►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #46 [09/14/18]
Description
A
A
A
B
B
All
the
IPS
we
merged
everything
we
have
tests,
at
least
let's,
let's
talk
test
later
so
for
now,
we
can
basically
switch
the
flip
in
parity
and
start
testing
it.
So
that's
what's
new
regarding
Constantinople
what
it's
we
have
like
some
stretchy
discussions
for
parity.
We
consider
replacing
WAP
sync
with
some
hybrid
client
mode.
Instead,
we
are
considering
two
or
three
stage
clients.
So
imagine
you
start
the
parity,
serum
node
and
you
it
will,
instead
of
starting
to
shrink
from
Genesis,
it
will
pop
up
a
light
client.
B
So
you
have
sensitive
workers
when
you
started
immediately
and
it
will
do
a
full
second
background.
We
also
consider
maybe
not
replacing
warp
sync
with
so
hybrid
client,
but
having
like
a
Swiss
stage.
Client
that
starts
up
a
slight
client
table
swing
in
background
and
then
a
fourth
one
swaps
with
Gaston,
but
that's
all
just
ideas,
the
backwaters
that
we
need
to
think
about
alternatives,
because
the
state
is
so
big
that
even
warps
in
takes
like
two
hours
now
and
that's
quite
loses
the
point
of
being
war
PA
at
all.
B
You
know
and
another
problem
we
want
to
address.
This
is
actually
removing
our
ancient
block
synchronization,
which
is
not
not
a
fully
verifying
block
synchronization,
but
just
checking
the
proof
of
work
and
I
personally
would
like
to
see.
This
replaced
was
a
fully
very
fine,
synchronization
mode,
but
that's
just
or
ideas.
We
have
no
concrete
plans
to
implement
this.
Yet
main
problem
is
that
we
need
to
stabilize
lightly
at
first.
B
A
Cool.
Thank
you
real
quick
question
about
the
feather
wallet.
I
thought
that
I
saw
a
blog
post
about
two
or
three
months
ago,
saying
that
you
guys
were
dropping
the
wallet
in
favor
of
only
doing
production-ready
CLI
clients
for
people
like
exchanges,
is
this
kind
of
a
different
path
now,
or
is
this
separate.
B
A
Cool
thanks
for
the
update
and
then
let's
see
what
do
we
got
next
Oh
Demetri
showed
up
Demetri
we're
gonna
go
through
testing
after
we
go
through
client
update
and
let's
go
ahead
and
also
talk
about
our
constantinople.
Progress
with
the
client
update
it'll
be
better
to
just
combine
the
two
I've
decided.
So
next
we'll
go
with
death.
I
think
that
would
be
Martin
I'm
sure
by
the
way
that
work
may
vitalik
welcome.
D
D
E
I
think
we
are
in
roughly
the
same
boat
as
gift
we've
got
to
get.
We
got
two
more
issues
for
Constantinople
issue,
its
reduction
and
the
changes
to
storage
costs.
I
expect
those
will
get
spun
up
you
soon,
we're
kind
of,
in
the
middle
of
a
larger
internal
refactor,
to
speed
up
our
our
sink
processes,
which
I
think
we're
looking
at
some
notable
improvements.
But
I
don't
really
have
numbers
right
now
for
how
big
those
are
getting,
but
chipping
away
at
the
performance
numbers
to
get
towards
a
client
that
sinks
in
a
reasonable
time.
A
E
F
Hi,
so
we
also
finished
all
the
peas
and
Clemente
ssin
for
Constantinople
now
so,
and
it
is
ready
now
for
Dmitri
to
generate
the
tests
for
any
ap
yeah.
We
also
fix
the
issue
reported
by
Martin
last
week
about
the
case
with
address
collision
when
the
account
is
considered
empty
by
the
protocol.
There
is,
it
has
zero
knowns,
it
doesn't
have
the
code,
but
still
has
non-empty
storage,
which
is
very
theoretical
case,
but
we
have
some
tests
affected
by
it.
F
G
We've
been
working
on
Constantinople
and
we
have
a
store
gas
price
reduction
so
far
it's
been
merged
and
we
also
have
implemented
skinny
create
too,
but
there
is
one
test.
Failure
so
working
on
that
it's
not
yet
merged,
and
one
thing
that
is
left
is
difficult
to
bomb
delay.
I!
Guess
it's
pretty
straightforward!
