►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #22 [8/11/17]
Description
A
A
A
A
Yeah
I
see
that
okay,
it
looks
like
he
just
did
put
in
the
changes
that
we
talked
about
last
time,
which
is
to
reduce
the
difficulty
bomb,
as
Vitalik
had
said,
there's
still
some
there's
still
a
little
bit
of
discussion
on
that,
but
I
think
we're
generally
set.
It
was
specifically
this
comment.
I'll
put
it
in
chat.
A
D
A
A
C
F
E
F
E
C
E
A
Mm-Hmm,
okay
cool,
so
for
the
next
item:
unless
it
was
there
any
other
comments
on
that,
it
looks
good
to
me,
but
that's
something
that
can
be
quickly
that
can
be
kind
of
finalized
next
meeting,
if
need
be,
but
I,
don't
think
we've
changed
anything
about
it
in
the
last
few
meetings.
How
do
we
have
so?
Why
do
we
think.
A
E
A
Wouldn't
say
so
because
a
free
just
made
changes
on
it
like
three
days
ago,
but
I
mean
it's
for
the.
For
the
purposes
of
this
call,
I
was
looking
for
anybody
who
has
skimmed
it,
because
it's
a
real
shorty
IP
and
found
any
problems
with
it,
but
I
wouldn't
declare
it
finalized
to
the
extent
that
we
declare
the
IP
is
finalized.
I.
E
C
A
Okay,
cool,
let's
see
so
there
any
concerns
around
those
numbers
being
given
whenever
I
did
kind
of
a
really
unofficial
reddit
thread
about
the
block
time.
Everyone
was
kind
of
saying
after
30
sec
or
after
40
seconds,
it
would
be
a
little
bit
tough,
but
right
now,
there's
no
there's
not
many
gaps
in
production
that
require
a
sub.
Forty
second
block
time.
Yeah.
H
H
A
G
C
A
C
C
G
C
G
D
Hello
I
think
in
case
of
this,
the
AP
there
are
some
pending
issues
there
and
and
I
would
say,
is
quite
a
lot
of
unanswered
comments
about
all
of
the
changes
it's
into
some
details.
I
also
put
a
put
a
comment
in
the
Indiana,
just
after
Casey
listing
some
of
both
points
that
are
coming
from
my
side,
but
I've
seen
there
are
some
you
issues,
issues
as
well,
not
clearly
answered
I,
think
so
I
would
say
the
pace
on
on
this
one.
A
E
A
Mean
and
well-well
say
for
the
moment,
this
is
okay
and
I'll
double-check,
with
Arkadiy
cuz
I.
Think
I'm
gonna
be
talking
to
rob
soon,
specifically
so
next
item
and
I'm
actually
actively
updating
this,
but
let's
go
to
the
one
that
Tim
posted
I'm
gonna.
It's
a
recent
comment,
I'll
post
in
the
chat
and
then
get
her.
So
this
is
it
it's
basically
asking
about
the
big
aunt
Maude
expe
IP
198,
the
requirements
for
the
benchmarks
on
that
so
Tim
you
can
go
ahead.
J
E
A
A
J
B
Just
a
quick,
quick
mention
regarding
one
of
the
pecan
past
mod
X:
yesterday
I
was
working
on
the
merging
all
the
pre
compiles
into
get
and
I
double-checked
with
the
other
in
foundations.
Just
out
of
curiosity
and
I
saw
that
parity
is
still
using.
The
old
original
gas
calculation
and
I
tried
to
reach
Arkady
I
couldn't
so.
If
anyone
here
speaks
authority,
people,
please
being
them
that
the
gas
calculations
changed
yeah.
E
A
A
Was
saying
that
I
was
asking
you
know
which
ones
are
going
into
hard
fork
part
to
Constantinople
and
for
that
one?
You
said
you
made
a
comment
recently
that
he
I
P
215
bitwise
shifting
was
considered
as
part
of
that
and
since
I
believe,
that's
your
EIP.
