►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #69 [2019-08-23]
Description
Nice....
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum/pm/issues/121
A
A
C
B
A
A
I
need
to
add
that
you're,
the
code
side
by
side,
so
I
actually
found
two
flaws
in
Pantheon,
which
I
think
they've
fixed
by
now,
one
of
them
being
that
for
1884
they
when
they
implemented
self
balance,
they
tried
to
do
a
caching
solution.
So
they
cashed
the
balance
at
the
beginning
of
the
call
frame
and
then
just
deliver
that
whenever
self
balance
is
invoked,
which
doesn't
work.
B
B
D
Much
so
we
finished
finishing
plant
a
VIPs
and
merge
them
in.
We
also
enabled
I
mean
implemented
Istanbul
configuration
configurability
from
the
Genesis
back
plus
like
to
override
it,
so
anyone
can
play
around
with
it
would
be
nice
to
put
together
maybe
a
multi-client
thing
they
just
play
around
with
it.
But
from
our
perspective,
we
just
do
waiting
for
other
people
now
so.
A
B
E
E
Six
of
September
to
finish
the
implementation.
It's
not
only
because
regards
exactly
IP
released
late,
but
also
right
now
we
are
in.
We
just
happened
to
be
very
large
code
base
refactoring.
So
we
try
to
have
some
really
large
refactoring
PR
opened
in
our
code
days,
and
we
probably
want
to
merge
them.
First
before
emerged
example:
yeah,
QPR's,.
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
Next,
we
have
decided
the
block
number
for
Istanbul
test
net
fork.
It
sounds
like
based
on
a
few
clients
that
still
have
some
implementation
to
do
that.
We
might
not
be
able
to
make
that
decision
today,
but
I
want
to
hear
everybody's
opinions
on
that
and
see
if
this
is
something
that
we
want
to
do
today
or
not
because
I'm
open
to
hearing
others,
opinions
on
that.
G
G
B
Okay,
yeah
I
I
think
that
if
we
have
a
short
meeting
next
week
or
we
decide
on
getter
what
the
number
should
be
I
think
doing
it
in
a
week
would
be
safe.
Because
that
gives
you
all.
You
would
have
a
better
idea
of
how
much
more
time
you
need,
and
if
it's
anything
more
than
a
week
we
can
reevaluate.
But
if
it's
just
a
week,
then
we
can
pick
the
block
number
and
start
having
clients
release.
G
That,
if
we
do
this
say
that
brings
us
to
Argos
30th,
where
we
pick
a
block
it'll
be
a
week
or
two
I
assume
after
parody's
release,
so
mid-september
ish
and-
and
it
seems
very
well-
it
just
seems
impossible,
then,
that
we
hit
the
October
4th
main
that
deadline
like
two
weeks
of
test
net.
Before
main,
that
seems
a
bit
reckless.
G
A
E
Oh
well
so
I
think
like
if
I'm
understanding
this
correctly
like
like,
like
you,
have
done
some
analysis
that
we
probably
will
freeze
some
contracts
if
we
just
apply
it
without
a
chant,
gasps
diamond.
So
I
think
we
probably
want
to
do
something
just
before
we
hard
for
tonight,
so
that,
like
we'd,
like
so
that
we
don't
like
need
to
like
to
do
some
really
complicated
things
in
the
future.
B
Okay,
I
think
I
know,
which
is
she
you're
talking
about
you're
talking
about
the
one
where,
when
we
repriced
the
opcode
from
1884,
then
it
might
freeze
up
some
contracts
that
are
dependent
on
the
gas
cost
being
a
certain
amount
and
their
contracts
I
get
that
right
so
far,
yeah,
and
so
what
happens?
Is
we
want
to
prevent
that
sort
of?
Do?
B
A
So
there
is
an
analysis
on
a
github
repo
mine
and
it
spits
hard.
It's
Johanna
sweeping
general
conclusions
from
it,
because
in
some
cases
the
problem
is
that
you
have,
for
example,
designated
Sanders
that
are
the
only
only
only
a
few.
A
couple
of
Sanders
are
allowed
to
deposit
to
a
certain
contract
and
those
Sanders
use
the
solidity
mechanism
transfer,
which
only
sounds
2300
and
with
that.
