►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #37 [04/20/18]
Description
A
A
A
A
A
E
E
The
transaction
and
Europe
is
mated
for
the
transaction.
I
removed
that
method
from
the
protocol
and
implemented
the
transaction
signing
on
the
client
side,
so
no
need
to
introduce
new
methods,
above
that
a
client
requires
to
be
to
have
a
sign,
their
own
transaction
made,
but
I
guess
well.
Every
single
client
has
it
because
it's
in
the
same
protocol,
small.
A
A
Ok
yep,
so
the
first
VAP
an
agenda.
Let's
move
on
here
is
the
IP
908
reward
for
clients
and
full
nodes,
validating
transactions,
I
believe
that
was
James,
Ray
and
Micah.
This
proposal
and
there's
a
related
proposal
here,
yeah
related
proposal,
goodbye
Micah
as
well,
which
is
not
a
formal
VIP.
This
is
in
the
e3
search
forum.
A
H
H
When
he
come
when
a
client
signs
a
transaction,
it
attaches
accuser
agents
to
the
signature.
This
could
then
be
used
to
send
some
amount
of
each
to
the
author
of
that
user
agent.
In
other
words,
so
amount
of
eath
can
be
sent
to
the
organization
that
develops
the
client
issue,
parody
the
etherion
foundation,
etc,
when
the
transaction
is
processed
similar
to
mining
rewards.
H
G
I
J
I
A
Cool
okay,
so
it
sounds
like
we
have
some
consensus
here
that
this
is
you
know
at
this
moment,
people
feel
that
this
is
better.
She
was
sort
of
thing,
but
I
agree
with
glad
I
think
we
should
give
the
authors
of
the
CIP
a
chance
to
kind
of
defend
it
or
argue
for
it.
So
shall
we
table
this
and
bring
it
back
hopefully,
in
the
next
call.
A
Definitely
well,
we
have
a
lot
of
magenta
today,
so
let's,
let's
keep
moving
so
the
next
thing
I
have
here
is
also
a
continuation
from
the
last
call
I
think
so
it's
it's
Bennington's
proposal
that
all
the
IPS
ought
to
contain
a
PR
against
the
yellow
paper
before
being
merged
or
accepted.
This
was
brought
up
kind
of
verbally
on
the
last
call
I'm
not
aware
of
a
formal
VIP.
For
this
do
we
have
been
with
us?
Yes,
yep.
K
Yeah
hi
everyone
so
then
from
consensus,
protocol
engineering,
yeah,
there's
no
nothing
written
yet
on
this
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
test
the
water,
and
if
people
are
interested,
I'll
write
it
as
a
PR
VIP
one,
but
that
the
background
is
a
few
months
ago,
I
raised
question
about
maintenance
of
the
yellow
paper,
which
was
months
out
of
date.
At
the
time,
gavin
has
relicense
that
and
ueg
is
doing
sterling
work
with
others
of
maintaining
it.
K
We
also
discussed
other
potential
formats
for
a
specification
for
aetherium,
where
the
yellow
paper
was
right
or
k,
EVM
or
something
else,
but
that's
kind
of
to
one
side.
The
point
is
whatever
format.
We
agree
for
the
canonical
specification
if
we
believe
that
their
interests
have
one,
this
needs
to
be
maintained
and
what
I'm
suggesting
is
that
that
maintenance
should
be
done.
K
At
least
part
of
the
maintenance
should
be
done
as
part
of
the
EIP
process
so
where
relevant,
to
core
VIP
before
it's
accept
in
order
to
contain
the
core
request
or
a
date
or
some
sort
to
the
spec,
and
that
did
should
be
subject
to
the
peer-review
process.
The
same
as
the
EIP
text
is
so
that
would
be
a
PR
to
the
yellow
paper
today.
I
guess
and
that
link
to
that
PR
can
form
part
of
the
header,
preamble
and
I.
K
Think
that
will
clearly
make
it
easier
to
maintain
the
specification,
the
yellow
paper,
but
it
will
also
I
think
my
sense
is
that
it
will
also
help
with
bringing
rigor
to
the
specification
of
VIPs
mere
act
of
interacting
with
respect
to
formalize.
The
EIP
I
think
will
help
to
identify
edge
cases
and
ambiguities
which
do
sometimes
arise.
So
that's
the
idea
I'm
just
kind
of
floating
that
for
feedback.
If
people
think
it's
a
good
idea
or
we're
pursuing
our
lumps
goodies
as
a
PRT
ip1,
we
can
discuss
it
there,
any
any
thoughts
or
reactions.
G
K
I
mean
I'll
tell
you
guidance
on
that
of
course
Nick,
but
that
would
not
everybody
will
be
capable
or
interested
in
writing.
You
know
a
yellow
paper.
Pull
request
is
some
something
of
a
specialist
sport,
so
it
may
be
listening.
Ivy
gets
motors
draft,
but
somebody
can
work
with
the
author
to
spec
it
up
in
the
right
format.
For
the
formal
specification
to.
K
C
B
L
I
would
bring
up
the
account
abstraction
eat
that
only
exposed
its
complexity
at
implementation
time.
