►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #23 [8/25/17]
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
A
D
D
D
F
So
it's
really
just
a
minor
thing,
so
basically
we
changed
the
receipt
format
so
that
instead,
after
the
root
stage,
we
throw
that
out
in
the
intermediate
route
and
we'll
paste
it
with
the
status
byte,
and
the
only
updated
I
think
we
should
agree
on
is
how
this
affects
the
json-rpc
itself.
Since
it's
part
of
the
JSON
specification-
and
it's
for
my
point,
it
doesn't
matter.
My
suggestion
would
be
either
to
add
a
field
flag
or
succeeded
flag,
which
is
a
boolean
and
the
focus
on
what
it
wouldn't
return
reroute.
Rather
it
would
return
this.
D
F
D
E
D
Right,
let's
see
all
right,
everyone
has
confirmed
that
they
can
hear
us
in
the
chat.
So
that's
great.
The
next
item
on
the
agenda,
real
quick
before
we
get
to
the
next
item.
Well,
you
see
real
quick.
If
everyone
can
refresh
the
page,
I've
updated
the
agenda
just
a
little
bit,
oh
well,
it
must
have
not
updated
I'm
on
top
of
it
today,
you
guys,
oh
here,
we
go
alright.
So.
D
D
H
D
D
Perfect,
all
right,
so
the
only
other
thing
on
a
would
be
e,
IP,
646
49.
So
there's
been
a
few
members
of
the
community
and
a
few
reddit
threads
and
a
IP
discussions
about
the
issuance
reduction.
So
this
is
kind
of
two-pronged.
One
of
the
prongs
are:
when
did
we
decide
this,
and
why
and
the
other
one
was
you
know,
should
we
be
doing
this
in
the
first
place?
There's
some
few
different
opinions
on
that.
D
D
I
G
I
Metallic
broad
point
and
I
think
the
I
think
the
main
point
was
about
and
the
consensus
was
to
keep
this
one
the
same
but
related
to
the
amount
of
become
either
per
day.
That
was
already
deposed
on
the
ice
age.
So
I
believe
that
the
the
amount
of
tree
eater
was
a
rounded
thing,
because
mainly
because
that
was
too
late,
how
many
eater
per
day
we
were
producing
and
that's
sort
of
how
we
came
to
the
teacher.
Is
that
correct
anyone
has
a
difference.
I
D
So
now
all
that
being
said,
there's
been
a
little
bit
of
a
revival
in
the
discussion
and
we
don't
want
to
spend
like
a
heat
like
the
whole
meeting
on
it,
but
I
didn't
invite
Kai
Barnett
or
from
the
internet.
His
real
name
is
Keller
he's
a
CPA,
so
Keller.
If
you
just
want
to
give
a
few
paragraphs
of
your
argument
for
it,
I
think
it's
also
on
the
agenda
page
and
on
various
AIPS
and
right
at
post.
But
if
you
just
want
to
give
kind
of
a
summary
and
then
we
can
discuss
that.
J
Okay,
yeah,
that
sounds
good
Thank,
You
Hudson
for
inviting
me
and
for
the
others
for
listening
regarding
it.
The
debate
there's
two
kind
of
issues
that
keep
going
on.
One
is
in
terms
of
security
or
the
word
security
is
used
and
whatever
the
word
security
is
used,
then
there
is
a
dollar
cost
associated
with
that
so
July
14th
in
batalik
comment.
J
He
mentioned
that
3e
sounded
like
a
suitable
value
for
security
of
the
etherium
blockchain,
which
amounted
to
1.2
billion
dollars
and
the
reason
that
it's
referenced
in
dollars
and
not
eat
is
that
the
reason
that
you're
paying
miners
at
all
is
because
they
have
expenses
in
dollars.
If
the
miners
did
not
have
expenses
in
dollars,
then
you
would
not
be
giving
them
units
that
could
be
converted
into
dollars
to
pay
for
these
expenses.
J
So
on
July,
14th
Vitalik
mentioned
that
1.2
billion,
if
you
calculated
it
out
on
the
annual
rate,
was
sufficient
to
pay
for
as
security
for
the
ethereum
blockchain,
which
is
roughly
the
amount
that
I
agree
with
frankly.
But
since
then,
aetherium
has
gone
up
to
roughly
330
dollars,
which
amounts
to
two
billion
dollars.
