►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #14 [4/21/17]
A
Today's
mostly
going
to
be
about
Metro
but
there's
some
other
stuff
too
and
yo
eg
had
some
questions
that
kind
of
dive
into
how
we're
implementing
some
of
the
e
IPS
in
Metro.
So
that's
the
main
stuff
today,
let's
start
with
agenda
item
one,
so
that's
going
to
be
e
IP
186.
The
last
call
we
had
talked
about
discussing
it
a
little
bit
further
between
before
this
call
to
see
if
there
was
any
other
opinions
and
also
to
get
some
of
the
opinions
of
the
researchers
who
were
in
Malta
last
time.
A
So
just
a
quick
overview
of
what's
happened
since
then,
I
there
hasn't
I
was
going
to
put
a
reddit
post
out
about
it,
but
then
I
kind
of
saw.
You
know
people
and
the
thread
about
the
last
discussion
notes
from
the
last
all
core
dev
meeting
talking
about
it
and
you
know
there
were
there
wasn't,
in
my
opinion,
a
bunch
of
people
who
were
looking
to
make
that
change.
A
There
was
still
to
me
kind
of
a
consensus
around
the
people
who
would
implement
the
code
that
it
would
be
better
to
be
risk
averse
in
this
case,
for
metropolis
coming
up.
So,
let's
start
out
with
yo
Ichi,
and
anybody
in
the
eft
as
the
the
Berlin
office
do
y'all
have
any
opinions
on
it.
Anybody
who
wasn't
here
last
time
or
any
new
opinions,
I.
B
D
A
E
A
E
Country,
how
should
I
say
this,
like
perhaps
I
mean
practically
speaking,
like
the
difference
between
cutting
it
down
to
like
even
to
take
the
bottom
in
two
and
a
half
and
fought,
and
so
just
pushing
it
all.
The
way
back
up
to
five
inside
of
metropolis
is
only
going
to
be
something
like
a
couple
Mille,
maybe
two
or
three
million
ether.
So.
A
E
It's
not
it's
not
that
important
to
our
people
either
way.
So,
on
the
other
hand,
given
that
we're
going
to
be
mucking
around
with
mining
rewards
anyway
in
the
because
we're
doing
delaying
the
Ice
Age
like
it's
I,
don't
you
know
like
I,
don't
see
you
in
extremely
strong
Kiev
in
either
direction,
I
guess
yeah.
A
I'm
kind
of
taking
the
same
way
and
in
most
cases,
I
feel
like
the
status
quo
for
when
that
happens
within
hard
Forks.
That
I've
seen
is
that,
when
it's
kind
of
not
that
strong
in
either
direction
and
there's
no
one
really
and
then
that
I,
don't
there's
no
people
who
are
going
to
implement
it
really
championing
the
idea
that
it
probably
should
just
kind
of
remain
in
discussion
overall
or
be
delayed
for
a
different
thing.
Does
anyone
else
in
the
room
have
a
different
perspective
or
any
other
opinions.
A
A
Cool
all
right,
so
the
next
agenda
item.
So
this
one
yuuichi
brought
up
eeew
86,
which
is
talking
about
the
create
instruction.
He
was
saying
that
there
were
some
discrepancies
between
the
EIP
pull
request
as
written
and
the
implementations
across
clients.
Yuuichi
do
one
expand
on
that
a
little
bit.
B
B
So
when
the
EVM
hits
the
create
instruction,
it
does
create
something,
but
if
not
a
created
transaction,
so
it
decimal
Det
is
this
CP
changes
both
create
transaction
and
create
instruction,
or
it
does
just
change
the
create
transaction,
and
we
click
the
create
instruction
as
it
is.
It
seems
like
well
digitally
the
eat
text.
Books
well
looks
like
it
changes
only
the
create
transactions,
not
in
actions,
but
all
implementations.
I
saw
kind
of
agreed
on
changing
both,
especially
the
create
instruction,
so
I
need
some
clarification
which
way
we
are
following.
B
So
yes,
Christian
made
an
argument
for
one
option
and
that's
why
I
chose
the
same
in
the
yellow
paper
request,
but
that
X
has
a
different
argument.
Maybe
it
could
it's
better
to
keep
create
instructional?
It
is
because,
when
we
change
that
we
might
break
some
existing
contract,
so
I
kind
of
need
a
clarification
here.
H
I
J
B
F
E
Is
that
because
the
address
only
depends
on
the
sender
and
the
nonce,
there's
like
basically
it's
the
actual
contents
of
all
the
addresses
are
under
the
full
control
of
the
sender,
because
the
sender
gets
to
put
whatever
they
want
into
the
creation
code,
isn't
a
contract
code
and
it's
still
the
clean
address
either
way.
So
this
would
so
this
EAP
would
be
M
addresses
code
dependent,
and
this
actually
would
allow
you
to
create
contracts
where
the
addresses
for
those
contracts
do
depend.