So
if
somebody
had
spent
the
time
to
fully
spec
it
out
ahead
of
time
that
wouldn't
have
actually
gotten
us
anywhere,
because
once
it
got
down
to
implementation,
things
started
to
fall
apart.
Just
a
counter
argument
against
this.
G
F
Yes,
it's
in
theory,
I
think
it's
nice
to
spec
it
out
before
anyone
starts
implementing
it
and
it's
even
nicer
to
open
up
for
requesting
as
yellow
paper,
but
in
all
honesty
how
many
people
here
can
actually
open
the
full
request
against
the
yellow
paper,
meaning
top.
So
my
problem
is
that
if
everybody
starts
opening
for
requests
and
the
quality
of
the
yellow
paper,
wolf
comment.
F
K
G
A
C
Another
another
one
is
to
realize
it.
Oh
look
the
way
the
yellow
paper
probably
has
its
own
process.
For
you
know
and
like
you
know,
you
Ishii
and
maybe
others
are
involved
and
that
having
the
dev
process,
people
walk
down,
their
process
will
affect
them
also,
and
so
you
know
definitely
should
talk
to
whoever
is
working
on
the
yellow
paper,
how
they
feel
about
it.
K
A
Next
thing:
okay,
next
item
on
the
agenda,
is
the
IP
nine
six,
two
zero
cap,
total
ether
supply
at
around
120
million.
By
way
of
background,
this
was
the
Tallaght
April
Fool's
joke
that
wasn't
really
an
April
Fool's
joke
that
we
discussed
on
the
last
call
and
I
believe
the
place
we
left
off
at
the
end
of
the
last
I
left
off
with
this
topic
on
the
last
call
was
that
we
would
wait
for
some
more
community
feedback
and
then
come
back
and
discuss
this
here,
a
bit
further.
Any
additional
thoughts
on
this
one.
B
D
C
A
H
C
B
C
L
J
J
H
That's
one
way
to
do
it
and
then
I
mean
there
is
also
the
other
debate
around
yep.
You
know
which
is
like
when
is
the
right
time
to,
if,
if
it
is
to
be
able,
that's
it
when
is
the
right
time
to
do
that,
including
like
at
the
same
before
hybrid
Casper
same
time
is
hybrid
Casper?
What
like
full
Casper?
That's
when
hybrid
Casper
has
been
running
for
sick
for
12
months,
like
there's
a
lot
of
different
options
there
so.
H
A
Okay,
it's
not
so
that
it
sounds
like
we're
sort
of
at
consensus
here
that
there's
some
open
questions
about
this.
Maybe
we
want
to
allow
a
little
more
time
for
community
consensus
to
coalesce
and
at
the
same
time,
there's
this
meta
question
about.
If
this
were
to
happen,
when
is
the
right
time
for
it
to
happen,
so
maybe
we
can
move
that
debate
to
either
the
EIP
or
to
the
fellowship
of
a
theory,
magicians
forum
as
well.
Any
final
comments
on
this
one
before
we
move
on
I.
C
A
Okay,
got
it
all
right,
so
let's
move
the
next
item
on
the
agenda.
The
next
item
is
AIP
969
modifications
to
eath
hatch
to
invalidate
existing
dedicated
hardware
implementations.
So
this
was
also
discussed
in
the
last
call
and
I
believe
the
place
we
left
this
one
was
very
similar,
which
is
to
say,
let's
wait
and
see
how
the
community
feels
about
it
and
if
it's
clearly
of
interest
to
the
community
we'll
bring
it
up
in
the
next
call.
Anecdotally
I
can
share
that.
A
You
know
there
has
been
obviously
some
ongoing
dialogue
about
this
one
I'll
read
it
and
a
few
other
forums,
Hudson
very
kindly
wrote
an
article
and
read
it
sort
of
summarizing
both
the
sides
of
the
debate
that
he
sees
I'll
share
these
links
in
the
various
channels
right
now.
So
what
are
the
thoughts
on
969.
L
I
can
speak
up
about
this,
so
I
have
acted
as
this
piper
I've
acted
as
a
facilitator
for
this,
and
where
this
left
off
was
that
the
person
and
I
cannot
remember
their
name
on
them
on
mobile
now,
who
opened
up
e96
9
I
was
leaving
it
on
their
plate
to
come
and
champion
this
if
they
wanted
to
continue
pushing
this
forward.
So
if
they're
here
they
can
speak
up,
and
if
somebody
else
here
wants
do
champion
its,
we
can
do
that.
But
if
there's
nobody
here
looking
a
champion
and
we
can
move
on.
H
N
C
C
From
from
from
my
side,
I
see,
I
mean
I
get
a
lot
more
people
telling
me
that,
like
oh,
it's
really
important
to
them
and
that
they
that
this
happened,
then
people
telling
me
almost
no
one
tells
me
that
they
don't
want
it
to
go
through
people
who
don't
wanna,
go
through
her,
the
most
notable.
Maybe
it's
Phil.
H
Like
well
I
think,
there's
really
three
viewpoints.
One
is
Rob
Rob.
Let's
do
it
another.
