►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #50 [2018-11-23]
Description
A
A
A
A
A
So
what
that
was
was
a
series
of
ad
hoc
meetings
that
happened
in
Prague,
I,
guess
Peter,
pretty
accurately
explained
it
in
the
core
devs
chat.
If
you
all
want
to
go
in
there
and
kind
of
see
what
he
just
wrote,
but
basically
the
summary
of
all
this
is
that
it's
really
cool
when
people
meet
in
person.
A
So
basically
it
makes
sense.
I
was
just
reading
some
more
comments.
It
makes
sense
when
people
meet
in
person
that
things
develop
a
little
bit
faster
as
far
as
ideas
and
things
like
that
and
when
it's
more
like
when
it's
not
on
a
public
court
of
meeting,
things
can
be
a
little
bit
more
candid,
which
I
think
are
both
very
good
things.
However,
I
think
there's
this
impression
that
these
meetings
were
super
official
I
actually,
for
my
part
personally,
just
fell
into
one
of
them:
I
wasn't
formally
invited
or
anything
and
I.
A
Don't
think
a
lot
of
people
were
either
I
just
happened
to
walk
into
the
room,
and
there
was
the
meeting
going
on
at
least
for
one
of
them
another
one
I
decided
to
go
to
because
I,
just
like
heard
about
it
after
the
fact
that
there
was
gonna,
be
just
a
small
meeting
of
developers
getting
together
to
talk
about
some
stuff
that
they
didn't
want
to
talk
about
like
in
public.
Yet
by
the
way,
if
you
hear
anything
or
if
I
mistyped
something
it's
because
I
have
to
do
this
in
the
cat
room
today.
A
A
I
think
someone
was
like.
What's
a
good,
you
know
date
for
the
deferral
hard
fork
and
someone
threw
that
out.
There
is
an
answer
if
I
remember
correctly,
so
it's
not
something
that
should
be
very
controversial,
even
though
the
document
wasn't
made
widely
available.
The
meeting
wasn't
made
widely
available
because
of
how
ad-hoc
it
was
either.
So
it
was
just
Daniel
taking
notes
over
something
that
people
got
together
about.
Does
anyone
have
any
comments,
concerns,
etc
about
this.
B
I
would
add
that
the
goal
is
remember
was
I
was
in
most
of
these
meetings
and
the
goal
was
never
to
like
try
to
set
a
roadmap
or
decide
what
to
do
or
not
to
do.
It
was
more
like
what
are
the
problems
that
we
see?
How
can
we
address
that?
How
can
we
work
to
produce
the
IPS
to
propose
to
fix
these
things?
C
Asked
to
think
things
to
be
private.
Maybe
it
was
a
mistake
in
hindsight
and
I
remember:
some
people
were
I.
Think
Hudson
actually
was
one
of
the
people
who
wanted
to
be
more
public
but
anyway,
so
I,
don't
I
mean
I,
didn't
realize,
probably
that
it's
gonna
be
such
a
such
a
big
deal,
because
for
me
it's
basically
I
cannot,
as
I
said
in
a
chat.
C
I
cannot
effectively
communicate
with
the
whole
community
and
I
just
wanted
us
to
get
some
work
done
in
in
small
groups
and
then,
unfortunately,
like
I,
don't
I
don't
know
how
to
kind
of
invite
all
the
people
who
will
be
interested
but
I
there's.
No,
no
intention
of
actually
just
secretly
decide
where
a
team
is
gonna
go
it's
because
I
just
realized
that
a
lot
of
the
discussions
are
happening
on
other
forums
they
just
meandering
around
the
topic.
We
have
discussed
this
thing's
hundred
times
before
everything
there's
nothing
new
that
we're
actually
talking
about.
C
It's
been
there's
lots
of
VIPs
there's
alts
proposals,
but
actually
somebody
has
to
go
and
extract
this
information
from
people
because,
most
of
the
time
they
actually
talking
past
each
other.
Nobody
is
really
taking
in
and
like
summarizing
me.
The
whole
thing
digging
up
the
data
and
stuff
and
for
me
personally,
I
cannot
do
it
while
constantly
communicating
or
I
read
it
on
Twitter
I
need
some
I
need
some
quiet
time
to
do
these
things
so,
but
so
I
think.
Without
this
kind
of
balance,
we
can't
produce
hype.
C
C
I
could
not
earlier
to
Prague.
I
only
is
very
difficult
to
me
to
plan
such
long
trips,
so
I
actually
only
could
come
for
Def.
Con
I
could
not
come
earlier
so
and
I,
don't
like
the
insinuations
that
we
have
discouraging
people
to
go
to
magicians
or
anything
like
this.
This
is
completely
not
true,
so
I
asked.
Could
you
please
stop
making
these
connections.
D
I'm
really
on
offense,
because
I
was
in
a
room
with
250
people
at
East,
magicians
and
everyone
wanted
to
solve
problems,
and
you
are
saying
you
don't
know
how
to
invite
people
and
I
was
asking
and
the
big
the
big
rumor
to
status
had
for
us.
I
was
asking
who
considers
and
said,
if
Tim
core
developer,
or
is
young
researcher
and
out
of
250
people
only
to
raise
their
hands
waiting
for
me,
we
had
so
many
amazing
work
groups.
