►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #47 [09/28/18]
Description
A
A
Okay:
let's
go
ahead
and
get
started.
Everybody
welcome
to
the
call
we're
gonna
go
ahead
and
get
started
on
the
agenda.
Let's
see,
the
first
item
is
testing.
I
think
Demetri
might
not
be
able
to
make
it
here.
So
what
we'll
do
is
we
will
start
with
Martin
who
might
have
some
updates
on
other
types
of
testing?
A
B
So
we've
been
doing
with
a
we
got
the
last
six
merged
into
parity
to
run
state
tests,
Fosters
and
I've
been
doing
about
half
a
million
fastest
since
done
during
the
last
couple
of
days.
We
need
to
work
a
lot
on
improving
the
status
generator,
but
we
have
no
blockers
in
terms
of
the
engines
and
false
positives
and
yeah.
That's
about
it.
For
now,.
B
D
E
F
G
G
You
see
in
Fuhrer
and
I've
been
chasing
some
bugs
and
so,
but
I
wanted
to
in
terms
of
Constantinople
I
noticed
that
there's
a
screed
geez
up
code,
where
you
to
be
guests
with
needs
a
special
handling
for
that,
and
that's
because
something
which
a
lot
of
people
didn't
realize.
But
I
think
it
would
be
useful
for
people
who
are
listening
to
this
call
to
kind
of
think
about
it
and
to
come
up
with
the
their
own
scenarios.
G
Is
that
I
think
Martin
has
added
some
clarification
to
the
IP
that
create
to
essentially
allows
you
to
using
the
self-destruct
to
basically
replace
the
code
in
the
contract
in
a
certain
way
by
retaining
the
same
address,
but
basically
replacing
the
code
but
a
religion,
the
storage
and
the
balance
and
I.
Think
it's
it's
something
which
a
lot
of
people
don't
don't
realize
and
then
I
would
like
them.
B
H
So
we've
slowly
been
making
our
progress
through
the
blocks,
syncing
and
executing
them
through
DM
and
hearing
various
kinds
of
bugs
I
think
we're
up
to
48
thousand
hours
and
thing.
On
the
other
side,
were
you
working
on
f,
2.0,
there's
being
curves
coming
out?
There's
a
serialization
tests
for
the
simple
sterilized,
that's
being
proposed.
A
J
J
Yeah
we're
very
focused
on
test
net,
so
we
did
a
public.
He
was
him
call
earlier,
she's
I,
don't
know
what
day
it
is
anymore.
A
few
days
ago,
I
think
it
was
last
week
and
we
did
our
first
like
public
demo
of
the
test
net
and
the
tooling
we
have
around
it.
So
we
have
like
a
black
Explorer.
We
have
this
thing
called
II
was
in
studio
where
people
can
deploy
contracts
written
in
lost,
which
is
webassembly
text
format.
We
have
a
few
nodes
up
and
running,
it
seems
to
be
reasonably
stable.
J
You
can
connect
to
it
using
meta
mask.
We
have
a
faucet,
that's
working,
etc,
so
yeah
pretty
exciting
stuff
we're
still
ironing
out.
You
know
some
issues
and
bugs
we've
had
a
couple
Forks
on
the
test:
net:
improving
the
tooling
yeah
and
getting
ready
to
release
a
bunch
of
documentation
and
stuff
for
Def
Con.
So
look
look
for
that
coming
soon,.
A
F
I
I
I
A
A
Not
all
of
them
are
compatible
with
actually
testing
them
yet,
but
that's
profits
usually
referenced
either
in
the
comments
on
that
page
or
in
the
meta,
the
meta
release
issue
that
they
have
created
and
then
some
of
the
ones
who
are
still
working
on
it,
Trinity's
almost
done
and
I'm
still
looking
to
see
if
X
theorem
has
some
stuff
going
on
so
yeah,
that's
that's
kind
of
the
update
on
the
constants
no
bolt
for
the
client
side.
We
should
probably
figure
out
a
block
number
today,
if
possible,
for
the
test
net
hard
fork.
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
J
A
J
J
G
J
F
A
J
A
G
I
probably
did
not
go
down
into
the
cause
where
it
was
originally
discussed
at
so
I've
kind
of
discovered
this
a
few
days
ago,
when
I
was
thinking
about
updating,
trooper
guests
for
the
for
the
Constantinople,
but
essentially
because
of
the
way
that
the
the
the
contract
address
is
calculated
in
the
create
tomb,
which
means
it
includes
the
MSG
sender,
some
salt
and
the
the
hash
of
the
init
code.
That
actually
means
that,
as
long
as
the
init
code
and
the
salt
and
the
MSG
Center
stays
the
same,
you
can
basically
redeploy
the
contract.
G
So
it
only
was
going
to
work
if
you
first
self-destructed,
so
it
gets
removed
from
the
state
and
then
later
on.