Another
extreme
is
like
it's
actually
bad
in
service
of
effects
and
then
there's
the
kind
of
middle
to
right
position,
which
is
that
it
would
be
unmet
good.
But
it's
not
worth
the
development
effort,
because
it
would
be
better
to
just
spend
those
resources
on
caspere.
D
H
C
H
J
B
C
B
G
G
C
G
C
A
B
C
A
Okay,
well,
it
sounds
like
no
one
is
opposed
to
its
going
into
another
heart
fork.
Again,
there's
no
consensus
at
this
moment
for
it
to
be
its
own
heart
fork.
So
I
guess
the
question
here
is:
do
we
again
do
we
schedule
this
to
bring
it
up
again
on
the
next
call,
or
do
we
wanna
kind
of
wait
until
the
sort
of
roadmap
forward
and
then
hard
for
chrome,
app
roadmap
becomes
more
clear.
G
A
O
O
I'm
not
sure
a
capable
of
really
going
into
the
governance
process.
That
would
be
probably,
but
if
there
are
like
reasons
to
improve
this
proposal
or
to
reject
it
straight
away
as
in
canto,
VI,
p1
I
would
love
to
hear
now,
because
the
things
much
more
easier,
if
there
are
no
objections
to
accept
those
proposal
within
context
of
AIP
one.
That
would
be
nice
too,
but
yeah
I
want
to
get
general
feedback
on
this.
H
And
I
personally
would
say
that,
like
technically
speaking,
the
proposal
seems
team,
so
I
could
be
like
if
you
ever
risk
and
I
could
the
net
natural
and
cleanest
way
to
achieve
its
objective,
but
it
and
whether
or
not
it
actually
gets
implemented.
Just
because
it's
more
a
matter
of
like
social
trade-offs
and
not
technical
trade-offs.
H
It
should
be
the
domain
of
like
community
debate
in
discussion
rather
than
the
score
desk
hall
specifically
and
like
only
if
the
community,
a
community
discussion,
ends
up
being
strongly
in
favor
what
it
makes
sense
to
actually
talk
about
it
in
this
role.
I
mean
I,
don't
know
if,
like
Vlad
would
us
say.
C
The
the
broader
question
that
that
I
have,
though,
is
like
whether
or
not
acceptance
as
a
neap.
It
should
be
locked
on
community
questions,
I
think
like
implement
implementation
and
deployment.
You
know
it
makes
it
makes
more
sense
if
to
try
to
avoid
a
set
is
hard
fork
if
possible,
and
they
it's
unclear
whether
the
community
discussion
will
resolve
or
come
to
a
kind
of
steady
state.
C
H
I
H
L
C
C
It
was
I,
don't
think
it
was
like
the
main,
the
main
thing
that
he
were
talking
about,
but
it
was
definitely
notable,
and
you
know,
but
but
the
main
reason
why
I
think
that
I
bring
up
the
Dow.
The
Dow
is
basically
is
this,
so
it's
about.
We
kind
of
all
agree
that,
ideally,
in
the
best
case,
the
implementation
would
follow
a
community
consensus
and
there
would
be
alignment
so
that
everything
that
is
released
is
adopted.
C
But
when
there's
a
but
what
what
happens
when
there's
a
lack
of
consensus
is
still
a
kind
of
question
and
in
in
the
Dow
we
had
somewhat
of
an
answer,
which
is
that,
like,
oh,
there
is
like
a
flag
that
you
can
set
to
have
like
one
outcome
or
the
other,
and
that
way
like.
Oh,
both
sides
of
the
debate
get
served
by
the
developers
and
they
can
and
and.
C
J
But
well
it's
our
decision,
it
it
in
the
end.
The
only
decision
happens
is
that
the
committee
split
right.
It's
not
as
if
the
committee
decides
takes
a
vote
and
goes
one
way
or
the
other.
The
result
is
that
you
have
truth
of
signing
community.
If
you
complain,
if
something
contentious
happened
and
I
think-
and
my
main
argument
in
my
post
is
that
there
is
a
huge
cost
to
that
and
we
have
to
ignore
it.
We
cannot
ignore
it.
C
You
know
I
mean
I,
actually
am
Not
sure
that
every
single
contentious
orc
will
lead
to
a
new
community
because
it
takes
a
community.
Sustaining
itself
takes
a
lot
of
work.
Also,
there
needs
to
be
like
a
critical
mass
and
IIIi.
Don't
know
that
it's
the
case
that
for
every
contentious
hard
book
there
will
be
a
sustained
community
for
both
sides.
I.
B
D
F
To
react
the
next
changes
as
far
as
I
know.
The
reason
why
I
am
plastic
survived
was
that
Palani
axe
decided
after
three
days
to
list
it
after
it
seemingly
died.
So
basically,
my
point
really
is
that,
from
an
exchange
point
of
view,
I
think
it
always
makes
sense
to
list
a
fork
because
it's
fun
it's
it
makes
the
money.
So
you
can't
really
assume
so
look
at
them
from
a
business
perspective.
It's
in
their
interest
to
list
the
four,
but.
D
C
Know
I
think,
there's
I
think
that's
really
two
main
two
main
parts
to
it.