D
C
C
Oh
significance,
I,
don't
know
why
you
make
such
a
big
deal
of
it
and
maybe
because
the
victaulic
and
Joe
who's
happened
to
be
there
and
I
as
I
said
they're
not
even
required
to
be
there
miss
meetings,
they
didn't
almost
say
anything
so
maybe
next
time
we
shouldn't
even
we
make
sure
that
they
are
not
there,
because
lots
of
people
make
the
big
deal
that
some
such
and
such
and
such
sat
in
a
room,
but
they
were
wood.
You
know
they
weren't
required.
D
C
So
I
cannot
organize
a
meeting
of
200
people
very
easily.
I
can
easily
organize
a
meeting
of
10
people,
so
you
need
to
think
about
a
scale
right.
We
don't
it
is
as
as
everybody
as
I've
mentioned
before
this
was
a
spontaneous
meeting.
I
don't
want
to
every
time.
I
want
to
have
a
meeting.
I
want
to
talk
to
somebody
about
stuff,
I
have
to
organize
like
livestream
and
seating,
400,
200
people,
it's
just
not
possible
and
I.
A
Can
I
can
see
where
some
people
would
consider
it
a
bigger
deal?
I
do
think
that
it's
it's
a
little
bit.
Some
of
the
topics
that
were
discussed
in
these
smaller
meetings
were
big
topics
and
I
think.
That
is
why
people
take
this
as
something
bigger
than
it
was,
and
I
think
that
that's
totally
fair
I
also
think
that
there
needs
to
be
a
balance
of
meetings
that
in
working
groups
that
are
more
closed
to
an
extent
or
maybe
have
only
notes
released
so
that
we
can
be
more
candid
I.
A
A
But
it's
it's
just
hard
to
balance
that
I
think
in
meetings
like
this,
the
ones
that
are
live
streamed
and
open
people
don't
feel
like
they
can
speak
up
as
much,
and
that
is
a
sentiment
that
was
talked
about
a
lot
in
the
ad
hoc
meetings
that
we
had
so
and
that's
kind
of
proven
itself
out
by
the
fact
that
now
we
have
this
article
from
Coyne
desk,
that's
pretty
sensationalist.
Talking
about
you,
know,
roadmaps
and
things
that
were
discussed.
A
You
know
and
private,
and
the
notes
were
only
taken
so
that
we
could
be
a
little
more
organized
about
the
workgroups
before
we
make
the
e
ip's
public.
At
this
point,
the
e
ip's
weren't,
even
written
or
I'm,
pretty
sure
the
e
ip's
weren't
even
written
about
it.
Yet
so
this
was
like
even
a
pre
EIP
meeting,
which
I'm
sure
happens.
I
saw
the
you
know,
members
of
the
goth
team
and
others
meeting
about
different
e
IPS
throughout
the
event
so
and
my
opinion,
I
think
this
could
have
been
made
a
little
bit
more.
A
This
could
have
been
made
a
little
bit
more
public
I
think
that
there
is
an
argument
that
that
was
a
mistake
that
it
wasn't.
However,
it
was
the
type
of
meaning
that
didn't
lend
itself
to
being
made
public
immediately,
because
it
was
ad
hoc
and
there
were
some
people
in
the
meeting
who
suggested
it
remain
private.
E
So
I
set
this
off
late
last
night.
Maybe
I
shouldn't
have,
but
the
minutes
were
up
there.
They
were
accessible
by
anyone
with
the
lake,
so
they
looked
published
to
me
and
they
looked
interesting
to
the
core
devs
for
meetings
over
the
course
of
two
three
days.
Don't
look
at
hoc
and
I'd
complained
to
Danny
about
the
first
meeting
and
it
struck
me
first,
you
know
who's
invited
I
never
saw
even
notice
on
the
Chordettes.
E
E
Brawl
core
developers
we
weren't
all
there,
we
weren't
all
to
go,
show
up
at
the
meeting
and
to
some
extent
it's
just
suck
it
up.
You
know
we're
we're
a
public
project,
we're
an
open
project
and
yeah
it's
difficult
to
have
these
private
discussions
and
that's
just
too
bad,
and
you
can
say
it's
ad
hoc,
but
when
you
have
that
many
people
from
that
many
different
groups,
different
companies,
it
doesn't
look
like
an
ad
hoc
meeting.
It
just
doesn't
and
then
all
we've
got
to
go
on.
Are
these
minutes?
E
You
know
it's
like
no
make
a
recording
make
a
transcript.
You
know
yeah,
it's
too
late
to
have
a
public
meeting
at
that
point,
but
open
up
as
much
as
you
can
and
if
you're
going
well,
we
I
have
a
meeting
where
we
can
say
what
we
want
and
not
have
it
be
made
public
you're
you're
just
on
the
wrong
project,
form
yourself,
a
corporation
then
do
whatever
you
want
behind
closed
doors.
Well,.
A
There's
that's
impossible
with
the
way
we
have
this
setup
right
now
in
the
future.
I
think
that
there's
going
to
be
maybe
a
little
bit
more
of
a
closed
chat
to
an
extent
or
maybe
not
as
close
chat,
I
should
say
a
list
of
core
developers
who
attend
the
all
core
devs
meetings
that
I
can
reach
out
to
for
meetings
like
this
I.
F
A
That
might
be
a
good
resolution
to
having
meetings
that
include
the
core
devs
without
necessarily
inviting
the
media,
and
that's
the
thing
it's
like.
