,
especially
if
ENS
wants
to
champion
this-
is
that
the
other
one
I
think,
as
we
explained
earlier,
doesn't
even
have
gas
estimations
and
therefore,
unless
it's
worked
on
pretty
hard,
you
know
in
the
next
month
or
so
may
not
be
eligible
for
Istanbul,
and
then
you'd
have
to
wait
till
potentially
April
for
the
next
hard
fork.
So
I
don't
know
how
soon
you
all
wanted
to
send
it
all
or
am
I
am
I
doing
that
am
ice,
estimating
that
right
either.
J
A
A
Okay,
we
can
say
that
one's
going
forward,
then
I'd
say
metallic.
Is
your
mic
fixed
by
chance,
because
you
were
the
main
one
who
wanted
to
talk
about
the
fee
market
change
and
if
not,
we
can
do
that
next
time.
Okay,
and
also
we
can
get
Eric
Eco,
gnar
and
here
next
time
as
well
to
kind
of
be
another
voice
than
this
I
think
he'd
be
happy
to
join
the
call
the
talaq.
Did
you
want
to
talk
over
text
just
a
little
bit
about
this?
Or
does
anyone
have
questions
over
it?
I.
A
B
A
The
Blake
to
be
F
compression
function,
precompile,
is
being
worked
on
by
Virgil,
oh
and
Vitalik,
by
the
way
recommends,
reading
the
EIP
itself
and
there's
threads
on
Magicians
and
a3
search
where
you're
he's
responding
to
concerns
about
it
so
and
then
the
the
link
to
the
link
to
the
meeting
time
stamp
and
the
or
the
time
stamp
for
the
discussion
and
the
video
has
just
been
posted
by
boris
ryan.
That's
Casey,
oh
yeah,.
C
C
C
C
The
last
price
is
so-so
suggested
the
amendment
which
I
think
would
help
roll
it
out
quicker,
which
is
basically
not
trying
to
modify
the
meaning
of
the
existing
fields
and
the
transactions
which
I
think
originally
IP
does,
and
instead
introducing
a
new
transaction
type,
which
will
have
a
proper
format
for
the
for,
for
what
italic
proposes
for
these
different
parameters,
and
so
what
the
way
we
do
it
is
that
we
are
essentially
create
two
sort
of
virtual
spaces
inside
the
block.
One
of
them
is
for
all
transactions
which
we
could
limit
to.
C
Let's
say
eight
million
like
a
hard,
hard
limit
of
eight
million,
and
then
we
open
up
a
little
bit
more
space
for
the
new
format,
and
so
we
allow
both
formats
to
coexist,
and
then
eventually,
we
will
might
decide
to
shut
down
an
old
format
or
do
something
else.
So
the
benefits
of
that
would
be
that
you
we
could
roll
out
of
exchange
quicker,
because
we
don't
need
to
coordinate
with
every
wallet
provider,
because
if
they
didn't
make
the
change,
they
can
still
use
the
old
format.
Everything
should
work,
but
also.
C
A
A
Yes,
oh,
this
is
being
actively
changed
because
I
think
Alex
added
some
stuff.
So
what's
the
next
one,
we
should
talk
about
Oh
e
IP
1352.
If
you're
on
the
etherium
wiki
page
for
this
just
refresh
the
page
and
you'll,
see
the
updates
Alex.
Do
you
wanna
just
go
through
all
of
the
ones
you
just
mentioned?
They
seem
pretty
non-controversial
for
the
most
part.
Oh.
K
K
It
should
have
no
effect,
but
in
the
future,
if
some
other
VIPs
are
proposed,
which
would
deal
with
recompiles,
then
it
can
have
an
effect,
and
so
an
example,
for
that
is
a
IP
1109
which
proposes
to
while
an
earlier
incarnation
of
1109
proposes
to
reduce
the
cost
of
static
call
when
the
destination
is
a
pre-compile
and
having
1350
to
would
simplify
the
specification
of
such
a
change,
because
one
could
just
refer
to
restricted
address
range.
