►
Description
A
A
A
And
then.
If
we
have
time,
we
may
talk
about
Prague
pal,
changing
the
proof-of-work
algorithm
to
be
a
sick
resistant,
not
sure
if
we'll
get
to
that
or
not,
and
we're
gonna
try
to
keep
this
under
an
hour
cuz.
The
agenda
is
pretty
light,
but
if
it
goes
a
little
over
well
so
Piper
has
volunteered
to
kind
of
start
this
going
about
the
potential
issuance
reduction
with
some
ideas
so
Piper
take
it
away
all
right.
B
You
guys
sticking
my
neck
out,
so
there
are
three
things
on
the
table
that
I
saw
and
that
we
listen
to
kind
of
generally
get
presented
last
time
a
please
somebody
correct
me.
If
I'm
categorizing
these
wrong,
we've
got
a
reduction
to
one,
a
reduction
to
two
and
a
heap
that
proposes
to
keep
production
the
same
but
alter
the
uncle
reward
mechanism.
A
B
A
B
B
B
So
I
don't
know,
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
people's
opinions
at
play
here
and
there
isn't
an
objective
right
or
wrong,
because
everybody's
got
different
ideas
about
monetary
policy
and
what
the
you
know,
what
we
should
be
paying
miners
and
all
of
these
things.
So
on
some
level
here
we
just
need
to
take
a
stab
at
something
in
the
right
direction
and
and
go
from
there
yeah.
A
Real
quick
I
think
that
the
IP
1295,
the
one
that
messes
with
uncle
rewards
I
believe
that
one
was
actually
basically
a
replacement
for
a
IP
or
not
a
replacement,
but
an
alternative
to
the
one
lowering
the
issuance.
So
if
we
do
both
things
I
think
that's
gonna
lower.
Basically,
that
would
be
the
equivalent
of
lowering
the
issuance
even
more
to
something
like
1/8
and
I.
B
I
understand
that
and
I
think
that
you
are
correct
in
terms
of
what
it
was
intended
for.
I
am
maybe
not
speaking
directly
for
so
whenever
I
originally
said,
I
was
gonna
come
in
and
and
I
had
an
idea
of
where
we
should
go.
That
was
under
the
assumption
that
that
had
been
evaluated
well,
it
sounds
like
it
hasn't.
D
Yeah
I
would
agree
with
both
of
you
but
seems
a
good
good
enough
step
in
the
right
direction,
but
regarding
the
whole
uncle
issuance
thing
so
I
as
far
as
I
understand
it.
The
change
is
that
we
keep
the
uncle
reborg
but
remove
the
nephew
reward,
which
means
that
the
guy
who
included
the
uncle
that's
sorry
know
the
minor
gets
a
reward,
but
not
the
one
who
included
it.
Is
that
correct?
Or
is
it
the
other
way
around?
That.
D
E
Think
merging
them
into
a
hybrid
version
doesn't
make
any
sense
in
my
my
eyes
and
I
think
we
should
go
with
to
East.
So
I
agree
with
my
everyone,
also
speaking
up
forces,
and
because
this
is
like
the
the
most
moderate
proposal
we
have
right
now
there
a
lot
of
voices
at
one
to
like
we'd
use
block
with
what
one
is,
because
you
don't
know
we
have.
E
E
And
sorry,
and
that's
why
I
think
we
should
go
with
to
block
and
regarding
uncle
IP
I
think
it
would
be
nice
to
have
like
feedback
from
someone
who
initially
designed
the
anchor
rewards,
because
for
me
it
appears
that
uncle
and
nephew
rewards
are
not
entirely
broken
and
changing.
This
is
like
a
deep
technical
like
disruption,
or
is
he
important
code
works
and
I
would
be
careful
with
this.
So.
C
A
Goes
back
and
forth
that
even
so,
there's
like
multiple
comments
by
him
back
and
forth
with
the
author
of
the
IP,
so
that
I've
been
kind
of
skimming
through
it
and
it's
it's
very
interesting
conversation
I
link
to
it
it's
linked
in
Gator.
It's
also
linked
in
the
zoom
chat
for
those
who
want
to
take
a
look.
B
F
A
Yeah
and
the
biggest
I
think
metallics
biggest
argument
in
the
comments
was
that
there
would
be
risk
of
large
minor
centralization
and
that
also
there's
better
ways
to
just
the
uncle
and
cinema's
ation.
