►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #25 [9/22/17]
Description
A
B
If
we
look
at
the
agenda
today,
we
see
that
the
first
one
is
subtleties
for
metropolis,
so
the
first
one
is
e,
IP,
603
EC,
add
a
seam
all
that
that's
Matthew
as
the
end,
the
call
yeah
I
think
he's
in
oh
wait.
No,
that's
a
different
Matthew!
Isn't
it
okay?
That's
the
one
we
brought
up
last
time,
so
I
think
last
time
we
talked
about
this.
This
is
about
adding
the
adding
a
different
curve
to
Constantinople
I.
Think
it
was
which
curve
trying
to
read
through
this
real
quick.
B
B
C
C
B
C
So
we
have
three
clients
from
hive:
the
one
that
we're
missing
is
well
one
of
the
ones
that
we're
missing
it
should
be.
There
is
a
ethereum,
unfortunately,
but
otherwise
that's
pretty
good,
where
Jeff
has
a
few
failures,
but
all
of
them
are
due
to
how
handling
how
empty
accounts
are
handled,
which
shouldn't
be
a
problem
in
the
future.
It's
a
retroactive
problem.
We
have
an
experiment,
experimental
branch
which
has
his
hive
fully
and
all
the
fixes
there
are
only
related
to
empty.
C
Sorry
and
collisions,
but
we
don't
really
have
to
worry
about
collisions
until
next
work,
so
yeah
I'm
parrot
it
as
well
on
how
and
to
be
as
some
errors,
but
most
of
them
are
are
not
actually
due
to
failure
to
parse
failure
to
have
the
correct
state.
It's
because
it
doesn't
exit
properly
so
have
looked
good.
B
D
C
One
more
thing
that
I'd
like
to
mention,
though
I
don't
know
me
traits
inner,
but
one
thing
that
is
lacking
from
the
tests
is
difficult:
the
tests
and
the
bittern,
which
I,
which
have
been
busy
with
that
yesterday
and
today
now
they're
pushing
you
new,
difficult,
fast
solution,
try
out
for
something
difficulty,
I,
don't
know.
If
it's,
you
might
have
to
wait
a
few
more
hours
and
there
should
be
in
the
past.
B
E
B
E
B
B
B
He
might
have
to
be
having
microphone
problems
right
now
feel
free
to
speak
up
when
your
problems
are
solved,
Casey,
but
basically
the
other
day
on
the
eighth
dev
subreddit.
They
were
talking
about
raphson
being
under
attack
and
they
pointed
to
a
they
pointed
to
a
account
that
is
publishing
a
bunch
of
transactions.
B
Here's
the
link
to
it
and
then
there's
another
link
here
about
some
things,
not
processing
correctly
I,
don't
think
it's
anything
of
too
much
concern
because
it's
a
test
net
but
I
just
want
to
hear
opinions
on
that.
If
there's
anything
that
anyone
thinks
we
should
do
in
response
to
this
on
the
test
net
I,
don't
know
why
someone
would
attack
the
test
site
except
to
I,
guess
battle
proof
it.
E
B
E
C
E
B
B
Okay,
so
the
next
one
is
well
everyone's,
pretty
much
implemented
pretty
much
everyone's
implemented,
all
the
EIP
s,
because
we've
done
the
test
net
launch,
at
least
on
Gotham
parity,
so
I'll
ask
I,
guess
for
updates
for
testing.
If
there's
any
updates
that
weren't
described
in
hive
so
Peter
are
there
any
relevant
updates
for
byzantium
and
gifts?
B
A
B
B
I
B
Okay,
yeah,
hey
you
just
let
us
know
and
chat
if
it's
working
or
not,
but
I
just
looked
at
the
the
issue
open
for
metropolis
changes
and
it
looks
like
everything's
checked
off,
including
the
open,
the
open,
e,
IP
or
I
think
it
was.
Where
was
it
I
think
it
was
a
IP
206
that
Andre
pointed
out
was
potentially
had
some
issues
and
I
think
that
was
fixed,
so
the
yellow
paper
seems
up-to-date
as
far
as
issues
in
Paul
requests
not
necessarily
merged
the
next
one.
B
B
J
B
J
Independent
things
being
we're
done,
I
am
primarily
working
on
privacy
issues
so
basically
encrypted
swarm,
because
basically,
what
we're
nearing
is
a
stage
where
something
making
the
functionality
of
Dropbox
can
be
implemented.
