►
Description
This week the Antelope Coalition discusses the progress made with P2P Peer Discovery, RAM Limitation fixes, Ledger support, Secure Smart Contract Libraries, and more!
00:00:00 Start
00:00:26 P2P Peer Discovery
00:05:25 RAM Limitation fixes
00:14:54 Antler CDT
00:15:54 Ledger Support
00:32:43 Trezor Hardware Support
00:37:05 Adding new chains to the Coalition
00:40:11 Devlepoer onboarding / Developer workshops
00:46:40 Secure Smart contract Library
00:50:56 Final Finality and Wallet SDK
00:51:31 Provable State Domains
00:52:00 Sign up for external orgs to get security updates
00:58:21 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
so
for
people
watching
the
video,
we
have
just
briefly
discussed
the
meetings
for
the
remainder
of
the
Year.
This
meeting
will
be
canceled,
December,
22nd
and
29th,
but
we
will
have
it
next
week
on
the
15th.
So
now
you're
caught
up
yeah
a
little
bit
of
progress,
all
right,
opening
up,
P2P
peer
Discovery,
there's
two
vendors
that
have
submitted
their
proposals,
the
folders
and
all
of
the
inclusive
documents,
for
example
the
financial
spreadsheet,
the
exhibit
for
their
Authority
and
and
their
whole
response.
A
Since
it's
in
multiple
documents,
what
we
did
is
we
shared
into
the
Coalition
link,
the
folder
that
has
all
of
their
documents.
We
did
go
back
to
all
of
the
vendors
to
make
sure
that
they
filled
things
out
in
the
format
that
we
want,
so
to
have
a
little
bit
more
consistency,
so
those
are
available
for
you
to
immediately
start
reading.
One
item
related
to
this
is
the
idea
of
do
we
want
to
set
up
a
half
an
hour
with
each
of
the
vendors,
which
is
a
common
thing
to
do.
B
That
Jeff
before
we
even
did
that
should
we
go
through
like
does
everyone
seen
that
the
two
bids
have
come
in
and
what
the
prices
were
and
all
that
it's
all
been
shared
in
the
Coalition
group
right
Jeff,
yes,
I
guess
we
are
recording
and
stuff.
So
you
know
the
the
bids
I
don't
know
that
we
want
to
discuss
details
of
the
bids
on
recording.
Do
we
or
is
it
completely
transparent?
Do
we
do
we
show
all
the
bids
on
the
open
internet
and
everything.
B
C
B
Wonder
if
we
were
to
go
in
to
an
evaluation
discussion,
if
we
should
have
that
not
maybe
recorded
as
well
I
mean
the
the
bids
are
are
very
starkly
contrasted.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
people
on
this
call
that
could
could
really,
you
know,
add
value
to
the
discussion
and
I'm.
Just
not
sure.
If
we
go
into
that
level
of
detail
in
recording,
we
might
as
well
make
them
public
and
I
I
agree.
We
don't
necessarily
want
to
make
them
public
I.
Don't
think
we
told
the.
C
App
yeah,
we
haven't
told
people
that
they're
going
to
be
made
public
and
they
might
have
a
problem
with
that.
I
would
I
would
say
again
I'm.
Typically
the
transparency
dad
and
I
would
say
these
things
are
not
what
our
community
expects
us
to
do,
or
should
reasonably
expect
us
to
do
so.
This
guy,
you
know
we,
we
don't
record
every
single
job
interview.
We
didn't,
you
know,
there's
basic
there's
we
record
these
are
like
basically
we're
a
hyper
transparent.
You
know
company
that
has
regular.
B
Let's,
if,
if
if
the
group
is
okay
with
it,
I'd
like
to
say
that
we
should
use
this
as
part
of
the
Monday
agenda
to
kind
of
go
in
and
compare
and
contrast,
you
know,
I'm
hoping
all
the
people
on
this
call
can
make
it
as
well.
Aaron
included
I
think
it's
worth
going
through
the
two
bids.
They
are
starkly
contrasting
each
other
and
there
would
be
different
approaches
that
I
would
use,
depending
on
which
vendor
we
selected
as
to
how
we,
maybe
you
know,
worked
forward
with
it.
B
A
This
will
be
the
first
time
the
enf
is
bidding.
So
what
we
are
doing
is
Stephen
diesel
working
with
Ted
is
taking
the
role
of
the
vendor
on
this,
as
our
product
manager
and
Amy
and
I
are
continuing
to
be
the
people
to
shuttle
questions
back
and
forth.
We
will
make
sure
that,
as
questions
come
in,
everybody
in
the
Coalition
gets
it
so
that
this
is
not
enf
working
with
enf
to
get
this,
but
there's
full
transparency
on
you
know
the
normal
process,
as
we've
discussed
before.
C
C
Great
I
I
assumed,
but
it's
you
know
it's
good
to
get
down
here.
The
situation
that
I
was
in
with
the
secure
smart
contract
Library
proved
to
be
not
a
good
one,
not
not
function,
not
I
mean
that
was
a
specific
thing
itself,
but
there
were
times
when
I
was
when
when
I
was
making
decisions
you
know
or
at
for
basically
you
know
for
the
whole
Coalition
and
I
didn't
feel
comfortable
with
that.
But
I
did
it.
You
know
I
did
it
because
we
needed
to
advance
it.
C
So
one
of
the
things
I
would
and
it
had
to
do
with
people,
travel
and
all
kinds
of
things,
but
that's
not
a
job
for
one
person,
so
I
would
want
to
make
sure
that
there
was
more.