In
order
to
convince
anyone
on
the
network
to
not
have
hi
uncle
rates,
including
large
miners,
that's
what
I
invited
he.
A
B
F
Hey,
can
you
guys
hear
me
yep,
yep,
yeah
I
would
advocate
against
going
with
just
there's
a
link
to
a
a
reddit
comment
from
batalik
here
that
issuance
is
a
key
economic
parameter.
This
is
from
a
year
ago,
at
the
end
he
said,
issuance
is
a
key
economic
parameter
and
I
personally,
don't
feel
I
or
the
foundation
or
client
developers
have
the
authority
to
dictate
this.
F
E
So
I
try
to
expense.
I
saw
a
lot
of
comments
on
on
reddit
and
on
github.
That
say,
oh
look,
there's
a
car
in
boat,
it's
like
a
massive
massive
coin
boat
and
everyone
voted
for
like
what
one
is.
But
it's
really
important
to
keep
in
mind.
So
this
is
like
only
one
part
of
the
issue:
income
you
that
hold
eath
likes
it.
E
Let's
call
them
investors
because
they
hold
ease
and
they
are
naturally
intense
incentivize
to
vote
for
having
like
a
very
low
block
reward,
but
we
also
have
other
stakeholders
in
the
community
like,
for
instance,
that
in
incentivize
like
keeps
the
issuance
at
a
stable
right
or
even
increases,
because
so
that's
like
totally
orthogonal
to
what
this
coin
voters
actually
suggesting
and
what
we
are
doing
here
is
not
to
dictate
and
you
block
reward.
But
we
try
to
find
like
a
compromise.
D
Yeah
I
would
like
to
come
as
well.
So
if
we
look
at
that
coin,
vote
and
their
salt
say
favouring
a
reduction
to
one
I
think
we
should
take
that.
As
you
know,
an
expression
of
of
will
the
will
to
lower
it,
but
I
think
we
also
need
to
be
conservative
with
the
changes
and
make
changes
incrementally
and
not
like
dictate
something
that
goes
against
the
will
of
the
community.
But
yes
apply
some
conservative
metric
measures
from
doing
changes
even
so,
but
trying
to
keep
with
the
with
the
like
intent
of
the
community.
C
Combined
with
the
fact
that
we're
delaying
the
difficulty
BOM
not
getting
rid
of
it,
so
this
conversation
at
some
point
in
the
medium
future
will
come
up
and
we
will
also
at
that
point,
have
a
little
more
context
as
to
where
the
mistake
changes
are
at,
and
so
a
conservative
step
in
the
direction
of
the
community
wants
and
then
re.
Looking
at
this
in
a
set
timeline
make
some.
B
A
That
it's
basically
what
potala
was
saying
is
there
doesn't
need
to
be
this
cabal
of
people
making
a
decision
that
there
shouldn't,
because
I
noticed
in
your
quote
from
him.
The
word
community
wasn't
mentioned
so
I
think
that
almost
implied
that
it
needs
to
be
as
close
to
a
consensus
from
the
community
as
possible,
and
then
we
just
implement
the
code,
but
because
there
is
no
mechanism
and
point
about,
in
my
opinion,
isn't
a
good
measure
at
this
point.
A
It
might
have
it's
arguable
that
it
was
in
the
past,
but
I
don't
know
if
it's
for
this
particular
issue.
A
great
measurement,
in
my
opinion,
I
would
say
that,
because
of
all
that,
the
fact
that
we're
trying
to
implement
what
the
community
wants,
rather
than
dictate
it
kind
of
shows
that
we
don't
have
a
better
way
of
deciding
this.
That
we
have
to
decide
this
because
we're
implementing
it
and
there's
no
one
else
able
to
effectively
know
how
to
have
a
signaling
method
from
the
community
to
make
an
for
sure
decision.
F
So
the
Carver
vote
was
one
type
of
boat.
Then
last
week
there
was
the
call
where
miners
you
know
we
took
a
poll
from
miners
and
most
of
them
seem
to
be
comfortable
with,
but
not
with
one.
So
the
decision
here
to
reduce
to
it's
sort
of
a
compromise
between
the
extreme
preference
of
the
carbon
blow
to
go
down
to
one
and
miners
being
more
comfortable
with,
but
I
also
don't
think
it's
necessary
to
choose
a
number,
an
exact
number
today,
especially
the
block
reward.