So
we
already
have
a
few
s
mounting,
so
swarm
volumes
can
already
be
mounted
in
the
UNIX
file
system.
As
a
that
already
works,
we
already
have
a
web-based
file
manager
like
thingy.
J
J
J
So
I
think
that
as
long
as
the
internet
remains
a
you
know,
halfway
civilized
place
that
would
that
would
be
enough,
but
as
presented
in
Berlin,
we
already
have
a
much
stronger
plausible
deniability
solution,
which
is
so
it
causes
quite
a
bit
of
overhead.
It
requires
twice
as
much
data
stored
as
as
the
plain
text,
but
that
is
unconditionally
secure
in
the
sense
that
to
any
ciphertext
you
can
find
for
any
ciphertext
and
any
key.
You
can
find
a
plaintext
a
no,
so
for
any
ciphertext
and
any
plain
text
you
can
find
the
key.
L
J
B
B
There's
rest
in
the
group
chat
that
it
that
would
work
great
cool,
so
thanks
so
much
for
that
update.
So
let's
see
what
the
next
item
is
here,
thanks
Daniel,
instead
of,
let's
see
actually
yeah.
The
next
item
is
review
timing
for
and
release.
So
the
test
net
has
been
going
well
so
far
in
regards
to
I
mean
running
smoothly.
I
think
everyone
said:
has
anyone
found
any
problems
that,
with
the
fork
at
all.
B
Alright,
so
I
think
we
can
look
at
it
in
today's
the
22nd.
The
ninth
was
a
date
we
threw
out
previously
for
the
hard
fork
to
occur.
That
would
be
in
let's
see,
14
15
17
that'd
be
about
17
days
from
now.
So
what
is
everyone's
thoughts
on
when
the
actual
hard
fork
should
happen,
and
should
we
decide
a
date
today?
Okay,.
E
So,
today,
being
this
kind
of
4.3
million
watched
series,
the
only
just
get
out
what
the
block
time
should
be.
Okay,
so
one
minute
ago
a
thousand
blocks
takes
eight
hours
and
five
and
five
minutes
so
that'll
be
at
C
twenty
eight
twenty
eight
thousand
eight
hundred
seconds
twenty-nine
thousand
one
hundred
seconds.
So
we
should
see
about
a
twenty
nine
second
block
time
right
now,
when
the
still
technically
show
it's
a
twenty
five
seconds,
because
we
just
haven't
it's
kind
of
fully
gotten
to
it
yet
but
yeah
twenty
nine!
A
E
E
I
would
pertain
I
personally,
prefer
just
being
maybe
slightly
more
conservative
and
going
for
something
like
four
points.
Three
us
us,
seven
or
so
mainly
because,
like
I
I,
do
feel
like
in
a
we're
totally
not
in
an
emergency
situation
and
see
if
you're
an
ecosystem
is
bigger
and
so
I
feel
like.
We
should
but
fear
more
towards
kind
of
standards
of
conservatism
than
we
have
with
what
was
homestead
in
the
past.
E
N
M
E
Like
the
one
thing,
I
probably
wants
to
port
personally,
see
before
I
mean
the
main
that
releases
to
basically
just
try
a
bunch
of
things
using
all
of
the
very
all
of
the
different
pre
compiles
on
mega.
On
top
of
the
Rob
stand.
Live
network
list
like
basically
send
a
bunch
of
transactions
that
I
try
to
use
every
single
I'm,
the
IP
in
different
context,
including
the
static
call
stuff,
including
make
referred
and
so
forth.
B
Okay,
so
if
that's
the
case,
we
could
do
a
little
bit
better
about
planning,
maybe
days
or
time
periods
where
the
major
clients
run.
Those
basically
send
those
transactions
that
use
the
new
features
and
see
what
happens
is
that
kind
of
what
you're
getting
at
that?
There
needs
to
be
a
little
collaboration
on
that
yeah.
E
J
N
O
E
The
other
question
I
wanted
to
ask
is
on
the
gift
side:
I
remember
in
the
1
to
8
7
released,
and
it
said
that
there
were
a
bunch
of
improvements,
so
things
like
the
generally
the
generational
cash
aspect,
various
optimizations,
that
you
wanted
to
do
and
1.7
release,
and
it
would
be
also
nice
to
have
some
of
them
have
some
of
those
out
before
byzantium
as
well.