It
cannot
happen
in
the
same
block
as
Martine
pointed
out
so
some
later
on,
you
after
yourself,
destructed
it
and
it
got
deleted
from
the
state.
You
can
actually
recreate
it
using
the
same
init
code,
but
if
that
unit
code
actually
loads
the
the
actual
deployed
code
from
somewhere
else,
then
it
it
adds
a
potential
to
actually
instantiate
the
contract
with
a
completely
different
code.
G
G
But
of
course
you
you
have
to
think
about
the
storage
and
imbalance
somehow,
but
also
it
allows
you
to
basically
very
easily
to
clear
out
the
large
storage
if
you
kind
of
if
you
to
you,
found
the
borders
like
getting
a
loop
over
the
whole
storage
and
you
can
just
self-destructed
and
redeploy
the
same
code
kind
of
thing
but
I'm
sure
that
people,
if
you
think
they
think
about
it,
it
can
come
up
with
all
sorts
of
use
cases
for
that.
So
that's
what
I
was
gonna
say.
J
I
The
waiter
I
never
achieve
equivalent
functionality
to
what
you'd
what
you
would
be
able
to
do
with
create
too,
as
if
you
use
any
kind
of
second
layer
registry,
so
like,
for
example,
if
the
way
that
everyone
accesses
your
contract
is
by
accessing
a
certain
EMS
record.
And
then
you
self-destruct
the
contracts
and
you
create
a
new
one
and
like
there's
some
way
by
which
the
new
one
takes
ownership
of
the
ens
record,
then
you
know
like
that.
It
basically
gives
you
an
upgrade.
B
I
G
And
yes
and
I
also
heard
recently
another
thing
about
this
delegate
called
proxy
is
that
although
it
works
really
well
to
essentially
proxifier
anything
and
upgrades,
but
it
does
have
a,
although
minimal
kind
of
overhead
which
which
doesn't
make
matter,
if
you
call
it
like
a
few
thousand
times.
But
if
you
start
calling
this
thing
million
times
and
then
overhead
kind
of
adds
up
the
great
ability
stuff
from
create.
You
has
no
overhead,
obviously,
because
you
completely
replace
the
contract.
C
G
F
G
C
G
Then
you
will
be
able
to
prove
your
counterparty
that
what
you,
what
you're,
deploying
at
this
address
or
not
the
point
we
will
be
exactly
that
code,
so
you
say:
okay,
this
is
the
unit
code
which
completely
deterministic
and
therefore,
whatever
is
deployed
at
this
address
will
be
totally
deterministic
and
then
you
can
open
a
state
channel
on
that
basis
and
do
some
sort
of
inter-country
factual
stuff.
So
that's
why
the
unit
code
is
important.
There.
A
Ok,
I
think
that's
it
for
Constantinople.
Unless
anyone
has
anything
else.
We'll
go
to
the
next
item,
which
is
item
5
e
IP
1108
to
reduce
the
alt
underscore
B
in
128
pre-compile
gas
cost.
We
had
talked
about
this
before
and
we
know
we
can't
get
it
into
Constantinople,
but
there
were
some
new
benchmarks
ran
by
Antonio,
so
I'll
just
have
him.
Take
it
away
with
what
he
found.
K
Was
that
the
NGO
etherion
performance
improvements
that
VIP
1108
kind
of
based
the
new
gas
costs
off
of
were
not
at
all
reflected
in
the
parody
client?
So
we
ran
some
benchmarks
because
their
husbands,
he
new
code,
merged
into
parodies,
being
library
since
then,
and
found
a
pretty
large
improvement
in
performance
of
parody
as
well.
So
we
merged
some
adjustments
to
the
IP
based
on
those
improvements,
they're
still
not
quite
as
dramatic
as
the
ones
that
we
spawn
go
aetherium
but
they're
still
fairly
significant,
pretty
pretty
serious
boost
firms,
narcan
and
BLS
verification
work.
K
B
B
K
The
the
original
Eve
had
5500
k,
plus
eighty
thousand,
which
was
aggressive,
I,
think
even
with
your
benchmarks
for
death.
So
what
we
did
was
look
at
the
the
formula
that
came
out
of
the
benchmarks
that
you
didn't
July,
as
well
as
the
benchmarks
that
we
did
against
parity
and
kind
of
chose,
the
higher
formula
that
fell
out
of
that
which
was
based
on
the
many
numbers
which
was
2300
k,
plus
35
450,
which
is
current.
D
K
B
K
The
one
note
I
wanted
to
make
on
that
front,
given
the
fact
that
these
are
relatively
straightforward
code,
changes
that
we're
willing
to
put
all
our
developers
on
to
push
forward.
We
do
think
that
it's
really
important
that
these
get
in
as
soon
as
possible.
9
months
is
a
really
long
time
to
wade
through
the
gas
cost
adjustments.