F
C
C
F
A
Yeah
the
the
reason
that
we're
having
to
decide
it
today,
Casey
was
we
previously
had
discussed
the
fact
that
if
we
want
to
hit
the
deadline
of
before
Devcon
for
launching
this
hard
fork,
which
at
this
point
is
still
I'm
still
myself,
skeptical
that
we're
gonna
be
able
to
do
that,
we
would
need
to
as
quickly
as
possible
decide
every
change.
That's
going
into
the
heart
of
the
hard
fork,
so
the
Dmitry
and
others
can
properly
create
the
test
cases
and
edit
the
test
cases
and
create
new
ones
for
changing
the
block
reward.
A
Therefore,
it
needs
to
be
decided
today,
because
for
the
last
month
we've
been
saying:
let's
decide
it
next
time,
let's
decide
it
next
time.
So
from
my
perspective,
it
needs
to
be
decided
today,
but
if
enough
people
want
it
to
be
delayed,
that's
definitely
something
we
can
consider
and
I
agree
with
you
that
the
signals
have
not
been
clean.
So
that's
that's
something
something
to
consider.
Certainly.
F
A
C
Until
we
move
towards
a
long-term
issuance
policy
related
to
food
mistake,
which
we
can
we'll
be
and
should
be
a
huge
conversation
at
that
point,
but
you
know
it's:
the
protocol
being
set
up
for
5e
per
block
was
kind
of
a
short
term
vision
for
proof,
work,
vision
and
it's
been
longer
and
we've
produced
and
it's
been
longer
and
we
reduced
or
and
we're
talking
about,
reducing
and
I.
You
know
incremental
incremental
compromise
until
we
get
to
the
vision.
G
I
have
a
no
strong
opinion
on
whether
we
should
reduce
rewards,
whether
we
shouldn't
do
that,
but
if
we
want
to
reduce
your
words
as
for
me,
it
should
be.
Definitely
do
it
so
first,
the
IPA
with
one
it
can
be
removed
from
the
table
as
for
me,
so
it
looks
like
we
just
need
to
decide
on
whether
we
want
to
reduce
rewards
an
autumn.
If,
yes,
we
we
are
going
with
to
eat
the
work,
that's
it.
A
A
F
B
B
F
But
there's
also
a
lot
of
signal
from
the
community
that
they
want
to
change
the
work
algorithm.
So
it's
it's
hard
for
me
to
today.
Well
we'll
listen
to
the
one
about
reducing
the
block
reward,
but
we're
not
going
to
listen
to
the
one
about
changing
the
group
of
work
algorithm,
no,
so
just
so
that
we
can
jump
into
that
because
we
can.
We
can
skip
ahead
to
that.
While
we're
discussing
this
since
it's
something
that's
related
me
and
Powell
has
been
looking
at
prog
powr
I've
been.
A
Facilitating
some
discussions
between
miners
and
other
people,
who've
been
working
on
F,
minor
and
other
tools,
so
Paul
without
you
knows,
and
can
you
kind
of
give
an
overview
of
what
you've
seen
so
far
from
prag
powr?
What
your
opinion
might
be
on
it?
If
you
can,
if
you
haven't
read
enough
or
seen
enough
or
gotten
enough
opinions
about
it,
you
don't
have
to
go
into
detail,
but
otherwise,
if
you
can
kind
of
explain
if
you
have
a
viewpoint
on
it,
so
you
want
to
comment
from
the
previous
discussion.
I
Think
Oh
big
technical
stops
from
this
in
the
specification,
but
I
think
there's
there's
a
lot
of
to
to
investigate
over
time.
So
definitely
it's
not
feasible
to
have
it
probably
not
this
year.
Even
because
there's
a
lot
of
changes
required
I
mean
it's
not
only
training
the
algorithm,
but
it's
also
how
mining
infrastructure
that
depends
on
that,
and
and
also
the
way
we're
going
to
switch
so
I
stole
my
opium
is.