Whenever
we
have
these,
you
know
very
open
meetings,
we're
inviting
the
media,
which
I
think
you'd
agree.
It's
not
always
the
best
way
to
get
things
done.
A
G
So
the
issue
is
that
you,
as
a
developer,
I,
can
many
times.
I
cannot
freely
say
stuff.
Knowing
that
coin
desk
is
waiting
to
misinterpret
every
sentence
that
I
make
and
if
I'm
going
to
say
that
if
it
doesn't
scale,
then
it
will
result
in
Norfolk
elliptic
article
and
it
completely
misses
the
point
and
it's
completely
taken
out
of
context
and
then
people
instead
of
saying
what's
on
their
mind
and
having
open
discussions.
G
People
start
feeling
bad
and
start
with
withheld
ink
or
with
holding
their
own
opinions,
because
they
are
afraid
of
the
media
backlash
and
maybe
that's
something
we
have
to
learn
to
live
with.
As
Greg
says,
I
don't
have
a
solution
to
that.
You're.
Just
saying
that
this
is
a
problem
that
people
are
kind
of
afraid
to
speak
their
minds
and
that
this
kind
of
makes
things
harder
to
progress.
D
C
I
also,
you
know
I
also
sort
of
realized
after
coming
back
from
Def
Con,
which
you
know,
which
is
very
interesting,
but
also
very
exhausting,
I
realized
that
a
lot
of
times
the
way
we
go
about
the
ip's
is
that
somebody
writes
the
IP
on
their
own,
mostly
I'm,
then
it
goes
goes
into
public
and
people
start
discussing
it.
But
then
it's
kind
of
a
bit
too
overwhelming
to
try
to
keep
up
with
this,
and
so
a
lot
of
people
just
give
up.
C
I
mean
I
gave
up
on
the
before
and
then
the
thing
never
move
anywhere.
So
what
we
I
thought
we
needed
is
that
essentially
we
needed
some
kind
of
the
IP
produced,
not
by
just
one
person
but
by
the
by
the
group,
but
before
that
could
happen
they
they
have
to
synchronize
and
do
the
what
I
call
the
knowledge
extraction,
because
somebody
has
to
come
and
basically
start
asking
all
the
stupid
questions
as
I
did.
I
did
attempt
this
in
in
Prague
as
well
with
the
group.
C
Oh,
he
wasn't,
developers
are
just
sitting
there
like
a
dummy
and
asked
him,
though
the
stupid
questions
that,
for
them
it's
very
implicit.
But
for
me
it's
not
clear
at
all,
and
it
took.
Maybe
it's
like
an
hour
to
do
this
extraction
and
then
I
started
to
get
an
idea
of
it,
and
I
would
never
be
able
to
achieve
this
over
the
chats
or
over
the
recorded
conversations.
It's
just
just
way.
C
A
G
Sorry,
the
east
magician
calls
and
since
I
had
these
ideas
in
me,
I
just
took
the
opportunity
to
talk
about
them
with
people
during
Def
Con.
So,
yes,
the
Thira
magicians
would
have
been
a
better
forum,
but
unfortunately
I
wasn't
there.
So
I
took
the
next
best
opportunity.
I
had
to
rally
up
a
few
people
and.
H
B
E
Yeah
I
did
not
suggest
this
should
have
been
a
teeth.
Magicians
I
just
suggested
it
shouldn't
have
been
closed
or
if
it
needed
to
be
behind
closed
doors,
it
shouldn't
have
been
so
ad-hoc
for
something
so
important.
I
just
had
time
to
skim
Rachael's
article,
it
doesn't
look
that
sensational
to
me.
It
looks
like
a
reasonable
summary
of
what
you
could
get
from
just
the
minutes
and
that's
just
a
danger
of
not
doing
things
completely
in
the
open.
The
press
is
going
to
make
what
they
can
make
of
it,
and
that's
that
I
think.
H
H
Think
one
of
the
main
purposes
of
Devcon
for
all
of
us
is
to
facilitate
these
ad
hoc
conversations
right
because
we
work
in
such
a
distributed
fashion.
We
don't
otherwise
have
the
opportunity
for
the
sort
of
water-cooler
type
conversations
that
I
think
are
more
common
in
big
companies.
I
also
don't
think
anyone
here
is
suggesting
that
every
one
of
those
private
sidebar
conversations,
whether
it's
two
people
or
four
people
or
six
people,
should
be
streamed
recorded,
you
know,
etc,
and
that
is
that
is
how
this
started
right
to
my
understanding.
H
I
think
everyone's
fine
with
that
happening
over
a
beer
or
on
a
side
bar.
But
if
you
know
the
meeting
happens
and
then
more
people
come
and
more
people
come
and
suddenly
it's
a
room
with
20
people
in
it.
I
just
want
people
to
understand
that
that
this
is
you
can't
always
plan
proactively
for
these
things.
Sometimes
these
things
evolve
organically,
and
then
you
realize
hey.
We
have
suddenly
a
critical
mass
of
people
here
and
the
scope
is
expanded.
I
If
you
meet
people
in
person
and
I
think
they're
the
first
meeting
the
first
two
meetings,
nobody
could
say
that
they
weren't
ad
hoc
because
they
were
at
heart,
people
just
and
started
joining
and
people
opened
up
a
lot
about
the
ideas
they
had
and
I.