Just
on
that
on
what
the
code
is.
E
So
what
one
is
one
user
story
for
this,
for
example,
is
let's
say,
I
have
no
money
and
I
want
to
start
receiving
money,
but
I
also
do
not
like
I.
Do
not
want
to
have
an
account
that
uses
regular
ECDSA
I
might
want
to
directly
have
a
multi-sig
or
I
might
want
to
directly
have
something
based
on
Lamport
signatures
or
whatever
else.
E
So
what
I
would
do
is
I
would
privately
kind
of
simulate
the
creation
of
the
contract
privately
like
figure
out
what
the
address
would
be
with
that
piece
of
code,
and
it
would
give
people
that
address
and
people
could
send
money
to
that
address.
And
then,
when
there's
enough
money
in
the
address,
then
you
could
create
the
contract
and
basically
unpaired
out
of
that
money.
Out
of
you
as
a
fee
going
to
the
minor.
B
B
Okay,
so
actually
I
don't
need
really
strong
argument
for
changing
that.
Creating
instruction
I
just
needed
a
clarification
and
I
go
to
the
clarification
now
and
I
think
this
really
quick
text
can
be
improved,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
the
already
done
implementations
need
to
change
that
so
I'm
happy
about
this.
F
E
B
J
E
F
E
B
F
F
K
K
K
J
K
A
Okay,
awesome.
So
the
next
item
is
so
that
clears
up
what
is
number
two
on
the
agenda
change.
The
address
Institute
create
okay,
so
you
know
she
also
had
another
comment
in
here
about
the
some
of
the
accepted.
A
IPS
are
not
yet
specific
enough
to
form
a
protocol
consensus.
So
what's
the
next
action,
he
gives
three
examples.
You
choose.
You
want
to
do,
gutted
us
as
well.
Oh.
B
E
Ice-Cold,
okay,
so,
regarding
the
gas
costs
preparing
the
stakes,
the
reason
why
that
hasn't
been
specified
yet
is
because
much
Christian
has
come
up
with
some
possibilities
for
the
gas
price.
But
the
reason
we
haven't
set
things
in
stone
yet
is
because
we
wanted
to
see
how
would
we
wanted
to
get
benchmarks
on
the
go
over
on
the
parity
version
and
the
go
version
and
see
like
see
how
long
it
takes
in
before
we
make
a
final
decision
or
even
boom.
E
E
B
A
Cool,
so
it
sounds
like
I'm
just
looking
over
the
list.
I'm
the
pairing
check
and
the
group
addition
on
elliptic
curve
are
things
that
sound
like
it's
going
to
come
with
time,
but
that
we
can
put
kind
of
a
tent
value
in
the
thing
with
the
Gator
code
on
VIP
96.
Is
that
something
that's
the
same
case
or
something
that
can
be
answered?
I'm.
E
B
J
A
M
There
are
two
options
in
the
IP
specification:
one
is
removing
the
route
all
together
from
the
old
LP
structure.
Another
one
is
replacing
it
with
zero.
So
looking
at
the
code,
I'll
notice
that
every
key
seems
to
modify
the
LP
structure
and
we
and
go
just
replace
it
with
zero.
So
we
should
come
to
some
agreement
here.
N
A
All
right
cool
great
so
that
part's
covered
so
yeah.
That's
pretty
much
all
of
the
questions
other
there
is
one
on
the
blockchain
and
state
route
changes,
so
e,
IP,
96
I
think
it
might
be
numbered.
86
Pavel
asked
about
keeping
the
addresses
of
pre-compiled
contracts
continuous.
Why
are
we
jumping
from
contract
10
to
contract
20
I
can
post
the
link
to
the
comment
that
I
was
kind
of
curious
about
that.
Is
there
a
reason.
E
Yeah
right
look
my
reason,
my
reasoning
for
making
them
separated,
because
these,
like
the
exam,
addresses
for
a
a
296
liquor.
No,
it's
not
actually
a
real
pre-compile,
it's
just
a
plain
old,
regular
contract
with
a
piece
of
clean
over
to
give
or
code
that
happens
to
have
a
privileged
status
in
the
protocol
like
I'd,
be
happy
having
the
address
be
pretty
much
anywhere,
but
it's
still
a
kind
of
different
kind
of
thing.
Ok,.
K
K
E
A
Okay,
great
so
the
next
item
and
the
last
official
item
are
the
metropolis
updates,
so
I
think
the
best
way
to
do
this
is
to
start
with
Dimitri.
What
we're
going
to
get
with
this
update
is
figure
out
where
each
client
is
at
and
get
an
update
on
the
test
and
we've
already
kind
of
another
note
I
put
in
there
was
that
some
VIPs
are
accepted,
but
not
specific
enough
to
form
protocol
consensus.