One
of
them
is
like,
oh,
you
know.
Are
they
getting
a
trademark
like
are
like
either?
Is
the
control
controller,
the
trademark
going
to
hit
them
with
that
lawsuit
and
then
the
other
one
is
what
do
their
customers
think
and
what
do
they
are
traitors
and
the
market
makers
who
work
on
their
on
their
platform,
building.
J
It
doesn't
matter
which
one
becomes
the
canonical
just
the
fact
that
they
are
now
two
of
them
once
the,
and
there
is
an
incentive
for
exchanges
to
listen,
though
there's
an
incentive
for
spectators
to
buy
them,
but
by
and
I'm
trade
and
put
them
them
out,
there's
an
incentive
where,
if
you
bite
early
and
it's
become
feed,
you
can
use
that
for
the
development
just
having
it
two
of
them.
It
is
a
big,
is
a
big.
J
It
is
a
bad
thing
for
the
community
at
home,
because
suddenly
you
have,
you
have
to
all
the
debts
that
need
to
solve
which
one
of
them
will
they
will
serve
and
they
will
be
dragged
into
a
political
mess
and
then
there
might
be,
and
some
some
that
will
enter
in
a
amigo
mess
if
they
they
haven't
protected
themselves
from
and
I
think
that
date.
My
main
argument
that
I
we
know
the
tool
there
will
be
a
split
doesn't
matter
which,
which
one
is
the
canonical
or
not,.
C
J
Should
try
to
avoid
contentious
for
if
we
can
find
other
solution
so
I
would
I
would
also
not
support
just
sharing
parity
and
WebKit
foundation
completely
out
of
this
option,
because
I
think
they
have
that
they
are
good
for
them
having
having
their
front
unlock
and
because,
once
you
do
it,
then
they
have
even
more
incentive
just
create
a
split
shine.
My
my
augment
would
that
we
should
keep
explore,
especially
things.
We
don't
have
like
a
clear
date.
J
B
C
J
C
J
Think
if
we,
if
we
feel
try
to
focus
the
discussion,
if
there
a
governor
solution
on
on
how
to
issue
funds
on
how
what
to
use
the
pump
we're
going
to
be
issued,
that
could
be
used
to
help
recover
like
victims
of
bugs
and
like
people
that
have
been
damaged
by
it
by
bugs
and
I.
Think
that's
that's
my
more
general
thing.
It's
a
government
official.
J
My
suggestion
is
that
we
put
that
in
the
governance,
pile
and
keep
doing
the
governor
till
we
find
a
way
to
fund
public
I
would
say
that
parity
recovery
is
a
public
good
like
it
could
be
considered
a
public
good
and
that
that
we
should.
We
should
try
to
keep
some
sort
of
governance
discussion
on
how
we
advocate.
C
J
C
Anyways
III
I
think
like
in
terms
of
process.
We
should
try
to
like
wrap
up
this
conversation
and
hey
I'm
free.
Do
you
have
any
like
thoughts
on
what
you
would
prefer,
inter
or
like
in
terms
of
what
the
process
is
in
terms
of
the
community
consensus
versus
the
implementation?
But
do
you
really
want
like
to
just
have
the
implementation
ASAP
and
released
ASAP
as
a
hard
fork.
O
I'm
certain
that
I'm
coming
here
with
more
questions
and
answers
and
what
I
can
do
right
now
is
like
just
using
existing
processes
as
like
orientation
and
I'm
just
following
VIP
one
and
trying
to
figure
out
where
this
proposal
stands
and
to
answer
a
question
directly,
I
would
like
to
see
implementations
going
forward.
Yes,.
O
O
The
proposals
from
this
chamber
of
cavity
made
that
changed
the
EBM
semantics
around
the
service
contracts
that
they
are
obviously
rejected.
Let
it
be
the
efforts
around
VIP,
156
or
so
a
covery
process
in
the
IP
eight
six
seven.
For
me,
this
is
most
logical
step
to
take
just
implement
nine
nine.
Nine
I
don't
see
what
waiting
another
four
weeks
to
conclude
on
this,
what
benefit
we
would
benefit
from
what's
the
community,
but.
C
The
abs
is
concerned,
I
think
everyone's
concern
to
some
extent
is
that
this
is
a
contentious,
hard
fork
and
therefore
will
lead
to
a
lot
of
headaches
and
the
hope
is
like
oh
by
delaying,
maybe
eventually
it
will
become
non
contentious
as
we
get
more
clarity,
but
that
is
obviously
uncertain.
The
other
alternative
is
just
to
embrace
the
contentious,
hard
fork,
and
you
know
hope
people
figure
out
which
side
they
want
to
be
on
and
are
able
to
coordinate
by
the
time
of
activation
by.
J
G
C
G
C
F
Just
regarding
the
implantation,
I
think
one
of
my
issues
with
that
would
be
that
if
we
just
roll
out
all
the
implementations
for
the
client,
then
we
kind
of
inherently
say
that
we
want
to
fork
whether
or
not
it's
enabled
or
not
own.
You
need
to
add
a
flag
or
not
that's
beside
the
question.