Think
that's
one
of
the
reasons.
It
wasn't
part
of
anything
like
the
magician's,
because
most
of
these
people
are
not
really
following
they
too
much
magicians
that
closely-
and
none
of
these
you
know
most
of
these
people
with
these
ideas.
I
A
Yeah
the
point
I
kind
of
made
earlier
is
that
we
need
to
find
a
balance,
I
believe
and
I.
Think
we
can.
I
I
disagree
with
Gregg
that
everything
that
can
be
open
has
to
be
made
open
in
every
single
scenario,
because
I
think
that's
detrimental
to
the
protocol.
I
think
that
that
makes
it
so
that
people
can't
have
open
conversations.
I
think
that
people
who
have
working
groups
they
can
have
working
groups
that
are
private.
E
You
can
you
just
have
to
consider
what
is
going
to
happen.
Yeah
I
mean
we
say
these
are
ad
hoc
but
I'm
looking
through
and
there's
like
at
least
15
people
at
every
one
of
these
groups
and
there's
four
of
them.
It
doesn't
look
at
hoc.
It
just
doesn't
look
at
hoc,
I'm
told
it's
ad
hoc,
but
it
doesn't
look
at
hoc
to
anybody
from
the
outside.
It
looks
like
an
organized
series
of
meetings,
so.
A
So
at
DEFCON
that
we
had
specific,
like
we
had
meeting
rooms
that
people
could
rent
out
and
those
meeting
rooms
could
hold
15
or
you
know
they
could
hold
at
minimum
15
people
at
maximum.
You
know
I
think
50
people
and
a
Mir
Taqi
had
a
candid,
pretty
ad
hoc
meeting
that
ended
up
having
40
50
people.
So
when
we
say
ad
hoc
I
think
were
meaning
ad
hoc,
even
though
some
people,
you
know
invited
other
people,
I
think
it
became
a
little
bit
bigger
than
we
were
expecting.
A
In
fact,
if
you
notice
the
list
of
people
being
invited,
there's
some
people
who
aren't
core
devs
and
the
part
of
that
was
because,
like
Lane
said
originally
the
idea
for
some
of
these
meetings,
where
that
consensus
would
get
a
better
idea
of
what
the
core
devs
were
up
to
based
on
inviting
some
of
the
core
devs,
so
that
they
could
plan
their
internal
roadmap
more
accurately.
So
I
I
think
I.
Think
what
we're
trying
to
say
Greg
is
that
these
weren't
meant
to
be
these
were
ad
hoc.
A
A
E
E
E
B
G
Yeah,
that's
what
I
also
wanted
to
say
that
I
don't
really
see
why
this
was
an
important
meeting,
so
the
thing
that
we
wanted
to
figure
out
is
who
can
help
produce
initial
proposal
on
how
to
go
for
who
can
have,
for
example,
AXA
collect
the
data
he
needs
to
to
put
a
number
on,
for
example,
how
large
is
the
state
trying
it
here
and
because
nobody
has
a
clue
as
to
exactly
how
large
it
is,
and
somebody
needs
to
make
that
data.
Essentially,
these
were
the
stuff
we
discussed.
A
Yeah
as
much
as
it
sounds
like
I'm
defending
the
meetings
in
general,
I
was
one
of
the
people
who
spoke
up
for
them
to
be
a
little
more
public
and
as
part
of
that,
because
I
was
one
of
the
people
tapped
with
Daniel
Hyneman
to
organize
the
future.
The
follow
up
meeting
on
the
30th.
What
I
did
was
every
working
group
member.
Let
me
pull
up
exactly
what
I
said.
A
Every
working
group
member
I
said:
hey,
you
know,
how's
your
working
group
stuff
going
and
my
last
question
them
was
I'm
having
reservations
on
how
open
the
meeting
on
the
30th
should
be
I'm,
not
exactly
sure
we
had
said
we
wanted
it
to
be.
You
know
somewhat
closed
in
private
until
January,
but
I
started
to
feel
like
they
should
maybe
be
more
open.
A
Here's
some
options
should
it
be
completely
closed,
notes
taken
and
released
to
the
public,
but
no
video
taken
video
taken
but
published
later
or
live
streamed
like
we
do
the
core
death
meetings
and
the
reason
I
asked
just
the
working
group
leads
were
because
it's
not
fair
to
them
for
us
to
just
suddenly
say
this
is
gonna
be
public
whenever
the
ad
hoc
meetings
kind
of
made
it
seem
like
it
would
be
more
closed.
So
there
were,
there
were
some
potential
for
the
meetings
and
the
notes
to
be
more
open.
I.
A
Just
don't
think
we
had
enough
time
for
that
to
completely
culminate
and
for
the
30th
meeting,
I
kind
of
want
to
get
a
temperature
from
everyone.
Does
that
still
need
to
be
somewhat
closed,
because
if
it
does
we're
at
least
were
being
open
about
it
and
I,
don't
know
if
everyone's
comfortable
saying
their
opinion
on
that,
but
the
people
who
especially
the
working
group,
leads
if
you
are
comfortable.
What
what
do
you
think
about
the
the
meeting
on
the
30th,
where
you
present
your
research.
C
Okay,
so
I'm
gonna
say
I'm
generally,
okay,
with
the
with
the
releasing
whatever
whatever
we've
got,
the
only
want
the
thing
I
wanted
to
avoid
it.