What's
your
perspective
on
putting
it
into
metropolis
at
all.
H
Well,
of
course
I
would
be
happy,
but
it's
it's
really
up
to
the
people
implement.
You
know
their
different
clients
and
the
client
I
could
handle
is
the
JavaScript
and
perhaps
the
C++
and
I
would
be
happy
to
work
on
those
two,
but
any
other
clients.
It's
not
really
up
to
me
and
but
I
would
be
happy
to
do
you
have
it
sooner
than
later.
Of
course,
I
guess
it's
not
such
a
high
priority
at
the
moment
compared
to
the
other
work
in
progress,
understood.
A
A
A
B
We
are
as
far
as
I
know,
all
the
tests
that
have
been
generated
are
currently
imported
into
our
repo,
so
we
have
all
the
wrappers
I
think
for
all
of
them
and
we
also
finished
more
or
less
polishing
all
the
pre
compiles
and
basically
just
ready
for
merge.
So
whenever
marking
our
Felix
sums
it
up,
it
can
be
added,
and
the
last
batch
of
polishes
that
we
need
are
the
the
opcode
VIPs
in
theory.
They
are
done
in
practice.
I
just
need
to
polish
it
up
and
merge.
So.
B
Being
one
of
the
few
issues
that
I
do
have
is
that,
for
example,
we've
merged
in
already
way
a
few
weeks
ago
to
EITS.
One
of
them
was
the
difficulty
adjustment,
which
obviously
needs
a
rework
due
to
the
ice
age,
and
the
other
one
was
removal
at
the
intermediate
state
route,
which
now
was
obsoleted,
so
it
from
my
perspective.
C
So
we
can
walk
through
the
github
comm,
so
I
should
the
REM
/e
IP
is
a
repo
I'll
just
link
that
again.
So
if
you
look
through
the
ones
that
are
in
there
now
number
90
six
should
probably
be
put
into
deferred
because
we're
moved
in
to
Constantinople,
then
98
should
probably
be
just
removed
entirely
because
658
supersedes
it.
C
A
C
A
Welcome
so,
let's
see,
let's
see
parody
well,
I
think,
last
time
we
checked,
they
said
they
had
everything
implemented
as
far
as
test
passing
does
anyone
have?
Has
anyone
seen
them
comment
about
how
many
tests
for
passing
versus
failing
recently
Martin
I,
know
you've
been
talking
to
our
kitty,
some
yeah.
E
D
D
The
main
point
of
full
following
hard
folks,
implementations,
I
know
if
you,
if
she
wants
to
add
something
to
this
now
we
are
working
on
now
we
are
working
on
our
uncompressed
generation,
the
crazy
studying
code
coverage
approach
from
different
clients.
What
I
want
to
do
is
fast
testing
tools
that
could
run
a
random
test
on
every
client
and
I
bet.
They
need
support
from
github
go
I
mean
from
other
clients,
I
need
the
comment
that
I
could
use
to
execute.
This
randomly
generated
state
test,
at
least
microwave
yeah.
E
F
D
D
D
E
My
idea
will
be
to
to
have
put
up
a
server
which
does
24/7
fast
testing
on
all
kinds
which
can
be
fast
and
then
the
outputs
from
that
would
be
consensus.
Failures
where
you
could
download
what
the
command
big
traces
and
the
commands
needed
to
Genesis
and
the
code
needed
to
actually
run
the
EVM
and
reproduce
the
issue.
That's
kind
of
what
I'm
hoping
to
put
together.
My
same.
B
E
G
E
A
C
C
C
C
A
A
C
D
C
F
C
C
E
E
B
E
B
C
A
line
311
of
this
file:
okay,
yep;
no,
that's,
okay,
good!
That
we've
cleared
that
up.
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
confirm
is
our
reconfirming,
like
in
the
in
the
Skype
channel
yeah
I
I
had
suggested
the
change
that
we,
the
change
retroactively
from
the
from
Genesis,
that
if
you
try
to
create
a
contract
at
the
point
and
the
contracts
code
or
nonsense
non
empty,
then
contracts
creation
fails
immediately.