So
whether
it's
Constantinople
I
know
there's
potential
discussion
of
another
hard
fork
shortly
thereafter
with
work.
A
What
are
people's
thoughts
on
that
generally,
you
know
at
this
point.
I
would
say
that
you
know
we've
already
decided
what
he
IPS
are
going
into
Constantinople,
etc,
but
I
mean
if
everyone
really
wants
to
put
it
in,
that's
obviously
something
we
can
sitter.
What
are
what
are
everyone's
thoughts
on
that
I.
K
E
B
So
there's
that,
on
the
other
hand,
it's
Gotham
pear
tree,
that's
99
percent
of
the
maintenance
and
I
don't
know
if
we
should
cater
for
every
client,
where
at
least
those
times
who
wants
to
be
your
main,
it
should
be
capable
of
linking
to
highly
optimized
libraries.
That's
my
personal
opinion.
Yeah.
K
K
Is
AC
library
that
we
have
not
had
a
chance?
We've
done
a
little
bit
of
worth
to
try
and
see
how
we
can
integrate
it
into
some
of
the
other
clients,
python-based
ones,
and
what
have
you
we're
not
quite
there
yet
so
don't
have
anything
to
share
quite
yet,
but
once
we've
done
a
little
bit
of
that
work,
I'd
love
to
share
it
and
see
what
others
think
of.
What's
there,
the
specific.
L
C
K
C
Did
haven't
like
I
wasn't
trying
to
to
make
it
requirement
I
just
still
find
the
seal.
I
see
code
to
be
it's
dead,
easiest
accessible
for
for
for
languages
like
Python
I,
mean
I,
think
we
don't
have
good
twinky
at
for
us,
for
example,
to
ship
it
to
fight
on
easily.
That's.
Why
I'm
asking
because
I
would
be
willing
if
that
library
works
and
we
can
replace
ours.
I
I
will
be
willing
to
add
PI
to
bindings
to
that
as
well.
If
that's
something
we
want
to
have.
C
But
about
the
Constantinople
I'm
I'm,
rather
in
the
direction
that
if
any
change
is
not
ready
at
some
point
in
time,
it's
just
not
included,
and
that's
that's
quite
heavy
pressure.
If
we
will
keep
at
even
small
changes
in
the
last
minute,
so
I
I'm,
rather
in
on
this
opinion-
that
it
should
go
to
the
next
heart
or
annuity.
B
K
A
B
I
agree
that
I
mean
from
from
the
client
perspective.
This
is
a
trivial
change,
but
it
means
regenerating
a
lot
of
tests
and
to
do
that
they
need.
We
need
to
yeah,
do
some
work
on
the
underlying
test,
generator
and
stuff
like
that
and
it's
semi
manual
work
which
currently,
unfortunately,
we
have
not
automated
enough
so
yeah,
it's
harder
than
it
seems
yeah.
C
K
Yeah,
on
my
end,
oh
yeah,
I
I,
think
I've
mostly
already
said
everything
that
I
had
to
say
just
that.
We
do
feel
that
the
sooner
the
better
on
this
nine
months
is
a
pretty
long
time
to
wait
for
it,
whatever
whatever
we
can
offer
we'd
love
to
do
that,
but
whatever
whatever
needs
to
be
done
to
get
that
done,
sir,
so
we.
K
B
B
That's
numbers
that
course
is
even
worse
run
times
and
that's
something
I'm
I'm
not
sure
it's
fully
covered,
but
right
now
we're
very
restricted
with
the
gas
costs.
So
it's
probably
not
the
denial
service
vector
anyway,
but
if
we
lower
it
to
be
closer
to
the
limit,
then
we
would
need
to
spend
some
more
time
checking
that,
in
my
opinion,
I.
K
Will
give
one
other
piece
of
context?
There
are
certain
pls
signature
check
operations
and
smart
operations
that
currently
they
can
easily
dominate
a
block
taken
a
quarter
of
the
block,
so
that's
kind
of
the
the
numerical
context
for
why
we
think
the
system
for
the
current
gas
cost
in
doing
even
one
of
these
operations
is
just
a
huge
huge
drag
on
the
network.
A
Let's
go
ahead
to
the
next
agenda
item.
That's
prog
pal
there's
been
renewed
interest
in
getting
it
into
potentially
getting
it
into
a
future
hard
fork
and
I
know
that
Powell
has
been
working
on
some
benchmarking.
I
think
Martin
worked
on
it
and
get
a
little
bit
and
I
saw
offeree
say
that
they
were
going
to
work
on
maybe
getting
something
going
in
the
rust
side
of
things.
So,
let's
reintroduce
missive
and
mr.
A
death,
if
y'all
want
to
just
give
a
quick
any
updates
on
your
side
for
prog
pal
and
then
we'll
go
over
Powell
and
whoever
else
wants
to
kind
of
give
their
impressions
based
on
their
benchmarking.
