►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #13 [4/7/17]
A
D
A
A
D
A
A
A
Said
like
the
normal
hangouts,
the
reason
for
se
using
that
is
that
there's
a
with
when
I
start
a
hangout
from
the
etherium
a
foundation
like
an
etherion
org
account.
It
allows
like
up
to
25
people
and
that's
the
only
like
free
solution
for
video
conferencing
that
I
found
I.
Don't
think
you
can
do
that
on.
Hangouts
live
but
I'll
look
into
that,
because
that
would
be
interesting
because
then
we
can
have
these
like
live
with
the
community
and
stuff.
Okay.
A
I
said:
be
cool:
hey
Casey.
Can
he
hear
us
yeah
I,
hear
you
awesome?
Ok,
so
I
think
we
have
pretty
much
everyone
who's
going
to
be
here.
So,
let's
get
started.
Let
me
pull
up
the
notes,
cool,
so
agenda.
Item
number
one
is
the
resolution
from
last
week,
when
we
were
talking
about
static,
Hall,
Pierre
call
revert,
opcode,
dynamic
return
and
all
that
stuff
and
the
parties
who
are
interested
are
in
a
skype.
A
Conversation
that's
been
going
on
for
the
last
three
weeks
and
it
looks
like
what
we're
going
for
I'm
going
to
say
this
and
I'm
going
to
have
Christian
and
Alex
and
a
few
other
people
correct
me
I.
Think
we're
going
with
returned
data,
copy,
/,
size
and
static
call,
but
not
peer
call.
Is
that
correct.
A
I,
they
also
have
preferred
o'er
avert
yep.
That's
right
server,
it's
going
into
yeah!
This
is
more
to
decide
which
ones
which
eip
czar
going
to
be
said
to
be
going
into
metropolis
and
which
ones
can
be
in
which
a
ip's
can
be
put
in
the
status
of
superseded
or
withdraw
so
I'll
be
handling
that
or
casey,
and
I
both
will
be
changing
those
statuses
later.
A
Okay,
so
is
there
any
other
comments
on
that
right
now,
or
is
that
one
of
those
that
can
be
fleshed
out
a
little
bit
more
in
the
e
ip's?
I
think
a
lot
of
that's
already
there
there's
just
some
little
things.
People
were
having
questions
about
I.
Think
Nick
brought
up
something
with
Oh,
something
with
called
that
in
Metropolis,
but
I
don't
know
if
thats
related
to
it.
C
A
Yes,
so
the
on
the
skype
chat.
What
yeah,
but
I,
basically
asked
for
a
summary,
because
there
had
been
the
message
you're
referring
to
is
the
one
Vitalik
sent
like
about
within
the
last
10
hours,
and
I
basically
asked
for
a
summary
and
the
reason
Vitalik
was
giving
his
opinion
was.
He
wasn't
going
to
be
here
this
morning,
he's
like
doing
a
talk
or
something,
and
neither
is
Jeff.
So
what
I
got
from
that
was.
He
was
just
giving
a
summary.
A
A
That's
a
good
question,
know
kind
of
what
how
things
get
accepted,
because
someone
asked
that
recently
and
my
view
on
it,
because
it's
still
kind
of
organic
is
that
the
people
who
care
about
it
if
they
come
to
a
decision
on
it
and
their
stakeholders
and
either
the
change
or
the.
I
guess,
intelligence
required
to
make
the
decision
on
the
change
that
whenever
they
kind
of
come
to
agreement,
that's
when
it
happens.
If
there's
a
stalemate,
there
can
be
other.
A
You
know
things
like
signaling
methods,
like
you
know,
carbon
vote
or
other
things
going
on
that
can
indicate
you
know
breaking
a
stalemate
if
it's
like
a
big
community
decision
or
other
things,
we're
developing
so
yeah,
it's
it's
kind
of
just
case-by-case
basis,
but
this
is
like
a
super
nerdy
like
high
level
thing.
I
was
just
like
these
six
people
probably
know
what
they're
talking
about.
B
C
A
Think
Nick's
joining
in
can
maybe
shed
some
light
on
that.