If
it's
in
the
client
is
that
there
is
willing
pork.
C
C
H
P
D
H
F
So,
just
to
reiterate:
I'm
not
just
expand
a
bit
on
what
with
Alex
said
for
when
we
did
the
Dow
hard
fork.
There
was
a
ton
of
extra
code
and
extra
networking
mumbo
jumbo
put
in
place
just
to
ensure
that
the
two
forks
can
survive
now.
If,
if
we
wouldn't
have
implemented
that,
then,
if
your
classic
wouldn't
exist
now,
maybe
I,
don't
my
point
really
is
that
if
we
truly
want
to
offer
the
community
a
choice,
then
it's
not
that
trivial
to
implement
this.
F
F
Sure,
well,
we
have
chain
ideas,
but,
for
example,
what
you
do
not
have
is
a
theorem
protocol
separation
at
a
networking
level,
which
means
that
unless
we
put
in
extra
special
header
rules
that
we
did
for
the
Dow,
it
means
that
clients
will
always
try
to
synchronize
to
the
vias
chain,
which
might
not
be
on
the
same
fork
sites
that
they
want.
You
figure
out
the
way
on
how
to
split
the
chains,
and
then
it
gets
I'm
not
saying
it's
it's
hard
to
solve
it,
just
extra
stuff.
That
needs
to
be
done
and
dusted.
C
C
I
mean
I,
certainly
if
it
was.
If
we
were
talking
about
Casper
versus
not
having
Casper,
it
would
be
like
yeah,
let's
show
so
so
I,
don't
think
the
answer
is
always
gonna,
be
no
to
that
question.
I.
Think,
like
you
know,
if
so,
but
then
so
you
know
you
know
and
and
who,
who
is
the
judge
right?
Yes,.
F
F
D
C
And
so,
if
we're
never
gonna
reach
a
consensus,
consensus
I
think
contentious.
Forks
is
preferable
to
tabling
indefinitely
it
I'm,
not
sure
I'm,
not
sure
you
know.
When
is
the
right
time.
I
mean
somehow
somehow
like.
If
know
like
difference
between
an
unsettled
debate
and
a
settled
debate.
That's
content
where
the
shadow
state
is
contentious.
Well,.
J
R
C
L
C
L
L
Time
I
ignore
comments
that
are
from
completely
unknown
sources,
but
there
are
plenty
of
people
on
there
who
are
known
quantities
in
the
community.
Who've
spoken
out
against
it.
I
am
not
aware
of
I,
do
not
recall
seeing
the
same
level
of
support
in
that
department.
So
that's
at
least
one
metric
yeah.
B
H
A
On
the
topic
of
consensus,
community
consensus
I
just
want
to
mention
as
well
that
there
was
a
coin
vote
here
on
a
thirteen
org,
that's
linked
inside
the
fellowship
of
a
theory,
magician's
threat.
If
people
want
to
take
a
look
at
it,
I
don't
know
if
there's
any
consensus
about
those
sort
of
legitimacy
of
this
type
of
poll.
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
that
is
there
as
well
and
that's
another
channel
of
some
some
degree
of
community
feedback
here
during.
J
C
F
H
Well,
it's
up
to
350,000
ether.
The
other
problem
is
that
it
uses
like
signing
instead
of
transactions,
which
makes
it
harder
for
contracts
to
vote
and
also
the
in
general
I.
Don't
I'm,
not
even
sure
if
a
lot
of
people
with
cold
wallets
see
that
or
even
have
mission,
the
like
machinery
readily
available
to
do
signing
with
them
so
like
it
is
definitely
not
in
especially
accessible
poll
so
for
to
participate
in
just
because
just
for
that
technical
reason
and
yeah.
Yes,.
H
H
J
F
Is
so
my
personally
might
the
reason
I
don't
really
like
the
coin
boy
to
volt
approach,
because
I
don't
really
consider
it
fair,
so
to
say:
I'm,
basically
just
spilling
the
beans
parity.
Obviously,
the
parity
team
was
part
of
the
original
B
theorem
team.
They
control
probably
quite
a
significant
sum
of
ether,
which
kind
of
means
that
they
have
a
huge
sway
on
the
on
the
boats.
From
this
point
onward,
I,
don't
really
consider
it
a
fair
vote
period.
J
It's
a
measure
like
any
other
right,
because
the
other
hand,
you
could
argue
that
a
person
that
has
been
developing
for
a
long
time,
the
Tyrians,
should
have
a
higher
weight
than
someone
who
never
heard
about
it
here
and
just
like
just
came
in
to
Twitter
and
posted
something.
So
the
issue
is
that
we
don't
have
any
good
a.
F
Fair
enough
Alex,
but
consider
that,
depending
whether
you
join
the
etherium
in
in
August,
2014
or
April
2015,
that
basically
does
two
zeros
in
your
ether
holding
I.
Just
give
you
an
example,
and
you
both
person
have
been
on
the
team,
so
to
say,
for
example,
for
three
and
a
half
years
now,
yet
a
coin
vote
kind
of
assumes
that
the
guy
who
was
lucky
enough
to
join
three
months
earlier,
has
all
the
weight.