And
if
anyone
has
any
questions
for
Miss
afore
mr.
death,
this
would
be
a
great
time
to
bring
them
up
if
you'll
have
any
questions
on
prog
pal,
so
we'll
start
with
Miss
if
and
then
go
mr.
death.
M
M
M
It's
come
to
my
attention
that
there
is
a
lot
of
misinformation
on
how
hardware
actually
works
on
how
prog
POW
is
tuned
to
hardware
and
in
general,
how
how
the
algorithm
remains
tuned
to
a
GPU
card
and
sort
of
balances
out
the
efficiency
difference
between
a
GPU
and
an
ASIC
and
I
believe
that
that
information
is
is
our
fault
as
if
def
else,
because
as
creators
of
the
algorithm,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we're
educating
the
entirety
of
the
community
and
the
development
team
on
how
it
works.
So
I
urge
you
all.
M
If
you
have
questions
very
specific
questions
on
how
it
works.
Now
is
the
best
possible
time
to
ask
we're
also
available
by
email.
At
any
time
we
will
be
making
an
appropriate
medium
post
along
with
test
results.
The
community
has
been
doing
wonderful
testing
on
propel,
prog
Kali
is
currently
implemented
into
a
coin.
It's
a
very
small
unnoticeable
coin:
it's
called
Bitcoin
interest,
but
many
miners
are
happily
mining
for
pal
in
a
in
a
safe
test,
safe
environment
production,
environment,
I.
Think,
that's
really
all.
On
my
end,
great.
A
And
yeah,
just
real
quick
on
my
part:
I
have
been
with
Powell
communicating
with
some
major
I
guess
like
major
video
card
company
kind
of
things
and
looking
into
that
a
little
bit
more
and
that's
shown
promise
we'll
go
next.
Mr.
death,
if
you
have
any
comments,
otherwise
we
can
go
to
questions
after
that.
I.
A
C
So,
from
the
code
perspective,
I
tried
to
use
the
library
that
was
that
was
it's
hard.
It's
a
fork
of,
if
hash
library
and
this
number
of
issues
with
this
change,
when
first
of
all
it's
it
just
replaced
the
if
hash
with
proper.
So
that's
not
something
we
can
merge,
because
we
need
both
of
the
algorithm
side
by
side.
Are
you
talking.
C
M
The
C++
aetherium
client
that
one
is
what
we've
done,
not
pro
cache
sorry
so
so
what
do
you
mean
by
this
C++
if
deaf
L
slash
C++
etherium?
That
was
the
one
that
we've
that
we've
completed
pro
cache
was
more
for
us
to
get
familiar
with
the
your
implementation,
which
yes
needs
to
be
revisited
and
addressed.
Okay,.
C
So
I
started
with
this
one,
so
maybe
I
skipped
like
and
I
couldn't
get
any
benchmark
from
Pro
cache
I
mean
obviously
I
mean
the
only
one
I
got
yesterday.
It
took
over
one
second
to
verify
header.
There
must
be
something
obviously
not
right.
I
didn't
have
time
to
check
it
on
this
level
and
I
started
like
implementing
some
pieces
of
myself
just
to
be
more
familiar
with
that.
C
M
We
we
have
been
implementing
them
and
just
keeping
it
on
our
github
repo.
We
haven't
done
any
full
requests
for
sure.
We
can
do
that,
but
I
think
it
would
be
better
to
work
closely
with
the
client
developers
because,
as
our
guest
implementation
has
proven,
obviously
we
are
not
masters
in
all
these
different
languages
so
where
we
are
going
to
need
some
some
assistance
like
we
have
development
force
to
basically
do
grunt
work,
but
we're
gonna
yeah.
C
I'm
not
I'm,
not
worried
like
it's,
it
cannot
be
done
and
I'm.
Definitely
it's
it's
that
is
able
to
be
implemented.
So
one
more
comment
is
about
d
IP
itself,
so
this.
So
it's
actually
two
comments.
First
of
all,
the
the
official
discussion
board
is
if
few
magicians
and
I
mostly
posting
questions
there,
and
it's
usually
not
very
easy
way
to
get
response.
C
So
I
must
need
to
implement
proper
I
have
to
actually
go
to
some
implementation.
You
did
to
figure
out
some
details
and
the
IP
is
not
enough.
I
mean
it's
definitely
hard
to
get
the
implementation
based
on
ILP
only
and
the
last
one.
The
last
comment
is
about
cataract
hash
function,
so
I
try
to
figure
out
what
the
parameters
of
that-
and
this
is
kind
of
exotic
construction.
Let's
say
that
way,
and
definitely
so
the
I
think
the
effect
if
I
calculated
that
correct.
Indeed,
are
you
talking
about
the
32
/
64-bit
shift.