Are
800
million
more
and
then
likewise
I?
J
My
speculation
is
by
the
time
that
the
fork
is
officially
announced,
there's
a
possibility
for
aetherium
to
be,
let's
just
say,
500
dollars
and
then
you're,
paying
4
billion
dollars
or
something
that
for
this
security.
So
sometimes
the
reference
is
security.
And
if,
if,
if
you're
using
security
as
your
reference,
then
you
should
always
have
a
dollar
value
attached
to
it,
which
many
people
have
suggested,
roughly
a
billion
dollars.
And
then
the
other
issue
is
ownership
or
a
minor
bonus
or
minor
ownership
of
the
blockchain
which
in
Bitcoin
the
miners
own.
J
Approximately
4%
of
the
blockchain
or
they're,
given
4%
of
the
blockchain
every
year
and
in
a
theory
of
the
objective,
is
to
make
it
six
point.
Seven
percent
of
the
blockchain
and
I
will
suggest
that
if
Bitcoin
is
able
to
only
give
their
miners,
four
percent
of
the
ownership,
then
I
think
there's
no
real
question.
That
etherion
can
also
give
their
miners
only
four
percent
ownership
at
their
blockchain,
especially
considering
that
they've
made
no
direct
financial
contribution
to
the
ethereum
blockchain
that
they
were
not
paid
for
immediately.
D
C
Like
speaking
for
myself,
personally,
I
would
actually
be
quite
happy
with
further
with
further
reductions
going
below
3
ether
and
like
if
we
were
to
follow
app
says
like
take
it
or
the
like
the
kind
of
medic
your
wrist
ik.
That
asks
are
brought
up
literally,
then.
We
would
probably
want
to
even
go
down
to
three
point.
A
to
point:
five,
instead
of
three,
my
main
concerns
against
going
down
going
down.
Much
much
further
are
probably
twofold.
C
On
the
other
hand,
a
lot
of
this
is
all
kind
of
moot
because,
because
of
the
prover
stakes,
which
in
the
long
run,
the
other
thing
is
that
it
if
we
go
to,
if
we
go
too
far
below
then
unlike
bit-
well,
ok,
actually,
now
Bitcoin.
The
situation
is
a
bit
different,
because
Bitcoin
has
Bitcoin
cash
to
deal
with
and
that's
been
lots
of
fun
over
the
last
few
weeks,
but
in
general
we
have
to
deal
with
the
possibility
of
competition
from
ECC
competition
from
Z
cash
competition
from
Manero
pretty
much.
C
This
is
a
fairly
substantial
array
of
other
block
chains
that
are
also
using
GPU
miners
and
if
the
ratio
of
block
rewards
all
by
etherium
to
block
rewards
by
other
cryptocurrencies
goes
lower
than
that
does
negatively
impact
security
to
a
greater
extent,
then
it
would
impact
of
watching
that
only
done
that,
basically
only
has
doesn't
really
have
substantial
competitors
for
hash
power.
So
next
those
are
those
are
the
only
real
arguments
against
push
it
up,
pushing
it
for
theory,
Theory
far
down
so
like.
C
I
D
So
I
so
that
was
deviate
fish
and
they
were
not
able
to
join.
But
a
lot
of
the
arguments.
The
Keller
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
but
you
you
and
D,
via
fish
kind
of
shared
some
of
the
arguments
as
far
as
reasoning,
but
then
you
all
differed
on
whether
to
increase
or
decrease.
But
basically
both
of
you
said
that
having
it
at
3
is
wrong.
J
I
Well,
just
so-so
Keller
was
mentioning
these
dollar
values
and
the
fact
that
miners
have
kept
all
our
issues.
I
remember
when,
when
we
were
having
the
discussion,
I
do
not
like
the
notion
of
so
the
doubling
of
price
from
200
to
400
or
300.
That
is
not
a
relevant
something
that
should
be
relevant
to
the
discussion
of
how
much
it's
it's.
How
much
agent
is
right,
a
price
change
from
200
to
300
or
500.
I
Honestly,
it's
it's
irrelevant
in
crypto.
We
should
only
be
caring
about
about
what
is
what
is
the
result
if
something
goes
a
hundred
times
over
or
I
think
whatever
whatever
the
Easton's
is,
what
we
should
be
worried
is
okay,
is
it
good
enough?
