►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #72 [2019-10-04]
Description
A
A
C
It
turned
out
that
somebody
is
mining
rock
stone,
wood
about
1.5
gigahertz,
so
that's
I,
don't
know
50s
or
so
GPUs
or
if,
as
long
if
the
calculations
are
correct
either
way
it's
some
of
these
pushing
rocks
are
really
hard,
and
essentially
so
it
came
to
two
days
earlier.
We
had
kind
of
a
scare
because
it
looked
like
the
fork
failed,
and
then
it
turned
out
that
no
actually
the
fork
did
succeed.
The
problem
was
that
this
miner,
who
is
pushing
with
1.6
dashes
Robson
it's
actually
pushing
the
non
forked
chain.
C
Specifically,
we
do
have
I,
think
I,
already
posted
on
the
or
collapse
Cole
and
also
on
Twitter.
If
you
do
have
a
flag,
if
you
run
it
with
that,
then
well,
it
will
filter
out
the
non
upgraded
chain
and
you
should
be
ready
to
go
I'm,
not
sure
properity,
but
long
story
short,
it's
a
bit
of
an
issue,
and
we
have
a
few
proposals
on
on
how
we
can
avoid
this
scenario
in
the
future,
but
up
for
Oxton,
it's
already
too
late
to
to
retrospectively
add
those
fixes.
So
it's
for
ups
them.
C
It's
kind
of
we
need
to
ride
the
wave
until
until
the
upgrade
Istanbul
chain
gets
heavier
than
the
other
one
or
enough
people
update
so
and
until
then
it's
kind
of
a
fire
fighting
model.
You
can
run
get
with
this
whitelisting
flag
or
the
other
clients
I'm
sure
they
can
give
you
some
options
on
how
to
get
on
the
correct
shape.
Yeah.
B
It
was
a
bit
to
that,
so
the
last
time
we
worked
is
Robson.
It
caused
some
problems
for
developers
who
do
is
finalized
testing
on
that
I
think
great
and
riding
team,
but
this
time
no
one
from
the
deaf
communities
actually
reached
out
and
so
on.
On
the
previous
occasion,
I
thought
it
was
really
really
good
test
of
how
trying
stand
alone
changed,
but
there
was
kind
of
a
bad
bad
feeling
from
the
Deaf
developers.
This
time
around,
it
doesn't
appear
that
anyone
is
actively
complaining
and
from
an
infrastructure
perspective.
B
I
think
it's
super
interesting
to
see
this.
How
we
trying
to
behave
when
there
are
longer
higher
TD
side
chains
which,
within
the
blocks
and
as
Peter
said,
we
have
a
couple
of
proposals,
a
one
on
impeachment
forgot
one
of
them,
and
we
have
some
new
issues,
features
that
we're
going
to
implementing
guess
to
make
just
an
ELISA,
NARS
banner,
so
I
think
it's
really
really
valuable
and
worthwhile
to
to
actually
do
this
as
a
force.
It
brings
a
lot
of
stuff
out
for
attention.
C
Me
yeah
just
to
add
one
minor
thing
that
even
though
Rob's
turn
for
countries
was
a
bit
of
a
show,
there's
no,
we
so
there's.
There
are
no
really
no
worries
that
a
similar
thing
might
happen
for
me
not
since,
since
we
don't
expect
main
enough
to
be
all
of
a
sudden
pushed
by
a
10x
miner
on
and
on
for
King
chain,.
A
A
Okay
and
I
guess
yeah
just
to
be
to
be
explicit
about
this,
even
though
there
were
some
issues
on
Rob's
than
all
the
other
tests.
That's
we're
still
going
forward,
as
is
there's
no
specific
action,
we're
taking
aside
from
the
changes
in
death
and
the
sort
of
proposals
you
want
to
implement,
but
those
don't
change
the
other
test.
That's
correct,.
C
Yes,
how
he
was
trying
to
find
a
button,
so
the
country,
I,
guess
there
are
two
more
test
nuts.