But
let's
do
this:
let's
go
to
item
number
two
and
then
go
back
to
item
number
one
because
item
number
two
short
and
you
just
an
update
and
then
yell
then
we'll
go
back
to
item
number
one
with
some
more
detail
from
Christians
question.
So
yeah
Peter,
if
you
could
just
run
through
just
a
quick
update
of
click
and
wrinkly,
what.
F
I'm
sure
thing
so
as
last
time
kind
of
agree
that,
because
there
seems
to
be
a
good
approach
to
make
a
simple
enough
proof
of
authority
chain
that
we
can
make
a
basic
internet
cross
client.
So
since
then,
one
of
the
things
one
of
the
problems
with
deploying
ring
be
or
destroyed
a
fiscal
and
current
is
that
it's
a
kind
of
a
huge
hassle
and
one
of
the
things
that
we.
So
it
means
a
sapphic,
because
whatever
those
are
kind
of
needed
to
do.
F
So
since
then,
basically,
we've
been
working
on
a
small
tool
to
actually
help
deploy
these
private
networks,
including
ring
beep,
and
actually
we
all
scream,
planted
a
pasta
dish
on
a
light,
client
and
github
authenticated
faucet,
so
that
anyone
with
a
github
account
and
request
fund
and
with
that
I
think
more
or
less
the
cliq
can
during
the
work
from
the
Gaussian
themes,
perspective
is
kind
of
ready,
I,
mostly
writing
up
some
tests.
I
found
some
corner
cases.
I
added
the
documentation
to
the
eip
and
and
just
for
the
reference.
F
We
are
kind
of
planning
to
release
the
next
version
of
gaussian
next
week,
and
we
figured
that
saying
that
hey
this
version
contains
ring
b,
and
this
is
the
new
testament
and
whatever
that
might
be
a
bit
pushing
it
since,
since
the
whole
thing
never
went
through
a
proper
field
test,
so
we're
aiming
to
do
this
kind
of
an
Olympic
version
referring
to
be
so.
Basically,
we
provide
all
the
divider
guide,
how
you
have
unwanted
connect
to
it
and
they
can
play
with
the
faucet
play
with
the
sinus
page
with
whatever.
F
And
then,
if
things
go
according
to
plan-
and
we
can
say
that
okay,
this
remain
during
this,
whereas
if
something
blows
up
there
at
least
to
have
a
smaller,
somewhat
disclaimer
that
yeah,
meaning
that
since
Cassie's
the
only
foundation,
there
might
be
some
unforeseen
issues.
This
would
be
really
nice
it
from
if
soonish
soon
or
later,
we
could
also
have
some
other
implantation
there
to
validate
that
our
code
is
actually
correct,
but
that's
kind
of
the
status.
A
B
A
B
A
A
It's
just
moving
it
literally
from
the
issue
section
to
the
pr
section
and
then
having
some
of
the
editors
just
check
it
over
one
more
time
before
we
approve
it,
since
there
hasn't
really
been
anyone
from
the
community
who
says
it
shouldn't
go
through,
and
any
stakeholders
have
said
that
you
know
it's
good
to
go.
Okay,
great,
so
on
Nick's
joined,
welcome,
Nick
and
Christian.
If
you
don't
mind
repeating
your
question,
because
I
think
Nick
had
mentioned
it
in
the
skype
chat.
B
G
B
G
G
A
A
G
A
A
Let's
see
Oh
item
number
three
is
eip.
186
I
haven't
really
looked
into
this,
but
it
seemed
to
be
getting
some
community
I
guess
some
community
hype
around
it
reduce
the
issuance
of
ether
before
proof
of
stake.
Does
anyone
have
any
comments
on
this?
There's
a
carbon
vote
for
it
going
on
that
I,
okay,
I.
D
I,
don't
really
understand
where
this
came
from.
I
saw,
fled
medium
boast
about
it
and
I
read
it,
and
my
opinion
is
that
he
he
posted
this
as
just
an
idea
out
there,
and
then
everyone
started
taking
it
really
seriously,
and
my
opinion
is
that
unless
we
have
a
very
experienced
reason
that
the
system
is
broken
and
it
should,
we
should
reduce
the
Lycians.
