►
Description
This week the Antelope Coalition discusses the progress made with PP2P discovery, RAM limitation fixes, Antler CDT, Ledger support, IBC, Wallet SDK, and more!
00:00:00 Start
00:00:20 Recap and topics
00:02:22 P2P peer discovery
00:05:02 RAM limitation fixes
00:05:18 Antler CDT
00:11:29 Ledger app support
00:13:04 Developer workshop and onboarding
00:17:38 IBC update
00:26:24 Instant Finality
00:37:16 Wallet SDK update
00:44:05 End
The EOS Network Foundation coordinates financial and non-financial support to encourage the growth and development of the EOS Network. We’re harnessing the power of decentralization to chart a coordinated future for the EOS Network as a force for positive global change.
// EOS Network Foundation //
https://www.eosnetwork.com
https://twitter.com/EosNFoundation
https://www.linkedin.com/company/eos-network-foundation
https://t.me/EOSNetworkFoundation
https://discord.gg/eos-network
info@eosnetwork.com
#EOS #Web3
A
All
right
here
we
go
so.
First
of
all,
one
of
the
last
things
we
did
at
the
end
of
the
year
was
discuss
how
the
RFP
dates
we're
not
giving
people
enough
time
for
the
holidays.
So
I
will
say,
like
an
announcement
has
gone
out
actually
several
times,
but
the
next
Milestone
date
for
the
P2P
peer
Discovery
is
the
week
of
January
17th
we'll
get
into
this
in
a
second.
But
we
do
need
to
discuss
the
next
steps
on
that.
A
That
week,
so
we
could
ask
them
direct
questions:
they
can
defend
their
positions,
etc,
etc,
and
then
we
are
expected
to
award
that
should
we
vote
one
of
them
as
positive
on
the
23rd
I
will
remind
everybody.
There
was
a
prerequisite
related
to
this,
and
also
the
next
one,
which
is
the
budgeting
exercise
but
I'm
going
to
table
that
and
just
talk
about
the
rfps
for
SEC,
since
this
is
just
an
update,
the
ram
limitation
fixes
the
bid
is
due
on
January
17th.
A
A
There
was
a
question
about
the
required
experience
from
Fudan
because
they
are
essentially
new
to
this
kind
of
work,
so
this
is
sort
of
an
open
discussion
to
bring
us
all
back
up
to
speed,
but
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
figure
out
from
the
team.
What
are
the
next
steps
to
Let's
assume
for
a
second
that
the
budget
question
is
going
to
be
resolved?
What's
the
next
step
on
this
RFP
process?
A
B
Jeff,
do
you
should
this
one
be
done
on
the
Monday
meeting?
If
you
want
to
go
into
these
level
of
details,
because
since
you're
recorded
oci
and
foodan
are
probably
just
watch
this
video
and
they're
going
to
hear
everything
that's
being
discussed?
If
that's
okay,
then
they'll
already
have
a
jump
on.
You
know
what
we're
discussing
here,
or
should
this
be
moved
to
the
MonDay
meeting,
where
you
know
we
can
do
it
kind
of
offline,
so
yeah,
that's.
A
All
right,
then
I
will
that
resolves
that
I'll
move
on
to
the
next
one,
and
this
is
a
status
update,
Ram
limitation
fixes,
as
I
mentioned,
the
bid
is
due
on
January
17th.
That
is
still
in
progress.
We
should
expect
something
from
enf
in
the
next
couple
of
weeks
before
that
the
next
one
antler
CDT
the
work
is
in
process.
However,
I
have
requested
this
funnier
from
my
own
team
to
put
together
a
weekly
status
report
so
that
I
can
provide
you
more
information.
A
B
B
We
have
had
some
personal
health
issue
that
has
affected
some
of
the
planning
that
would
have
been
completed
by
now.
So
we
are,
we
have
fallen
behind
in
that
structure
due
to
some.
Obviously,
you
know
protected
Health
type
of
concerns
and
we're
doing
the
best
we
can,
while
we're
processing
through
that.
D
I
and
I
am
very
happy
to
hear
that
there's
going
to
be
ongoing
status
updates
on
a
weekly
basis
from
now
on,
so
I
think.