So
therefore,
the
Sanders
can
only
sell
with
300
and
the
recipients
does
assload
a
notable
example
that
was
khyber.
A
So
in
that
particular
case,
an
increase
gas
type
stipend
would
work.
However,
there
are
other
similar
cases
where
at
fixed
amount
of
gas
is
used,
like
nineteen
thousand
four
hundred
ninety
thousand
is
used,
or
some
kind
of
similar
call,
and
it's
kind
of
hard
to
and
and
other
potential
things
that
could
break
is
if
a
contract
in
a
default
function
does
does
a
few
log
operations
and
also
an
S
load,
and
there
could
be
different
ways
to
solve
these
problems
and
I.
A
Don't
really
think
that
there
is
one
solution
that
would
solve
it
for
every
case
and
I.
Don't
even
think
that
every
case
needs
to
be
solved.
Some
contracts
are
dead
and
unused
for
like
five
hundred
days.
Other
contracts
are
still
used,
but
they
have
built-in
capabilities
to
upgrade
themselves
some
kind
of
yeah
a
great
path
which
I
mean
it
would
be
more
work
for
the
operators,
but
it's
not
impossible.
A
B
D
Not
exactly
so
we
so
there
was
a
proposed
solution,
but
it's
really
really
happy
and
weird,
and
our
suggestion
was
that
it
feels
weird
to
add
a
hacky
solution
for
for
a
case
that
might
not
be
relevant
and
the
idea
was
that,
let's
not
add
the
hack
in
now,
but
we
know
what
the
heck
could
be
and
then,
if,
if
we
legitimately
break
something
that
we
didn't
know
that
we're
going
to
break,
then
we
can
always
put
in
the
hack
later.
But
let's
not
hack
it
before.
It's
actually
needed.
A
Yeah
we
know
it's
gonna,
break
they're,
really
good
big
things.
We
don't
know
and
all
of
those
things
can
break
in
different
ways.
Some
of
them
can
break
because
of
a
combination
with
us
load
and
load.
Those
could
be
sold
by
making
log
cheaper
some
other
break
because
they
just
do
a
lot
of
s
load
in
the
e
at
the
recipients
and
those
could
in
some
cases
be
solved
just
by
upgrading
the
contracts
blah
blah
blah.
So
there
are
different
ways
to
solve
it
and
there's
not
really
one.
A
E
E
So
the
issue
is
basically
if
we,
if
we
broke
some
contracts
and
same
like
some
contracts,
and
we
were
asked
asked
who
like
unfreeze
it,
and
we
could
have
a
similar
situation
like
the
party
Murray
State,
so
it's
like
all
about
subsidy
contracts
and
our
boats
to
make
sure
some
contracts
are
unfrozen.
So
it
could
be
like
a
potential
really
policy.
Closing
and
I
just
worry
in.
If
we,
if
we
don't
fix
them
right
now
like
in
the
future,
we
may
may
not
have
a
chance
for
them
to
our
function
at
all.
B
B
Kind
of
getting
ahead
of
any
negative
PR
that
happens
by
completely
explaining
the
situation
in
ways
everyone
can
understand
and
how
this
would
be
a
different
case
in
a
way
that
these
the
way
the
contracts
broke.
This
time
was
not
what
some
would
consider
an
idiot
sequency
with
solidity,
but
a
side
effect
of
a
needed
upgrade
that
happened
at
the
protocol
level
and
not
a
higher
level.
E
E
A
A
A
Yeah
we'd
have
to
modify
to
to
200
as
well
and
then
all
of
a
sudden,
you
would
be
unable
to
do
state
modifications
if
you
have
less
than
like
16,000
gas,
but
it's
it
will
be
better
if
you,
so
there
have
been
a
couple
suggestions
to
how
to
handle
this.
It
will
be
better
if
you
write
down
a
proposal
where
you
specify
some
exact
numbers.
I
know
the
contract.
A
Library
guys
have
volunteered
that
if
we
want
to
play
with
some
scenarios,
such
as
no
increase
in
the
gas
type
and
so
on,
or
lowering
the
load
costs
for
another,
then
they
can
evaluate
that
against
set
of
affected
contracts.
So
we
could
work
with
them
to
to
do
some.