Any
call
made
to
the
restricted
address
range
is:
has
like
a
lower
fee.
B
Know
that
the
enterprise
etherium
Alliance
are
gonna
want
to
support
this
because
they
want
some
address
ranges
to
be
set
aside
so
that
they
can
use
them
for
basically
custom
sidechain
pre
compiles.
Oh
I,
think
it's
a
good
app
and
needs
people
to
look
at
it
from
workshop
it,
and
it
doesn't
seem
that
complicated.
A
K
Ok,
the
next
one
is
a
six
eight
nine,
which
was
added
by
yuuichi
close
to
two
years
ago.
Address
collision
of
contract
address
causes
exceptional
halt,
so
he
this
was
overlooked
for
quite
a
while
and
I
think.
So.
Basically,
it
tries
to
clarify
the
case
when
somehow
contract
creation
would
end
up
with
a
very
simple
estate
on
minute
conditions,
but
he
wanted
to
clarify
this
to
make
testing
easier
and
more
simple,
yeah
I,
don't
think
anyone
looked
into
this
lately,
but
I
think
it
might
be,
might
be
useful
if
it's
a
small
enough
change.
A
K
A
F
L
I
think
we
have
some
test
cases
that
target
some
parts
of
it.
I
think
what
is
needed
to
confirm
them.
It's
like
it's
fully
specified
and
it's
not
only
specified
by
test
conventions,
so
you
have
an
expect
we
can
refer
to
so
I
would
say
we
need
to
do
a
bit
of
research
on
this,
but
I
think
it's
good
it's
on
the
table,
so
we
can
salvage.
K
B
The
nice
thing
is
that
we
I
think
the
one
tweak
so
Alex
and
I
talked
about
this
a
bit
and
and
I
think
there's
a
little
bit
more
tweaking
to
be
done.
2
2,
3,
3
Alex
mentioned
this-
is
a
wrap
up
from
Berlin
that
we
really
should
have
a
deep
campion
just
meaning
it
doesn't
have
to
be
the
author,
but
someone
that
puts
up
their
hand.
It
says
I'm
gonna
work
on
doing
the
work.
B
That's
needed
to
get
this
in,
and
so
the
simple
thing
is
because
you
have
to
do
a
PR
to
the
hard
fork.
Oh
no
one
does
that
hard
fork.
It's
not
actually
proposed,
so
it
won't
get
done
so
the
wiki
is
an
in-between,
ideally
by
next
cortes
call,
all
of
those
anyone.
Anyone
that's
serious
about
championing
something
will
have
PRD
into
the
hard
fork
meta
or
they
won't,
and
then
we
can
actually
refer
to
the
hard
fork
meta
as
the
canonical
list
of
how
things
are
moving
along.
K
K
So
this
proposes
that
the
say
code,
official
name
of
the
opcode
is
ketchup,
256
and
another
example
is
renaming
invalid
to
abort,
because
in
practice
that's
what
the
opcode
has
been
used
to
to
be
doing
and
I've
seen
a
confusion
when
people
try
to
refer
to
it
and
they
say
the
invalid
opcode,
but
then
a
lot
of
other
web
codes
are
also
invalid.
So
this
isn't
really
core
again,
but
I
think
it's
useful
and
the
last
one
is
well.
K
There
are
a
couple
of
more
in
the
IP,
but
the
last
one
I
would
like
to
highlight
is
renaming
balance
to
X
balanced,
to
be
in
line
with
X
code,
size,
X
code
copy,
X
code
hash,
because
that's
the
only
up
code
which
doesn't
have
the
text
or
external
prefix.
Yet
it
accepts
a
address.
This
first
parameter
now.
This
is
the
only
change
which
could
also
have
some
relevance
to
another
VIP
proposed
for
Istanbul,
the
one
proposed
by
Martin.
F
F
K
C
Would
say
I
would
say
if
this
is
not.
You
know.