That's
all
good
and,
and
thanks
for
letting
us
know
about
that,
I
do
have
a
question
about
the
CDT
is,
is:
are
the
current
versions
3.0.1
and
3.1
X?
Are
they
deterministic
or
is
there
still
that
determinant
that
issue
with
the
in
in
some
previous
versions
about
the
CDT
not
being
deterministic?
B
I'm
not
sure
I
understand
when
you
say
about
deterministic.
We
do
need
to
make
a
release
that
works
of
the
CDT.
That
works
with
the
different
versions
of
leap,
and
we
are
not
keeping
the
numbering
system
between
those
versions
consistent
by
the
way.
So
there
is
kind
of
like
you
have
to
have
like
a
Rosetta
Stone
or
something
to
look
up
and
say
this.
It's
usually
in
the
release
notes.
You
can
look
at
it
online
and
say
all
right.
This
is
the
version
of
CDT
that
works
with
this
version
of
the
leap.
B
D
Well,
the
no
that's
all
good
information.
Thank
you,
the
and
I.
Don't
think
there's
any
problem
with
with
you
know,
breaking
the
the
the
versioning
system
at
this
time
as
long
as
we
do
it
once
and
then
can
can
stay
consistent.
No,
my
question
about
deterministic
was
whether
compiling
creates
a
deterministic,
Shaw
signature
on
on
each
build
we're
having
some
trouble
in
the
past.
There
were.
B
D
E
But
I
think
we
have
had
some
issues
slip
in
if
you're
aware
of
a
current
issue.
I,
don't
I
am
not
personally
aware
of
a
current
issue.
That's
like
listed
in
our
backlog,
but
if
you're,
if
you're
aware
of
a
current
issue
with
the
current
versions
of
cdts
that
are
released,
please
make
sure
that's
you
know
reflected
in
our
in
our
GitHub
issues
and.
B
A
B
B
The
last
piece
about
can
we
make
it
say
Antelope
with
four
different
tokens
after
it,
I
did
ask
him
that
I
didn't
get
a
response
back
because
I
think
he's
also
been
queued
up
on
them,
but
I
did
push
that
through
to
him
saying
hey.
This
is
what
the
Coalition
would
like.
Is
that
possible,
but
again
he's
he's
mostly
dealing
with
technical
contacts
that
are
solely
interested
in
tests.
You
know
test
builds
working
with
automated.
B
B
Bart
and
I
have
met
with
them
independently
and
together
a
couple
of
times
it
does
not
look
like
this
program
is
probably
appropriate
in
the
way
it
was
crafted
and
I've,
given
them
that
feedback
they
the
way
their
billing
model
worked,
would
not
work
for
any
of
the
Coalition
members.
It
no
longer
works
for
us.
The
the
design
of
the
program
was
also
something
where
it
was
kind
of
you
know,
and
and
Bart
has
given
them
feedback
on
how
he'd
like
to
see
it
redesign,
but
the
goal
of
it
was.
B
You
know
you
maybe
worked
five
to
ten
hours
a
week
in
the
maybe
in
the
beginning,
a
brand
new
employee.
So
you
hired
someone
off
the
street
and
they're
a
great
C
plus
program.
They
might
go
to
two
to
three
weeks
straight
of
training,
maybe
just
two
and
then
they
would
work.
You
know
35
hours
a
week
and
do
five
hours
a
week
of
training
or
30
10.
Something
like
that.
B
If
you're
not
having
your
employees
work
60
hours
a
week,
I'm
giving
you
a
40
hour
a
week
example,
but,
and
that
program
would
last
for
52
weeks
where
they
were
doing.
You
know
five
to
ten
hours
a
week
of
training
and
the
rest
of
the
time
they
were
working
on
problems,
Bart
helped
them
restructure
it
a
bit.
They
now
realize
from
our
feedback
that
the
way
they
were
trying
to
bill
us
just
won't
work.
They.
B
You
know
doing
doing
the
stuff
so
that
he's
keeping
moving
along
on
his
training
about
EOS,
but
he's
also
coding
and
actually
doing
his
job,
the
majority
of
the
week
and
if
he's
really
a
hot
shot,
maybe
he
accelerates
through
that
program.
But
then
you
know
how
will
that
get?