Automated
analysis
of
scenarios,
but
I
I
am
not
seeing
a
definite
proposal
to
how
we
can
solve
everything.
F
Martine,
something
maybe
controversial,
but
of
you
thinking
about
it
for
a
moment
and
I-
think
that
we
can
introduce
something
like
a
transaction
counter
of
assload
calls
and
only
invoke
the
race
of
the
s
load
called
cost.
After
now.
Sorry
it
wouldn't
work
like
we
could
potentially
make
a
progressive
cost,
but
like
not
too
complex,
but
some
kind
of
progressive
cost
for
those
operations.
A
A
B
That's
right
so
yeah
if
we
could
basically
store
the
analysis
on
in
the
repo
and
then
have
a
discussion
on
the
chat
and
fellowship
of
etherium
magicians.
That
seems
sufficient
for
getting
the
word
out
amongst
the
core
developers
for
any
proposals
for
something
like
this,
but
I
I
agree
with
Martin
that
there
needs
to
be
something
a
little
bit
more
like
formal
proposed
about.
What's
gonna
be
the
best
way
if
we're
going
to
put
some
solution
in
before
the
hard
fork,
what
that
solution
would
be.
C
My
comment
is
that
this
sort
of
this
feels
like
a
unique
circumstance,
because
it's
kind
of
one
of
the
first
times
this
has
happened
at
least
the
idea
of
an
intentional
change
that
does
have
some
breaking
changes.
It
also
is
kind
of
the
problem,
the
promise
of
what
each
one
acts
needed
to
be
or
the
observation.
C
E
Just
want
to
comment:
there's
actually
a
really
really
easy
way
to
to
fix,
like
fix
those
things
once
forever
with
a
breaking
change,
so
we
can
see
see
just
an
idea,
so
we
can
just
do
a
conversion
in
of
version
0
and
then
for
version
1.
We
remove
any
of
codes
related
to
cash,
so
so
we
make
it
so
that
a
contractor
helper
cannot
make
any
assumption
about
the
best
console.
A
C
And
my
point
was
even
outside
of
gas
costs
like
there's
a
very
large
network
of
soon
anonymous
permissionless
deployed.
Who
knows
what,
like
there
isn't
a
hey?
This
contract
is
owned
by
this
person,
male
2,
so
just
how
to
handle
this
situation,
where
it's
something
we
know
could
happen.
How
do
we
proactively
say:
hey
we're
thinking
about
it
with
the
realization
that
it's
kind
of
an
impossible.
B
D
So
I
mean
realistically,
if
theorem
is
going
to
be
alive
for
the
for
the
coming.
However,
many
years,
then
we
cannot
expect
never
ever
to
break
anything.
So
I
mean
it's
not
I,
don't
think
it
will
ever
be
possible
to
keep
indefinitely
running
contracts
that
were
deployed
in
frontier
I
mean
it
would
be
nice
of
course,
and
we
should
definitely
strive
for
it.
But
but
if
we,
if
we
say
that
we
won't
ever
ever
ever
break
anything
and
that
might
actually
be
quite
quite
a
heavy
price
to
pay.
E
Actually,
I
think
breaking
stuff.
It's
just
that.
Evm
is
not
really
designed
for
future
app
wish,
but
you
can
really
make
some
simple
change,
like
I
mentioned
before,
just
removing
all
the
reference
to
gas
to
make
EVM
like
like
good
for
future
up
with
friendlier
to
feature
a
please
and
and
there's
a
like,
you
can
make
this
so
that
it's
really
hard
to
actually
break
stuff
like
too
much
a
really
good
back
workability.
D
Well,
yeah,
but
you're
talking
about
gas
price
changes
now,
so
it
specifically,
nobody
thought
that
this
would
be
an
issue
and
that's
why
nobody
fixed
it.
Yes,
we
can
now
create
the
solution
to
fix
the
gas
prices
issues,
but
I'm
almost
certain
that
next
time
there
will
be
a
completely
different
class
of
issues
that
again
would
need
something
special
to
fix
it.
So
I
think
it's
it's
part
of
social
development
that
you
discover
problems
as
you
go
along,
and
you
need
to
figure
out
what
to
do
with
those
problems,
but
also.
A
Weight
I
mean
we
did
back
in
the
shanghai
attacks.