So
if
the
price
is
cold
ten
times
less,
if
it
goes
back,
30
or
three
dollars?
Is
the
security
good
enough?
And
it's
not
really
about?
Oh,
if
we
have,
we
have
a
fifty
percent
increase
and
plus
I'm
Stefan.
E
D
I
But
one
of
the
things
that
the
conversions
of
dollars
is
is
on
the
minor
side.
We
what
the
protocol
has,
is
already
the
mining,
the
adjustment
for
hash
power,
and
then
it's
it's
up
to
miners,
to
figure
out
how
much
hash
power
per
dollar
they
are.
They
want
in
how
much
of
this
their
cost
and
to
make
this
decision
if
they
want
to
mind
eater
or
or
some
other
GPU
coin
right.
So
what
what
the
protocol
cares
about
is
the.
J
Well,
you
know
a
comment
to
the
dollar
issue,
so
Vitalik
said
that
0.2
eath
would
be
insufficient
in
the
assumption
there
is.
That
would
lead
to
too
small
of
a
dollar
value
in
the
competitive
market,
which
is
a
conversion
to
dollars
and
I
do
think.
Anyone
who's
spending
billions
and
millions
of
dollars
should
recognize
that
eight
billion
is
far
significantly
more
than
two
billion
and
abstractions
of
how
you
determine
security
values
that
don't
use
dollars.
I
think
is
a
little
bit
questionable.
J
Regarding
the
talax
arguments,
he
said.
One
argument,
which
was
regarding
14
and
minor
14,
is
the
primary
idea
and
I
do
agree
that
miners
are
a
very
significant
economic
in
social
marketing
block
to
block
chains.
They
are
not
merely
just
providing
security,
as
some
people
like
to
reference,
but
I
investors
for
far
easier
by
supporting
alternative
block
chains
that
you
mentioned
far
easier
than
miners,
and
then
the
second
thing
you
mentioned
is
the
competitive
marketplace
for
mining.
J
So
this
goes
back
into
the
idea
that
the
total
amount
of
reward
for
security
should
be
a
dollar
value
in
a
dollar
value
that
is
relevant
to
the
overall
market
place.
These
are
ideas
that
I
fully
agree
with
and
I
think
the
simple
way
that
you
speak
clearly
when
you're
stating
this
is,
if
you
say
something
to
the
effect
of
and
I'm
just
making
out
these
numbers,
but
aetherium
should
pay
for
no
more
than
50%
of
all
GPU
minors
or
aetherium
should
pay
a
minimum
of,
or
between
one
and
two
billion
dollars.
C
Bubble
well,
no,
my
argument
is
that
there's
that
we
we
do
kind
of
cross
over
from
a
zone
of
high
security
to
a
zone
of
lower
security.
At
the
specific
point
where
the
amount
of
dollars
per
seconds
that
ether
pushes
out
is
greater,
the
goes
from
being
greater
than
to
being
less
than
the
number
of
dollars
per
seconds
that
other
ball
chains
push
out.
So
the
the
main
block
chains
that
we
have
to
look
at
right
now
would
be,
as
others
in
aetherium
are
aetherium
classic
and
and
on
arrow
and
as
cash
and.
C
If
the
block
reward
goes
down
by
a
factor
of
by
another
factor
of
ten,
then
that
would
basically
put
us
into
the
position
we
are
Manero
or,
if
classic
have
more
hash
power
than
we
do
anthesis
it's
it's
totally.
It's
not
fatal,
because
Manero
nice
classic
themselves
survive
totally
fine,
but
it
is
a
lawless
security
zone.
J
J
Okay,
it,
oh,
then,
all
others
combined.
Yet
that's
that's
roughly
what
I
thought
as
well,
and
so
this
amounts
to.
For
those
who
are
curious.
This
amounts
to
roughly
two
billion
dollars
versus
five
hundred
million
for
all
others
combined.
This
is
about
right,
I,
think
so,
and
it
it
I'll
just
say
one
other
thing
that
I
think
it's
worth
considering,
and
this
is
where
others
in
the
developer
community
they
like
to
they
get
nervous
when
you
started
attaching
dollar
values
to
things
well,
you're
paying
two
billion
dollars
for
this
block
security.