If
this
is
not
the
code
change
it's
alright,
it's
just
a
matter
of
basically
like
how
things
are
named
in
documentation
and
tooling
and
clients
whatever
and
I
guess
we
could
just
easy.
If
there's
no
objections,
we
can
just
easily
kind
of
ratify
this
and
then,
from
now
on
people
would
start
working
on
renaming
things.
If
it
makes
sense,
I
guess
we
don't
have
to
read
it.
I
have
too
much
of
the
discussion
about
it
because
it
doesn't
really
touch
the
code.
Does
it.
K
C
I'm,
saying
is
that
it
could
be
basically
ratified
even
way
before
Istanbul,
even
like
today
or
tomorrow.
Just
like
we
just
do
communication
from
now
on.
We
should
we
renaming
these
opcodes
to
this
oak
code,
and
this
is
how
it
should
be
done
everywhere
and
I.
Guess,
that's
probably
gonna
be
enough.
No
yeah.
B
I
think
Alexis
point
stands
in
general.
A
lot
of
the
discussions
in
Berlin
were,
let's
paralyze,
a
bunch
of
stuff
if
it's
not
dependent
on
each
other,
and
this
is
one
of
those
categories.
So
please
work
on
it
and
then
come
back
to
Cortez.
When
you
have
an
update
that
says
it's
ready
to
go
and
let's
practice
non
hard
fork
approvals.
B
I
I
K
K
A
B
Point
order
again,
if
you
are
going
to
champion
one
of
these
eeap's,
please
do
a
PR
in
21679
to
add
it
to
the
proposed
section
and
we'll
practice
that
over
the
next
couple
of
weeks
and
I'll
make
sure
that
the
wiki
ends
up
being
synced
with
with
1679.
But
1679
should
be
considered
the
canonical
place.
A
M
1890
the
link,
so
the
process
I
wanted
to
introduce
here
is
like
right
now
what
we
are
doing
here.
We
want
to
propose
anything.
We
are
adding
it
to
agenda
or
maybe
to
the
atomization
forum
or
at
different
places.
What
we
are
saying
that
if
you
need
some
some
EMPs
to
be
proposed,
please
make
a
pair
not
be
our
case,
raise
an
issue,
a
TCH
Agata
and
it
will
be
perfect
and
then
will
be
listed
and
then
will
be
discussed
as
you
did
today.
M
We
can
merge
it
together,
but
I
feel
that
there
it
is
better
to
have
it
except
have
it
as
a
separate
EIP,
because
the
purpose
of
EAP
233
is
to
create,
as
since
how
to
create
a
meta
IP
for
any
upcoming
hard
fork
and
the
target
audience
for
that
may
be
the
third
for
this,
like
we
are
gonna
doing
it
for
his
turn.
Boyle
bonuses-
championing
not
championing
champion,
is
not
the
word,
but
he's
leading
it.
M
He
is
being
doing
a
lot
of
work
with
Berlin
Meetup
and
everything
he
is
trying
to
kind
of
organize
it.
So
he
is
there
and
the
target
audience
for
this
epic
2
3
3
would
be
the
one
who
would
be
helping
out
with
meta
EIP
for
Istanbul
is
1679
and
the
other
authors
or
champions
who
want
to
introduce
their
a
IPS
for
this
hard
fork
or
for
the
upcoming
hartford
need
not
go
by
the
EAP
two
three
three:
they
are
good
by
going
by
EAP
1679,
which
is
already
there.
M
So
what
I
was
trying
to
convey
here
is,
if
we
have
separate
small
pieces
of
everything,
then
we
can
actually
edit
or
append
it
as
per
need.
The
flexibility
part
is
there.
So
if
we
agree
that
we
should
have
a
process
defined
for
doing
things
like
this
is
very
small.
Take
for
this
material
blockchain,
but
that
this
is
a
small
bit,
can
add
a
lot
of
value.
If
we
define
a
process,
how
we
are
going
every
time,
then
nobody
has
to
be
there
every
time
to
guide
things.