C
Yes,
I
mean
I
did
before
what
I
already
moved
to
the
next
next
item
on
my
list:
okay,
so
so
I'm
now
I'm
talking
about
the
Catterick
hash
function,
yes,
and
so
it
has
permutation
of
size
800,
which
is
it's
different
from
Jeffrey,
and
so,
if
I
calculate
it
correctly,
the
the
output
in
terms
of
security
bits
some
say
it's
107
to
6.
So
this
is
much
lower
that
the
one
we
I
mean
a
bit
lower
than
the
one
we
used.
Yes,.
K
C
M
M
The
specific
change
from
F
1600
to
f800
was
simply
because
GPUs
they're
natively,
the
32-bit
architecture
and
F
1600
is
just
twice
as
alone
on
a
GPU,
and
that
actually
gives
you
a
nice
little
speed
up
with
Asics,
whereas
we
don't
require.
If
we
don't,
we
can't
consume
all
of
those
bits
very
efficiently,
so
just
reduce
the
size.
It
doesn't
decrease
your
security
at
all
and
we
can
go
actually
it's
quite
public.
I
can
elaborate
on
that
on
the
EIP.
G
C
I'm
a
bit
worried
about
that
the
beat
beat
right.
What
is
cultural
right?
It's
like
it's
quite
high,
comparing
to
that
the
permutation
size,
because
so
yeah,
that's
only
I
can
say
about
that.
From
my
perspective,
any
explanation
of
that
and
also
there's
no
padding
to
this
high
fracture
at
all
I
mean
so
this
is.
Did
you
know
this?
This
question
is
is
put
also
in
this,
if
theory
magician
board.
B
B
The
verification
time
about
doubles,
which
is
not
a
big
problem,
in
my
opinion,
the
so
the
other
day,
I
was
I,
mind
a
bit
on
the
CPU
and
even
on
the
lowest
difficulty.
I
did
a
chain
which
switches
over
from
hash
motor
to
power
at
block
5,
and
it
takes
about
a
couple
of
minutes
to
mine.
You
know
the
first
five
blocks
is
just
keeps
on
ticking
very
quickly
and
then
they
started
to
come
to
profile
and
it
takes
a
couple
of
minutes
to
mine
each
block.
Yes,
that's
at
the
lowest
of
difficulty.
B
Which
is
just
observation,
and
it
doesn't
really
matter
probably
other
than
for
generating
test
chain
stuff,
so
I
I
would
have
liked
to
generate
a
long
chain
which
has
multiple
epochs
turns
out.
That's
quite
difficult
to
do
from
a
testing
perspective.
I
have
the
feeling
that,
if
we
for
testing
this
it,
we
really
shouldn't
and
cannot
use
the
regular
testing
infrastructure,
because
this
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
EVM
semantics.
This
is
nothing
to
do
with.
You
know
the
block
rewards
and
the
ankles,
and
what
have
you?
B
This
is
only
the
only
thing
that's
needed
for
testing
are
snippets
of
chains
and
the
like.
Only
quirky
behavior
is,
if
there's
a
the
switchover
block.
The
probe
Cass
uncles,
which
have
Hashimoto's
style,
prefer
work
and
stuff
like
that.
So
I
think
that
yeah
I
really
think
this
change
could
be
implemented
in
parallel
with
Constantinople
and
from
technical
perspective.
They
have
nothing
to
do
with
each
other
from
a
political
point
of
view.
Yes,
they
might
be
very
related
yeah,
that's
about
what
I
had
to
add
and
yeah.
I
can
add.
B
M
M
So
bye-bye
just
to
make
sure
everyone
understands
by
implementation
in
the
implementation
prog,
how
is
meant
to
change
every
25
blocks.
This
is
actually
very
hard
to
do,
because
you
need
a
sort
of
a
bridge
between
the
minor
and
the
pool
which
would
be
some
sort
of
stratum
implementation.
So
instead
the
next
easiest
thing
to
chain
it
to
is
per
epoch.
So
this
is
why
it
does
that,
but
obviously
it's
not
very
nice
for
testing.
So
we
can.
B
M
M
Thank
you
and
did
we?
We
got
it
down
to
nine
milliseconds
as
well.
Any
assistance
with
other
optimizations
that
folks
might
see
would
be
very,
very
helpful
because
it
is
meant
to
be
eight
eight
milliseconds
in
in
theory.
It's
just
that
it
go,
is
an
our
strongest
language
on
the
development
team.
So.
B
Yeah
I
mean
I,
don't
think
yeah
I'm
sure
it
can
be
lowered
and
it
can
probably
be
lowered.
A
lot
with
assembly,
but
I.
Think
the
the
most
interesting
thing
to
do
is
to
make
sure
that
all
the
things
that
Powell
has
listed
that
are
required
for
proper
adoption
that
those
things
are
implemented
so
that
there
is
support
in
the
minor
mining
protocols
and
the
mining
software
and
what-have-you
yep.