G
H
H
We
are
looking
into
more
tests
vectors
for
the
alt
BN
128
curve,
because
it's
a
kind
of
harder
to
to
find
regarding
p2p,
we
now
have
better
block
downloads
and
can
request
a
range
of
blocks
and
regarding
the
research
on
the
earth,
2.0
and
we've
implemented,
as
for
choice,
rules
old
one
and
we're
looking
into
integrating
it
into
the
become
chain.
2.1.
I
Hello,
so
yeah
I
have
a
I'm
not
working
on
Constantinople
here,
but
there's
one
thing
which
I
kind
of
I
think
I've
combined
some
of
the
earlier
pull
requests
for
the
net
cast
metering
into
turbo
gift
and
for
the
reason
I'm
gonna
explain
now,
is
that
I've
changed
the
database
layout
again
to
support
pruning.
You
know
kind
of
trivial
way
and
you
know
I
also
when
I
was
testing.
Rpc
I've
noticed
that
I've
been
writing
the
some
records
in
history
with
duplication.
I
We
just
throw
in
a
way
that
the
the
old
history,
without
any
other
changes
so
and
also
I,
was
actually
starting
to
look
at
that
that
there
may
be
supporting
some
kind
of
work
sink
and
I'm
gonna
be
very
interested.
Talking
to
priority
guys
about
this,
maybe
make
it
sort
of
compatible
or
something
like
that,
and
so
yes,
I
fixed
most
of
the
RPC
api's,
like
the
transaction,
tracing
storage,
introspection,
ballot
balances
and
generally
I,
can
see
a
very
big
performance
difference.
I
Yet
the
interesting
thing
is
that
I
also
try
to
remove
the
the
storage
receipts
to
not
store
them
at
all
to
reclaim
another,
maybe
40
gigabytes,
and
at
the
moment
it's
works
on
the
same
level
of
order
of
magnitude
as
the
guest
running
kind
of
restoring
that
the
receipts
from
the
storage,
but
I
also
noticed
that
a
lot
of
time
is
actually
spent
on
recovering
the
sender
from
the
signature.
So
that
is
a
well.
I
There
was
another
interesting
investigation
that
I
did
here
so
very
soon,
so,
basically
to
be
guess
is
pretty
much
ready,
but
it
needs
to
be
a
bit
polishing
so
and
I
was
going
to
be
the
point
until
within
fewer
than
maybe
in
a
week
or
two
to
start
the
first
kind
of
real
life
testing.
So
that's
my
big.
A
J
Yeah,
so
we
have
a
Wabble
VM
which
you're
working
on
it
is
called
Hera
and
runs
through
the
e
BMC
interface.
That
means
it
works
with
Aleph,
but
we
have
a
fork
of
goethe
room
to
use
it
in
go
atrium
as
well,
and
we
made
a
significant
progress
in
discussing
that
change
with
the
GUI
theorem
team,
and
hopefully
it's
going
to
be
integrated
into
Goethe
Liam
soon
in
a
matter
of
weeks.
J
Second,
to
that
we
and
in
this
VM,
actually
we
support
multiple
engines
for
executing
wasn't
itself
and
so
far
we
have
three
engines.
Two
interpreters
and
one
jet
and
having
this
in
place
enables
us
to
focus
a
bit
more
on
benchmarking,
and
that
is
our
next
next
big
focus
to
benchmark
pecan
pies.
So,
basically,
all
the
main
a
tree
comprised
implemented
in
wasn't
benchmarked
those
between
these
three
big
engines
and
the
main
results
we
expect
to
have
is
have
an
understanding
of
the
performance
between
a
jet
and
the
non
jet
was
mentioned.
K
L
Right
so
we
I
think
we've
done
for
these
two
implementers
calls.
We
do
them
every
two
weeks
we're
doing
every
other
week
out
of
the
core
desk
calls.
But
then
the
core
death
call
had
two
in
a
row,
so
we
have
it
on
Thursdays.
We
got
it
yesterday.
Any
of
the
people
on
this
call
are
certainly
welcome
to
join
I
know
after
he
was
came
yesterday
is
kind
of
first
representation
for
parody.
L
Definitely
the
spec
is
the
bones
of
the
spec
are
really
solidifying
and
we're
kind
of
just
doing
minor,
refinements
and
additions
at
this
point,
rather
than
kind
of
quarry
right.
So
if
your
team
hasn't
taken
a
look,
it's
probably
a
good
time
to
at
least
familiarize
yourself
with
the
spec
at
least.