I
actually
wanted
to
avoid
two
things:
there
are
certain
things
in
the
material
which
my
basically
start
like
a
kind
of
a
witch
hunt,
in
my
opinion
that
there
would
be
like
contracts
which
consume
most
of
the
storage
or
seems
about
the
gas
token
blah
blah
blah.
So
I
don't
want
this
to
happen.
I.
We
need
to
kind
of
make
sure
that
this
doesn't
happen.
So
this
is
no
goal.
C
The
goal
of
this
is
not
to
blame
certain
contract
developers
that
they've
written
the
contract
consume
a
lot
of
stores
or
something
like
that,
and
the
second
thing
is
that
the
if
somebody
reads
this
document-
and
they
might
think-
oh,
my
god,
the
serum
is
doomed
right.
So
I
don't
want
that
to
happen
as
well,
because
it's
that's
that's
my
reservations.
We
have
to
present
it
in
a
way
that
it's
not
the
problem
statement
it's
or
it's
not
just
a
problem
statement.
C
It's
also
a
solution,
so
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
release
it,
but
it's
it
might
not
be
kind
of
and
again
I'm,
not
even
comfortable
that
all
the
data
is
actually
correct.
So
you
see
when
people
make
the
public
presentation,
they
you
know
the
professional
ones,
they
say
well,
I'm,
calm,
I,
don't
I,
have
more
data,
but
I'm
only
comfortable
to
release
this
one,
because
I'm
actually
kind
of
sure
that
I've
double-checked
this
and
everything
is
correct,
or
rather
just
throwing
something
around,
which
might
be
actually
a
mistake.
I
E
Yeah
I
understand
that
I'm
not
I'm,
not
saying
they
weren't,
ad
hoc
I'm,
saying
they
sure
don't
look
at
hoc
from
the
outside
when
I
find
myself
in
a
hallway
behind
with
a
closed
door.
I'm
going
what's
going
on,
and
someone
says:
oh
there's
a
big
meeting
in
there
Vitalik
and
joe
Lubin
and
people
from
trinity
people
from
I'm
gone.
I
didn't
hear
about
this
meeting.
A
B
J
A
Ok,
so
does
anyone
have
any
other
comments
on
the
meeting
on
the
30th
just
so
we
don't
spend
the
entire
time
on
this
topic
that
was
partially
due
to
me
kind
of
keep
bringing
stuff
up.
But
as
far
as
the
meeting
on
the
30th
goes,
what
are
people's
opinions?
It
can
be
completely
open
to
completely
closed
I'm
ready
to
hear
whatever
is.
A
Meeting
is
to
present
research
that
the
groups
that
were
ad
hoc
said
I
want
a
working
group
and
on
in
this
working
group,
I
want
to
figure
out
some
data
points.
In
order
to
then
publicly
talk
about
some
proposals
and
when
I
say
proposals,
I
mean
any
ip's
and
when
I
say
e,
ip's
I
mean
II
IPS
that
affect
aetherium
one
point
X
or
a
theory.
In
one
point.
A
Let's
see
they
mostly
wanted,
it
closed
I
think
because
they'd,
they
might
not
be
sure
of
their
research
as
Alexei
mentioned,
or
because
they
think
that
sooner
or
later
the
topics
will
come
up
in
the
core
Deb's
chat,
but
starting
a
forum
on
Earth
magicians
might
be
more
prudent.
That's
what
one
of
them
said
so
that
some
of
them
are
arguing
that
it
shouldn't
be
a
live
call,
because
it
should
be
instead
in
a
text
format
on
earth
magicians.
A
When
I
say
closed,
I'm
gonna
put
the
meeting
link
in
the
awkward
Deb's
chat
as
my
plan,
however,
I'm
not
gonna,
livestream
or
record
the
meeting
on
YouTube,
because
I
think
that
wouldn't
serve
the
purpose
that
we
want
for
the
meeting.
I
would
just
kick
people
out
who
aren't
core
devs
from
the
call,
so
the
media
wouldn't
be
invited,
but
any
thought
any
interaction
that
happens
should
happen.
Textually
on
earth,
magicians-
and
you
know,
data
be
released
prior
to
it
being
discussed
in
the
call
alexey
specifically.
How
is
that
for
a
compromise?
C
Know:
I'm,
okay,
I'm,
basically
I'm
personally
or
not
bothered
about
the
openness
or
closeness
of
this,
because
I
would
say
what
I
think
anyway.
So
it's
more
the
other
PI
I'm
just
trying
to
trying
to
protect
other
people
or
whatever,
because
I
always
try
to
find
out,
like
the
the
other
people,
are
much
more
sensitive
into
topics.
That's
why
I
that's?
C
Why
I
actually
asked
for
the
blanket
kind
of
closeness,
because
I
myself,
because
I'm
not
belonging
to
any
of
these
bigger
organizations
that
are
kind
of
invested
in
the
future
of
aetherium,
so
I
I
can
say
whatever
I
want
and
I.
Don't
really,
you
know
have
this
reservation,
but
I
just
need
to
be
very
careful
while
working
with
other
people.
A
A
E
C
So
if
I'm,
the
only
person
who
who
ever
said
that
it
needs
to
be
closed
and
let's
do
it
open
if
there's
no
other
bit,
no
anybody
else,
I
don't
want
to
be
the
only
person
who
seems
to
want
to
keep
the
private
because
I,
don't
I,
don't
want
to
keep
it
private
I.