Each
you've
made
that
comment
earlier.
A
So
what's
the
next
action
and
it
sounds
like
just
cleaning
them
up
so
just
being
more
vigilant
and
the
EIP
is
to
make
sure
that
they
are,
they
are
matching
implementation
and
the
actual
AIP
spec.
So
for
this,
oh
then
I'm
comments
on
that
cool.
Okay.
So,
on
the
testing
update,
Dimitri
you're
at
the
Berlin
office
right.
C
Most
attention
caught
me
to
update
the
format
of
follow
the
test
so
yeah,
so
the
test
fields
will
be
prefixed
by
and
0x
all
of
the
X
fills
all
the
hashes
and
so
on.
So
I
was
voting
on
drugs
and
mostly
all
of
the
tests
now
you'll
be
in
this
format,
and
some
I
will
change
about
and
making
all
fields
prefix
busy
X,
and
then
you
could
see
that
and
the
young,
even
the
main
things
we
change
us
to
create
instruction
and
yeah
next
thing
I
want
to
do
is
to
make
test
coverage
for
this.
A
Okay,
great
and
then
is
there
anything
that
we
want
to,
or
is
there
anything
that
you
need
from
the
other
core
developers?
Is
there
any
other
comments
you
have
about
this?
That
can
kind
of
help
you
and
it's
there,
a
I,
don't
know
if
this
is
really
applicable
because
I'm
not
as
familiar
with
how
the
testing
infrastructure
works.
But
is
there
a
like
percentage
done
for
testing
for
a
lot
of
these
metropolis
II
IPS
that
are
completed,
spec,
wise
yeah.
C
The
file
on
Google
Docs
that
that,
both
to
the
last
time,
the
keeping
updates
to
read
file-
and
we
could
check
these
test
cases,
they're
all
intimately
marketing
and
then
those
that
I
write
I
still
not
done
and
should
be
done
as
soon
as
possible.
Also,
we
get
to
do
released
and
then
look
so
the
task
that
I'm
working
on
right
now
on
the
future.
O
A
Okay,
fixed
it
now:
okay,
cool
Nick,
just
join
Nick.
If
you
go
into
the
agenda,
we
just
went
over
a
pretty
much
items,
one
and
two,
and
then
any
of
the
comments
that
yuuichi
and
Andre
had.
So,
if
you
have
any
questions
about
any
of
those,
let
us
know
kind
of
at
the
end
of
the
call,
but
all
of
them
are
resolved
pretty
much
all
right,
thanks,
sorry
for
Mike
redness
and
a
problem
so
post
on
metropolis
test.
So
it
looks
like
we
have
an
update
on
that.
A
If
there
aren't
any
more
general
comments
or
things
about
that,
we'll
move
on
to
the
clients.
So,
let's
see,
let's
start
with
go
so
the
go
client.
What
is
the
update
on
implementing
Metro
I?
Think
there's
still
that
PR
with
a
checklist
for
what's
been
implemented,
but
are
there
any
comments
or
questions
or
any
showstoppers
for
implementing
at
the
amount
of
discuss.
J
A
K
A
D
Well,
there's
there's
no
active
development
on
Ruby,
seven
now
and
I
am
I
and
my
team
is
working
on.
I7I
Sam
has
a
I,
have
merged
sky
event
based
TV
62
branch,
and
this
running
well
only
server.
Now
there
is
a
panel
which
is
currently
at
about
2.7
million
logs
enemies,
continue
a
processing
block
and
L,
and
we
are
also
working
on
a
p2p.
We
are
adding
an
eighty
function
to
that
p2p.
D
E
The
pairing
stuff
is
like
it's
done
as
a
piece
of
as
a
piece
of
code,
but
it
still
needs
to
be
you
kind
of
what
be
animated
to
a
proper
free
compile,
but
then
on,
and
there
are
a
couple
of
yet.
There
is
still
a
couple
of
the
ideas
that
aren't
done
as
well,
or
that
aren't
done
so
static
call
is
not
done.
A
couple
of
others
aren't
done
either.
A
Okay
sounds
great
thanks
for
the
update
on
that,
and
then
we
have
the
bart
berlin
team
back.
So
if
I
could
get
updates
on
C++
and
then
Martin
busy,
if
you
want
to
give
an
update
for
Jas
I
didn't
know
if
the
priority
was
more
on,
the
II
was
inside
or
implementing
Metro
and
that
kind
of
stuff.
So
we'll
start
with
the
C++
team.
M
A
Okay,
great
yeah.
This
is
this-
is
a
good
list,
cool,
so
they're,
mostly
all
in
progress
and
there's
just
a
couple
not
started
more
than
likely
pending
some
of
the
final
specs
great
and
then,
if
Berlin,
if
you
get
back
online,
just
get
off
mute
and
let
it
let
me
know
that
you're
on
and
then
I
can
see
about
the
javis.