We
intentionally
broke
the
attackers
contracts,
that's
what
we
did
in
the
tangerine
whistle
its
various
dragon.
We
intentionally
broke
those
contracts
and
the
probably
I
mean
do
we
want
to
wait
until
the
next
round
of
Shanghai
attacks,
which
targets
are
cheap,
ass
loads
before
we
do
another
upgrade
of
that,
and
and
at
that
time
intentionally
break
those
attacking
contracts.
I.
E
C
I
think
it's
also
important
to
consider
the
other
side,
not
just
where
a
change
couldn't
break
a
contract,
but
where
I
change
would
be
benefit
benefit
to
another
contract.
Right,
for
example,
the
reducing
of
gas
costs,
Mike
Hayden
came
in
today,
Al
Gore,
Davis
and
said
this
is
something
I'd
be
great,
for
you
swap
redeploying,
based
on
versioning
would
be
really
would
be
really
difficult
for
them.
So
there
are.
C
B
Guess
James,
the
only
thing
is
it's
not
a
it's
not
a
thing
where
we're
swallowing
both
pills
because
we're
what
what
ways
proposing
is
putting
in
something
that
saves
the
old
contracts
while
reducing
the
cost.
So
that's
kind
of
a
an
idea
for
something
that
will
help
with
the
PR
and
not
make
people
upset
and
keep
aetherium
contracts
in
a
state
where,
at
least
for
the
moment
we
can
say
the
code
will
for
the
moment
run
as
intended
without
breaking
a
contract
except
for
all
the
other
times.
We've
done
it.
The.
E
We
can
clarify
I,
don't
think
we
can
get
what
I
said
in
Eastham
board,
so
it
would
require
a
conversion
and
you
require
another
lab
for
further
subversion
of
and
breaking
change,
so
I
thought
I.
Just
don't
think
we
can
get
it,
for
example.
But
that's
the
thing
I
think
we'll
fix
fix
those
kind
of
issues
once
and
for
all.
B
E
Yeah,
like
what
I'm
just
seeing
my
concerns
that
I
think
the
current
situation
should
be
treated
more
seriously
like
we
need
to
actually
make
a
decision
by
the
rebound
just
break
those
contracts
or
or
still
want
to
fix
it
like.
This
must,
like
I,
think
we
we
probably
want
to
get
more
people
like
outside,
of
the
core
like
from
the
IP
well,
first,
whether
they
are.
J
J
Because
these
people
are
gonna
they're,
just
looking
at
it
from
their
baseline,
like
oh
now,
it's
harder
to
do
this
thing
that
I'm
doing,
but
in
reality
it's
not
like
it's
not
a
punitive
measure,
we're
not
trying
to
make
things
more
difficult,
and
they
need
to
understand
that
it's
it's
like.
It
has
yeah.
A
E
E
A
A
I
totally
agree
that
it
would
be
really
nice
if
we
have
some
really
good
mechanism
that
stops
the
contracts
from
breaking
I
have
not
seen
any
such
solution.
That
I
think
is
the
most
ultimate
of
all
of
them.
There
are
three
or
four
different
things
that
could
be
done,
so
let's
continue
that
discussion
and
hope
we
get
to
something
otherwise,
I
would
be
fine
with
just
trying
to
solve
it's
post
facto.
B
We
don't
have
to
so
we
already
did.
We
are
there's
already
the
reality
that
this
has
to
be
solved
after
Istanbul
as
far
as
implementing
it,
so
we
can
discuss
it
between
now
and
then,
as
this
is
a
top
like
an
important
topic
of
conversation.
However,
a
formal
proposal
will
need
to
be
written
in
order
to
have
a
baseline
for
a
fix.
That
is,
you
know.
B
A
E
Like
several
weeks
focus
on
these,
who
will
say
whether
they
can
come
up
with
something
good
before
second,
the
test
enacted,
just
just
so
we'd
like
like,
because
once
we
have
this
test
nights,
it's
really
hard
to
for
other
solution
might
be
more
elegant
to
be
applied
on
our
test
net,
like
I'm
like
for
this
list
to
clarify
I,
don't
mean
to
delay
my
night
or
something
so
so.
This
is
just
purely
for
the
test
night
date
and
and
I
just
think.