Just
maybe
it
was
my
mistake
that
I
was
assumed
too
much
about
other
people
Aleksey.
There
were
definitely.
H
D
The
Kapiti
fine,
but
you
have
to
like
the
consciousness,
has
to
be
unless
some
constraint,
if
you
make
it
private,
you
must
be
make
sure
that
is
properly
announced.
So
people
that
are
not
invited
can
at
least
have
has
a
chance
to
say:
hey
I
know
you
access
private
meeting.
I
want
to
be
part
of
this.
This
is
one
thing
and
if
you
decide
the
lapses
private
meeting
and
just
take
notes,
you
can't
say
these
notes
of
secret
because
of
open
source
software
is
open
source
protocol
and
it's
not
only
kinda.
D
It's
not
only
the
petals
also.
We
are
totally
totally
disenfranchised
community
out
there
and
we
are
trying
to
like
keep
them
involved,
and
we
cannot
argue
that
that
we
are
like
very
decentralized
governance
whatever
by
just
keeping
meetings,
private,
unannounced
and
locking
away
the
notes
to
only
I,
don't
know,
participants,
you
can
have
private
meeting.
That's
fine
but
announce
them
be
transparent
about
it
and
share
the
notes.
A
Think
that's
a
good
compromise,
though
offeree
personally
I
think
that
that's
similar
to
what
I
just
suggested,
except
for
the
fact
that
the
notes
would
then
be
decidedly
made
public.
So
basically,
as
far
as
figuring
out
how
to
invite
everyone,
I
would
just
use
the
all
core,
devs
channel
and
basically
say
anyone
who
wants
to
come
to
this.
That's
Accord,
EV,
reach
out
to
me.
I'm
also
posting
the
meeting
link
in
here.
So
you
don't
have
to
reach
out
to
me.
A
But
if
you
come
to
the
meeting
and
you're
not
considered
a
core
dev
by
the
majority
of
people
who
are
attending
or
if
you
provably
have
not
been
to
previous
meetings,
because
we
have
notes
some
previous
attendance,
then
I
can
say
you're,
not
a
core
developer
and
you
shouldn't
be
here.
Cuz,
it's
hard
to
define
who's
a
core
developer
or
not
so
a
line
has
to
be
drawn
and
I,
don't
know
how
else
to
draw
that
line.
B
B
We
had
like
another
sit
down
where
you
were
part
of
it
as
well,
after
talking
about
fast
work
and
challenges,
so
fast,
sync
and
warp
sync,
and
how
we
figure
that
out-
and
we
didn't
announce
that
anywhere.
There's
no
public
note
to
that
meetings
and
worked
just
happened,
especially
when
you're
in
a
conference
you're
in
the
same
room.
You
start
talking
about
something:
I,
don't
know
how
we
proactively
plan
for
every
conversation
and
make
disclosures
and
notes
and
like
I,
don't
sound
like
I,
don't
see
it,
how
this
actually
works,
but.
D
Different
things,
if
you
have
a
meeting
where
you
agree
on
a
time
where
you
go
to
and
take
notes
and
then
decide,
is
a
secret
and
you
don't
invite
everyone
or
for
some
reason
you
can't
invite
everyone
and
what
the
past
was
meeting
was.
This
was
indeed
a
talk.
We
just
met
after
the
pegasus
and
decided.
Let's
talk
about
this
because
they
just
said
in
their
presentations.
They
want
to
talk.
D
G
Actually,
that
meeting
was
also
pretty
mediated,
so
it
was
already.
We
just
wanted
to
go
to
the
Pantheon
meeting
and
then
go
and
meet
up
and
talk
about
sync
protocol.
So
it
wasn't.
If
you
look
at
it
from
that
perspective,
it
wasn't
ad
hoc
because
we
had
to
sink
to
up
with
a
few
people
to
make
sure
that
everybody
has
time.
That's
a
certain
point.
H
H
A
Subjective
and
more
danfa
traditionally
has
been
controlled
by
maybe
as
I
choose
who's
in
the
meetings
or
not
I.
Like
will
kick
people
out
if
they're,
not
a
core
dev,
so
it's
incredibly
subjective
and
I
wish.
There
was
a
better
way
or
there
was
more
to
clearly
defined
rules
on
whose
accord
EV
right
now
my
personal
rules
that
I
use
are.
A
You
have
to
be
working
on
a
low-level
protocol
development
for
aetherium
unless
there's
a
very
specific
circumstance
where
you
can
contribute
to
low
level
development,
but
you're,
not
a
low
level
developer,
so,
for
instance,
so,
for
instance,
in
fira
or
ether
scan
they
work
on
some
low
level
stuff
with
regards
to
I,
guess
maybe
I
guess
RPC
calls
would
be
just
about
low
enough,
but
as
client
developers
II
was
swarm.
Those
are
very
low
level
engineers,
and
so
those
would
be
the
kind
of
people
who
would
be
at
the
meetings.
A
H
A
Yes,
we
absolutely
can,
especially
since
there's
some
Newton
news
on
that,
so
the
meeting
on
the
30th
right
now
we'll
discuss
it
more
in
the
all
core
devs
get
her
chat,
but
for
right
now
the
meeting
on
the
30th
is
not
closed,
but
it
may
be
closed
to
anyone,
but
developers
who
will
be
all
be
invited
as
much
as
we
can
and
notes
may
or
may
not
be
released,
but
right
now
we're
leaning
toward
them
being
released.