We
should
not
be
playing
with
it
unless
we
also
have
like
a
very
clear
out
Whitman
on
when
to
reduce
it
or
when
to
when
to
increase
it.
D
H
D
Herbal
tea,
ninety-nine
percent
for
it
it
has
a
median
feature
behind
it,
but
honestly
I'm
not
sure
how
many
people,
how
many
people
have
taken
that
seriously.
I
know
that
I
I
didn't
vote
I
mean
my
I
wasn't
exactly
thinking
it
was.
People
were
taking
that
seriously,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
I
think
carbon
vote
measures.
What
some
people
actually
understand.
I
know
some,
it
was.
He
first
appeared
during
the
dow
dow
whole.
So
that's
that's
sort
of
why
people
are
taking
that.
Okay,
yeah.
A
I
mean
so
yeah
I
agree
alex.
I
think
the
idea
behind
it
was
that,
as
proof
of
stake
gets
closer,
there's
going
to
be
reduced
incentives
for
minors,
so
there's
going
to
be
a
slower
responsiveness
in
the
system.
If
there
isn't
things
done
to
change
the
issuance
rate,
I
guess-
and
that's
just
purely
for
I
guess
purely
to
help
the
miners
you
know
have
incentive
to
continue
to
mine,
which
I
don't
see
as
a
problem.
The
second
but
I
guess
it'd
be
a
good
idea
to
at
least
have
a
plan.
A
If
that
becomes
a
problem
weight,
reducing
the
minor
reward
would
sorry
not
reducing
the
minor
or
reducing
incentives,
sorry
reducing
incentives
for
minors
and
so
as
to
facilitate
the
adaption
to
the
POS
hard
fork.
So
it
says
see
so
yeah.
Basically,
you
actually
know
what
I
to
forget
everything
I
just
said:
I,
don't
understand
what
186
is
about
I.
G
A
G
G
D
So
if
this
proves
the
fridge
form
from
of
words
happened
one
year
after
faster
metropolis,
let's
say
that
if,
let's
say
it
happens
in
2018
or
one
year
and
a
half
after
that,
does
it
make
such
a
big
difference
on
them
I,
but
I
I
feel
it
wouldn't
make
such
a
big
difference
on
the
amount
of
whatever
the
miners
get.
So
that's
why
I'm
saying
it's
it's
making
something
that
it
might
make
this
this
hard
for
commercial.
D
A
On
my
phone,
I
would
say
that
the
people
who
are
very
interested
in
it
are
ones
from
a
side
of
the
etherium
developer
community
that
deals
with
a
lot
of
the
I
guess
economic
policy
and
thought
so.
Researchers
and
a
lot
of
the
researchers
are
in
Malta
right
now,
so
they're
not
on
the
call,
but
Alex
chimed
in
a
few
times
on
this
I
think
his
opinion
was
kind
of.
A
This
probably
doesn't
need
to
happen
right
now,
but
and
don't
quote
me
on
the
sunny
to
look
it
up
again,
but
last
I
read
it
was
something
like
if
there's
enough
community
support
it's
worth
considering,
but
otherwise
he
didn't
really
see
the
need
for
it.
This
second
was
last
I
read
so
yeah
sounds
like
I
mean
yeah.
This
isn't
going
to
be
decided
in
this
call,
but
I
think
the
things
I
wanted
to
get
out
was
if
there
was
anybody
who
had
initial
thoughts,
so
thanks
Alex
and
Nick
and
everyone.
A
C
I
C
F
C
A
You're
talking
more
from
a
so
it's
more
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things.
Is
it
better
to
implement
this
based
on
some
possibilities
that
we're
not
sure
yet
but
then
face
the
backlash
of
a
more
controversial,
hard
fork
and
a
lot
of
the
you
know,
complications
that
come
from
putting
controversial
things
in
a
hard
fork
and
maybe
even
setting
a
precedence
of
changing
a
lot
of
the
core
economic
things.