I.
J
C
They
are
vastly
lower
and
it's
I
mean
it.
I
actually
know
I'm,
actually
totally
fine
with
the
idea
of
putting
dollar
values
on
how
much
we're
burning
on
how
much
we're
burning
on
mining
I
think
it's
a
definitely
very
good
way
of
kind
of
keeping
it
real
in
terms
of
like
letting
people
understand
how
much
money
is
being
burnt
on
this
I
have
consensus
security
expenditures
so
like,
as
I've
said,
I'm
actually
like
in
principle
totally
not
even
opposed
to
further
reductions.
C
They
like
either
like
1.25
or
or
even
lower
yet,
and
so
I
feel
like
the
kind
of
the
the
right
thing
to
do
would
be
to
at
least
four,
but
for
Byzantium
stick
to
three
its
stick
to
three
or
two
point:
five,
and
then
people
like
yourself
and
end
of
lad.
Will
you
know
be
free
to
continue
to
make
your
arguments
and
if
there
is
community
consensus
for
further
decreases,
then
that's
great,
and
that
can
happen
in
later
Forks.
J
I
just
did
like
one
statement.
If
you
want
to
make
this
statement
now
and
or
if
you
want
to
think
about
it,
this
is
the
main
issue.
The
main
issue
that
I
have
is
that
it's
still
unclear
in
terms
of
dollar
values.
Is
it
so
July
14th?
You
said
one
point:
are
you
indicated
one
point?
Two
billion
would
be
a
suitable
dollar
value
for
security.
Now
it's
two
billion.
So
let's
pretend
this
is
just
a
number
changes
we
all
know.
C
I
mean
it's
definitely
something
that
should
be
considered,
though,
as
people
said
before,
like
differences
by
differences
in
the
market
of
a
factor
of
1.5
or
just
compared
like
compared
to
the
general
scheme
of
things
that
could
happen
in
the
crypto
market
fairly.
Small
and
totally
could
reverse
themselves.
Within
the
span
of
two
weeks.
I'm
yeah.
D
And
the
other
thing
I
think
is
that
at
the
time
that
that
happens,
if
there's
a
huge
community
push
within
the
etherium
community
to
lower
or
increase,
or
anything
like
that,
that's
when
it
would
be
necessary
to
look
at
it
again
and
even
for
this
kind
of
thing
and
for
the
stuff
that
you're
arguing
Keller.
It's
it's
more
we're
discussing
this
at
length
because
the
community
wanted
us
to
so
I
think
that
there's
that
would
there
would
definitely
be
consideration.
But
you
know
it's
one
of
those.
K
J
It's
so
that's
why
I
feel
like
basically
more
or
less
I
will
bring
up.
The
I
will
only
bring
up
the
issue
when
a
theorem
is
troubled
or
whatever,
because
this
is
the
only
time
that
people
are
concerned
about
improving
things
when
things
are
going
well,
people
don't
they're,
not
concerned
about
improving
things
yeah,
but
but
but
what?
But
what
we
can
do
to
make
matters
clearer
going
forward?
It's
just
you
come
up
with
some
dollar
value.
Any
dollar
value
and
I
agree
that
you
know.
C
That's
not
the
best
heuristic
in
the
long
term,
because
if
we
imagine,
for
example,
of
the
price
of
ether
goes
all
the
way
up
to
3
million
dollars,
then
we
do
not
want
the
10,000
factor
reduction
in
the
reward,
and
the
reason
is
that,
basically,
the
size
of
the
attackers
that
we
have
to
deal
with
is
all
and
the
incentives
of
the
attackers
we
have
to
deal
with
will
also
go
up,
and
so
security
expenditures,
probably
should
should
go
up
always
somewhat
with
their
kind
of
economic
activity
size
of
a
blockchain.
Okay,.
J
Now,
in
that
issue
is
another
one
where
it
becomes
quite
complex
when
you
consider
the
price
of
aetherium,
because
I
knew
investors
must
pay
for
this
mining
reward,
as
well
as
like
Don
and
expenses,
but
they're
they're,
very
small,
compared
to
the
mining
reward
relatively
I,
think
foundation.
Expenses
are
probably
one
percent
of
the
total
expense
expenses
of
the
etherium
blockchain
and
99
percent
of
the
minor
bonuses.