That
I
mean
that
I'm
familiar
with
that's
rinkeby
and
gurney,
but
both
these
test
nuts
have
essentially
they
are
proof
of
Authority
test
nuts.
So
as
long
as
the
miners
upgrade,
you
cannot
have
an
alternative.
C
So
it's
a
proof
of
Authority
bestnet
we're
only
the
majority
chain
can
progress
so
either
you
have
non
upgraded
chain
progressing
or
you
haven't
updated,
stop
watching
progressing,
but
you
cannot
have
two
concurrent
ones
so
from
this
perspective,
gold
and
rinkeby
are
completely
immune
to
the
issue
that
happen.
Often.
C
Contacting
validators
that
I
guess,
the
guerilla
team
probably
has
a
list
of
people
they
need
to
think.
As
for
inka,
be
the
foundation
is
kind
of
running
three
validators
and
we
have
four
more
validations
running
by
Oracle
ice,
auger,
akasha
and
I'm,
not
sure
who
the
fourth
one
is
now,
but
we
can
definitely
reach
out
to
them
and
we're
also
regularly
monitoring
the
status
of
the
updates
on
the
rinkeby
stats
page.
So
rinkeby
is
probably
safe,
but
as
for
girli,
that's
not
for
the
girl
looking
to
reach
out
to
make
sure.
A
A
Okay,
if
not
second
point
on
the
agenda
was
just
still
a
quick
shout
out
to
do
if
the
roadmap
session
at
DEFCON,
so
this
will
be
on
the
first
day
of
Def,
Con
and
basically,
all
of
the
afternoon
will
be
splitted
to
a
session
to
discuss
the
each
one
world
mapped
and
it
want
the
e2
roadmap,
and
then
they
eats
to
roadmap
and
I.
Think
there's
some
time
at
the
end
of
the
afternoon
as
well,
for
if
working
groups
form
or
want
to
discuss
specific
ideas.
A
A
Okay,
so
next
point
on
the
agenda
was
ice,
age
and
I.
Think
Hudson
had
a
comment
about
whether
we
should
plan
to
delay
the
difficulty
bomb
in
Istanbul
or
in
the
following
fork,
which
is
called
Berlin
and
and
more
generally,
to
know.
Do
we
have
an
idea
of
what
the
difficulty
bomb
will
start
being
activated
again
and
and
when
we
have
to
defuse
it.
D
D
Alright
I
predicted
it
fairly
well
from
my
memory,
it
took
about
12
I'm,
just
checking
back
historically
it
took
about
12
months
for
that
forehead
to
start
showing
up
last
a
14
months
when
it
started
showing
up
last
time,
and
given
that
we're
about
half
the
hash
power,
it
should
take
longer
for
it
to
show
up
than
it
did
last
time.
Is
there
the
way
the
absolute
hash
power
actually
showed?
D
B
D
E
D
E
D
The
for
my
research
before
because
it
adds
the
read
the
hash
rate
before
the
block
hash
rate
before
and
the
current
one,
then
actually
the
larger
the
magnitude
the
more
of
an
effect
it
would
have.
So
it
showed
up
earlier
and
more
aggressive
last
time,
because
the
hash
rate
was
so
high
compared
to
the
time
before
so
this
time,
if
the
hash
hash
rate
is
less,
it
will
show
up
later
and
less
aggressively
I.
B
B
E
C
Yeah
yeah,
and
just
after
that,
I
would
I
think
husband's
question
was
where
they
want
to
address
this
in
Istanbul
or
not,
but
unless
it
is
extremely
urgent
to
do
something,
I
would
really
be
against
doing
it
in
Istanbul,
simply
because
we
already
defined
and
what
Istanbul
is
and
Robster
already
forked.
So
if
we
start
to
redefine
what
Istanbul
is
and
the
Rob
stand,
fork
is
kind
of
invalid
unless
we
do
another
Petersburg
number
two
to
do
to
do
a
double
for
conveying
that
and
the
hotfix
for
con
unwrap
them.