Basically,
because
like
in
bytes
I'm
like
the
bear
box,
they
gasp
woman,
sorry,
the
the
block
time
is
going
back
down
until
the
capacity
is
like
backup.
N
Yep
I
agree
I'm,
basically
we're
kind
of
waiting
for
Nick
to
sort
out
some
issues
on
that
front,
although
I
think
was
kind
of
bit
busy
with
nowadays
with
some,
not
short,
but
that
so
his
work
in
theory
looks
solid.
The
only
issue
that
he
still
has
to
figure
out
is
to
make
it
make
sure
that
fasting
doesn't
break
because
basically
his
work
is
based
on
not
committing
every
data
to
the
database.
Justin
sporadically,
which
is
a
real
nice
performance
improvement.
But
we
need
to
ensure
that
nodes
are
still
being
note.
Still
can
sync
right.
E
I
mean
the
other
thing
I
personally
want
to
see.
It
just
is
how
much
of
an
improvement
that
gives
on
the
yama
the
2016
dos
attacks,
so
especially
the
balance
and
the
SD
XD
code,
size
stuff,
like
that's,
basically,
probably
the
best
kind
of
live
test
that
we
have
for
like
the
kinds
of
things
I'm
worried
about
or
I'm
interested
in
optimizing.
E
You
know
it's
the
reason
why
I
mean
the
main
problem
with
kind
of
artificial
tests
that
I've
found
is
that
in
general,
it's
hard
to
make
kind
of
artificial
tests
for
things
like
already
having
a
10
gigabyte
database
with
like
20
or
20
million
state
objects,
which
is
the
situation
that
we
have
in
reality.
Yeah.
N
Yeah
sure
so
I
completely
agree
that
testing
only
so
only
using
the
main
that
can
be
a
meaningful
test.
Okay,
not
so
I'm
still
waiting
for
Nick
to
finish
to
fix
one
issue,
and
then
then
we
can
run
a
nice
nice
test
and
see
how
it
performs.
Basically,
what
an
interesting
test
is
just
importing
the
entire
blockchain,
using
basically
right
by
reprocessing,
a
brick
transaction
mm-hmm,
a
lot
fast
thinking,
rather
doing
a
full
archive
sync
and
seeing
what
your
where
that
goes
exactly.
E
B
Okay,
so
what
it's
sounding
like
is
that
we
could
so
super
conservatively.
We
could
go
later
October.
Otherwise
we
could
go
four
points,
three
five
or
four
point.
Three,
seven
mil
and
four
point:
three
five
would
be
something
like
October,
ninth,
ish
and
four
point.
Three
seven
was
that
October
12
ish,
nobody.
H
B
B
In
my
opinion,
I'd
still
go
with
the
ninth
just
because
between
now
and
then
we
can
coordinate
stuff
being
thrown
at
the
blockchain
and
so
I
don't
see
that
must
much
risk,
because
that
would
mean
the
test
Nets
running
for
three
weeks
at
that
point
and
obviously,
if
we
find
a
problem,
we
can
then
extend
that
date
like
whenever
we
want,
but
if
everything
goes
perfect,
which
because
we're
the
best
developers
ever
it's
going
to
go
absolutely
perfect
with
no
problems
at
all,
then
yeah,
let's
see
so
four
point.
Three
five
is
October.
E
E
E
B
E
B
Wow
Friday
the
13th,
so
you're
wanting
bad
luck
and
if
anything
goes
wrong,
it's
a
weekend.
Okay,
fine,
all
right!
Let's,
let's
see
here
that
would
be
really
cool,
though
I
like
that
date,
but
nope.
No,
we
can
work.
Yeah,
I,
think
the
17th
would
be
fine.
That's
a
week
delay,
but
that's
not
even
really
a
delay
in
a
way
because
we
get
a
little
more
time
to
throw
stuff
at
the
tests.
L
M
B
E
B
Well,
yeah,
they
probably
would
let's,
let's
get
back
on
track.
So
right
now,
let's,
let's
just
say
four
point:
three:
seven,
which
would
be
October
17th
ish
timeframe,
so
we
can
have
a
little
bit
more
time
to
test
and
throw
stuff
at
the
network.
If
anyone
has
any
other
opinions,
bring
it
up
in
the
coordinate
Channel
or
we
can
bring
it
up
next
meeting.