So
so,
when
you,
when
you
talk
about
the
price
of
aetherium
and
right
now,
aetherium
has
to
create
roughly
two
billion
dollars
from
outside
parties
into
aetherium.
J
Okay,
okay,
30
increase
yeah
sure,
so
this
is
the
biggest
increase
we
could
imagine.
So
if
so,
if
a
theorem
goes
up
to
one
trillion
dollars
at
the
current
rate,
you
would
have
to
get
new
outside
money
equivalents.
Roughly
100
billion
every
year,
and
eventually
the
rest
of
the
world
runs
out
of
money.
We
know
this
is.
I
I
Everyone
believes
that
the
easier
issuance
should
at
some
point
who
the
only
target
that
he
wanted
at
some
point
in
satara
to
should
drop
to
zero
or
near
zero
when,
when
we
have
force,
take
working
fine,
so
the
reason
we
I
really
support
the
issuance
is
in
the
end
because
or
go
it's
long
term
to
reduce
it
to
as
low
as
possible
when
we
can
have
promised
take
on
so
it's
not
I
mean
so
you're
talking
about
the
foundation
as
if
it's
this
is.
This
is
a
foundation
meeting
and
we
are
discussing
like
this
yeah.
D
I
think
that
I
think
the
language
does
matter
and
that
and
I
I
think
that
that's
so
partly
the
other
language
does
matter.
So
that's
been
a
I
guess,
that's
been
a
number
used
in
a
lot
of
the
examples
and
the
e
IPS
and
I
think
that
might
be
why
he
was
bringing
it
up
Morse
more
so
than
to
imply
that
this
is
a
foundation
only
meeting
but
I
agree
that
that's
a
good
point
for
especially
for
the
people.
D
Listening
that
this
is
not
a
foundation
meeting-
and
this
is
you
know,
all
types
of
teams
across
the
ecosystem,
so
Keller.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
comments
on
that
anybody
else
in
the
room.
Do
you
have
any
rebuttals?
Basically,
what
we've
landed
on
it
sounds
like
is,
for
you
know,
the
purposes
of
you
know
buys
baizen
tinium
or
is
it
bison?
Tinium
am
I
saying
that
right.
D
D
H
H
E
D
H
H
C
D
D
Else
who
participated
so
the
updates
to
testing,
so
we
have
jared
in
here
who's
a
recent
addition
to
kind
of
the
etherium
j/s
and
testing
team
and
also
I,
believe
I,
believe
Tim
has
been
helping
as
well.
Us
is
that
accurate,
Tim
and
Jared
to
say
that
you
would
be
considered
a
part
of
the
testing
team.
D
Okay
and
then
so
the
other
people
who've
been
heavily
involved
would
be
Demetri
who
isn't
able
to
make
it
today,
yo,
Ichi
and
Martin,
so
I'll,
let
either
you
know
each
year
Martin,
whichever
one
wants
to
kind
of
give
us
an
overall
update
on
testing
and
let
us
know
of
any
road
bumps
or
sorry
yeah
that
are
in
the
way
that
they
would
need
help
with
or
anything
that
we
can
do
to
help.
Okay.
H
So
I
can't
do
something.
So
basically
it's
done
except
a
few
known
problems.
One
of
the
main
problems
is
the
one
I
talked
about
the
high
test,
heavily
out-of-date,
so
I
needed
updated
with
this
50-hour
come
on.
I
mean
the
course
of
doing
that
next
week.
I
hope
we
can
see
this
type
test
updated
and
we
will
start
seeing
a
number
of
errors
decreasing
on
this
height
board,
and
then
we
can
actually
start
measuring
our
progress.
There
are
a
few
more
known
issues.
These
are
very,
very
tiny.
H
There
is
state
general
state
test
fading
on
all
clients,
including
if
it's
a
mine,
this
one
annoys
me
a
little
bit,
because
the
test
generation
for
the
frontier
network
fails
mm-maybe,
SiC,
occasionally,
implementation,
we
might
have
made
a
mistake.
I
mean
I'm
investing
in
investigating
this.
There
are
this
few
more
known,
small
issues,
but
these
are
much
much
tinier
than
the
hybrid
test
regeneration.
H
Why'd
Demetri
and
I
busy
fixing
updating
existing
tests.
There
are
still
new
test
cases
to
be
written.