M
Where
I've
noted
those
down
and
most
of
those
are
either
clarity
needed
the
EIP
clarity
needed
in
the
code
and
more
public
reference
so
and
also
checking
the
bitrate
size
versus
permutation
size
and
padding,
etc.
So
all
that's
been
noted
and
will
be
done.
That's
a
really
good
feedback.
Thank
you.
So
much
guys.
C
Yeah
have
one
to
add
two
more
comments.
I
think
Martin
match
so
I
listed
some
time
ago,
I
listed
the
list
list
of
changes
that
are,
in
my
opinion,
required
to
do
the
switch
and
I
will
try
to
find
it
just
just
in
a
second.
So
it's
something
that
is
outside
of
the
proper
implementation
itself.
So
so,
in
my
opinion,
we
had
to
propose
also
a
stratum
protocol
that
would
include
information
of
the
algorithm
is
supposed
to
be
used
for
for
minors,
because
that's
there's
no
information
about
that.
Sir
I'd
opposed.
C
Yeah
so
yeah
I
do
remember
I,
think
that's
that's
the
the
the
biggest
one
and
that
can
be
started
work
on
very
soon,
because
it's
nothing
related
even
to
client,
implementations
and
I
might
find
some
people
that
willing
to
work
on
this
so
I
plan
to
propose
a
IP
describing
this
protocol
and
implement
that
in
F
minor
on
the
client
side,
I'm
sure
about
like
on
the
mining
pool
side.
If
there's
a
chance,
someone
will
adopt
that,
but
I
think
KP
is
good
starting
point
for
it
anyway.
C
Yeah
I
thought
there
was
some
other
changes
that
I
mean
maybe
I'm
wrong
about
some.
Some
of
that.
So
please
take
a
look
to
her
as
well.
Leave
some
comments
and
yeah
and
one
more
thing
so
I
have
some
struggle
with
commenting,
especially
it
this
level
of
complicated
VIP
as
proc
bar,
because
it's
not
in
any
kind
of
review
mode
anymore.
It's
it's
smart
as
a
draft,
and
there
is
no
way
to
leave
a
comment
at
a
particular
point
in
the
IP
to
address
some
issue.
C
I
think
it
would
be
much
easier
to
to
put
this
crashing
about
single
line.
Put
discussion
about
single
line
instead
of
having
it
that's
very
much
separated
on
some
Media.
So
that's
I
think
as
as
as
a
group
we
we
might
consider
Inc,
maybe
there's
a
way
to
improve
that
process
for
firms.
Molly,
IPs
I
think
that
works,
because
there's
not
a
lot
of
lines
to
comment
about,
but
in
this
one
I
would
really
like
to
just
pin
some
comment
in
particular
point
to
make
it
also
much
easier
to
to
address
by
the
outer
I.
A
Think
that
yeah,
the
I,
understand
your
concern
there
and
that
could
be
a
consideration
for
changing
the
EIP
process
in
the
future,
but
I
think
the
reason
that
we
have
it.
The
way
we
do
is
that
you
can.
You
know
you
can
have
multiple
discussion
links
so
on
the
EIP
if
they
wanted
to
add
a
github
repo
that
had
the
most
updated
EIP
that
was
outside
of
the
main,
a
IP
repo
that
you
could
comment
on
line
by
line
as
it's
being
iterated.
G
Lutely,
so
first
of
all,
I
did
look
at
the
go
theorem
code
when
I
think
it
was
Martin's,
pull,
request
and
I
think
when
it
was
reported,
it
was
whatever
18
millisecond
verification
time
and
I
I
tried
to
optimize
it,
and
there
was
actually
just
attached
that
pull
request,
which
contains
some
optimizations,
which
most
is
like
about
avoiding
remove
extra
locations
and
copying
things
around,
but
realize
that
these
these
optimizations
actually
don't
make
any
difference,
because
the
my
biggest
cost
is
is
simply
the
access
to
this
data.
It
item
and
then
later
on.
G
The
I
think
the
change
was
made
to
reduce
number
of
accesses
right
so,
and
the
second
comment
I
have
is
that
I
still
I
think
that
we
need
a
bit
more
exposition
about
why
I
mean
we
kind
of
believe
that
this
is.
You
know
from
reading,
for
the
from
the
description
of
the
algorithm
that
it's
supposed
to
be
doing,
what
it's
doing
like
getting
it
harder
to
implement
in
Asics
and
I
get
a
general
idea,
but
I
do
believe
that
these
people
do
really
know.
G
What's
the
reason
they
can
actually
explain
it
in
some
simple
way.
Maybe
not
in
a
very
simple
but
at
the
moment
I
think
I
feel
like
a
lot
of
people,
including
me
either
I'm
really
kind
of
dumb
or
I'm
just
kind
of
don't
really
know
what
I'm
doing
I'm
just
trusting
that
somebody
else
who
is
cleverer
than
me
kind
of
understands
this,
but
I
don't
and
I
also
got
some
like
people
privately
talking
to
each
other
or
something
that
I
can't
disclose,
and
it
just
doesn't
have
a
good
feeling.