I,
don't
think
at
this
point.
If
we
decide
this
will
shorten
it,
though,
so
as.
A
B
B
B
N
N
Yeah,
so
x'q
was
worried
whether
I
just
one
moment
I
just
have
to
come
through
it
anyway.
So
all
in
all,
as
far
as
I
know,
everybody
likes
the
idea
apart
from
Arkady.
Unfortunately,
he
did
not
reply
to
my
questions
for
14
days
now.
So
the
fact
that
yes,
last
time
we
said,
let's
postpone
so
that
we
can
discuss
on
github,
was
completely
useless.
B
B
N
So,
just
basically
the
counter-argument
that
I
brought
up
is
that
from
from
so
without
considering
it
too
much,
it
might
be
a
reasonable
requirement
to
have
which
enabled
per
soprano
individually.
The
problem
is
the
practical
problem
is
that
our
handshake,
so
the
Deaf
peer-to-peer
handshake,
does
not
support
adding
capabilities
to
support
goals.
So
if
you
want
to
add
such
a
field,
then
it
means
we
need
to
upgrade
deaf
peer-to-peer
handshake
again
and
last
time
it
took
us
about
two
months
of
coordination
and
I.
N
Think
Felix
had
to
implement
the
update
for
Python
and
C++
too,
and
we
needed
relief
on
all
clients
to
make
sure
that
everything
worked
correctly.
So
that's
what
you're
still
going
to
updated
version
right
well,
of
course,
but
the
handshake
so
and
we
don't
need
a
new
handshake
for
it,
and
even
if
we,
if
we
need
it,
the
handshake
message
itself
can
be
extended.
So
it
is
backward
compatible,
the
new,
so
we
can
add
arbitrarily
many
new
fields
to
the
handshake
and
every
client
was
still
accepted.
F
N
Okay,
that's
a
good
point,
and
so
this
was
one
of
the
counter-arguments
of
a
hidden
complexity
and
the
other
one
that
at
least
as
far
as
I
know,
Snap
is
really
fast
if
something
cannot
be
compressed
so,
for
example,
to
go
pure
commercial
apps
that
we
can
compress
at
around
15
gigabytes
per
second
JPEG
images,
essentially
its
mem
copy,
so
I,
don't
think
it
really
weighs
much
that
we
do.
We
compress
encrypted
data,
for
example,
in
the
case
of
whisper.
F
B
Yeah
I'm,
the
only
two
things
I
want
to
bring
up
Peter.
If
you
could
click
on
the
link
I
just
put
in
chat.
Someone
on
reddit
named
also
Mahler
said
he
had
to
I
guess
concerns.
One
of
them
was
compression
overhead,
which
might
result
in
redundant
cases
which
I
think
as
a
point
Arkadiy
brought
before,
but
the
other
one
which
I
hadn't
heard
before
is
that
it's
saying
compression
of
data
could
weaken
encryption
of
that
data,
especially
for
other
protocols.
Utilizing
aetherium
like
like
client
and
whisper.
B
C
N
B
N
C
B
Okay,
that's
a
good
plan
just
to
make
it
kind
of
a
practice
that
we
push
for
that.
We
tell
people
to
do
to
not
to
not
put
encrypted
data
on
there
afterwards,
if
I
understood
correctly
cool,
so
I
think
that
that
is
confirm.
Then,
if
clients
could
implement
that
and
Peter.
If
you
want
us
to
kind
of
in
future
meetings,
bring
that
up
thanks,
everybody
in
our
Katti
and
everyone
else,
for
the
discussion
and
yep
that's
approved
and
I
swear.
B
If
my
cat
knocks
over
another
thing,
all
right:
I'm,
not
gonna,
murder,
a
cat
on
core
dev
call,
though,
let's
see
what's
the
next
item,
plague
yeah
Zuko
was
supposed
to
be
on
this
call,
but
I
don't
think
he
could
make
it
Vitalik
I
think
he
mentioned.
He
talked
to
you.
So
would
you
be
able
to
prime
rate
on
what
his
thinking
is?
Yeah.
E
So
basically,
the
idea
is
that
Blake
is
a
hash
function.
That
I
mean
in
he
definitely
says
it's
the
most
several
times
faster
than
three.
You
know
several
times
more
compact
than
sha-3
is
so
in
fact
like.