So
before
initialization
even
starts,
and
my
reasoning
for
this
is
that
number
one.
C
C
I
mean
if
this
does
mean
just
not
thinking
about
the
sons
of
Constantinople
and
that's
fine
too,
because,
as
I
said,
the
chance
this'll
turn
into
a
consensus
failures
microscopic
so,
for
example,
I
know
for
a
fact
that
the
when
it
turns
out
that
the
simple
process
implementation
of
this
well,
we
should
I
figured
out
the
CEPA
specification
of
this
was
part.
So
if
someone
can
create
an
address,
coition
then
they'll
create
consensus.
Failure.
F
E
F
F
F
E
C
So
my
current
my
opinion
is
that
the
probability
that
any
of
this
is
going
to
become
and
that
any
of
this
is
going
to
be
an
issue
at
all.
What
even
in
the
presence
of
attackers
before
Constantinople
is
very
small
and
so
I
would
be
personally
view
it
as
being
kind
of
similar
to
Yankee
170,
where
we
had
implemented
the
code
chain
of
the
maximum
code,
size
limit
and
implemented
it
retroactively
Lee,
Webb
least,
we
may
have
employed
to
retroactively
wave.
Forget
it
so
I.
A
A
C
Actually,
though,
the
pie
here
I
forget,
though
the
pie
theory
of
coins
can
run
watching
tests,
but
it
has
not
been
passing
them
for
a
while
and
part
of
the
reason.
Why
is
basically
confusion
on
what
box
schedules
are
supposed
to
apply
to
what
sets
of
block
tests,
but
I
mean
we
can
take
that
offline
and
figure
and
figure
that
out
I?
Do
the
block
chain
test
currently
implements
in
the
apakah
block,
specifically
IPS.
C
F
C
So
and
here's
some
VIP
is
669
m:
oh,
that's
a
10
CPP
aetherium!
Now,
yes,
but
in
that
case
okay,
then
Oh
we'll
take
this
discussion
offline
and
we'll
fig
and
figure
out
how
they
on
all
run
pi
here
and
throw
the
watch
in
tests
and
try
and
talk
it
talks
for
any
of
the
ones
that
yes,
I'm
interested.
This
is
a
priority.
J
A
Well,
hey
thanks
for
thanks
for
helping
out
and
so
you're,
not
on
the
etherium
j
team.
Then
I'll
try
to
get
one
of
them
involved
to
see
where
they're
at
not
that
they're
a
client
that
has
to
be
up
to
date
on
metro
necessarily,
but
I
think
that's
what
they
were
potentially
aiming
for,
see
I,
don't
mind
looking
on
either
that's
for
Java
yeah,
a
theory
I'm
J
they're,
getting
back
up
and
going
again
for
Metro
compatibility
is
my
understanding.
A
A
All
right
so
that,
since
that's
all
the
clients,
I
think
with
three
office
we've
been
talking
about
testing
but
Demetri
Martin.
Are
you
Ichi
or
anyone
else?
Is
there
any
other
testing
updates
we
should
be
aware
of,
and
is
there
any
type
of
percentage
or
quantitative
measure
about
how
close
we
are
to
being
done.
D
H
C
F
D
And
also
hive
tests
are
generated
from
the
state
test.
They
are
also
in
a
test
repository
and
develop.
Please
check
always
check
that
here
on
latest
develop
of
the
test
repository
and
you
could
see
on
the
blockchain
test.
There
is
a
folder
general
state
test
which
actually
abroad
scientists
representing
them,
and
this
are
the
tests
that
I
should
personal
clients,
so.
A
A
D
K
G
F
But
the
Hudsons
question
we
have
measurement
or
both
progress,
how
many
dissipating
of
æneas
exciting.
When
the
undying
hive
statistics
works.
It
will
be
that
measurement.