What's
going
on
with
that
and
make
a
make
an
informed
decision,
whether
it's
time
for
your
team
to
maybe
start
looking
at
it.
And
if
you
want
to
hop
on
a
call
with
me
to
discuss
the
architecture
and
kind
of
the
design
decisions.
A
So
the
next
thing
let's
go
back
to
testing.
So
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
today,
hopefully,
is
to
get
a
block
number
for
Rob
stone
or
basically
a
rough
time
like
number
of
weeks
or
so
that
we
can
actually
for
crop
Stan
to
start
testing
constantinople,
but
that's
gonna
be
very
dependent
on
testing.
A
It
was
dependent
on
client
implementations,
but
it
sounds
like
by
the
end
of
next
week,
everyone's
gonna
pretty
much
be
done
so
I
think
that
when
I
say
everyone,
I
mean
the
major
clients
who,
like
death,
parity
and
harmony
should
be
done
and
the
less.
So
what
we
should
probably
do
is
the
I
try
to
decide
a
block
number.
But
let's
get
a
testing
update
from
Demetri
and
Martin.
First
Dimitri,
you
can
go
ahead.
M
Guys
I
posted
earlier
today
and
post,
which
test
cases
we
still
missing
it's
about
more
coverage
around
store
changes.
It
is
about
X
code
hash,
which
hasn't
been
updated
by
Jared
for
a
long
time
and
I
think
I
will
and
of
those
myself,
and
we
don't
have
transitioned
tests
in
the
form
of
block
chain
test
and
difficulty
test
was
a
bomb
delay.
M
It's
not
done
in
a
block
in
this
form
and
then
just
formula
check
and
I
heard
about
fastest
been
converted
into
state
test.
This
is
a
really
good
idea.
If
we
could
do
this,
it
would
be
really
nice
what
else
I
finished
creating
create
do
tests
it's
now
in
a
repository
and
action
executed
in
hive,
they
found
a
couple
issues
with
Martin
and
discuss
those.
What
actually
every
client
could
now
pass?
The
current
create
two
tests
that
we
have.
M
M
What
else
I'm
ready
to
start
to
review
all
of
the
existing
tests
and
regenerate
them
with
a
constantinople
version?
This
is
a
process
I
do
before
every
hard
work
released.
All
of
the
contests
are
being
regenerated.
My
tests
eat
the
current
Aleph
version
and,
if
needed,
constantinople
version
is
added,
and
if
there
are
some
issues
I
will
be
fixing
those
issues.
So
I
not
really
know
how
much
time
it
will
take.
I.
D
So,
as
far
as
I
know
I
mean
hive
is
running
on,
there
are
quite
a
lot
of
failures.
I
know,
I,
think
it's
emmerich
and
peroxide
is
looking
into
it
to
their
failures
and
I'm
looking
into
white
and
guess
it's
failing
a
lot
of
creative
stuff.
I
was
not
sure
if
they
if
the
tests
were
generated
correctly,
but
as
far
as
you
know,
to
make
sure
they
are
now
correct
right.
All
the
tests
in
May
that's
triple
all.
D
D
There's
just
there
are
a
lot
of
things
of
52
failures,
forget
which
I
don't
think
everything
comes
from
that
so
I'll
have
to
dive
in
a
bit
more
about
that
regarding
first
testing.
Yes,
so
we
have
a
large
corpus
of
data
from
their
foster,
which
have
been
now
converted
into
state
tests,
and
we
will
try
to
execute
those
against
clients
that
can
do
state
tests
and
I'll
probably
check
them
into
repo
somewhere.
D
M
N
D
I
yeah
hospital:
what
exactly
do
you
mean
other
than
that?
We
also
have
a.
We
don't
have
the
Lib
fossa
running,
but
we
have
the
EDM
lab-based
posture
running,
get
the
parity,
then
there
it
is
not
switched
over
to
Constantinople
yet,
but
it's
that's
another
to
do
and
I'm
hoping
to
have
all
the
fussing
properly
roaming.
Oh,
let's
say
are
the
next
week.
A
So
all
things
considered
I
guess
let
me
see
here
so
what
we
were
trying
to
do
is
trying
to
launch
Constantinople
before
Devcon
I,
don't
know
if
that's
still
possible.
I
can
see
a
timeline
where
that
is
possible,
but
I
don't
want
to
make
it
so
that
this
is
unsafe
or
that
the
pushes
people
too
hard
to
get
certain
things
done.