It
sounds
like,
and
that's
kind
of
what
I've
come
to.
Is
there
any
closing
thoughts
on
that
I?
A
H
A
Okay,
so
let's
move
on
to
item
2,
which
is
testing
I,
don't
know
if
Martin
can
make
the
call
today,
but
he
had
some
updates
to
EVM.
Fuzzers
are
still
running
and
no
new
issues
have
been
found
in
the
last
few
weeks.
One
test
case
found
by
fuzzing,
has
now
been
added
to
the
test
repo
it
affected
Gethin,
aetherium,
J
at
least
and
concerned
EXT
code
hash.
So
it
was
a
fairly
complex
edge
case
scenario,
so
it
sounds
like
it
wouldn't
have
been
able
to
been
easily
used
on
the
on
the
test.
A
Net
hive
is
currently
down
for
maintenance.
There's
some
hopes
that
we'll
get
it
working
again.
During
the
day
it's
been
moved
into
the
etherium
org
and
is
now
death
team.
Member
Frank
has
been
working
on
improving
it
further
with
a
test
suite
for
p2p
networking,
as
well
as
support
for
more
advanced
multi
client
suites.
So
that's
his
update.
Does
anyone
else?
Have
a
testing
update.
K
I
can
probably
add
that
that
some
good
progress
is
being
made
on
the
Xcode
hash
tests
in
general.
There's
a
kind
of
list
of
tests
being
aimed
to
be
completed
and
there's
an
awful
lot
of
green
on
it
now.
So
that's
that,
starting
to
look
really
good.
There's
a
few
tests
still
there
to
come,
but
hopefully
we
can
fill
them
in
in
the
in
the
coming
week
or
two.
G
Lasik
therefore
think
we
can
manage
to
do
about
fifteen
percent
faster
for
sync
and
about
30%
faster
block
processing
after
a
sync
is
done,
I'm
really
happy
about,
and
this
guy
seems
to
be
almost
reduced
to
zero
during
normal
block
processing
after
you're
in
sync.
So
I'm
kind
of
happy
about
that
and
also
Martin
found
a
really
nasty
bug
that
we
had
in
our
code
for
the
whole
year
that
affected
only
if
you
run
with
some
insane
cash
allowances
and
that
may
or
may
not
actually
have
influenced
the
pruning
efforts.
G
So
it's
a
the
background
info.
We
have
of
pruning
algorithms
implemented
since
summer,
but
there
was
some
corner
case
that
we
didn't
manage
to
find
yet
and
that
bug
actually
might
have
been
causing
this
corner
case.
So
probably
will
try
to
pick
up
that
that
pruning
effort
again
and
see
whether
whether
now
it
actually
works
as
it's
supposed
to
work.
So
that's
about
it.
A
A
K
Yeah
I
just
want
to
say
thanks
for
all
the
people
who
have
given
us
a
great
reception
after
our,
or
at
least
you
think
this
is
one
of
our
first
calls
since
then,
we
put
out
a
zero
point.
Eight
point
two
release
with
some
fixes
around
the
edges
of
things
that
people
have
reported
and
so
on
and
continuing
to
work.
Well,
the
the
Gauley
test
net
and
the
ster
be
test.
K
A
H
I
Hudson
I
can
give
a
quick
update
about
DT
MJ
s.
A
wonderful
Holger
has
released
a
new
version
of
the
VM
this
week,
which
has
full
support
for
Constantinople
and
and
the
last
release
of
solidity,
which
was
also
released
this
week
or
last
week,
comes
with
what
for
the
Constantinople
opcodes
and
the
ones
remix
and
the
other
frameworks
pick
up.
Both
of
these
then
end
users
and
developers
will
be
able
to
test
Constantinople
changes
outside
of
the
chains
as
well.
C
A
A
I
The
update
is
quick:
we
have
launched
a
test
net
at
DEFCON
and
we
have
made
a
community
call
last
Thursday
and
on
that
call
it
is
recorded
it's
on
YouTube,
on
the
iam
account
and,
and
we
show
a
demo
had
to
run
a
client
and
we
also
show
demo
how
to
interact
with
the
test
and
deploy
contract.
All
of
this
is
in
the
testing
documentation
and
to
anybody
everybody's
invited
to
give
it
a
try.
A
A
D
D
Marty
proposed
to
sweeten
our
oil
cadets
to
have
proof
test
nets
to
just
redo
the
content
in
open
heart
fog,
Jovi
and
was
very
limited
on
time.
So
I
stepped
up
to
create
a
same
spectral.
Parity
and
updated
I
will
exit
the
Heart
Walk
schedule
a
bit.
So
we
are
at
block
14,000
right
now
and
I.
Think
on
Monday
or
Tuesday
will
be
at
block
for
this
cause.
We
will
perform
for
constant.
G
G
One
thing
that
we
saw
during
the
Rob
stone
heart
Fork
is
that
clients
started
to
behave
really
weirdly
when
the
heaviest
chain
was
actually
the
non
forked
chain.
So
if
we
want
to
do
fork
test,
perhaps
one
interesting
data
point
would
be
to
actually
have
a
minor,
not
working
but
keeping
keep
producing
blocks
and
have
that
miner
be
more
powerful
than
the
fork
miners
because
it
might,
they
might
surface
interesting
corner
cases.