Currently,
it's
weird
because
in
epidemics,
tests
metro
police
case
have
disappeared.
Now
there
are
only
Byzantium
tests
and
constantinople
tests,
but
on
in
the
undying
hive
interface
that
we
just
see
the
metropolis
test
yet
so
the
measurement
is
not
up
to
date,
so
yeah,
when
this
starts
working,
we
can
you
know
for
all
the
numbers,
hopefully
decreasing,
yeah.
E
C
C
Yeah
and
so
I
think
right
now,
the
major
progress
we've
had
with
this
meeting
is
that
it
seems
like
there
are
client
we've
established
or
like
we
established
a
full
specification
of
all
the
e
IPs,
and
it
does
not
seem
like
we're
arguing
over
yet
here
protocol
anymore
and
that
we
have
clients
that
have
implemented
them
and
it
seems
like
we
may
already
have
tests
for
all
of
them.
So
the
next
stage
at
this
point
seems
like
getting
to
the
point
where
all
the
clients
are
passing
all
the
tests
and
we're
comfortable
were
just
enough.
F
A
Yeah
I
would
feel
good
and
I
just
want
to
see
everyone's
opinion
on
this.
If
we
can
get
some
approximate
dates
that
we
think
we
would
be
able
to
launch
testing
today,
just
because
the
next
poor
devil
eating
is
August
25th
and
then
the
one
after
that
is
September,
8th
and
then
we're
getting
into
some
higher
block
time
territories.
So
I
don't
know,
for
instance
like
which
teams
have
the
resources
to
make
sure
this
is
done
by
then
at
Martin.
What
was
your
opinion?
A
E
A
G
A
B
B
A
A
So
right
now
we're
gonna
shoot
for
testing
the
start
somewhere
between
the
last
week
of
August
and
the
first
full
week
of
September,
and
then
testing
would
occur
for
do
we
say
what
was
the
number
for
weeks
or
actually
can
it
be
shorter
than
that
or
I
mean
I
feel
like
we
have
this
discussion
and
multiple
chord
to
have
meetings
ago,
but
there's
like
some
there's
not
like.
Basically,
the
more
weeks
of
testing
doesn't
necessarily
provide
that
much
value.
As
you
go
up
a
number
of
weeks
past
a
certain
week.
C
A
Yeah
I
think
that
we
should
just
do
everything
on
test
and,
at
the
same
time,
everything
on
live
net
at
the
same
time,
just
because
we're
already
breaking
up
the
hard
fork
to
put
things
on
a
second
part
of
it
or
a
second
mini
hard
fork.
I
guess
we
can
think
of
it
as
so.
Breaking
it
up,
for
the
actual
launching
of
the
features
further
doesn't
make
sense
to
me.
A
A
A
Let's
see
one
two
three:
if
we
do
four
weeks
of
testing,
it
would
be
first
week
of
October
if
we
do
three
weeks
of
testing
it'll
be
the
last
week
of
September,
of
course,
depending
on
when
we
actually,
you
know,
launch
it
on
Rob
stone,
oh
also,
I'm,
guessing
it's
better
to
like
just
just
as
we're
deciding
dates
and
stuff,
as
it
looks
like
it's
better
like
during
the
week
to
launch
these
things
right,
cuz,
that's
like
Work
Week.
Instead
of
a
weekend.
Yes,.
E
A
A
Oh
yeah
I
feel
like
I
feel,
like
multiple
teams
and
multiple
people
would
have
heart
attacks.
If
we
did
the
fork
during
Kin
Kin
so
yeah,
let's
not
do
that.
Okay
cool!
So
we
have.
We
have
dates
at
least
for
testing
done
last
week
of
August
first
week
of
September
time
period,
so
yeah
I
have
something
on
here
for
gas
prices
and
opcodes
for
pre
compiles
Martin
I.
Think
we've
been
going
over
updates
as
we've
been
talking,
but
is
there
anything
and
the
updates
you
wanted
described
or
anything
any
needs?
You
have.