He
would
even
recommend
just
like
aetherium,
switching
from
short
shot
to
be
over
to
Blake
entirely
at
some
point.
But
if
we
were
to
consider
something
like
that,
then
the
right
time
to
do
it
would
be
something
like
the
sharding
switch.
E
So
that
would
be
much
like
much
later,
but
even
still,
the
reason
why
he
uses
it
is
because,
because
the
function
in
general,
for
zika
snark
applications
and
for
any
kind
of
general
purpose
or
knowledge,
proof
is
like
the
overhead
on
like
individual
gates
in
or
in
any
computation
is
extremely
high,
and
so
you
really
wants
to
use
hash
function
that
are
as
efficient
as
compact
as
possible,
and
switching
to
Blake
is
part
of
what
could
like
really
take
down
the
proving
time
of
just
any
kind
of
snark
application.
So
this
would
be
things
like.
E
E
C
C
B
That's
a
good
point:
any
clients
on
the
call
as
their
concerns
about
their
or
actually
I
mean
really.
Everyone
should
be
given
a
chance
to
look
and
see
what
you
know
how
it
would
be
implemented
and
stuff
before
we
go
much
further
with
the
discussion,
but
is
that
kind
of
what
you're
saying
we
need
to
see
how
difficult
it
would
be
for
clients
to
implement.
B
So
here's
a
good
thread
on
so
I
posted
a
link
to
something
Zuka
sent
about
hash
functions
and
I'm
also
going
to
send
the
EIP.
It's
also
listed
in
the
agenda.
That
gives
a
good
history,
because
this
is
a
very
old
issue.
It's
one
of
the
first
di
peas
from
2016
and
it
was
made
by
Jayden
Hess
and
he
is
at
Cornell
right
now.
But
I
talked
to
him
yesterday
and
he
said
he'd
be
happy
to
help
get
this
back
up
to
speed
and
he
can
work
with
anybody
from
Z
cash
or
anywhere
else.
I.
B
Think
I'm
gonna
be
working
with
J
from
Z
cash
to
kind
of
guide
her
through
the
process
of
updating
the
CIP
and
getting
it
to
the
standard
that
we
used
today.
So
I'll
be
doing
that.
So
we
can
have
a
more
formal
discussion
in
the
future.
It's
still
early
enough.
We
don't
need
to
make
any
decisions
today,
we'll
just
keep
discussing
this.
F
B
If
there's
no
other
comments
on
that,
I
think
that
VIP
718
was
mentioned
in
a
comment
on
the
agenda
and
I
have
a
link
to
it.
If
you
refresh
the
agenda-
and
that
was
from
what
was
that
from
I-
think
left
Harris
and
he's
not
able
to
be
on
the
call,
so
we
can
postpone
it
for
next
time.
If
no
one
has
any
thoughts
on
it.
But
there's
a
a
IP
called
718
and
it's
purpose
is
to
see.
E
E
E
E
E
So
my
instinct
is
that,
like
we
need
more
features
to
do
this
sort
of
thing,
but
I
do
feel
like
the
things
that
we
do
is
should
be
more,
should
be
more
backwards
compatible
than
this.
Basically,
like
I'm
afraid
that
if
we
try
to
make
kind
of
naive
clutches
to
try
to
mini
storage
and
not
to
make
storage,
not
editable
in
this
way,
then
you
know
it
will
end
up
breaking
things
in
other
places,
gonna
lens
out,
making
things
like
more
and
intuitive.
E
A
E
One
in
one
example
is
static,
call
and
another
example
that
I
think
we
should
go
its
async
call,
so,
basically
a
call
accepted,
execute
out
it
executed
asynchronously.
After
all,
he
existing
calls
are
finished,
and
the
second
thing
is
basically
just
making
modifying
programming
languages
and
making
more
restrictive
programming
languages
to
require
those
kinds
of
things.
Yeah.
C
One
thing
that
the
Christian
mentioned-
or
it
was
Nick
you
mentioned
earlier
in
the:
if
was
ability
to
do
a
femoral
storage
that
you
don't
have
to
pay
as
much
for
two
different
a
store.
Then
you
could
implement
mutexes
using
this
ephemeral
storage
which
lasts
for
the
duration
of
transaction,
much
cheaper
than
if
you
would
implement
the
same
thing,
using
a
stores.