Just
based
off
of
you
know
on
or
people
would
look
at
it
as
changing
these
core
economic
things
on
a
whim.
A
That's
a
little
bit
more
so,
but
the
balance
there
is
that
if
it's
not
changed,
then
the
block
times
would
get
would
eventually
get
to
the
point
where
they
would
be
interfering
with
normal.
You
know
people's
work
with
athyrium,
something
like
this
isn't
going
to
change
how
transactions
go
through
the.
D
Ice
age
was
never
meant
to
be
taken
into
production
in
the
count,
but
they
actually
have
always
been
a
deterrent
for
support.
People
never
took
it
seriously
that
we
wanted
to
have
yet
like
this
isn't
working
during
the
Ice
Age.
The
whole
point
of
the
Ice
Age
was
always
at
this
point.
We
will
need
to
do
a
or
otherwise
the
signal
stops.
Otherwise
I
mean
we.
D
We
are
not
normally
series
into
thinking
that
situation
supposed
to
have
a
10
minutes,
lock
time
in
the
future
that
sort
of
the
Riddler,
so
the
Ice
Age,
have
always
been.
We
need
to
do
a
fourth
by
this
time
and
I
mean
the
idea.
Was
it
proof?
Proof
of
stake
would
be
ready
by
the
end,
but
then
then
it's
not
so
I
think
conquering
the
economic
policy
of
the
isolation
should
not
really
count
and
my
relief.
D
My
real
fear
is
that
it
seems
that
we
are
taking
something
that
weather
isn't
even
my
something
that
community
ones
and
if
we
are
sort
of
creating
a
discussion
and
I'm
given
official
status
of
it,
because
simply
people
are
asking.
So,
oh
so
you
want
that
I,
don't
know
you
want
that
I
thought
and
it
sort
of
creates
this
faith
community
support
where
I
even
really
see
any,
but
maybe
I'm
wrong.
Yeah.
H
A
Effects
super
obvious
that,
like
the
people
in
this
call
haven't
even
looked
like
looked,
herb,
haven't
been
following
it
as
closely
as
people
in
the
community,
so
that's
the
other
theory
Martin
that
is
good
and
alex.
I
would
say
that
there
are
issues
like
that.
This
one
in
particular
the
eip-
has
been
there
since,
like
december
or
earlier
so
well
before
the
price
increase
in
well
before
they're
in
my
opinion,
would
have
been
incentive
for
something
like
this
to
come
from,
like
a
minor
some
one
else,
and
the
Ice
Age
was
ice.
A
Age
was
brought
sooner
because
in
part
because
of
the
price
increase
or
as
a
side
effect
of
the
price
increase,
so
I
think
that
the
intentions
behind
it
or
good.
So
it's
good
to
talk
about,
and
if
it
comes
down
to
you
know
the
clients
not
wanting
to
implement
it
or
people.
You
know
broadly
deciding
not
to
that's
good.
If
there's
a
huge
community
push,
we
can
come
back
and
address
this.
It
will
bring
this
up
next
meeting.
F
D
F
F
A
E
A
Now
I
agree
with
you
on
that
I'm
talking
about
Peter,
saying
the
two
hard
Forks
thing:
I
think
that
the
pausing
of
the
ice
age
would
be
a
single,
hard
fork.
I
think
it's
been
discussed
before
so
there's
there
shouldn't
be
complications
unless
I'm
wrong,
but
yeah
only
on
your
point,
Paolo
I
yeah,
that
that
would
be
something
that
would
have
to
be
in
the
metropolis
fork
for
it
to
take
effect.
You
know
after
the
Ice
Age
is
paused.
It.
D
A
And
my
understanding
one
was
that
as
we
got
closer
and
we
got
updates
from
the
research,
the
etherium
research
community,
about
where
they
were
on
proof
of
stake,
which
the
last
like
a
headline
I
saw
was
the
talak
at
some
meeting,
saying
they're,
like
75
percent
done,
but
I
mean
that
was
just
a
headline.