C
Yeah
definitely
coin
coin.
Holdings
are
not
fair.
The
the
the
thing
that's
interesting
about
Coit
voting
is
that
like
it
will
at
least
there's
a
lot
of
non
developers.
There's
a
lot
of
people
who
aren't
technical,
who
own
who
have
coins,
maybe
they're
less
likely
to
vote,
but
it
does
provide.
If
we
lure,
it
was
look
at
the
opinions
of
all
the
coin
holders.
It
would
provide
more
of
a
sense
of
people
think,
but
it's
not
everyone
and
it's
definitely
not
a
fair
measure.
I.
G
I
C
But
so
so
this
is
a
still
conversation
about
like
detecting
consensus
and
trying
to
figure
out
what
trying
to
figure
out
what
is
like,
paella
legitimate
basis
for
deciding
that,
like
oh
there's
enough
support,
you
know
we
still,
we
sold
I
still
don't
have
clear.
I
still,
don't
know
what
we
would
do
if
we,
if
the
debate
was
settled,
meaning
that,
like
there's
no
new
arguments,
there's
no
new
information
coming
out
and
also
but
not
but
not,
consensus
like
there's
it's
contentious
and
settled
so
the
ideas
I
will
know
forever.
C
G
R
S
C
Yeah,
so
it's
definitely
like
a
deep
kind
of
governance
question,
but,
from
the
point
of
view
of
you
know,
the
all
devs
as
a
institution
for
coordinating
the
release
of
software
upgrade
updates.
You
know
there
is
a
it
is
something
that's
gonna
be
ended.
Up
being
important,
you
know
is:
it
is
something
that,
like
we're,
gonna
need
to
think
about
here.
C
A
A
Agree
thanks,
Piper
yeah,
we're
beginning
to
get
close
to
kind
of
a
90
minute
mark.
Here
we
definitely
a
few
more
agenda
items
to
go
through.
It
sounds
like
we
don't
have
consensus
pretty
clearly.
So
maybe
we
table
this
for
the
moment
and
you
know
kind
of
continue
the
discussion
on
the
Fellowship
of
ethereal
magicians
forum
and
an
EIP.
Does
that
sound
like
a
reasonable
course
of
action.
A
A
T
Can
you
hear
me
now?
Yes,
yes,
okay,
sorry
yeah!
So
just
saying,
yeah
I
heard
that
you're
saying
that
layer
two
is
preferable
and
I
guess
that
would
manager
that
is
going
to
reduce
protocol
complexity,
which
is
fine,
I,
guess
the
advantage
to
having
it
in
protocol
is.
It
will
directly
make
sure
that
you
don't
have
a
try
to
give
the
Commons
where
you
don't
have
a
Miss
incentive.
T
H
T
That
so
there
were
two
different
proposals,
and
that
was
just
one
like
way
of
doing
it.
A
proposed
way
of
doing
it
for
providing
for
just
for
it's,
not
full
state
notes.
Mica
made
another
proposal
in
every
search,
which
was
to
to
also
incentivize
full
state
nodes,
so
ones
that,
like
maintain
the
whole
state,
so
that's
a
different
proposal.
T
Yeah.
He
didn't
go
into
too
much
detail
about
how
that
would
actually
work
in
the
proposal.
I
think
it's
still
not
very
much
a
matter
of
research
but
yeah,
so
they're,
two
different
schemes
really
yeah,
so
I
mean
how
exactly
it's
done
is
like
it's
another
debate,
but
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
do
it
some
way
because
yeah,
it's
him,
I,
think
it's
important
to
incentivize,
like
different
resource
providers,
for
the
protocol.
A
H
H
T
T
Yeah
I
mean
it's
nominated,
it's
just
a
research
post
at
the
moment
yeah,
but
I
just
reading
out
the
solution
it
has
periodically.
The
system
asks
everyone
to
commit
encrypted.
What
is
at
a
particular
address
in
the
state?
Anyone
can
commit
that
they
know
what
is
at
the
address,
along
with
some
staking
amount,
staking
some
amount
of
coins
sometime
later
short-duration,
everyone
that
reveals
what
they
believe
is
that
bath
dress.
T
Anyone
who
is
right
gets
a
share
of
minted
coins
proportional
to
their
stake,
and
anyone
who's
wrong
doesn't
reveal
that
a
stake,
and
then
he
goes
in
to
implement
detailed
problems
and
issues
like
how
do
you
know
what
data
to
choose
for
this
random
select?
You
want
ran
in
the
selection,
but
you
don't
also
know
you,
but
you
also
want
the
answer
to
be
not
some
random
amount
between
0
to
99
percent
of
the
time
and.
A
H
B
The
spec
is,
in
general,
ready
for
clients
to
implement.
There
might
be
minor,
tweaks
and
I'll,
make
it
very
clear
on
the
appropriate
channels
when
those
Deker
were
not
walking
in
the
bike
code
and
some
other
things
until
we've
locked
the
contract
after
a
formal
verification.
But
that
said,
we're
we're
definitely
ready
to
go
and
do
kind
of
full
swing.