A
A
E
Like
like,
what
emotion
is
that
it
might
be
a
PR
issue
like
if
we
have
like
a
list
profound,
like
like
a
test
plan
that
is
entirely
new,
not
a
loop,
stand
perfectly
fun
to
to
high-lows
actually
testing
bad,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
people
using
the
ropes
and
test
night.
So
if
we
accidentally
break
a
lot
of
contracts
like
like,
like
it
will
lower
the
confidence
for
people
who
look
forward
to
his
temperament
night,
I
think.
B
That,
from
a
PR
perspective,
the
core
developers
should
worry
less
about.
That
I
mean
that's,
obviously
something
that
you
know
keep
in
mind,
but
there
are
people
who
are
communications
and
PR
people
within
most
of
our
organizations,
including
parity
and
the
etherium
foundation
and
Pantheon
and
everywhere
that
can
get
together
and
craft
a
message
that
is
very
clear
about
what
the
mandate
for
one
X
was
and
how
these
things
are.
B
Gonna
go
down
now
and
in
the
future,
so
that
the
core
devs
don't
have
to
worry
about
that,
and
some
of
it
can
be
deflected
I
know.
I
personally,
am
probably
going
to
write
something
to
the
extent
of
you
know,
there
is
a
communications
breakdown
between
major
DAP
developers
and
the
core
devs
and
part
of
that
is
not
having
a
position.
Technically,
that's
a
paid
position
for
someone
to
do
that
full-time
and
to
find
the
best
solutions
for
that.
B
A
The
counter
opinion
that
to
ways
that,
actually,
since
we
probably
will
break
some
contract
flows
scenarios,
it's
important
to
roll
it
out
on
test
nuts
as
early
as
possible.
So
they
can
investigate
how
to
remediate
that
situation
and
check
if
their
upgrades
are
working
or
how
otherwise
they
can
fix.
B
Yeah
I
can
see
that
perspective.
Are
there
any
final
thoughts
on
this?
What
it
sounds
like
the
conclusion
has
come
to
is
we'll
need
something
formal,
so
we
can
discuss
it
on
a
technical
level.
What
would
be
the
benefits
of
it,
and
then
we
would
need
to
describe
on
a
more
abstract
level
what
we
want,
the
future
narrative
and
direction
of
narratives.
Actually,
the
wrong
word.
B
B
I
Yeah,
let
me
find
my
undo
button.
Yeah
I've
done
some
we're
putting
together
some
unit
tests
using
the
rate
retested
framework
reference
tests,
not
just
unit
tests,
to
try
and
get
some
basis
to
do
some
cross
client
testing
the
current
retest
stuff
it
does
you
know
what
kind
of
times
you
just
have
to
line
them
up
and
do
them.
You
know
one
at
a
time
currently
I'm
debugging
a
difference
gets
like
two
F
is
getting
a
different
state
route
and
Pantheon,
but
with
the
tool
we
can
get
to
the
root
cause
of
it.
A
I
A
A
major
refactoring
and
yeah,
it's
gonna,
be
a
big
change
to
where,
hopefully,
when
in
the
next
like
week
or
two,
we're
gonna
spin
up
a
new
machine
to
put
the
new
version
of
hive
on
and
then
transition
from
the
one
to
the
new
one
and
yeah
obvious.
It's
a
priority
to
have
done
when
the
tests,
the
Istanbul
tests
are
eventually
done
and
exported
into
blockchain
tests.
Because
that's
that's
when
I
start
testing.
Okay,.
A
I
A
B
Okay,
the
last
thing
we'll
need
to
do
is
kind
of
go
over
some
of
the
action
items,
all
the
decisions
from
last.
All
the
decisions
from
last
meeting
are
very
straightforward,
so
I'm
not
going
to
go
over
them.
The
only
one.
That's
a
decision
that
is
now
being
changed
is
that
all
clients
are
required
to
have
implemented
all
the
IPS
for
the
hard
fork,
Istanbul
won
by
the
23rd
of
August
2019.
That's
been
pushed
back
to
the
6th
of
September,
and
the
decision
for
the
block
number
did
not
happen
today.
B
G
G
B
D
B
B
B
Anybody
else
have
comments
and
on
the
topic
of
PR,
for
those
from
Coyne
desk
listening
in,
we
have
not.