I
saw
so
no
idea
by
then
we'll
know
kind
of
what
it
should
be
paused
to
to
give
us
some
breathing
room.
D
One
not
thing
about
this:
the
IEP
it
the
first
paragraph
about
the
ID
is
throwing
terms
like
price
supportive
and
increase
investments.
So
I
think
it's
very
obvious
from
that
I
from
the
fact
that
you're
discussing
it
now
a
surprising
quiz
that
this
is
more
about
price
than
the
technical
reasons,
and
therefore
we
should
not
be
even
like
considering
it.
So
that's
my
opinion.
Oh.
A
D
A
D
A
A
Interesting
well,
I
mean
to
be
fair,
though,
when
you
have
any
IP
and
you
enter
it
as
an
issue.
It
doesn't
need
to
be
technical.
It
can
just
be
a
spirit
of
you
know
what
change
you
want
to
happen,
but
it's
definitely
something
we're
something
that
is
more
technically
sound
is
going
to
be
viewed
or
not
technically
sound,
I
should
say,
but
more
technically
written
rather
than
written
on.
The
terms
of
economics
is
going
to
be
easier
for
us
to
read
first
so
yeah.
A
In
this
call
great
so
Arcady,
Frankie
and
Martin
busy
welcome
so
Christian
had
a
question
on
AI
pee
211
about
extending
memory
and
arcady
I
saw
you
posted
a
comment
in
there.
Sorry
for
putting
the
wrong
time.
I
got
my
time
zones
mixed
up,
so
thanks
everyone
for
being
flexible
with
that
so
arcady.
If
you
could
expand
on
what
you
commented
at
the
end
of
211,
just
to
kind
of
give
your
perspective
on
why
this
is
a
mushy
be
done.
K
B
K
J
A
G
A
All
right
great,
so
we've
gone
through
if
we've
gone
through,
that
we've
gone
through
186.
So
the
last
item
is
and
then
any
other
items
people
want
to
add
after
that.
But
the
last
item
on
the
agenda
is
metropolis
updates.
So,
let's
just
start
with
parody
Arkadiy.
If
you
could
give
us
an
update
on
where
parodies
at
implementing
those-
and
then
also
you
know-
actually,
let's
not
do
that-
let's
start
with
Dmitry
Dmitry.
C
So,
to
make
that
button,
it
would
be
really
helpful
if
/
aap,
that
yeah
and
when
they
consider
to
be
implemented
for
sure.
So
this
thing
ap
should
be
a
market
of
laga
to
be
some
label
on
github.
So
I
could
other
business
center
and
see
an
initiate
peace
already
considered
valid,
because
right
now,
I
see
lots
of
VIPs
and
many
different
version
of
the
same
eid
may
look
kind
of
yeah.
A
I
hear
you
on
that.
So
if
you
go
to
the
readme
page,
we
have
something
called
except
to
the
ip's
chart
and
eip
is
under
consideration
and
that's
going
to
be
cleaned
up
after
this
call,
because
the
eip
is
under
consider
asian
are
going
to
be
consolidated
or
the
status
has
changed
to
show
the
latest
data,
but
Casey
and
I
also
talked
about
last
time
having
a
column
for
which
I
guess.
If
it's
going
to
go
into
metropolis
or
if
it's
just
accept
a
TI
p
just
but
non
hard
fork
change
eip.
A
C
C
E
A
C
Yeah
my
book
as
well
and
then
as
for
the
implementation
theology
did
ravel
cord
and
the
test
of
that
I
will
be
ready
and
I
saw
that
some
client
started
sentiment.
General
status,
it's
now
optional
and
if
you
want
to
be
updated,
the
resin
test
and
you'll
probably
want
them
to
them.
General
specters
and
as
test
will
be
completed.
C
I
will
convert
all
of
the
generals
papers
into
an
ordinary
bloke
in
bed
like
already
beat
for
the
river
top
quarters
and
then
I
guess
Martin's
render
he
will
be
running
those
watching
tests
on
the
hive
and
can
we
climb
that
implemented?
This
LPC
protocol
of
important
books
will
be
tested
to
hive
yeah,
but
not
every
test.