C
B
Q
Q
B
H
H
B
B
B
Let's
see
so,
there
were
the
last
two
things
were
something
that
Christian
brought
up
his
comments,
but
he
wasn't
able
to
stick
around
so
he
said
he
said
if
anyone
wants
to
discuss
this
feel
free.
Otherwise
we
can
postpone
and
also
I,
think
left
Aris
just
joined
left
Aris.
Could
he
hear
us
yeah
yeah.
R
S
B
B
C
B
C
B
Sorry,
I'm
talking
and
I'm
muted
I
was
saying
the
last
two
items
are
Christian
and
he
was
going
to
want
to
bring
up
account
abstraction
again
and
how
the
tool
set
providers
think
about
it
and
if
there's
a
better
solution
in
the
meantime,
could
anyone
elaborate
on
that?
If
not
we'll
just
wait
for
Christian
next
time.
B
P
B
Great,
so
just
to
recap,
the
thing
that
we
discussed
earlier-
4.37
million-
is
the
pretty
much
final
block
number
for
Byzantium.
Unless
things
go
wrong
on
the
test
net
in
the
next
four
weeks,
or
at
this
point
about
three
weeks,
that
would
be
around
October
17th,
roughly,
which
would
be
a
Sunday
Monday
or
Tuesday
I'm
thinking,
and
is
there
any
other
points
of
discussion,
off-topic,
agenda
items
or
anything.
J
B
We
can
hear
you,
I
was
gonna
comment
on
it,
but
I
guess
I'm
I
want
to
get
your
perspective
and
Greg's
perspective
as
well.
We,
the
EIP
editors,
have
discussed
this
in
the
past
and
I
think
we
have
kind
of
sort
of
landed
on
something
so
Casey.
If
you
wanted
to
elaborate
on
that,
otherwise
I
can't
or
Greg
can.
T
B
We
actually
so
we
just
finalized
ERC
20,
though
just
because
otherwise
people
are
going
to
argue
over
the
spec
and
I
think
that
finalization
does
need
to
happen.
Okay,
Casey
does
have
a
slightly
different
opinion,
but
that's
cool
too.
The
only
other
ERC
we
finalized
is
the
one
for
F
p.m.
and
how
that
went
down
is
that
Piper
Miriam
came
up
with
the
spec.
He
wrote
it
down.
He
got
people
from
all
of
the
relevant
tool
sets
and
frameworks
together.
So
he
runs.
B
He
did
populous
and
I
think
he
got
truffled
Apple
embarked
and
maybe
even
someone
from
the
remix
team
on
board
to
agree
to
having
that
as
the
standard
for
aetherium
smart
contract
package
management
and
so
that
ERC
got
approved.
The
other
ERC
that
got
approved
was
ERC
20.
We
pushed
that
through
recently,
so
I
think
this
might
be
written
an
EIP
one,
but
in
general
you
come
up
with
an
e
rc.
You
format
it
in
the
way.
That's
defined
an
EIP
one.
B
You
get
peope
relevant
people
from
the
community
who
would
have
a
stake
in
whatever
decision
is
made
or
just
thought
leaders
to
comment
on
it
and
after
some
discussion
and
evaluation
it
becomes
approved
if
it's
implemented,
I
think
in
at
least
two
instances
it's
it's
yeah
it
has
to
be.
It
basically
has
to
be
implemented
or
demonstrated
in
some
way.
So
people
can't
go
on
and
just
say:
I
want
to
theory
him
to
be
called
apples
now
so
yeah.
B
A
T
Yeah
and
I
think
if
people
have
proposals
for
for
the
you
know
for
the
process,
whether
the
two
models
I've
seen
are
either
more
like
a
IPs
or
the
Python
Python
PE
piece
or
more,
like
IETF
RFC
s,
where
you
know
we're
free
to
define
the
process.
However,
we
want
so
rather
than
asking
what
is
the
process?
L
Going
to
talk
about
the
difficulty
test
says
that
we
decided
to
implement
difficulty
test
like
we
did
last
half
of
all
that
we
just
took
the
same
format,
just
one
line,
meaning
the
ash
of
the
below
Conchas,
and
there
is
this.
You
could
calculate
the
difficulty
of
any
blockages
everything
the
stick
from
the
tracer
file.
This
is
with
such
tests
does
not
define
the
blockchain
parameters.
That
might
be
an
issue
these
contexts
and
those
tests
not
executed
on
high
and
I.