I
C
A
A
So
when
I
do,
I
can
come
back
with
results
on
that,
as
can
Powell,
but
that's
something
where
it's
a
it's
kind
of
an
issue
of
not
wanting
to
be
too
specific
on
that,
but
to
independently
verify
it
and
have
a
few
of
us
kind
of
have
that
verification
before
we
move
forward
declaring
that
there
might
be
vendor
specific
issues
with
it,
because
so
far
everybody
from
the
Prague
powd
team
has
said,
there's
not
so
yeah
I.
Don't
have
definite
answer
for
that.
I
To
take
the
software
and
benchmark
big
set
of
GPUs
with
that
and
like
compare
results,
how
much
so
that
that
can
became
it
think
we
can,
we
can
bring
him
back
to
the
technical
technical
issue,
so
the
expected
heart
rate
decrease
is
by
two.
It
should
be
exactly
by
two,
because
that's
that's
how
the
memorial
bandwidth
requirement
is
increased,
but
we
don't
have
the
number
and-
and
in
case
we
we
be
more
likely
considering
this
change.
I
think
we
can
start
benchmark
benchmarking
different
GPU
models
from
from
from
this
day.
I
A
I
Unless
we
not
committed
to
do
this
change,
I'm,
not
saying
like,
we
definitely
will
do,
but
these
committed
in
the
sense
we
review
all
the
issues
and
in
case
there's
no
technical
problems.
The
change
will
happen.
I
wouldn't
go
that
far
personally,
but
I
would
say
that
we
should
commit
to
investigating
it
to
the
fullest
extent.
We
can
and
then
having
a
discussion
on.
A
It,
however,
that
discussion,
because
of
this,
won't
be
going
into
Constantinople
for
sure
the
earliest.
It
would
go
in
as
July
if
we
do
an
eight
month
delay.
So
if
we
do
an
eight
month
delay
the
earliest,
it
would
go
in
as
July,
so
the
literally
Assad
the
earliest
that
we
can
make
a
final
decision
on
it
would
be
late
October.
So
that
would
give
us
plenty
of
time
to
evaluate
it
between
now
and
then
and
start
to
come
to
consensus
or
have
votes
on
that.
A
A
We
did
that
last
week
and
I,
don't
think
everyone
hashed
out
their
arguments
and
I,
don't
think
it
would
have
been
necessary
to
rehash
that.
However,
prog
Pao
wasn't
brought
up
in
details,
so
I
see
your
point
that
there
should
be
someone
in
here,
but
because
the
decision
for
prog
Pao
won't
be
made
until
right
before
or
right
after
Constantinople
I
didn't
see
us
in
my
opinion,
I
didn't
see
it
worth
it
to
bring
them
on,
for
this
particular
call,
but
and
and
in
hindsight
and
probably
would
have
been
a
good
idea.
B
D
We
going
to
go
with
profile
and
explicitly
kind
of
state
that,
because
it
is
useless,
it's
how
well
and
Nicky
and
whoever
spends
a
long
time
and
does
a
lot
of
work.
And
then
we
just
yeah
so
I
have
problem
with
what
would
Piper
propose
because,
usually
how
it
worked
like
we
have
this
hard
fork
and
like
ten
four
months,
nobody
is
actually
doing
kind
of
thing
towards.
I
The
next
one,
and
so
who
I
I,
don't
think
like
I,
think
we
have
time
like
change
anything.
We
just
probably
will
come
back
to
this
discussion
like
two
months
before
the
next
one.
The
next
bomb
increase
is
not
I
know
that
historically,
that's
been
the
case.
You
are
currently
talking
right
now,
a
lot
about
trying
to
get
on
a
better
schedule
so,
but
to
investigate
that.
B
Trusted
expert
in
this
to
actually
make
that
call
I'm
happy
to
implement
if
it's
what
we
choose.
I'm,
not
excited
about
spending
dev
time
on
a
new
proof
of
work
algorithm,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
I
won't
get
on
board.
If
there's
consensus
that
it's
that
it's
the
right
thing
for
us
to
do:
mm-hmm,
okay,
so
yeah,
so
I
kind
of
like
I'm,
not
so
excited
about
it
as
well!
Wow
I
would
prefer
not
to
do
that
personally,
if,
like
I,
don't
want
to
actually
spend
time,
but
if
that's
necessary.
I
I
F
A
See
if
we
can
make
a
decision
on
that
today,
but
it
sounds
like
there
is
a
trend
toward
getting
a
lot
of
data
on
prog
pal,
okay,
I,
just
like
quickly.