You
recognize
it
selects
yep
and
then
general
status
most
updated.
One.
A
C
Then
transaction
test
and
laid
down
halfway
and
we
have
two
different
selection
test.
One
of
them
will
be
implemented
in
status
for
state
transition
on
with
the
middle
signature
transaction
and
the
other
tests
just
checking
transaction
I
feel
and
that
one
already
been
updated
to
them
yeah
and
one
or
more
dates.
And
now
we
using
this
branch
on
the
test.
Repository
and
a
very
particular
changes
will
be
implemented
in
a
separate
branch
and
had
like
the
post
link
to
web
to
this
and
the
of
the
metropolis
test.
A
Alright
awesome
yeah.
That
sounds
really
well
organized
and
was
going
to
be
really
helpful
for
for
doing
all
this
stuff.
Okay,
great
yeah
I
see
you
posted
the
link
so
we'll
get
that
distributed
to
the
different
clients.
I'll
try
to
make
sure
everyone
gets
that,
and
I
mean
everyone
in
all
core
deaths
channel
should
get
it
anyway.
Anyone
have
questions
for
Dmitri
any
of
the
client
deaths.
A
A
Great
and
we're
getting
that
cleared
up
real
soon.
We've
made
a
lot
of
that.
Those
decisions
earlier
today
for
the
return
data
size
and
that
kind
of
stuff,
except
for
some
of
the
nuance
or
the
minor
things
within
the,
but
we
at
least
know
which
he
I,
peas
are
going
in
and
which
ones
aren't
and
then,
let's
see
a
C++.
C
C
F
So
basically
just
started
working
on
the
metropolis
son.
Like
you,
he
kind
of
feeling
too
good
in
the
last
few
weeks.
So
as
far
as
I
know,
he
did
some
work.
He
pushed
some
peers,
but
I
cannot
be
I,
don't
know
exactly
where
his
act.
The
rest
of
the
team
was
mostly
be
preparing
the
next
release.
So
we
didn't
work
on
the
PRS
ourselves.
I
mean
the
Yankees
ourselves.
Okay,.
A
Actually
I
just
saw
a
skype
message
from
him
earlier
I
just
remembered
that
said,
they're
pretty
much
all
done
on
the
gas
and
except
for,
like
like
arcady,
mentioned
the
ones
that
aren't
necessarily
finalized
or
like
officially
like
we
know
they're,
officially
going
in
or
not
so,
okay
cool
and
then
finally,
there
any
other
clients
in
here
Conrad.
Are
you
still
working
on
pie
athyrium,
or
are
you
primarily
with
a
different
group.
A
D
A
Python,
oh
ok,
great
yeah,
currently
mostly
concerned
with
getting
back
to
main
chain.
Okay,
sounds
great
cool
I,
think
that
covers
all
the
clients
so
yeah
as
far
as
overall
metropolis
goes,
I.
Think
and
I
just
want
to
hear
some
opinions
on
this
I
think
by
next
I'll
core
dev
meeting.
We
should
be
pretty
much
giving
like
the
final
final
on
what
VIPs
are
going
in
or
not
just
so
that
we
can
start
hammering
down
on
tests,
or
maybe
it's
still
too
early
to
do
that.
A
Yeah,
because
if
we
were
shooting
for
something
like
end
of
June,
which
has
been
talked
about
before,
that's
going
to
be
how
many
months
away-
oh
wow,
yeah,
that's
like
basically
three
months
away,
a
little
less
than
that
so
yeah.
And
if
we're
going
to
do
the
test
end
stuff,
we
should
probably
have
things
kind
of.
A
A
A
A
A
Christian
just
cuz
I
know
you've
worked
on
or
white
men.
She
talked
on
many
of
the
e
ip's.
Do
you
think
that,
and
we're
pretty
much
at
a
point
where,
by
next
I'll,
core
dev
meeting,
we
can
say
no
mori
IPS
are
going
in
for
metro,
so
we
can
kind
of
put
like
a
hard
stop
kind
of
finalize
the
specs
behind
them
and
get
test
them.