G
So
maybe
somebody
can
write
out
down.
I
mean
I
know
it
takes
some
effort,
write
down
some
exposition
about
why
exactly
the
current
technology
of
isacs
will
not
be
able
to
do
this
thing
efficiently
in
the
more
detailed
way,
so
that,
like
people,
can
apply
the
critical
thinking,
rather
than
just
trusting
that
somebody
is,
you
know
somebody
says
that
they
they
have
experienced
and
then
they
just
said.
Okay,
that
will
be
fine.
That's
that's
my
comment.
G
L
Alexa
I
think
that's
totally
fair.
It
would
be
helpful
to
get
specific
questions
on
on
areas
where
you
want
more
information
and
and
I
think
we
have
been
very
bad
about
handling
the
etherium
magicians
discussion,
and
so
we
will
improve
that
in
the
future
and
be
a
little
bit
more
responsive.
In
of
why
this
algorithm
is
asic
resistant,
it
I
think
we.
We
should
all
start
from
the
point
that
the
algorithms
goal
is
not
exactly
to
be
ASIC
resistant,
it's
I
mean
GPUs.
L
So
the
re
aluminium
algorithm
starts
from
a
place
where
it's
memory
bound
and
it's
still
going
to
be
predominantly
memory
bound
and,
in
addition,
we
also
has
to
use
also
has
to
use
the
additional
register
space
register
space
for
from
required
from
that
that
GPUs
are
able
to
provide
and
are
needed
for
additional
math
calculations,
and,
on
top
of
that
adds
the
programmability
aspect
or
the
programmatic
aspect,
which
is
the
exact
math
series
of
math
operations.
That
you're
running,
is
changing
in
every
epoch
or
actually
miss,
if
proposed,
with
the
stratum.
L
Implementation
would
change
every
25
blocks
or
50
blocks,
or
something
like
that
to
change
even
faster.
Now,
when
you
do
something
like
that,
the
problem
with
in
diplom
ending
a
sick
for
something
like
that
or
a
different
basic
or
more
custom
ASIC
would
be
that
you
would
have
to
design
the
ASIC
to
either
be
flexible
enough
to
capture
all
the
possible
variations
or
evolutions
of
the
algorithm
right
or
you'd
actually
have
to
pre.
L
Do
have
an
ASIC
that
already
pre
designs
for
every
variation
or
every
kind
of
math
ordering
in
kind
of
this
evolving
algorithm
right.
So
if
you
pre
the
pre
designed
for
every
possible
variation
while
you're
a
sick,
just
explodes
you're,
just
burning
silicon
area,
that's
mostly
unused,
and
if
you,
if
you
try
to
design
for
the
programmability
and
the
register
space
that
you
would
or
the
register
file
size
that
you
would
need,
then
you
basically
have
something
that
is
a
very
big
ASIC.
L
Now,
if
you
have
implement
implementation
questions
in
terms
of
why
Asics
can't
keep
up
with
it
or
it
can't
design
the
for
these
math
variations,
we
can
certainly
do
deep
dive
on
this
and
and
I
think
our
responses,
your
question
responses.
It
would
probably
be
best
to
put
it
on
some
public
forum,
like
with
your
magicians,
so
that
once
you've
asked
a
question,
it's
a
very
valid
one
that
people
everyone
can
see
the
response,
and
we
can
just
point
people
to
that
to
that
forum.
If
other
people
have
similar
questions
and.
A
L
And
to
be
clear
on
another
point:
it's
not
that
a
GPU
is
we
tried
to
make
a
GPU
as
optimized
as
we
could,
or
so
sorry,
I
make
the
algorithm
as
optimized
as
we
could
for
the
GPU.
But
it
is
true
when
you
see
some
statements,
that
it
is
not
the
most
optimized
piece
of
hardware,
simply
because
things
like
GPUs
have
floating-point
paths,
that's
not
really
appropriate
for
cryptography,
but
that's
only
a
small
part
of
the
silicon.
That's
unused,
there's
other
parts
of
the
silicon,
including
display
outputs
and
things
like
that.
L
That,
of
course,
is
also
unused,
and
in
working
and
having
the
GPU
makers
assess
and
review
this
this
algorithm.
The
conclusion
was
that
it's
roughly
220
percent
of
the
area
would
be
unused
and
it's
not
would
not
be
a
20
percent
power
penalty,
but
simply
a
20
percent
area
penalty
or
basically,
an
area
savings
that
you
could
have
if
you
stripped
it
out
all
the
unnecessary
bits
of
a
GPU.
L
And
then
we
also
asked
them
to
do
an
economic
analysis
of
of
what
that
savings
would
be
in
terms
of
having
a
basic
bi
more
economically
efficient
in
in
you
know,
saving
that
that's
a
like
an
area
and
we
we
did
basically
there's
online.