You
know
how
would
each
of
the
Coalition
chains,
which
we
would
now
be
treated
identically
to
the
way
the
other
three
Coalition
Chains
would
be
as
to?
How
do
we
pay
for
that
moving
forward?
They
have
some
skin
in
the
game.
B
They
produced
all
the
materials
they
would
do
it
be
doing
parts
of
the
testing
Etc
parts
of
the
validation
that
the
person
has
like
learned
the
materials
Etc,
but
again
because
they
did
all
the
the
training
course
creation
and
structure
to
it
and
everything
there
would
be
some
type
of
fee
that
would
be
paid
as
the
students
went
through
the
training.
So
I'm
not
confident
that
they're
going
to
make
this
a
really
high
priority
to
get
it
done
before
they.
B
C
A
C
F
They
did
produce
a
certificate
that
they
have
on
the
website
right
now
it
shows
the
GitHub
Links
of
our
private
repo,
but
as
soon
as
the
as
the
code
is
published,
open
source
I
already
spoke
with
them.
They'll
update
to
the
I
guess
like
to
the
the
the
proper
URLs,
so
I
I'm,
assuming
this
like
this,
would
sit
in
the
Antelope
like
a
repository
but
happy
to
edit
on
the
yes
Titan
in
the
meanwhile.
F
F
The
I've
worked
on
the
m6
they're,
not
exactly
complete,
but
they
like
they're
they're,
a
bit
they're
a
bit
complicated
like
to
make
it
I
have
to
make
it
as
a
transaction,
so
that
BPS
will
only
sign
one
transaction.
They
won't
have
to
sign
like
a
bunch
because
we're
creating
a
bunch
of
accounts,
and
all
of
that
so
I
should
have
that
over
the
weekend.
So,
probably
sometime
next
week,
we
can
propose
these
and
have
BPS
basically
signed
for
transactions
that
will
create
the
accounts.
F
I'll
configure
them
like
I'll
structure,
these
transactions
to
use
one
of
my
private
keys
for
the
active
permission
and
then
I'll
configure
them
all
and
once
they've
been
configured
essentially
I'll
change
it
like
a
we'll.
Let
the
the
BPS
basically
take
over
the
accounts
and
activate
the
the
contracts,
and
at
that
point
the
like
we're,
basically
live.
For
all
intents
and
purposes
there.
F
The
caveat
to
that
is
we're
still
in
the
process
of
syncing
wax
waxes,
I'm,
sure
I'm,
sure
you
hear
that
every
day
Lucas,
but
it's
it,
takes
take
a
long,
long
time
to
synchronize
a
new
node
and
same
with
with
fire
hose
which
we
we
need
to
do
as
well,
so
we're
still
in
process.
We
started
a
week
before
Christmas
and
we're
still
probably
a
few
weeks
before
we're
done.
So
that's
that's
the
only
caveat.
F
F
They
do
have
some
I
guess,
like
fire
hose
setup,
that's
already
up
to
date
that
we
can
probably
use
instead
that
will
speed
up
the
process
so
like,
of
course,
it's
a
bit
a
bit
more
complicated,
because
now
they
have
to
give
us
access
to
their
servers
and
we
have
to
kind
of
extract
the
data
like
make
a
copy
of
it
and
use
it
to
bootstrap
our
own,
like
server
proof
but
proof
server.
But
it's
well.
F
We've
been
been
discussing
that
and
that's
that's
our
plan
B.
If
you
kind
of
accelerate
the
whole
thing
other
than
that,
though,
we're
gonna
be
pretty
much
ready
to
go
next
week.
So
there's
there's
I
guess
like
if
there
is
some
additional
content
or
marketing
strategies
or
whatever
that
you
guys
want
to
put
forward.
It's
probably
a
good
time
to
start
thinking
about
it.
F
There's
there's.
Definitely
it's
a
I
think
it's
a
newsworthy
event
that
we
should
take
advantage
of.
I
do
have
a
call
next
week
with
Eric
like
a
I,
don't
know
if
it's
a
fireside
chat
or
something
I,
don't
know
I,
don't
really
remember,
but
that
Brendan
Lovejoy
has
been
organizing.
So
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
that
yeah,
it's
a
podcast
recording
I,
don't
know,
but
yeah
I'm
going
to
be
talking
about
IBC
and
yeah.