I.
B
A
F
A
A
F
Just
one
to
comment,
I
think
we've
discussed
so
super
that
could
not
making
work,
trying
to
figure
out
well
on
the
rough
just
laid
around
with
the
spots
of
how
we
could
sort
out
the
transaction
propagation
stuff.
Basically
allow
propagating
and
cheap
transactions
that
may
or
may
not
be
ever
mind
and
proposal
that
we
had
quite
a
long
time
ago
came
up
again
that
one
of
the
issues
currently
with
the
transaction
is
that
basically
their
lifetime
is
infinite.
F
F
Last
year
there
was,
the
Bitcoin
network
was
found
lacking
the
work
transactions
which
lingered
in
the
network
for
more
than
eight
months,
and
it
would
be
nice
if
we
could
so
propagating
cheap
transactions
would
probably
be
much
much
thinner
if
we
could
say
that
transaction
has
a
limited
lifetime,
so
I'm
not
sure
whether
anyone
is
wants
to
do
such
an
EIP
if
I
think
there's
at
least
some
opening
from
the
current
one
Affairs
perspective
together
on
the
IP.
Does
this
kind
of
state
that
the
transaction
could
specify
that
the
elephant?
F
G
I
think
it's
an
excellent
idea
and
I
think
I
think
we
could
probably
make
see,
have
them
as
a
lot
higher
than
the
sales,
but
I
think
the
idea
was
good,
but
transactions
should
have
a
either
time
safety
over
Ibaka.
This
yield
and
babe,
which
they
should
expire,
and
we
limit
our
fire
in
the
future.
They
could
be
India.
F
The
other
added
benefit
is
for
for
users,
for
example,
if,
if
I
have
to
create
a
transaction
that
that
I
want
to
be
processed
right
now,
because
for
me
it's
important
that
it's
either
process
right
now.
It's
our
process
level
that
I
could
say
that.
Okay,
the
lifetime
is
maybe
five
blocks
and
if
it's
not
included
in
five
blocks
down,
okay
I,
don't
care
don't
get
it
included
this
kind
of
many
times
so
otherwise
we
had
in
the
past.
F
We
had
this
issue
that
someone,
it
wrote
the
script
which
they
stood
up
the
script
and
they
sent
hundreds
of
transactions,
basically
with
the
incrementing,
not
just
to
send
their
funds
to
wherever
and
then
every
time
their
account
that
the
funds
it
was
sent
out
wherever
because
in
the
network,
the
transaction
to
be
lingering
some
Q
and
they
got,
did
get
executed.
If
it
also
helped
solve
these
kind
of
issues
were
very
integrated
transaction.
It's
not
included
in
a
limited
amount
of
time.
Then
you
go
get
the
writing
online
yeah.
G
A
B
Think
we're
talking
about
different
things,
so
Conrad
I
think
it
was
Conrad
made
in
the
AP,
which
was
mainly
targeted,
ad
replay
protection.
If
I
remember
correctly,
the
idea
there
was
that
you
specify
a
block
hash
and
the
transaction
can
only
be
included.
Is
the
the
block
hashes,
a
parent
of
the
of
the
block
of
the
block
with
that
hash
is
a
parent
of
the
block
and
it's
not
too
old
kind
of.
G
F
F
A
Yeah,
in
fact,
Nick,
could
you
work
with
Conrad
on
that,
because
it
sounds
like
Conrad
had
some
good
initial
thoughts
on
that
and
then
he's
super
anchor.
He
really
wants
to
talk,
but
he's
microphone
doesn't
work.
So
if
we
have
an
EIP
on
that
either
before
next
I'll
coordinate
meeting
or
the
one
after
that-
and
we
can
talk
about
it-
that
that
would
be
really
cool
sounds.
A
A
F
Yeah,
so
the
only
issue
is
that
so
so
they
are,
the
issue
was
that
the
you
read
acts.
Basically,
these
are
provided
some
input
and
you
read
past
that
input.
However,
for
example,
is
the
contract
if
I
write
a
contract
that
requires
that
has
five
input
variables
and
certain
code
paths
only
use
the
first
four
then
I
might
get
still
the
same
effect
of
shifted
interpretation.