A
M
E
D
D
E
C
D
A
A
E
I
mean
that
was
the
primary
one
was
basically
that
Robson's
been
allowed
round
for
a
long
time
and,
and
we
have
retired
a
test
Network
before
I've,
always
kind
of
assumed
that
we
would
retire
Rob
Stan
at
some
point
and
and
kick
off
a
new
one.
So
it
seemed
like
a
pretty
good
time
for
that,
but
they
tell
it
does
have
a
point.
I
Think
it's
it's
a
kind
of
a
balancing
act
because,
as
you
say
that
if
you,
if
you
have
a
users
on
your
test
net
and
they're
kind
of
happy,
then
they
create
a
lot
of
activities
as
Vitalik
said.
But
if
you
make
it
too
unstable,
they
will
go
away
and
then
you
won't
get
that
benefit.
So
you
have
to
kind
of
keep
the
balance
somehow
not
not
to
do
too
early
but
again
so
that
it
will
definitely
break
but
not
too
late,
so
that
you
do
lose
advantages
and.
A
If
we
were
to
do
a
new
test
that
right
now,
all
the
clients
would
need
to
update
to
support
that
new
test
net
and
then
everybody
who
wants
to
use
it
would
have
to
update
their
clients.
So
that's
not
a
bad
thing,
but
that's
just
something
where
I
don't
anticipate
that
everyone's
gonna
update
their
clients,
so
Rob
stone
for
the
time
being,
even
though
we're
not
really
supporting
it
anymore,
I
should
say
so
yeah
well
there
would
there
be
I,
guess,
there's
there's
income.
There's
issues
with
adoption
is
what
I'm
kind
of
seeing.
E
Well,
if
we're
looking
at
multiple
months
before,
we
think
that
we're
ready
for
the
test
net
hard
work
according
to
testing,
then
rolling
out
a
new
test
net
sometime
in
the
next
two
to
three
weeks
gives
us
an
extra
month
and
a
half
or
more
for
that
new
network
kind
of
spin
up
and
populate
and,
like
you
said
it
doesn't
eliminate
robson
from
from
the
table.
So
it
would
mean
that
we
could
work
on
our
new
test
network
and
then
potentially
even
work
on
robson.
A
Yeah,
that
makes
sense
so
how
much
work
is
involved
in
starting
up
a
new
test
net
I
know
I.
Think
Casey
did
a
lot
of
that
last
time,
but
I
think
he's
real
busy
with
he
was
on
and
then
something
else.
What
else
has
to
happen?
I
guess
we
just
set.
Do
we
just
set
new
parameters
and
then
just
go
get
miners
to
mine
on
it.
C
B
May
I
leave
a
comment
here.
Do
you
think
having
to
proof-of-work
chestnuts
was
beneficial
for
the
ecosystem,
because
maintaining
one
proof-of-work
test
net
is
already
like
hard
to
incentivize
to
mine
non-bio
bearing
shane,
and
now
we
be
proposed
to
have
a
second
one.
I
don't
know
if
this
is
something
we
really
want
to
do.
Yeah.
A
The
idea
isn't
that
we
would
support
both
of
them.
The
idea
is
that
we
would
tell
the
miners,
who
were
mining
on
rinkeby
or
sorry
on
Rob
stone
to
move
to
the
new
tests
net
would
be
the
idea
we're
just
saying
that,
as
far
as
adoption
goes,
miners
might
not
do
that
immediately.
So
Rob
stone
will
upon
I.
B
E
A
E
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
K
K
Yeah
yeah,
it
seems
like
completely
as
stables
so
far
so
like
we
could.
Probably
we
would
probably
have
one
three
months
of
safety
and,
like
we
even
more
like
if
you
notice
what
happened
before
Byzantium
right,
like
the
amount
of
time
it
took
before
it
started,
even
showing
up
on
the
charts
and
then
Simon
got
to
30
is
half
a
year
and
right
now,
it's
like
not
really
even
showing
up
on
the
charts.
So
oh
no.
K
A
Okay,
that's
great,
so
I
think
we
can
move
on
to
other
agenda
items
unless
there's
anything
else
here
and
then
I'm
also
seeing
kind
of
in
some
emails
and
chats
that
people
kind
of
want
to
join
to
champion
semi,
IPs
and
I.