F
D
F
Done
yes,
no,
it's
it's
mostly
IBC,
actually
that
we,
we
have
not
modified
to
take
into
account
the
new
proof
scheme
that
will
be
possible
through
instant
finale.
So
essentially
like
the
the
smart
contract,
the
IBC
smart
contracts
can
be
drastically
simplified
and
the
verification
time
and
the
Computing
cost
of
verifying
proofs
will
also
be
slash
like
by
a
factor
of
20
or
something.
So
we
will
essentially
be
rewriting
the
IBC
contracts
to
take
into
account
the
new
instance
finality
consensus.
D
F
Yeah
I
mean
it
will
be,
it
will
be
a
set
code
over
the
IBC
contract.
That's
another
multi-sig
that
BP's
will
have
to
sign
at
that
point,
and
it
will
essentially
overwrite
the
current
code
replacement
within
the
one,
but
I
don't
foresee
any
any
other
changes
in
that,
like
all
the
other
contracts
depending
on
IBC,
will
still
will
still
be
able
to
to
use
it.
F
D
I
think
Inc
I
would
request
that
that
note
gets
included
in
you
know
way
down
at
the
bottom
on
anything
that
that
that
announces
this
to
developers
so
that
they're,
aware
of
that,
but
it's
very
but
I
think
it's
very
exciting
to
to
have
this
going
live.
What's
the
what's
the
what's
the
projected,
so
my
understanding
is
that
ux
is
a
is
that
your
team
is
also
going
to
be
deploying
a
sort
of
a
multi-chain
pan,
Coalition
amm
following
this.
D
F
F
I
would
say:
I
mean
I,
mean
we'll
probably
delay
it
a
little
bit
like
we'll
release
IBC
first
and
then
we
will
essentially
like
do
some
sort
of
an
open
beta
for
the
amm
that
sits
on
the
test
net
and
once
we're
satisfied
with
the
the
result
of
the
open
Beta,
then
we'll
launch
it
live
on
the
on
the
main
nuts.
Okay.
F
F
Right
so,
for
instance,
finality
I
had
a
call
with
with
UNIF
Engineers
with
her,
though
this
week,
so
we
we
it's,
it's
gonna
like
we
took
some
decision
in
that
call
and
we
overrode
them
right
after
the
call.
So
that's
kind
of
that's
kind
of
like
Jesse
was
on
the
call,
so
we
ended
up
I
mean
Eric
is
still
like
winning
pros
and
cons
from
the
approach
that
I
originally
suggested,
but
I
think
he's
now
leading
in
that
direction.
F
So
essentially
to
give
a
quick
recap:
there
there's
there's
two
different
versions
of
the
consensus
model
that
we
were
considering.
These
are
both
hot
stuff,
but
one
is
the
basic
at
stuff
and
the
other
one
is
the
chained
Hut
stuff
and
there's
there's
a
third
one
that
is
essentially
like
in
The
Best
of
Both
Worlds,
which
which
we
are
most
likely
going
to
be
implementing.
In
reality,
these
are
relatively
similar.
F
So
all
of
that
is
moving
along
nice
nicely
I've
got
kind
of
a
prototype,
we're
almost
ready,
there's
essentially
like
we
have
our
a
milestone
coming
up,
which
is
the
BLS
signature.
So
I've
got
that
working.
We
have
a
few
more
kind
of
expanded
like
I
guess
like
extended
scope,
that
was
not
in
the
contract.
There
was
nothing
in
Milestones,
but
after
discussion
that
we
decided
to
do
which
is
Central
to
add
additional
crypto
Primitives
that
will
make
that
will
essentially
allow
for
more
a
broader
range
of
use.
F
Cases
that
expands
Way
Beyond
faster
finality
and
Way
Beyond
BLS
signatures,
but
it
takes
advantage
of
essentially
like
what's
called
pairing
based
cryptography.
So
this
is
this
is
like
this
can
be
used
for
all
sorts
of
zero
knowledge
systems,
including
CK,
snarts,
ZK,
Starks
and
all
sorts
of
things
that
have
not
been
discovered
yet
so
like
it's
going
to
be
in
there
at
some
point.
It's
not
it's
not
part
of
that
Milestone,
but
if
we
we
might
also
be
ready
to
release
that
at
the
same
time.