A
C
D
A
E
All
the
tests,
except
for
the
220
tests
that
Martin
and
I
put
together
and
merged
into
the
reference
tests.
Now
there
is
one
concern
about
a
particular
random
state
test.
94
clients
just
need
to
be
aware:
it's
gonna
consume
about
a
trillion
gas
when
you
run
it
so
to
run
in
parallel.
It's
gonna
consume
too
much
memory,
no
issues
like
that,
but
reference
tests
for
everything,
but
the
220
are
committed.
A
G
C
Oh
yeah,
yeah
I
thought
we
are
going
to
get
that,
so
it's
just
just
a
panic
proposal,
although
the
idea
would
be
to
get
some
feedback
on
it
anyway.
So
what
long
story
short
one
of
the
issues
with
Roxton,
so
the
reason
current
eruption
is
having
a
hard
time
doing.
Anything
is
because
networking
wise,
the
forked
Network
before
the
pool
of
fork
nodes
and
the
pool
of
non
forked
nodes
have
no
idea
that
each
other,
so
the
noes
have
no
idea
whether
appear
is
forked
or
not.
C
C
We
came
up
with
this
idea
of
a
fork
idea,
which
is
kind
of
like
just
to
check
some
of
the
the
Genesis
hash,
along
with
all
the
fork
block
numbers
and
the
proposal.
We
had
any
IP,
it's
already
accepted
and
version,
and
my
proposal
would
be
to
publish
a
new
version
of
the
East
portico
so
essentially
bump
the
eighth
protocol
to
each
64,
and
the
only
change
would
be
to
replace
this
Genesis
hash
in
the
handshake
to
this
fork.
C
Id
and
what
it
would
allow
us
to
do
is
that
when
two
peers
connect,
then
even
if
they
have
the
same
Genesis
block,
they
will
be,
they
will
immediately
know
whether
they
are
compatible
or
incompatible
with
each
other
for
Christ,
and
this
would
actually,
if,
if
this
would
have
been
implemented,
unwrapped
and
currently,
then
the
two
networks,
the
ones
who
didn't
fork
into
Istanbul
and
the
ones
who
worked
in
Istanbul.
They
would
have
separated
really
cleanly
at
a
networking
level.
C
If
anyone
wants
to
take
a
look,
please
take
a
look
I
linked
in
the
IP
and,
as
the
proposal
is
just
to
replacing
a
single
field
in
a
handshake,
the
question
is
whether
does
anyone
have
any
objection
against
publishing
an
e
64
version?
Well,
since,
if
the
eath
namespace
is,
is
they're
officially
theorem
protocol,
we
don't
just
want
the
gap
team
to
publish
a
new
version
unilaterally
and
say
that
this
is
the
version
64,
but
but
we
would
really
like
to
do
so,
and
it's
really
a
more
or
less
trivial
change.
C
So
that's
why
we're
kind
of
optimist
that
the
effort
to
implement
it
is
really
tiny
and
the
benefit
would
be
huge,
especially
for
test
networks
and,
of
course,
even
if
we
do
implement
it.
That
would
definitely
keep
speaking
the
old
protocol
side
by
side.
So
it's
not
like.
We
want
to
roll
out
something
incompatible.
Rather
it
would
be
just
an
updated
version.
C
E
E
C
So
the
problem
with
these
suggestions
in
general
is
that
there
are
a
lots
of
suggestions
and
I,
don't
know
which
impact
state
those
suggestions
are
in.
For
example,
we
also
have
a
new
an
idea
for
a
new
synchronization
protocol
which
would
be
really
nice
to
have,
but
it's
not
yet
fully
expect
out
so
I
don't
mind,
adding
anything
else
that
is
fully
SPECT
out
and
fully
agreed
upon.