A
A
A
Did
you
hear
these?
Yes,
yes,
I
heard
the
whole
thing
thanks
thanks
so
much
Martin
all
right,
so
we
have
I,
think
that's
I'm,
listening,
clients,
I,
hope,
I,
didn't
yeah,
I,
think
that's
everybody
and
Vitalik.
You
were
the
one
who
specifically
raised
the
point
of
bringing
up
testing
and
specific
implementations.
Was
this
sense
Factory
or
was
there
any
other
outstanding
questions?
I?
A
A
So,
looking
at
the
date,
by
the
way,
once
we
wrap
up
the
metropolis
stuff,
there's
an
EIP
$5.99
that
Nick
wanted
to
bring
up
and
discuss
so
we'll
get
to
that.
But
as
far
as
having
enough
time
to
throw
this
into
the
test
net
and
test
on
stuff,
should
we
what's
the
opinion
of
us
starting
to
set
some
more
more
strict
timelines,
but
right
now
what
we
have
is
a
kind
of
a
tacit
goal
of
end
of
June.
E
I
personally
feel
like
there's
still
like,
there's
still
a
bit
too
much
uncertainty
it
to
get
this
to
agree
on
hard
dates.
Right
now,
I
mean
I'd
prefer
that
we
make
that
we
make
a
commitment
to
just
get
stuff
running
and
running
in
pass
and
a
passing
test
so
to
within,
with
like
medium
high
priority,
and
once
it's
looking
like
we're,
either
kind
of
all
clear
quotes.
Do
it
then
we
can,
then
we
can
agree
on
a
date
right.
E
A
A
J
So
this
is
a
proposal
to
add
a
sort
of
a
transaction
time
to
live
field
to
transaction
RLP,
and
the
goal
here
is
the
currently
managing
transaction
pools,
as
the
chef
show,
there's
no
good
way
to
expire
out
old
transactions,
and
that
means
that
attackers
can
potentially
cause
a
lot
more
trouble
in
a
deer
from
a
tereus
point
of
view
than
they
should
be
able
to.
They
can
span
our
transactions
and
as
long
as
the
transaction
remains
valid
and
listen
balance
on
the
account
there's
no
way
to
exceed
spam
transactions
other
than
executing
them.
J
If
you
attempt
to
of
it
for
yourself,
then
chapters
I
will
just
be
relayed
back
to
you
from
another
node
that
doesn't
treat
it
as
an
old
transaction.
So
what
I'm
suggesting
is
adding
a
field?
An
optional
final
field
to
a
transaction
which
specifies
the
transaction
must
be
mined
before
the
stated
blocks
and
any
transactions
whose
block
number
is
before
the
current
block
number
is
immediately
discarded
and
may
not
be
related,
and
any
transaction
whose
include
before
block
number
is
too
far
in
the
future,
should
be
treated
as
sort
of
style
and
generally
not
relate.
J
A
Okay,
so-
and
this
is
I
I-
think
that
where
this
was
brought
up
last
meeting
right
when
we
were
talking
about
handling
transaction
propagation
issues,
is
this
in
that
same
category?
Yes,
perfect?
Okay,
so
in
the
CIP?
Is
this
something
that
you
were
thinking
of
having
this
in
like
metropolis
or
there's
something
to
kind
of
work
on
between
now
and
when
we
would
want
to
implement
it?
I.
A
D
Yeah
I
want
to
add
a
comment
that
I
I
think
it's
change
is
also
good
for
that
developer
for
collapse,
because
and
there's
a
problem
for
for
the
system
house
like
ala
khayril
now
is
that
when,
when
you
say
a
transaction,
we're
not
sure
when,
when
will
your
transaction,
we
be
included
into
the
blockchain
and
and
until
you
see
your
transaction
on
the
chain,
you,
if
you
don't
know
if
you
should
send
another
transaction
or
or
just
wait
so
with
such
a
change.
I
think
you
can.
A
N
N
A
N
J
A
E
One
other
thing
that
we
get,
though,
is
that
there
is
another
given
that
we
and
if
we
do
have
a
bit
of
time,
I
can
go
there
like
that
really
necessary
in
one
way
that
we
could
be
with
more,
but
the
other
approach.
We
could
take
us
to
see
a
bit
more
conservative
and
like
taking
a
taken
extra
blood
security
audits
of
everything.
You
know.
K
E
A
A
Great
so
I
think
that's
it
thanks
everybody
for
coming
and
keep
up
with
the
e
IPS,
as
especially
keeping
them
updated
and
getting
the
specs
validated
so
that
we
can
start
showing
us
the
implementation
and
the
testing
on
them.
So
yeah
thanks.
Everybody
have
a
great
weekend
and
see
you
next
meeting
next.