F
A
F
Just
before
we
move
to
the
next
topic,
one
thing
that
I
I
would
like
to
just
raise
is
that
there's
we've
been
calling
this
instant
finale,
which
is
fine.
That's
definitely
one
of
the
benefit
that
this
brings,
but
it
really
is
a
a
an
upgrade
to
the
consensus
model
that
makes
possible
a
like
completely
different
range
of
governance
mechanisms.
So
we're
no
longer
strictly
limited
to
dpus
with
this,
so
that
that
that
that
and
we're
definitely
not
limited
to
that
21
block
producer
anymore.
F
F
It's
like
at
this
stage,
I'm
just
saying
like
brainstorm,
because
there's
a
there's
a
lot
of
implications,
of
course,
and
it's
a
governance
decision,
it's
the
technology,
allows
it.
But
now
everyone
has
to
decide
all
the
chains
will
have
to
decide
what
that
means
for
them
and
if
they
want
to
take
that
route
or
not
so
so,
just
maybe
like
you
can
have
a
an
agenda
item
at
some
point
where
we
discuss
that.
F
F
Exactly
we
will
when
we,
when
we
release
this
like
when
the
feature
activates,
it
will
be
essentially
mapping
to
the
current
configuration
the
current
debus
configuration,
so
nothing
changes
really
except
that
blocks
now
take
whatever
like
a
few
seconds
to
confirm.
However,
it
also
now
introduce
a
whole
new
world
of
possibilities
and
things
that
were
not
previously
possible
that
now
become
possible.
So
this
is
this
is
the
the
topic
of
that
discussion.
C
F
Mean
without
going
too
deep
in
the
details,
now
we're
essentially
taking
the
role
of
blood
producer
and
sending
it
in
three
different
roles:
there's
a
role
of
blood
proposer,
the
role
of
blood
finalizer
and
the
role
of
the
role
of
view
leader.
Now
all
these
roles
perform
one
part
of
the
current
blood
producer
tasks,
but
these
entities
can
now
be
separate.
They
can
be
elected
or
selected
in
different
ways.
F
D
Right
so
so
my
observation
is
those
discussions
are
really
more
the
province
of
each
individual
chain
and
not
of
the
antelope
Coalition,
so
I
think
I
think
what
the
what
should
be,
what
would
be
exciting
to
discuss
but
may
not
be
a
coalition
meeting
type
discussion,
is
just
socializing.
What
those
possibilities
are
you
know
getting
the
you
know
engaging
people's
imaginations,
but
I,
don't
think
you
know
I'd
be
surprised
if
any
of
our
four
chains
had
any
major
changes
in
how
our
consensus
Works
in
in
any
any.
D
You
know,
period
of
time,
I
I
have
said
before.
I
would
like
to
see
teles
go
to
more
more
block
producers
in
in
the
active
cycle,
but
you
know
those
things
are
are
on.
You
know
we'll
be
up
to
each
chain
and
we'll
but
I'm
very
excited
to
learn
about
you
know
more
about
and
I
think
others
will
be
more
about
what
these
you
know.
Possibilities
are,
but
just
not,
as
a
coalition
official
Coalition
piece
of
business.
C
E
I
I
have
one
quick
question
about
that.
These
different
roles
that
we
split
the
traditional
block
producer
role
into
proposer,
validator
review
leader
when
is
the
finality
comes
through,
will
will
those
be
exposed
to
the
system,
level
contracts
and
just
those
system
contracts
are
upgraded
to
mimic
Depots
or
will
there
still
need
to
be
additional
work
to
expose
those
different
roles
to
the
to
the
system,
contracts.
F
So
the
way
the
way
I'm
currently
planning
about
doing
this
is
there's
there's.
Essentially
there
will
be
now
like,
let's
say,
let's
call
it
like
three
different
tables,
one
for
finalizers,
one
for
like
proposers
and
one
for
leaders,
and
they
will
be
updated
all
at
the
same
time
whenever
the
schedule
changes.
But
at
that
point
in
time
you
know
like
any
chain
could
decide
to
start
moving
away
from
that
and
establishing
new
system
contract.
F
You
know,
features
to
select
these
roles
individually,
so
right
now
like
it's
all,
it's
all
like
still,
you
know
like
producers,
but
yeah
the
requirement.