Client
implementation
conversation
around
around
it
can
happen
on
an
issue
you
can
see
in
the
EIP,
but
also
we're
gathering
in
the
etherium,
slash
Kasper
getter,
to
coordinate
client
development
and
testing
etc.
B
A
I
B
And
I'll
generally
kind
of
keep
an
update
as
to
progress
in
these
meetings
and
we
can,
when
you're,
getting
closer
to
client
of
being
ready
and
I'm
also
in
correspondence
to
the
follow
verification
engineers.
So
as
these
pieces
of
the
puzzle
are
getting
closer
to
being
completed,
I'll
signal
that
it's
time
to
start
talking
about
four
o'clock,
numbers,
etc
and
in
terms
of
testing
Demetri.
A
Cool,
ok,
let's
keep
moving
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
Constantinople
heart
for
timing.
What
to
include
this
is
also
a
continuation
of
a
conversation
from
the
last
call
from
the
issue.
For
this
call
here,
Alfre
had
asked
a
question
whether
there's
a
meta,
a
IP
for
constants
and
no
and
I
believe
Nick
created
one
EIP,
one
zero
one.
Three
I'll
go
ahead
and
share
this
link
as
well
any
thoughts
on
this
new
e
IP
here
or
what
goes
into
Constantinople
or
timing.
G
G
A
A
Any
other
comments
or
thoughts
on
again
the
timing
for
the
Constantinople
for
Corps
or
what
goes
into
it.
I
believe
that
EIP
I,
just
shared,
contains
I,
think,
there's
I,
guess
non-controversial
VIPs
145
bit
by
shifting
instructions
and
two
one
zero
block
hash
for
factoring
and
I.
Believe.
The
consensus
from
the
previous
call
was
that
we
don't
have
enough
to
do
a
fork,
yet
any
any
thoughts
on
that
am
I
missing.
Anything.
D
A
B
H
H
H
F
H
I
remember
now
believe
that
we
will
just
wanted
to
have
more
testing
and
I'm,
not
sure
if
anyone
has
taken
on
the
responsibility
of
making
more
test
suites
for
it,
like
I,
mean
I,
suppose
that's
technically
not
like
that
could
be
done
in
parallel
with
finalization,
because
basically,
the
only
thing
that
I
expects
testing
could
reveal
is
testing.
Could
review
potentially
reveal
look
like
in
the
serpent
code,
but
if
that
happens,
then
there
could
just
be
modified.
H
A
Okay,
it
sounds
like
we
need
a
little
more
time
on
210,
maybe
to
do
some
more
testing
like
italic
just
mentioned
mm-hmm
again,
I
believe
the
consensus
was
that
we
don't
have
enough
yet
to
schedule
the
next
hard
fork.
Is
anyone
feel
otherwise
about
that?
Otherwise,
I'll
say
this
table
doesn't
come
back
to
the
you
know.
The
next
call.
H
Yeah
another
thing
by
the
way
that
a
baby
worth
discussing
for
hard
Forks
is
create
too.
So
this
is
basically
the
the
the
part
of
the
counter
abstraction
where
you
can
create
a
contract
at
an
address
where
the
address
is
dependent
on
assaults
and
the
code
of
the
DNA
code
of
the
contract,
and
this
basically
just
lets
you
do
stuff
like
precent
addresses
where
you
know
that
those
addresses
are
definitely
going
to
have
one
particular
piece
of
code,
or
it
also
lets
you.
H
A
H
H
F
H
Oh
okay,
so
there's
one
thing
to
clarify:
it's
very
important
that
it
has
to
be
it.
The
address
has
to
be
the
hash
of
the
anit
code
and
not
the
hash
of
the
contracts
code.
Precisely
because
like
when
we're
processing
the
initialization,
we
know
what
the
net
code
is,
but
we
have
no
idea
what
the
contracts
code
is
yet.
I
H
H
Create
thing
I
think
is
like
abstract
should
for
sure
excellent
abstraction,
but
well
like
here,
I'm
suggesting
a
much
more
limited
thing,
which
is
we
just
make
create
two
and
even
without
any
other
abstraction
benefits
creates.
Who
will
make
it
easier
to
do
like
I
mean
stay
channels
and
a
bunch
of
other
stuff.
Okay,.
A
A
F
Well,
I'm
not
sure
how
much
so
I
think
the
only
interesting
update
that
could
be
of
interest
here
is
that
we've
that
I
think
this
week
at
the
beginning
of
the
week
we
released
get
one
eight
four
and
the
most
interesting
thing
from
our
perspective
now
is
that
it
has
40
percent
speed
increase
on
may
not
so
it
kind
of
reduces
basically
on
the
on
the
AWS
machines
that
we
tested
on
it
reduced
block
processing
times
from
200
milliseconds
100
on
may.
Not
so
that's
that's
really.
When
I
say
movement,
yeah.
F
O
A
I
I
We
saw
figures
like
five
times
faster
and
we
think
when
we
will
finish
it,
we
we
could
see
something
close
to
the
parity,
maybe
longer
possessions
and
entirety,
but
similar
figures,
and
also
we
have
big
memory
issues,
memory
leaks
and
we
are
working
on
with
so
I
think
we
could
have
good
good
release
in
a
few
weeks.