L
Don't
know
how
many
clients
you'll
use
those
tests
unless
we
force
them
to
use
it
and
to
solve
that
it
has
an
idea.
Was
your
cheat
or
change
them
blockchain
test,
so
they
they
could
start
with
the
genesis
number
of
like
thing
in
england.
From
that
point
it
could
be
for
20
months
of
law,
and
you
could
crop
motion
test,
starting
from
the
point
that
we
need
to
test
a
difficulty
formula
form,
but
that
might
require
implementation
of
such
a
thing.
B
C
C
L
Today,
blockchain
test
has
the
genesis
of
number
zero
does
Howard
Hawks
on
high.
If
we
change
that
I,
don't
know
what
will
be
the
parity,
another
clients
might
be,
they
won't
be
able
to
do
it
without
special
limitation.
So,
right
now
we
have
just
difficulty
test
in
the
test
repository
in
the
basic
test:
folder
the
difficulty
and
the
network
name,
Bob
Jason,
test
containing
a
series
of
inputs
and
outputs
or
difficulty
formula.
That's
how
we
did
it
last
time
for
all
steps
is
basically
the
same.
The
transition
blocks.
N
But
to
be
honest,
I
think:
if
clients
do
not
support
this
currency,
maybe
it
will
be
a
valuable
addition.
I
mean
to
be
able
to
set
the
block
number
of
the
Genesis
block.
I
know
it's
a
bit.
Maybe
it
sounds
a
bit
weird,
but
if
it
helps
testing
a
lot,
then
maybe
it's
simpler
to
just
support
this.
Instead
of
hacking,
all
future
tests
a
bit
so
that
they
can
run.
L
L
E
M
B
And
I
think
what
would
need
to
happen
is
next
coordinate
meeting
we
go
through
this
again
and
Dmitry.
If
you
could
write
up
a
couple
paragraphs
about
how
we
currently
do
it
versus
how
you're
proposing
we
do
it
in
the
future,
it
sounds
like
most
of
the
major
clients
can
already
said
that
they
can
do
it,
but
just
so
that
we
can
go
through
each
client.
Next
meeting
write
up
a
few
paragraphs
and
send
them
to
me.
Please
I,
don't.
C
L
The
difficulty
of
constellation
algorithm
currently
is
blocking
test
requires
mining
of
log
difficulty
is
checked
for
every
block
engine,
so
what
we
are
think
of
is
to
do
it
customizable
or
the
blockchain
test,
which
would
be
checking.
The
difficulty
will
consist
of
actual
blocks,
that's
mine,
and
if
it
doesn't
require
difficulty,
then
you
don't
have
to
mind
blocks
and
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
and
what
he.
N
L
N
No
I
think
that's
completely
fine,
so
that's
basically
just
allowing
the
clients
to
whenever
you
just
initialize
the
chain
allowing
the
clients
to
have
to
specify
a
block
number
I.
Don't
think!
That's
any
inherently
wrong
with
that
one.
Of
course,
clients
might
break
if
you
start
using
Networks,
Inc,
etc,
etc.
Using
that
so
I
don't
expect
clients
to
do
any
meaningful
testing
so
that
it
actually
works
on
live
networks,
but
just
importing
blocks
on
top
of
a
non
zero
block.
B
C
L
L
Might
even
something
is
my
assume
is
that
in
CDP
client,
my
assumption
is
that
the
syndicate
mining
said
require
at
least
one
second
to
joy,
even
in
a
wannabe
difficulties,
new
Centennial's
and
the
another
place
where
city
like
spending
time
is
reading
reporting
from
the
contract.
Oh,
we
have
like
50
hours,
sweet
more,
all
the
more
capacity
hair
country
it's
about
10,000.
C
C
B
B
P
B
N
My
opinion,
what
could
do
is
which
should
see
what
the
bottlenecks
are,
because
obviously
it
shouldn't
take
that
long
and
try
to
fix
it
and,
in
my
opinion,
if
it's,
if
it's
a,
if
it's
still
an
issue,
meaning
that
it
takes
a
still
that's
a
half
a
day
and
I
think
it
should
be.
We
should
be
able
to
just
set
up
a
small
build
job
that
spins
up
kubernetes
faster.
Maybe
four
machines
just
generates
the
test
in
one
hour
and
then
just
rinse
them
off
so
I.