You
can
go,
look
at
basically
die
area
assessments
of
how
much
it
would
cost.
L
And
if
you
look
at
GPUs
that
are
most
popular
in
the
mining
world
today,
I
guess
that's
the
the
480
or
580
and
then
and
then
maybe
some
of
the
GP
106
GP
ones
for
silicon,
then
it's
roughly
50
$60
for
a
piece
of
silicon
and
then
you
you
save
roughly
20%
of
that
which
is
$10
and
for
the
total
manufacturing
cost
the
board.
That's
roughly
$200
you're,
really
saving
an
insignificant
amount
of
the
total
cost
of
the
board.
So
yes,
the
Asics.
L
You
can
have
a
more
custom
hardware,
design
for
prog
pal
than
GPUs
and
save
some
silicon
area,
but,
economically
speaking,
it's
not
a
significant
and
impact
to
the
economics
where
it
would
cause
someone
to
go.
Do
a
custom
design,
especially
given
the
amount
of
volumes
that
GPU
manufacturers
have
access
to
versus
someone
who
would
be
doing
custom
design.
The
costs
just
would
not
be
the
economic
structure
of
doing
an
ASIC
just
would
not
be
worth
it
now.
L
G
Yes,
I
mean
I
did
read
the
most
of
the
things
that
were
said
actually
I
read
in
it
on
the
on
a
github
which
is
fine.
It's
now
I
kind
of
understand
that
you
were
do
two
things
you
optimizing
for
the
GPU
and
then
you
introducing
some
of
the
things
that
are
harder
for
for
Asics
I
couldn't
get
it.
So
what
I
would
like
is
to
have
this
when
you
said
that
we
talked
to
the
GPU
manufacturer
and
we
asked
them
to
do
this,
and
that
is
this
information
somehow
available
or
say.
G
You
said
that
you
were
like
you
asked
some
of
the
GPU
manufacturers
some
questions
about
how
much
it's
gonna
cost
to
do
this
or
like
how
much
of
the
GPU
air
GPU
area
will
be
used
by
this
algorithm.
Like
is
this
some
kind
of
documentation,
or
just
some
sort
of
chats
that
you
had
with
some
people
yeah.
L
So
we
reached
out
to
the
manufacturers
based
on
the
connections
we
had
I.
Don't
think
this
is
public
information.
However,
we
can
we.
They
advised
that
there
are
some
very
good
reverse
engineering
analysis
already
existing
technical
analysis
of
this
generation
of
silicon
I.
Think
for
for
the
generation
of
silicon
or
I
referred
to.
G
L
L
J
J
A
J
A
C
I've
been
mostly
revealing,
all
of
the
tests
is
a
recent
changes
from
CBP
need,
and
so
state
tests
are
done
for
Constantinople
it
generated.
Vm
tests
are
updated,
I'm
changing
the
way
the
hash
of
the
tested
is
calculated.
So
that's
why
all
of
the
tests
are
now
more
if
you,
the
different
hash
and
I,
trying
to
fix
a
Python
script
on
a
test
repository
to
match
this
hash
check
and
I'm,
currently
working
on
bakshi
and
test
regeneration,
I
would
like
to
keep
some
of
the
blockchain
tests
being
mined
with
eg
hash
proof
of
work.
C
That's
because
there
are
some
interesting
cases
where
blocks
have
ankles,
where
a
block
have
many
different
uncles
or
that
many
blocks.
So
I
would
like
to
give
those
tests
with
proof
of
work
just
to
see
how
difficulty
is
generated,
and
one
of
the
interesting
features
of
the
blockchain
tells
that
I
could
deliberately
change
some
parameters
of
the
blocks.
So
there
are
some
tests
where
blocks
I'm
getting
in
different
timestamp
shift,
whether
it
is
forward
to
backwards
in
time
and
some
interesting
cases
is
a
difficulty
checks
that
in
the
blockchain
test
is
this
way.
C
B
C
C
That's
nice,
but
I
think
eventually
we
will
implement
something
like
different
proof
of
work,
so
I
will
work
in
the
towards
that
direction,
revealing
blockchain.
That
takes
a
lot
of
time
if
it,
if
it
has
mining
and
I,
have
to
fix
a
CPP
client.
There
are
some
errors
happening
when
my
knee
or
when
refilling
the
test.
It
takes
some
time
to
understand
what
was
being
changed
in
CPU
and
how
it
affects
the
test
generation.
C
C
So
let
me
think,
oh
that's
I,
think
I
could
not
merge
this
pierre
until
I
fix
the
Python
script
in
tirstrup.
Oh,
so
it's
all
green
and
I
kind
of
stuck
because
of
the
llamó
test.
At
the
moment.
I
remember:
hyperman
suggestions
are
helping.
His
bitin
validation
knows
I'm
Jason
hash.
It's
not
good.
I
would
appreciate
that.