We
will
have
great
processing
time
and
we
will
fix
these
memory
issues.
A
N
A
K
Yeah
I'm
still
here
so
we
reached
some
nice
milestones
recently
we're
processing
all
frontier
blocks.
We've
got
p2p
discovery
working
well,
we've
got
pluggable
key
value
storage
in
place,
we're
reaching
a
point
now
where
we
feel
it
would
be
useful
to
get
some
advice
or
consultancy
from
those
of
you
have
traveled
this
way
previously.
So,
if
any
of
you
seasoned
client,
those
are
interested
in
taking
a
look
at
what
we're
doing
and
sharing
some
wisdom,
please
get
in
contact
with
me
or
we
may
reach
out
to
you
correctively
all
right.
Thank
you.
M
L
I
A
Next
up,
it
looks
like
we
have
a
new
client
and
a
new
individual
named
Jessica
I
apologize
if
I
mispronounced
your
name
there.
This
is
a
new
aetherium
client
called
Nimbus
from
the
Status
team.
That
will
hopefully
see
the
light
of
the
day
light
of
day
in
a
few
months.
Jessica
you
want
to
quickly
introduce
yourself.
Tell
me
how
to
pronounce
your
name
and
tell
us
a
little
more
about
your
client.
U
You
know,
small
things
that
you
hold
in
your
pop-under
pocket,
we're
obviously
in
the
early
stages
here
we're
playing
a
catch-up
danger.
First
of
all,
I
wanted
to
extend
my
team's
thanks
to
all
the
great
testing
tools
that
are
available
for,
like
the
ATM
test,
repo
and
so
on.
We
were
very
much
appreciative
of
that,
obviously,
documentation
on
and
all
the
clients
on
he
theorem
itself
and
so
on.
Big
thanks
for
that
on
the
development
side,
we've
just
finished
the
crypto
parts.
U
We
finished
the
peer-to-peer
parts,
so
we
can
basically
connect
now
we're
going
to
start
working
on
under
various
RL
B's,
so
expect
a
lot
of
breakage
on
the
test
nets.
We
hope
we
don't
mess
up
your
stuff
too
much
there.
Once
we
reach
sort
of
1.0.
The
focus
is
going
to
be
on
light
client
technologies,
obviously
we're
trying
to
even
that
the
devices
we
running
cannot
really
was
twofold
chain.
U
Most
of
the
time
we
were
going
to
be
relying
on
light
clients
and
and
and
we're
keen
on
following
research
in
these
areas
and
that
might
be
showering
stateless
clients.
Whatever
else
we
see
what
else
can
I
say
about
it,
we're
we're
obviously
trying
to
implement
we're
going
to
be
aiming
for
the
full
web.
3
stack
here
with
whisper
swarm
as
well.
U
The
licensing
can
be
an
issue,
so
we've
we're
going
with
a
more
permissive
license
than
many
of
the
other
clients,
yeah
and
finally,
I
just
like
to
say
that
we're
building
the
competence
right
now
and
once
once
we're
a
little
bit
further
on
the
road
we
hope
to
join
the
EIP
process,
join
the
community
and
participate
as
as
much
as
we
can.
So
any
questions
at
all
just
approaches.
U
A
T
Yeah,
yes,
guys
so
yeah.
We
just
start
working
on
shouting
in
rust,
so
we
started
a
month
ago
and
working
on
that,
so
we
just
put
together
a
basic
COI
weave
notary
functionality
based
on
the
initially
on
the
phase,
one
shotting
spec,
which
is
now
retired,
and
then
we
put
it
updated
to
match
the
latest
specification
with
the
minimum
starting
fruit
call
available.
T
Serialization
and
deserialization
and
they're
shining
p2p
networks
and
storing
dot
off
aged
shod.
With
word
so
yeah
there's
issues.
We've
got
like
things
to
do:
issues,
project
management
in
the
repo
on
github
and
myself
and
two
others
working
on
it.
So
yeah,
it's
I
mean
a
little
license
is
unlicensed,
so
we
just
wanted
to
be
license.
T
A
Great
all
right,
well
we're
almost
at
the
end
here,
I
think.
The
last
item
on
the
agenda
is
just
the
timing
of
the
next
call.
Two
weeks
from
now
is
going
to
be
the
middle
of
the
ED
con
conference
in
Toronto.
We
sort
of
decided
to
skip
a
call
during
you
see
see
in
Paris.
Does
it
does
anyone
feel
that
we
should
have
a
call
in
two
weeks?
Otherwise
it
looks
like
the
next
date
would
be
May
17th,
which
is
a
month
from
now
I'm
sorry,
May,
18th.
A
Cool
all
right,
well,
yeah
again
like
last
time,
we
decided
to
kind
of
skip
that
that
call
during
ECC,
because
everyone
was
probably
distracted.
So,
let's
plan
for
the
next
call
to
be
on
May,
18th
inning
in
four
weeks,
I
think
that's
it.
Thank
you
guys
very,
very
much
for
your
patience
since
there's
a
longer
call
than
usual.
Okay,.