C
The
reason
I
was
suggesting
to
go
with
the
single
change
is
because
this
one
is
so
we
have
test
cases,
we
have
everything
and
it's
something
that
is
easy
to
roll
out
and
it's
something
that's
needed.
I
will
I'm
really
open
to
adding
other
stuff,
but
I
don't
want
to
start
a
whole
research
thread
and
the
one-year
delay
just
because
we
don't
know
what
else
to
add
or
how
to
add
them.
So
anything
that's
ready,
we
can
add
but
stuff.
That's
not
ready.
I
would
postpone
365.
E
B
C
So
one
advantage
of
doing
money,
I
mean
one
advantage
of
doing
64.
Just
is
a
tiny
thing
and
a
65
is
the
next
tiny
thing
is
that
it's
easy
to
a
lot
easier
for
a
client
to
implement
and
make
sure
that
it
works
and
that
income
and
the
next
thing
and
make
sure
that
it
works
versus
if
we
create
an
is
65
that's
or
each
64.
C
C
Theory,
I
kind
of
also
like
when
I
would
also
say
that
if
we
can
make
smaller
releases
to
the
protocol,
smaller
version
bombs
than
that
is
probably
a
bit
healthier
but
I'm,
but
from
okay
I'm
a
bit
from
this
perspective,
I'm
a
bit
partial
because
because
I
do
see
some
urgency
in
installing
and
networking
aspects,
whereas
the
rest
of
the
things
are
kind
of
niceties
or
optimizations.
That
definitely
should
go
in.
C
The
problem
is,
you
cannot,
so
if
you
want
to
upgrade
the
network,
so
this
one
will
probably
won't
have
any
effect
on
Istanbul,
because
so
the
whole
idea
of
so,
if
I,
if
I,
add
this
extra
field
in
the
window
into
the
handshake
and
then
peers
can
decide
that
they
are
on
a
different
chain.
That
also
implicitly
means
that
people
who
did
not
upgrade
they
also
need
to
be
able
to
speak
this
new
protocol.
C
So
essentially,
what
I'm
saying
is
that
this
won't
fix
Rob
stone
and
this
won't
fix
click,
girly
and
rinkeby
or
may
not.
Well.
If
people
update
and
the
main
that
fort
won't
happen
for
I,
don't
know
one
two
months,
then
it
might
help
a
bit,
but
but
realistically
it's
probably
it
will
probably
have
for
the
next
artwork.
B
C
Actually,
the
reason
so
the
problem
correctly,
the
problem
with
roxton
are
with
nose
that
didn't
upgrade,
but
if
nose
don't
upgrade,
then
they
won't
have
this
e
64
either
to
solve
the
problem.
So
that's
why
I'm
saying
that
it
is
a
solution
for
a
for
a
future
hard
fork.
I
mean
it
will
help
a
future
are
for
plan.
Everybody
in
the
network
will
be
actually
running
a
64
already.
D
C
A
A
C
I
do
have
one
of
it
go
ahead,
it's
completely
independent
of
Istanbul,
but
we
did
get
released
a
couple
of
days
ago.
It
was
one
nine,
six
I
think
and
among
them
quite
a
few
fixes
we
actually
tweaked
to
level
the
be
a
bit
and
if
you
defy
think
this
tweak
reduces
your
disk
I/o
by
about
half
and
if
you
don't
think
it
reduces
by
a
factor
of
ten.
C
A
D
A
G
A
So
we
it's
like
the
second
item
on
the
agenda.
If
you
look,
there's
a
actually
a
late,
so
on
the
first
day
of
Def
Con
in
the
afternoon,
there's
a
it's
called
etherium
roadmap,
2020
agenda
item,
and
so
the
afternoon
is
kind
of
split
and
in
for
the
first
part,
is
like
the
each
one
roadmap.
The
second
part
is
the
transition
from
East
one
to
e
to
the
third
part
is
to,
and
the
fourth
part
is
for
working
groups
to
work
on
anything
that
comes
out
in
those
sessions.
So
yeah.