M
We
will
just
pick
up
one
EIP
and
to
that
things.
So
that
was
my
basic
idea
and
I
would
like
to
hear
from,
like
all
of
you
like,
if
it
is
good
to
collect
the
EAP
from
there
and
then
go
ahead
with
a
process
like
if
it
is
proved
right
right
now
we
have
come
up
with
so
many
ideas
that
have
been
approved.
Yes,
we
are
going
with
that
and
they
would
be
peered
into
EAB
1679
and
then
they
would
be
taking
a
head.
C
Well,
yes,
I
I
just
want
to
comment.
So
it's
it's
very
good
thought,
though
I
would
say
that
we
are
currently
changing
things
quite
a
lot
with
shifting
we
actually
basically
changing
a
lot
in
the
process
of
how
we
do
changes
and
I.
Keep
pointing
out
there
to
everybody
that
I
am
selves
are
basically
not
really
doing
much.
C
It's
the
people
who
are
doing
the
work,
so
it's
actually
like
their
I
would
start
from
the
from
the
work
then
go
to
the
IPS,
and
so
because,
basically
putting
the
IPS
there
and
improving
them
doesn't
actually
get
things
done.
So
I
would
say
that
I'm
not
gonna
worry
too
much
about
the
process.
Specific
process
for
collecting
IPS
I
think
we're
just
we're.
M
That
has
to
be
proposed,
but
still
the
acceptance
this
date
is
it
not
passed.
Yet
we
can
probably
use
it
for
the
rest
of
the
EAP
switch
which
people
would
want
to
present
or
want
to
be
included.
I'm
just
asking
you
guys
to
give
it
a
dry
run.
If
this
works
out
from
going
forward,
we
may
not
have
to
add
it
to
every
agenda
that
we
want
to
do
it.
M
We
may
not
have
as
much
info
if
somebody
moves
to
do
that,
we
have
to
just
made
an
issue,
create
an
issue
mention
it
over
there
and
in
that,
from
that
it
can
be
taken
over
by
the
person
who
is
actually
looking
after
T
hurtful
thing
like
coordinating
thing,
so
he
knows
the
window
the
place
from
where
he
has
to
pick
up
te,
IP
and
and
the
new
IP
or
the
authors
also
knows
where
to
just
write.
It
down
just
make
create
an
issue
and
he
will
be
guided
from
the
well.
C
It's
not
like,
we
have
like
10,000
people
or
we're
trying
to
create
the
IPS
to
be
honest
or
or
to
try
to
work
on
the
changes.
At
the
moment
we
have
the
opposite
problem
that
we
don't
really
have
a
lot
of
people
actually
who
taking
on
the
work.
So
I
would
say
that
it's
a
good
idea,
but
we
probably
getting
ahead
of
ourselves
a
little
bit
here
so
and
I
would
probably
Park
it
for
let's
come
back
to
this
I
mean
that's
my
personal
opinion.
A
M
M
A
be
a
champion,
try
to
amend
that
and
he
is
looking
forward
to
the
end
more
of
the
he
proposes,
what
they
think
and
if
I
mean
I
was
just
proposing
it
to
make
it
a
dry
land
if
it
goes
by
it,
because
we
have
15
more
days
over
15
more
days
to
do
it,
and
if
we
goes
by
that,
it's
fine,
if
not
then
I'll
take
it
from
the
next
hatful
from
like
July.
We
discussed
that
they
have
to
stuff
that
nobody
opponent,
so
we
can
take
it
for
that
in
July,
yeah.
A
A
So
anyone
who
wants
to
participate
in
that
just
look
at
poojas
link
that
was
posted
or
talked
to
her
and
we'll
go
from
there,
so
that
was
number
five.
Let's
have
I
think
Boris
and
Alexey
go
over
the
recent
Berlin
meetings.
We've
been
talking
about
them
throughout
agenda
items,
one
through
five
or
one
through
four,
when
it
comes
to
e
IPS
and
stuff,
but
I
believe
there
were
more
working
groups.