Yes,
it.
G
A
G
G
The
reason
it
does
it
is
a
compiler
optimization
is,
it
seems
too
did
the
goal
is
read
out
all
of
the
core
data,
except
for
the
signature
of
function,
signature
at
the
beginning-
and
it
lazily
does
this
by
reading
from
four
to
call
data
links
where,
as
it
should
read
from
four
to
call
datalink
minus
four,
it's
doing
this
to
skip
the
miners,
get
the
subtraction
which
of
these
isn't
necessary.
So
as
far
as
I
know,
though,
that's
the
only
thing
currently,
that's
relying
on
the
ability
to
read:
zeros,
ok,.
G
G
B
G
B
B
G
G
It
does
I
mean
I
would
argue
that
code
copy
should
also
should
also
say
this
error
may
go
I
guess
the
thing
is
a
memory.
I
think
I
would
argue,
is
a
different
base
because
it's
rideable,
but
in
the
case
of
input,
provision
sort
of
fighting
array
and
put
random
I,
don't
think
we
should
assume
with
the
estimate
in
zeros,
because
I
don't
think
aside
from
like
a
trivial
compiler
optimization,
there
is
any
legitimate
reason
to
try
and
leap
at
the
end
of
the
array.
I
think
it
almost
always
indicates
mirror
I.
G
So
I
think
I
think
the
idea
of
changing
existing
stuff
needs
to
go
in
the
VIP,
but
I
think
that
a
proposal
to
make
return
data
copy
error
can
be
an
amendment.
A
peregrine
like.
I
would
argue
that
Eden
just
like
being
consistently.
This
is
a
rule,
was
worth
enforcing
in
futures
and
if
we're
unable
to
grandfather
a
pre-existing
opcode.
G
A
A
C
Can
I
add
one
more
comment
for
that
sure
because
I
think,
like
a
contract,
ABI,
44
method
without
arguments,
you
have
like
four
bytes
for
for
the
metal,
tidy
and
I.
Think
here
will
I
on
that
that
we
can
load
actually
further
two
bites
on
the
stack
lying
on
that
the
rest
would
be
suitable
deals.
Yes,.
G
I
agree
and
I
think
that
getting
changed
with
his
like
that
Cole
data.
What
is
the
first,
if
you
want
to
change
a
single
word,
only
areas
if
you
think
to
if
the
entire
extincted
asking
to
be
right,
because
yes,
otherwise
it
would
make
fishing
the
function,
call,
ID
and
so
on.
To
the
fair
can
possible
exit
bio-memory.
E
E
G
A
It
actually
this
this
is
good
to
have
historical
context
on
this.
What's
the
general
approach,
when
we
come
up
in
the
system
was
something
like
this:
do
we
fail
hard
generally
or
is
that
something
that
was
a
design
decision
early
on
for
these
type
of
things?
Are
these
type
of
air,
not
errors,
I,
can't
think
of
the
words
to.
G
G
B
G
I
think
that
if
we
can
demonstrate
that
all
historical
transactions,
you
know,
there's
a
person
has
the
most
effect
and
I
think
it
was
the
risk
of
breaking
things.
I.
Think
if
we
find
the
word,
you
know
the
break
a
lot
of
historical
connections
in
a
different
measure
ionized,
except
for
returned
out
a
copy,
it's
worth
being
inconsistent
with
prior
stuff
favor
of
doing
the
right
thing.
M
M
G
G
Through
you
concerned
or
not,
I
personally
are
not
overly
concerned
because
I
think
that
breaking
contracts
or
potentially
breaking
contract
for
used
to
work
as
an
inevitable
consequence
or
a
lot
of
mud
bogs,
Michael
Gary
pricing,
for
instance,
so
I
think
we
need
to
be
cautious
but
I'd
like
to
see
them
as
a
potential
for
breaking
things.
Oh,
you
know
for
an
attack
at
being
able
to
cause
headaches,
because
a
contract
now
fails
at
the
nursery.