Don't
really
want
to
bring
anyone
else
into
chat
today
until
the
developers
had
more
time
to
look
at
some
of
the
last-minute
agenda
items
for
next
time.
A
A
A
So,
let's
see,
can
we
do
it
before
Def
Con,
we're
saying?
No.
So
that's
the
end
of
agenda
item
four.
So
now
that
we
have
just
a
little
bit
of
time,
let's
go
ahead
and
run
through
five,
six
and
seven,
but
we're
not
gonna
go
into
much
depth
on
them
until
we've
had
more
time
to
look
them
over,
so
one
of
them
has
reduced
gas
cost
on
the
call
for
to
self.
This
was
acts
ik
talking
about
reducing
the
gas
cost
for
the
call
instruction
so
Alex.
J
It
puts
a
lot
of
the
work
on
the
compiler
and
with
calls
there
is
no
issue
regarding
memory
safety.
So
the
proposal
is
that
for
any
kind
of
call,
so
not
just
call,
but
then
I
get
phone
instead
of
coal.
If
it
goes
to
the
very
same
contract
it
originates
from,
and
then
we
charge
less
and
now,
there's
a
lot
of
motivation
described
there,
but
the
main
question,
at
least
from
our
side
from
is
what
would
be
a
rational
gas
cost.
J
So
the
proposal
right
now
suggests
just
to
go
back
to
whatever
it
was
before
spurious
Dragon,
which
I
think
what's
40
and
keep
700
for
any
other
case.
But
that
assumes
that
the
spurious
dragon
increase
was
really
attributed
to
the
IO
cost.
And
what
we're
saving
here
is
the
IO
cost.
But
we
still-
and
the
client
once
still
needs
to
create
a
new
context,
but
the
IO
cost
is
saved.
K
And
I,
so
I
personally,
would
buy
the
adjust,
incidentally,
favor
Viper,
not
doing
luck
not
switching
to
junks,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
this
gets
implemented
because,
like
I,
feel
there's
value
in
having
a
language
which
kind
of
value
simplicity,
even
at
the
cost
of
optimality.
In
some
cases,
but
like
in
general,
like
it
does
like.
It
does
seem
to
me
like
having
like
the
whole
idea
that
you
have
languages.
That
means
we're
kind
of
calling
yourself
and
calling
like
we're.
K
K
J
J
There
is
a
matter
proposal
yet
to
be
written
up,
which
resulted
from
this
proposal.
Have
we
had
a
discussion
within
the
solid?
Is
the
team,
and
it
was
suggested
by
Chris
that
eventually,
we
could
propose
a
way
similar
to
the
and
that
s
door
metering
and
that
there
would
be
a
map
of
loaded
contracts
originating
from
a
single
contract,
and
we
there
wouldn't
be
an
extra
charge
for
for
loading,
an
already
loaded
contract
and
the
context.
J
This
would
be
beneficial,
is
doing
a
lot
of
library,
calls
to
the
same
library
and
by
library,
I
mean
a
solid
library,
which
is
a
contract
to
be
called
the
delegate
call.
But
this
this
proposal
is
yet
to
be
written
and
you
have
to
be
designed.
I
just
wanted
to
put
it
onto
the
table,
because
it's
kind
of
like
the
same
same
direction.
E
A
Okay,
so
we're
not
putting
any
more
AIPS
into
Constantinople,
so
it
sounds
like
these
changes
would
have
to
go
into
the
next
fork
afterwards
called
Istanbul,
so
I
I,
guess
yeah.
So
when
we're
talking
about
it
right
now,
it's
more
I
guess
talking
about
much
in
the
future.
Implementing
this
kind
of
stuff.
A
D
L
L
To
comment
I
think
it
is
healthy
to
like
have
at
this
point
in
this
process,
have
new
ID
IPS
that
might
go
into
the
future
fork
just
start
starting
to
be
discussed
so
that
we
even
have
a
little
bit
of
momentum
and
can
really
get
excited
about
a
fork
in
eight
months,
so
I'm
I'm.
You
know
it's
disappointing
that
we
have
cool
a
IPS
that
we
can't
include
right
now,
but
I
think
it's
a
positive
thing
to
be,
considering
that
at
this
point,
yeah.
A
The
next
one
is
e,
IP
1108
reduce
all
be
in
128
pre-compile
gas
cost,
so
that
would
actually
I
believe
Martin
responded
to
this
in
a
threat
I
saw,
but
basically
this
would
because
the
go
reference.