So
we
can
kind
of
combine
six
and
seven
and
that'll
cover
pretty
much
the
rest
of
the
meeting
because
number
nine
Casey's
already
talked
about.
A
E
A
B
Very
brief,
not
gonna,
take
a
bunch
of
time,
because
the
links
are
all
in
the
notes
and
I'll
paste,
some
of
them
into
the
the
chat
here.
Two
days
seem
to
be
quite
good.
We
just
sent
out
email
wrap-up
to
everyone
that
attended
and
that's
publicly
listed
with
a
with
a
wrap-up
link
on
the
east
magicians
forum
as
well,
proposing
to
potentially
meet
again
in
July.
So
look
for
that
on
a
magician's
and
basically
feedback
is
invaluable.
C
Will
go
over
the
my
favorite
subject
right
currently,
which
is
the
working
groups
and
I've
listed
it
for
the
for
the
convenience
of
people
who
want
to
look
at
the
the
agenda
posted
the
update,
which
I'm
kind
of
going
to
be
reading
about.
So
there
is
a
website
which
is
the
Ian
dot
ECM,
but
wiki
slash
each
one.
We
currently
have
six
working
groups
listed
and
you
might
notice
that
we
used
to
have
track
like
for
working
groups
before
I
decided.
Well,
we
decided
collectively
I
guess
to
currently
drop
their
tracking
for
two
working
groups.
C
We
can
always
resume
them,
but
I've
listed
the
reasons
why
we
want
you
to
stop
tracking
those
two.
For
example,
the
chain
pruning.
It's
a
it's
been
proposed
back
in
the
DEFCON
DEFCON
four,
but
they
hasn't
been
a
lot
of
activity,
and
actually
we
would
like
to
reconnect
the
swarm
team
in
next
month
to
see
if
there's
we
can
reform
it,
but
with
it
people
from
swarm
team,
because
there
are
some
people
think
that
there
there
should
be
some
kind
of
collaboration
there
and
secondly,
with
the
simulation
simulation
group.
C
As
we
had
a
presentation
from
Vanessa
at
Stanford,
and
you
did
a
great
presentation
at
Berlin
and
however
at
least
to
me-
it's
not
currently
clear
how
we're
gonna
proceed
and
we
could
reinvigorate
this
group
if
we,
after
some
certain
discussions
and
clarification,
so
the
two
groups
that
were
there
before
are
still
there.
They
stay
Trent
and
II,
wasn't
and
then
recently,
we've
added
another
four
groups
and
actually
I'm
going
to
add
this
another
one.
So
the
finality
gadget
working
group
is
a
I've
done.
C
A
short
presentation
at
Berlin
is
essentially
hooking
up
the
beacon
chain
which
hopefully
will
launch,
and
this
year
it's
going
to
hook
it
up
to
the
theorem
clients,
even
1.0
clients,
and
create
essentially
finality
and
from
my
my
preliminary
estimates,
the
finality
would
have
a
range
of
basically
one
hour
around
one
hour.
So
every
every
one
hour
you
would
basically
see
a
final
block,
hopefully
and
then
there's
another
working
group
is
we
talked
about
it
generalized
pre-compile,
elliptic,
curve,
arithmetic
sin
pairing.
C
So
essentially
there
is
been
a
lot
of
work
done,
and
this
is
just
a
formalizing.
This
work
and
I
haven't
wrote
announcement
yet,
but
the
fact
it's
already
active
and
pretty
much
active
and
actually
I
got
the
response
about
the
italics
question
about
the
italic
was
asking
whether
it's
going
to
support
256
256
bit
arithmetics
only
or
or
further.
Actually,
this
is
very
general,
with
you'll
support,
512
based,
arithmetic
and
so
on.
So
it
will
actually,
they
already
have
prototypes
for
BLS
signatures
as
well,
so
yeah.
C
So
basically
the
the
website
which
is
linked
has
the
leads
on
it.