It
affected
many
of
them,
while
debugging
in
kids
and
other
clients.
So
in
the
Gita
Ezreal
testing
channel
I
will
post
the
distal.
This
case
is
to
be
written
and
I'm
happy
to
provide
instructions.
So,
yes,
gift
I
am
Adriene
tests.
I
will
post
some
instructions
for
those
interested.
D
M
E
As
you
can
see,
I
post
a
link
there
to
one
log
which
fails
and
if
you
go
to
the
end
of
the
log,
you
can
see
the
actual
comparing
of
the
traces
and
you
see
that
the
forth
operation
in
the
execution.
There
is
a
consensus
failure,
because
the
top
stack
item
differs:
that's
really
powerful
and
really
cool
great
work.
Jason
yeah.
L
Yeah
I
had
some
questions
as
far
as
I
give
you
guys
a
better,
a
better,
accurate
idea
far
as
like
the
top
code
performance
across
different
architectures
and
across
different
operating
systems.
So
what
what
would
you
guys
like
to
see
as
far
as
it
being
tested
on
and
different
scopes
like
specifics
on
that
and
then
I
could
try
and
capture
that
for
you
back
to
you
guys,
so
you
have
a
more
realistic,
closed
eyes.
E
Personally,
I
think
that
we
need
to
to
decide
here
now
kind
of
the
what
we're
going
with
for
bicenthium,
without
necessarily
looking
at
different
architectures.
At
this
point,
however,
for
the
long
term
of
course,
will
be
very
interesting
to
have
a
good
set
of
benchmarks
for
different
architectures
and
and
different
dunno
different
versions
of
go
or
different,
compiler
settings
and
stuff
like
that,
but,
as
so
as
for
deciding
what
to
do
with
bicenthium,
it's
kind
of
it
can't
it's
too
late.
Relax.
That's
my
view.
E
E
E
E
E
And
if
it
turns
out
that
they're
all
too
expensive
and
then
at
least
at
the
same
level-
and
we
can
do
kind
of
raise
or
lower
them
all
in
one
place
when
I
want
to
so
yeah.
So
this
is
just
in
this
analysis.
You
can
check
out
the
raw
date
down
the
scripts
there
and
say
more
Foster
is
use.
The
gas
was
a
thousand
for
tradition.
E
E
D
D
D
G
L
G
D
D
D
Actually,
that's
a
better
question
just
to
skip
to
that,
just
because
I
know
we're
hitting
10
o'clock
and
some
people
might
have
to
leave.
It
looks
like
and
we'll
go
over
with
each
team,
but
it
looks
like
a
lot
of
the
teams
are
getting
by
as
far
as
implementing
byzantium
updates,
so
yo
Ichi
Martin,
everybody
else
would
early
September
be
too
rough
of
a
timeline.
If
we
in
the
next
seven
days
are
able
to
get
these
gas
costs
down
in
stone.
D
F
H
H
So
what
I
want
to
do
is
I
want
to
check
what
happened
wing
out
three
particular
blog
I.
So
many
comments
on
with
discussions
on
github
and
everywhere,
but
I
wanted
to
check
it
in
the
capital
I,
it
remains,
disappeared,
appeared
and
then
I
will
talk
to
him.
But
this
is,
you
know
like
a
historical
investigation,
and
my
first
focus
is
no
more
attention
got.
C
So
PI
a
theory,
a
mess
I
think
I
mentioned
is
passing
the
state
tests.
It's
still
failing
a
few
people,
a
few
block
tests,
though
I
think
that's
due
to
a
combination
of
me,
IP
669
not
being
like
solely
merged
into
the
tests
yet
and
and
these
some
of
the
tests
having
empty
accounts
that
shouldn't
be
there
and
that's
something
that
I've
that's
been
fixed
for
some
of
the
tests
in
one
of
them
in
one
of
the
recent
releases,
but
not
all
of
them.
D
D
M
D
Okay,
great
so,
let's
see
we
already
determined
the
GAT,
or
we
already
had
plans
for
the
gas
prices
all
right.
So
now
we
get
to
the
point
where
we
talk
about
the
time
estimate
for
testing
and
release.
So
we
just
said
early
September's,
when
we
could
probably
start
for
a
test
net
that,
if
my
memory
is
correct,
would
run
for
between
two
and
four
weeks.