One
of
the
requirements
for
us
is
to
also
like
prepare
this
this
possible
decoupling.
If,
if
anyone
wanted
to
take
advantage
of
it
so
like
it,
it
will
be
still
configured
the
way
it
is
under
the
bus,
but
it
will
now
be
possible
to
change
the
configuration.
E
Okay,
so
the
the
protocol
level
host
function
that
sets
the
producer
schedule,
will
be
deprecated
and
replaced
by
something
that
sets
basically
three
different
groups,
and
it
will
be
the
system
contracts
that
are
correct,
that
are
setting
those
three
groups
of
people
to
the
exact
same
identities.
Just
okay,
all
right
understood.
So
then,
then
yeah
I
think
socializing
socializing,
that
as
a
possibility
that
allows
this
to
go
and
and
do
what
it
needs
to
do
for
each
individual
chain.
E
F
E
Okay,
great
so
yeah,
then
I,
then
I
agree
with
with
Douglas
like
there's.
There's
no
there's
no
need
for
us
to
take
it
any
further.
In
this
group
we
can,
we
can.
We
can
expose
that
functionality,
we
can
document
it,
we
can
even
promote
it
and
Market
it
and
then
let
the
individual
chains
figure
out
if
when
and
how
they
would
use
those
new
capabilities
to
affect
a
different
type
of
governance.
Yeah.
C
C
G
Yeah
sure
we
just
had
another
call
yesterday,
it's
published
up
on
orphkit.com
if
you
need
to
catch
up
the
first
usable
code
in
a
kind
of
a
technical
preview,
is
available
on
GitHub
there's
a
blog
post
written
for
it.
It
was
shared
in
the
the
telegram
channel
for
worth
kit
and
that
should
go
public
as
soon
as
we
iron
out
some
bugs
in
the
new
blog
section
of
the
website.
G
G
I
would
say
in
the
past,
48
Hours,
multiple
parties,
some
from
the
enf
some
from
the
community,
have
come
out
with
basically
timing
concerns
like
it's.
This
transition
period
that
we're
in
with
old,
Solutions
being
improved
and
maintained,
while
eventually
this
new
solution
being
replacing
them-
and
there
are
some
potential
tweaks
to
the
like
the
schedule
of
the
project
that
could
front
load
a
little
bit
more
of
one
kind
of
work
to
alleviate
this.
G
This
is
all
really
fresh,
and
the
only
reason
I'm
bringing
up
here
is
is
that
it
may
come
back
to
the
Coalition
for
some
sort
of
decision,
or
you
know,
whoever
the
stakeholders
making.
That
decision
would
be,
but
overall,
in
terms
of
the
current
trajectory,
we're
on
things
are
moving
nicely
and
it's
good
to
have
some
usable
code
in
the
space.
G
The
brand
kit,
I,
guess
is,
the
only
notable
thing
coming
out
too
is
is
that
we
are
essentially
submitting
this
as
a
completed
Milestone.
So
we
need
to
start
working
through
the
process
of
betting,
that
with
the
Coalition
and
making
sure
checks
all
the
boxes.
There
are
no
objections,
no
feedback
needs
to
be
addressed
and
then
kind
of
checking
that
off
is
complete.
A
So
going
back
to
our
board,
so
there's
two
new
agenda
items
well
provable
State
domains
again
because
of
the
holidays.
There
was
not
a
lot
of
work
done
on
the
new
requirements
for
that,
hopefully,
we'll
get
a
better
update
by
next
week
this
time
and
then
the
final
agenda
item
for
today
is
the
Coalition
Top-Up
to
fund
the
rfps,
which
is
really
a
subsection
of
a
larger
budgeting
process
or
discussion.
A
D
That
does
delay
the
the
outcome,
though
of
that
is,
it
does
delay
our
ability
to.
It
does
delay
our
ability
to
move
forward
on
on
any
of
the
rfps
or
you
know,
or
basically
anything
until
we've.
We've
made
some
decisions
there
I
wonder
if
it'd
be
possible
for
for
us
to
discuss
some
of
that
preliminary
in
a
preliminary
way
on
the
upcoming
Monday
call,
even
though
Eve
won't.