Implementation
had
significant
performance
gains
for
EC
and
EC
mole
and
paring
check
precompiled
contracts
on
that
elliptic
curve.
That
should
be
reflected
in
reduced
gas
prices,
but
I
think
there
was
like
some
issue
where
those
performance
gains
were
not
for
other
clients.
D
We
didn't
I,
think
we've
kind
of
dropped
the
ball
on
that
we
might
have
been
able
to
make
it
small
reduction
for
Constantinople,
but
I
think
that
we
can
do
a
larger
reduction.
The
next
hard
fork,
with
some
more
work
on
the
other
clients.
Well,
on
parity,
it
is
possible
to
find
a
good
rough
slip
with
which
has
all
the
optimization
stuff.
D
A
A
This
is
just
to
make
sure
we
have
all
the
information
we
need
if
we
decide
to
do
that-
and
this
was
kind
of
part
of
the
I
guess
part
of
the
package
deal
in
my
opinion,
with
lowering
the
issuance
because
miners
cared
more
about
taking
Asics
off
the
network.
So
for
us
to
consider
that
and
then
have
to
have
the
issuance
reduction
I
think
was
a
good
combination,
so
the
biggest
the
number
one
thing
I
can
see
with
this.
A
A
So
can
I
hear
any
opinions
if
anyone
has
it
on
what,
because
we
we
had
the
miners
on
a
few
meetings
ago,
but
we
didn't
really
go
into
much
detail
about
whether
or
not
it's
an
actual
threat
to
the
security
of
the
network
to
have
a
six
on
there
or,
if
there's
centralization
risk
in
that
stuff.
So
anyone
who
has
an
opinion
that'd
be
great.
A
A
You
know
such
as
just
average
users,
DAP
users
developers
other
people
like
that.
So
we
might
just
have
to
continue
this
conversation
just
to
make
it
clear.
Prog,
POW
or
any
other
change
to
the
proof-of-work
algorithm
would
not
take
place
until
after
Constantinople
so
likely,
eight
months
from
then,
and
then
it's
arguable,
if
that
would
even
have
a
major
effect
on
the
centralization
of
the
network.
Until
then
I
know
people
have
said
other
opinions
in
the
past
about
how
it's
not
a
centralization
risk
but
I
think
that's
still
up
in
the
air
to
be
discussed.
L
Think
a
six,
the
discussion
or
a
six
if
we
were
not
intending
to
decrypt
mistake,
I
think
he'd
probably
be
argued
as
a
centralization
risk
if
it
went
the
way
of
the
nameless,
Bitcoin
and
other
kind
of
networks.
But
this
conversation
is
always
in
the
context
of
moving
to
proof
of
stake
and
I'm,
hoping
by
the
by
the
time
we're
discussing
next
work.
We
have
some
exciting
developments
on
the
side
of
the
deccan
chain
of
proof,
mistake
and
I
can
maybe
put
the
conversation
in
contact
a
little
more
in
context.
A
Okay,
that
sounds
good,
so
it
sounds
like
there's
no
reason
to
commit
to
anything,
especially
today,
but
you
know
until
after
Constantinople
and
even
then
this
will
be
in
the
context
of
how
fast
proof
of
State
can
get
there,
because
if
it's
gonna
happen
shortly
after
a
stand,
bull
or
not
even
shortly,
but
just
in
enough
time
where
we
would
only
be
obsoleting
the
Asics
for
a
few
months
or
half
a
year
or
something,
then
that
would
definitely
be
a
different
story.
Right.
A
Also,
we
coined
a
new
term
while
me
and
Lane,
and
a
few
other
people
were
at
F
/
Len
during
a
governance
panel.
There's
something
called
consensus
by
Hudson
now
where
when
no
one
gives
a
comment,
I
start
rattling
off
and
basically
I.
Hopefully
don't
steer
the
network
in
the
wrong
direction,
but
I
just
start
giving
my
opinion
so
I
feel
like
that's.
What
just
happened
and
I
find
that
hilarious.
So.
A
I'm,
looking
forward
to
these
meetings
being
shorter
and
shorter
as
we
go
on
and
we're
just
doing
mostly
client
updates
and
some
VIP
discussions,
so
we
don't
have
to
go
an
hour
and
a
half
each
time.
So
this
time
we
only
want
an
hour
which
I'm
excited
about,
and
we
will
see
you
all
in
two
weeks
for
the
next
meeting
bye.
Everybody.