And
then
we
added
the
IBM
evolution
group
which
wasn't
announced
yet
yet,
but
its
de
facto
active
by
looking
at
what
the
work
they've
already
done
in
researching
that
I
guess,
we
will
need
to
define
bit
more
what
exactly
they're
gonna
do
in
Istanbul.
C
Well,
taking
it
all
the
way
to
hard
works,
basically
being
responsible
for
that
and
accountable
for
that
as
well.
If
we
pay
them
basically,
what
my
point
is
that
if
we
pay
them,
if
whoever
we
are
like
foundation
or
something
so
the
good
thing
about
finding
those
thing
is
because
you
actually
can
keep
them
accountable
and
then
just
ask
for
for
results,
because
otherwise,
if
they
do
it
by
themselves,
I
mean
you
can't
really
do
that
really
keep
them
accountable.
C
So
and
so
the
working
groups
produce
the
IPS,
they
generate
the
tests
and
they
do
all
the
work
necessary
to
make
this
happen,
and
so
the
other
working
group
that
I
want
to
propose-
and
we
just
had
a
good
chat
with
Mitra
before
this
call
is
essentially
Demetri-
wants
everybody
all
the
client
implementers
to
to
do.
Some
RPC
calls,
and
so
far
the
adoption
was
very,
very
slow,
and
so
we
ideally
need
some
sort
of
consensus
test
working
group
whose
job
will
be
to
make
sure
that
these
calls.
C
These
RPC
calls
are
implemented
pretty
much
everywhere.
I,
don't
know
how
exactly
we're
gonna
do
it,
but
I
think
we
should
just
get
on
with
it
find
people
who
want
to
do
it
and
just
do
it
and
that's
going
to
be
the
number
the
group
number
seven
and
that
would
allow
people
more
easily
to
generate
the
consensus
test
themselves,
filled
them
and
then
hopefully
also
the
more
people
will
use
them
the
more
optimized
they
will
become
people
who
have.
N
Yeah
hey,
this
is
Zach,
so
I
had
been
doing
some
work
on
simulation
stuff,
I
didn't
present
much
of
it
in
Berlin,
but
we've
aggregated
a
lot
of
times.
There
have
been
some
coordination
issues,
but
what
I
wanted
to
recommend
was
combining
the
simulation
efforts
with
like
the
testing
working
group,
because
that
would
streamline
things
and
there
may
not
be
enough
work
or
enough
people,
because
right
now
it
seems
like
I'm,
the
only
one.
That's
actually
doing
anything
and
I'd
only
have
a
lot
of
time.
C
That's
basically
what
I
would
expect
to
happen,
so
my
kind
of
as
we
working
through
this
so
I
realize
it's
very
important
for
the
group
to
so.
If,
for
the
group
to
be
successful,
there
has
to
be
a
certain
level
of
commitment,
obviously
from
the
leader
and
from
the
members,
and
so
we,
if
we
wants
to
make
it
a
proper
group,
we
probably
have
to
find
a
leader
who
can
dedicate
at
least
half
of
their
time
to
this
or
ideally
the
full
time.
So.
N
B
B
A
N
I
was
just
gonna
say
also
like
keep
in
mind
like
at
least
speaking
on
my
behalf.
As
you
know,
I
work
at
white
block
full-time
and
we're
a
for-profit
company,
so
I
wouldn't
think
that
it
would
be
entirely
necessary
to
seek
a
large
amount
of
funding.
All
I
would
really
need
is
essentially
a
junior
developer
that
can
kind
of
take
direction
from
me,
and
that
would
be
a
cost.
N
A
That's
a
really
good
overview
thanks.
Everyone
next
up
on
the
agenda
would
be.
We
already
talked
about
the
prog,
how
odd
it
update,
audits,
funded
or
the
audit
is
funded.
So
testing
updates
would
be
next
I,
don't
think
Dimitri's
on
the
call
did
anyone
else
have
testing
updates.