We
do
not
have
a
date
for
the
tests
net
or
the
main
net
hard
fork,
because
we're
taking
we're
taking
very
care
to
taking
care
of
the
fact
that
we
need
to
be
very
mindful
and
careful
and
security
conscious
of
the
upgrades
that
we're
doing
good
job
soon.
B
A
D
While
one
one
thing
I
think
we
should
do
or
would
be
nice
to
do,
is
to
I
wanted
to
do
this,
for
Constantinople
tube
is
to
do
a
shadow
for
cover-up,
stone
so
essentially
don't
hard-code
the
fork
block
number
on
Robson,
rather
just
pick
one
and
run
a
few
clients
and
a
few
minors
with
that
block
number
that
would
shadow
the
real
test
nut
and
just
see
see
what
how
things
behave.
How.
I
D
I
A
D
I
That's
a
problem
we
always
see.
We
only
see
all
sorts
of
zombie
chain,
forks
coming
from
the
Constantinople
issues
when
we
try
and
fast
see.
So
that's
my
concern
I'm
doing
a
shadow
fork
because
we're
creating
more
these
zombie.
You
know
for
committed
to
take
the
notes
down
after
while
that's
fine
that
some
might
sink
to
them.
B
D
I
J
B
Cool,
so
we
have
white
block.
We
have
Peters
idea
I
like
Peters
idea
a
lot,
because
that
seems
very
controlled
in
a
way
that
we
can
quickly
identify
if
something
goes
wrong
without
having
to
mess
with
like
seeing
if
Rob's
tan,
how
bad
Rob
stand
breaks
and
having
to
do
analysis
on
Rob's
turn
itself
am
I
getting
that
right.
D
B
D
I'm
not
sure
if
we
can
speak
as
much
there,
spinning
up
some
virtual
machines
and
deploying
some
clients
on
them.
That
I
mean
I,
don't
know
how
much
time
it
takes,
but
I
assume
it's
not
that
big
of
a
deal
like
somebody
knows
how
to
do
it.
So
maybe
we
could
ask
refers
to
spin
up
a
tiny,
ansible
cluster.
That's
for
the
bridge
itself.
It's
actually
what
we
need
is
erupts
the
node,
that
that
is
a
big
act
so
that
the
transaction
pool
also
forwards
transactions
to
some
external
entity.
B
B
B
D
I
B
B
F
G
So
can
we
say
it's
at
the
same
time
in
two
weeks
and
if
anyone
sort
of
feels
strongly,
we
should
keep
rotating
because
then
they
can
kind
of
make
a
case
for
it,
and
we
can
start
rotating
again
after
that.
But
personally,
like
since
we've
started
doing
this,
it
seems
there's
been
like
make
minor
benefits
and
major
like.
G
Detriment,
spikes
I
mean
one
time
you
know
like
you
get
thought
the
call
was
at
one
time
and
it
was
at
another
time
and
then
they
come
in
a
couple
hours
after
and
it
obviously
makes
for
a
less
but
not
good
call.
So
it
seems,
like
that's,
been
aside
from
the
schedule
just
like
having
everyone's
been
so
many
mental
resources
on
figuring
out
when
the
call
is
has
been
pretty
overwhelming.
B
D
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
so
I
don't
know,
Martin
suggested
that
we
should
ask
whether
we
wanted
to
do
a
new
test
net
and
essentially
I
didn't
want
to
derail
that
discussion
completely
and
say
that
we
should
do
a
foreshadow
fork,
but
I
think
people
should
maybe
legitimately
consider
whether
we
want
to
reboot
drops
and
maybe
after
a
stumble,
because
Robson
is
kind
of
big
and
and
I,
don't
think
it's
worthwhile
to
keep
bringing
that
luggage
along
much
longer.
I.
I
D
I
D
Of
course,
that's
what
I'm
saying
that
we
don't
I
mean
I,
don't
want
to
explicitly
murder
Roxton,
just
if
we
want.
If
we
want
to
restart
a
new
test,
that
we
can
create
something
else,
and
then
eventually
people
can
migrate,
and-
and
we
will
just
tell
everybody-
that
person
won't
receive
the
forks
anymore,
so
period
transition
when
you
can
sort
of
annual
I
mean.