One
comment
to
this
I
think
they
have
a
lot
of
code.
That's
that
true
I've
seen
they
have
code
for,
for,
if
her
library,
a
the
CPU
one
who
have
code
for
if
minor,
that
it's
mostly
for
GPUs,
but
on
the
other
hand,
it's
it's,
it's
just
a
fork
and
it's
quite
far
away
from
being
integrated
to
the
main
branches
of
any
of
these
okay.
I
G
A
G
If
you
have
more
hardware,
it
will
be
more
efficient
even
more
from
now,
and
if
you
have
more
hardware
than
someone
else,
so
we
will
come
powerful
I
mean
know
it
changes
the
if
proposes
to
changes,
change
the
the
amount
of
hashing
power
per
piece
of
hardware
proportionate,
so
you're
still,
fortunately,
the
same
part
of
the
network.
How
so
there
is
a
linear
dependency
right,
yeah,
it's
just
it's
on
a
per
GPU.
You
know
you
don't
get
any
scaling
by
having
mostly
oh
yeah,
yes,
I
get
ideally.
G
G
C
C
G
B
In
the
difficulty
bomb,
I
know
a
meeting,
or
two
ago
we
had
said
okay,
if
we're
targeting
eight
months
hard
works,
then
we'll
do
a
12-month
difficulty
delay
started.
Comically
I
just
need
to
make
sure
that
we're
talking
about
a
few
things
at
once,
because
there
couple
than
a
Yeti
yep
I
am
I,
am
on
I'm
still
on
the
same
page
of
liking.
That
plan
of
twelve
months
away
at
an
eight
month
work
and
yeah.
That's
what
I'm
thinking
as
well.
Anyone
has
opposition
of
that.
Now
is
a
good
time
to
talk
about.
B
A
E
J
F
A
B
A
Really
quickly,
what
time
is
it
we
got
five
minutes.
We
can
probably
go
a
couple
minutes
over.
Maybe
if
people
have
to
drop
off.
That's
okay,
but
there's
nothing
controversial
about
bitwise.
Shifting,
that's
already
been
implemented
in
some
clients
speak
up.
If
that's
not
the
case,
what
we're
doing
right
now
by
the
way
is
going
through
each
AIP
and
seeing.
F
A
If
there
is
an
account
which
does
not
have
a
nonce
and
does
not
encode
but
does
have
storage,
then
it
will
be
white
that
overwritten
and
I
just
realized
so
that
this
doesn't
matter
on
main.
That's
because
a
minute
session
accounts
would
be
empty
and
thus
already
collected
upon
touch
so
doesn't
matter
but
yeah.
So
there's
a
consensus.
D
Issue
and
telling
us
is
for
creative,
okay,
but
it
sounds
like
that
can
be
resolved
in
the
chat
right,
yeah
or
in
the
EIP
thread
either.
One
I
think
this
is
a
way
to
create
such
an
account
on
the
main
that
why
not?
No,
once
my
been
a
shoe
yeah
right,
not
a
shoe
mm-hmm
I
says
I'm
the
spirit
of
Cerreta
:
case
at
this
point,
yeah
yeah,
so
we
can
go
to
the
next
one.
Okay,
thank
you.
K
A
K
A
D
I
A
I
F
I
I
B
C
B
B
B
B
L
A
L
Discuss
this
next
week:
yes,
everybody
should
have
a
look
at
the
pipeline
yeah,
so
we
can
discuss
it
next
and
one
or
two
weeks,
depending
on
when
we
decide
the
next
meeting
is
and
and
then
we'll
also
go
ahead,
and
we
can.
We
don't
have
to
wait
until
the
hard
floor
actually
happens
to
implement
it
if
it's
not
needed
for
a
hard
fork.
So
we
can
do
it
before
then,
but
we'll
talk
about
that
in
a
week
or
two
yeah.
J
A
Feels
how
prop
power
seems
to
behave
and
I,
don't
know
who
would
be
in
that
group?
Maybe
power
well,
maybe
Nick
yeah.
They
could
reach
out
to
people
experts
and
you
had
some
yeah
I
also
wanna
mention
that,
although
would
there's
potential
for
grant
here
if
there's
some
sort
of
GPU
experts
that
wants
to
do
benchmarking
or
something
like
that.
But
there's.