Something
like
three
weeks
would
be
a
sweet
spot
from
what
we
talked
about
last
time
as
far
as
deciding
that
we
would
decide
by
block
number.
C
I
feel
and
I
feel,
like
we
kind
of
know
when,
at
this
point,
what
the
ballpark
ballpark
is
so
like
the
super
up
to
the
absolute
flying.
Colors
super
optimistic
would
be
four
point:
three
million,
which
is
September
22nd
and
the
pessimistic
Steve
is
four
point:
four
million,
which
is
October
27th
so
somewhere
in
between
those
two,
depending
on
how
quickly
we
can
gets
to
everyone
passing
everything
and
all
the
tests
being
done.
Okay,.
D
C
M
E
M
G
D
I
F
N
D
Think
that's
kind
of
complicated
I
think
that
if
the
main
reason
we
would
be
clearing
it
out
is
a
sinking
issue,
we
can
just
find
creative
ways
to
make
it
sink
faster.
So,
for
instance,
having
a
few
people
put
up,
semi
quote
official,
you
know
state
you
can
where
you
can
download
the
blocks.
Basically,
you
know
I'm
talking
about
like
you,
can
export
the
blocks
and
then
download
them.
You
can
put
them
on
like
a
BitTorrent
or
something.
F
F
D
M
F
F
D
C
D
D
E
C
L
D
D
One
more
thing:
I'm
gonna
post
this
link
in
here
so
crypto
mines
is
a
group
that
represents
some
of
the
miners
and
they
felt
like
they
weren't-
really
hurt
in
the
discussion
earlier
so
I'm
just
gonna
post
a
link
to
their
comment.
We
don't
really
have
time
to
go
over
all
of
it,
but
if
someone
could
address
this
and
the
agenda,
that
would
be
great.
Just
with
your
opinion.
We
can't
change
it
from
what
it
sounds
like,
because
we
pretty
much.
D
We
would
have
to
do
a
lot
of
stuff
with
the
test
cases,
so
we
probably
won't
change
it
from
the
from
the
reduction
of
three
but
I
do
want
to
take
this
chance
to
say
we
need
a
way
to
signal
for
what
the
community
really
wants,
because
some
people
are
feeling
left
out.
So,
let's
start
to
kind
of
brainstorm.
D
Some
of
the
ways
we
can
do
that,
whether
it
be
on
blockchain
or
not,
especially
since
people
felt
like
they
weren't
being
heard,
because
even
if
you
know
they
don't
get
what
they
want
this
time
as
far
as
like,
they
think
that
the
production
shouldn't
happen
at
all.
We
need
something
that
will
make
sure
everybody's
heard
next
time.
We
have
one
of
these
in
a
into
a
more
controversial
issue.
You're.
I
D
Yeah
definitely:
okay,
cool
well
yeah,
but
sorry
about
that
crypto
miners.
I
know
you
felt
left
out
of
the
conversation,
but
I
posted
your
link.
We're
gonna
try
to
respond
to
you,
but
at
this
point,
because
of
the
way
the
timing
of
this
and
how
soon
we
have
to
make
the
fork
there's
no
reason
we
can't
adjust
this
in
the
future.
It
sounds
like
so
as
long
as
we
get
community
consensus
around
it,
but
yeah
I'll
I'll
be
looking
into
working
on
the
getting
minor
communication
to
be
in
the
forefront
in
the
future.
D
J
But
if
you
don't
mind
me
asking
the
question
I
know
this
is
a
hard
one.
There's
been
some
talk
about
that
the
eath
will
get
readjusted
at
some
point
in
the
future.
I
am
sometimes
unclear
as
to
if
this
is
some
time
like,
let's
say,
like
June
or
later
2018
or
if
there's
some
other
plan
that
I'm
unaware
of
that
might
occur
like
in
January
or
something
like
that.
D
The
research
team
has
been
killing
it
lately,
meaning
they're
doing
really
well
I'm,
using
metaphors
way
too
much
they're
doing
very
well
lately
and
adding
people.
So
I
really
feel
confident
and
I
mean
metallic
would
know
better
than
me
that
the
hybrid
proof
of
work
proof
of
stake
is
gonna,
come
earlier
than
people
expect,
but,
however,
not
to
say.