Zack
went
over
the
fact
that
he's
having
meetings
with
Dmitri,
but
did
anyone
else
have
like
specific
updates.
F
A
Ok,
I
think
that's
it
for
testing
updates.
Then
I
was
just
gonna
ask.
Is
there
a
good
way
to
time
box
items?
Is
there
like
a
method
or
process
that
I
haven't
read
about
before
for
time
boxing
that
anyone
has
a
recommendation
for
or
even
just
an
original
idea,
and
that
would
be
during
these
calls
by
the
way,
whoever
is
leading
them
make
sure
that
we
have
enough
time
we
didn't.
B
She's
saying
that
you
know,
I
just
got
my
opinion
like
late
last
night
Pacific
time,
and
so
if
we
can
just
get
some
of
the
things
in
earlier
or
even
have
discussion
ahead
of
time,
you
know
who
knows
how
we
can
do
that,
but
that
could
maybe
just
help
have
a
cadence
where
the
discussion
happens,
and
we
just
have
questions
on
the
call
rather
than
having
to
go,
read
it
and
then
discuss
on
the
call.
So
that's
just
improving
our
process.
B
A
C
A
A
Then
Matthew
I
believe
the
last
name
is
Halpern
said:
I
can't
attend
the
meeting
or
I'll
be
listening
to
the
meeting,
but
can't
speak,
and
it
looks
like
ETH
version.
64
was
presented
at
the
one
point
X
meeting
without
much
commentary
after
touching
base
and
getting
updates
on
the
sync
progress.
I
think
it's
best
to
wait
until
these
mature,
before
locking
anything
in
he's.
Gonna
aim
to
get
a
IP
drafts
out
before
the
next
Court
have
call
and
continue
to
track
the
sync
progress
over
that,
and
that
is
a
net.
That's
the
networking
protocol
right.
C
Yes,
correct
so
I
can
comment
on
this
because
I
have
been
talking
to
Matt
about
it
as
well,
and
so
yes,
there
is
a
certain
overlap
between
the
proposal
for
the
East
6-4,
which
would
be
the
next
version
of
the
theorem.
What
we
call
it
I
mean
it's
I,
don't
know
the
correct
term,
but
this
network
kind
of
one
of
the
network
layers
protocols
and
you
know,
and
the
andre
was
also
presenting.
A
K
Just
wanted
to
ask
for
clarification
on
the
CD
hard
meta
Boris
mentioned
earlier,
on
the
call
that
the
the
wiki
shouldn't
be
if
I
gotta
correct
it.
We
shouldn't
be
the
main
source
of
information.
Rather
they
had
fort
matter
should
be
the
canonical
source
for
these
discussions,
which
yeah
peas
are
proposed
and
as
of
today
on
the
matter
itself,
it's
a
free
and
me
listed
SD
author's.
So
that
means
we
are
the
ones
you
can.
K
B
Of
things
will
die
at
the
proposed
stage.
I
think
one
more
tweak
that
we
should
make
is
that
this
concept
of
a
champion
should
be
listed
there
as
well.
So
the
only
one
that's
in
there
right
now
is
Bryant
with
1344
the
the
chain,
ID
op
code,
and
maybe,
if
no
one
objects,
Alex
I'm
happy
to
essentially
help
manage
that
for
you,
since
a
freeze
no
longer
involved.
If
we
want
to
make
that
change.
K
K
Yeah,
we
can
also
take
this
discussion
offline.
One
last
thing
I
wanted
to
to
mention
in
regards
to
that
I've
created
a
topic
on
the
magician's
forum
for
the
Hartford
meta
and
added
it
as
the
discussions
to
the
URL
in
it.
I
haven't
found
any
other
topic
which
is
specifically
for
this,
but
it
may
be
a
good
place
to
discuss
which
he
at
these
people
proposed
to
be
included,
and
it
might
be
a
good
good
forum
to
have
discussions
only
for
the
proposed
VIPs
and
maybe
the
transitions
when
transitions
are
decided
on.