K
I
know
for
panthéon
one
of
the
the
difficult
things
with
the
Robson
forking
that
that
unfortune
was
actually
this
sheer
weight
of
peers
that
were
on
that
other
train.
You
could
lose
a
lot
of
time
during
sinking
because
you,
you
know
you
pick
up
one
pier
that
you
think
had
a
good
chain
and
by
the
time
you
got
through
verifying
that
they
had
the
bad
block.
K
You
had
another
ten
years
that
all
you
had
to
head
to
them
go
through
as
well
there's
some
improvements
that
we've
got
planned
to
make
around
more
directly
checking
bad
blocks,
which
I
think
some
other
clients
already
have.
But
I
think
that
scale
is
something
that
that
he's
missing
from
stir
B
and
probably
won't
be
able
to
be
there
I
wonder
how
do
we
had
we
kind
of
simulate
that
in
terms
of
peers,
but
also
in
terms
of
the
transaction,
the
data
on
there.
G
D
Some
comments
on
that
so
you're
invited
to
just
run
bits
on
some
minor
other
things
on
main
that
we
don't
expect
to
be
contentious.
I
don't
expect
these
are
food
to
mind
the
Oh
chain,
so
what
we
are
doing
on
Derby.
What
I
understand
is
having
like
reassurance
that
this
is
how
focus
running
smooth
under
perfect
conditions
and
I
know
that's
not
a
year
but
yeah.
We
just
want
to
redo
the
rocks
in
Hartford
because
we
didn't
know
where
roughly.
H
B
A
A
J
A
D
G
A
That
sounds
good
and
then
oh,
it
looks
like
okay,
cool
and
off
we
put
down
some
updated
block.
Numbers
for
discussion
is
the
first
comment
on
the
agenda
for
agenda
50.
So
thanks
for
that
and
then
Oh
before
we
do
the
last
item
free.
Can
you
talk
about
Gourley
because
it's
really
blowing
up
right
now,
it's
in
a
good
way.
It's
like
real
interesting.
Can
you
kind
of
explain
updates
on
that?
Oh.
D
Yeah,
a
lot
of
things
happened
or,
first
of
all,
thank
for
everyone,
who's
contributing
too
girly.
We
really
appreciate
it
and
we
did
not
expect
to
happen
so
fast.
We
are
still
in
pretest
message,
so
it
might
break
any
time
and
all
all
the
visa
will
be
burned
at
some
point
when
we
reach
a
real
royal
justice
for
now.
I
am
personally
surprised
how
stable
it
is.
We
have
four
clients
connected,
yes,
Pantheon
and
nevermind,
who
have
full
support
of
Gurley.
The
parity
implementation
of
the
click
engine
was
experimental.
That
needs
a
lot
of
work.
D
A
F
First
of
all,
we
requested-
and
that
has
been
done-
the
specification
and
the
reference
implementation
are
versions
now,
and
twelve
version
is
0.9
point
one
currently
and
my
implementation
and
Martin's
implementation
are
are
on
this
on
this
point,
I
think
I,
don't
sure
exactly
but
I
think
for
it.
This
implementation
is
one
change
behind,
but
it
wasn't
significant
one.
So
it's
easy
to
implement.
So
this
is
more
or
less
about
current
implementation,
so
we
have
four
of
them
and
more
or
less
in
sync.
G
K
F
Yeah
so
I
think
that
was
pointed
to
to
the
team
at
DEFCON
that
they
actually
used
a
lot
of
if
minor
code
and
is
GPL
license
so
but
I'm
not
sure
if
they
working
on
any
kind
of
resolution
or
a
solution
to
that
and
how
it
affects
using
this
back
and
if
it
actually
affect
the
spec
ID.
So
I
cannot
comment
on
that.
I.
Don't.
G
F
Don't
know
I
know
the
answer.
I
mean
the
issue
was
particular
about,
so
the
spec
is
actually
has
code
snippets
that
are
taken
from
the
implementation,
but
the
implementation
was
done
within
thief,
minor
project,
so
it's
may
may
or
may
not
make
it
a
bit
more
complicated,
but
yeah
I
haven't
tried
the
spec
for
some
time
and
particularly
I
haven't
pay
attention.
F
K
It's
certainly
not
my
area
of
expertise
either
so
I
won't
try
and
and
assume
anything
but
yeah.
If
we,
if
we
are
able
to
get
a
clear
licensing
kind
of
statement
around
that,
that
would
be
really
useful.
It's
a
lot
easier
to
to
know
you've
got
a
clear
spec
that
you
can
implement,
then
to
have
to
try
and
jump
through
hoops
of
black
boxing
and
clean
rooming
in
that
kind
of
thing.
Yeah.
F
Alternative
spec-
that
is
it's
similar
to
if,
if
her
spec,
so
it's
I
think
it's
mostly
Python
code
snippets
that
describe
how
it
works,
so
it
was.
It
was
posted
on
if
magicians,
if
yeah
I
would
try
to
find
out
the
link
and
post
it
as
well.
So
that's
kind
of
alternative
version
of
that
and-
and
one
last
comment
is
if
someone
needs
language
bindings,
so
I
can
provide
these
to
C++.
C
implementation
separates
like
library
Apache
licensed.