You
know,
there's
more
support
and
I
would
like
if
it's,
if
it's
going
to
be
like
this,
especially
with
the
enf
I,
think
that
there
should
be
a
representative
from
each
of
the
other
chains
in
the
committee
that
we
have
actual
approval
and
be
and
be
active
in
the
discussions
and
whatnot.
B
B
Yeah,
it's
we
just
happen
to
have
a
person
who's
probably
well
suited
to
Leading
it,
and
so
that's
why
we're
bidding
on
it
being
that
arig
is,
is
kind
of
a
scarce
resource.
So
but
it
will
be
done.
You
know
all
out
in
the
open.
We
just
happen
to
have
the
probably
the
optimal
resource
for
it.
So
it's
it's.
It's
definitely
gonna
be
an
open
and
collaborative
process.
Okay,.
C
Okay,
those
are
those
are
my
concerns
and
it
sounds
like
if
we
don't
have
other
con.
Maybe
there
are
other
concerns
if,
if
it's,
if
it's
ultimately,
if
no
one
has
a
problem
with
it
being,
you
know,
Lucas,
Guillaume
and
and
myself
on
that
review.
That
seems
like
that
would
be
very
efficient,
but
and
we
could
just
keep
moving,
but
does
anybody
else
have
any
questions
about
that.
D
Just
so,
for
the
record
Stefan
did
reach
out
to
me
and
asked
me
if
I
would
I
would
be
willing
if
our
team
would
be
willing
to
be
a
subcontractor
for
that
particular
bit.
We
said
we
are
open
to
it,
but
if
I
mean
it
might
like
at
that
point,
of
course,
if
we
also
participate
in
that
bid,
that
leaves
only
two
of
you
like
fellows
and
wax
to
cast
a
vote
on
that
particular
one.
D
So
I
mean
I'd,
say
I'd
say
like
from
from
my
end,
I
would
I
mean
if
we're
needed
to
participate
in
that
in
that
bid
for,
for
some
reason
we
would
be
open
to
it,
but
I
think
it
might
also
make
sense
to
try
to
find
a
way
for
enf
to
do
it
by
themselves
so
that
at
least
there's
there's.
The
other
three
chains
are
involved
in
the
decision.
Yeah.
C
I
I
would
say
that
to
the
extent
possible,
it
would
be
much
better
for
the
bidding
process
if,
if
there
weren't
these
types
of
multiple
subcontractor
situations,
you
just
for
the
the
reasons
we
talked
about
and
other
it
just
drives.
So
much
complexity,
I
would
say:
I
I,
really
don't
want
to
be
back
in
that.
Well.
A
So
one
thing:
that's
it
that
we
learned
from
one
thing
we
learned
from
the
last
time
is
that
going
forward.
This
has
nothing
to
do
with
enf.
This
is
in
general.
We
are
only
going
to
allow
one
vendor
as
the
primary
vendor
to
submit
and
they
have
to
have
all-inclusive.
They
can
have
subcontractors,
but
we
would
essentially
be
negotiating
with
the
one
primary
vendor,
and
so
in
this
example.
A
If,
for
some
reason,
Guillaume
was
brought
in,
the
only
other
caveat
would
be
ux
would
be
recused
from
the
voting,
in
which
case
either
we're
presenting
something
to
Telos
and
wax
that
you
both
accept
or
if
one
of
you
votes
know
that
it
would
fail
right,
in
which
case
you
would
get
all
four
if
both
vote
yes
and
obviously,
if
enf
and
ux
are
bidding
on
it,
you'd
have
all
four
chains
in
alignment
moving.
It
Forward
yeah.
C
C
Why
we're
it's
not
my
therapy
session
I
think
we're
I
think
that
we're,
but
we
need
to
look
into
what
did
happen
and
what
could
have
and
and
how
to
improve
it,
and
so
I'm
super
encouraged
that
we're
doing
that
and
then
I
think
that
one
of
the
takeaways
is
in
addition
to
just
not
having
it
be
it's
it
is
just
not
having
it
be.
You
know
a
bunch
of
subcontract
or
a
co-contractor,
which
effectively
was
and
just
have
one
mastercloud
director.
C
That's
great,
but
I
also
think
that
there
is
a
there's,
a
negative
in
having
multiple
chains
like
I,
wouldn't
necessarily
have
the
same
problem
with
with
enf
and
some
other
contractor.
That
was
not
enf,
but
but
was
essentially
an
EOS
a
line
chain
or
unaligned
or
whatever,
but
when
it
become
when
it's
like
two
two
things
want
to
work
on
it:
I
I,
think
that
makes
it
harder
for
the
Coalition
I
think
it
I'd
like
us,
except
in
extreme
conditions,
to
say:
okay.
Well,
this
is
you
know.
C
If
enf
is
doing
it,
then
then
they'll
find
somebody
you
know
within
them
and
that
can
be
a
co-contractor
or
subcontractor
or
whatever,
but
it
can't
it
shouldn't,
be
somebody
from
Telos,
probably
you
know,
because
then
it
puts
the
other.
It's
it's
not
necessarily
a
fair
position
to
put
to
to
put
the
other
chain
representatives
in
voting
having
been
there.
I
would
say
so,
I'd
like
it.
C
Now
it's
my
request,
based
on
based
on
the
experience
of
having
that
I
think
it
I
think
that
we
need
all
three
of
us
to
to
stay,
because
you
know
one
of
the
things
we
don't
think
about
also
is
sometimes
people
become
busy,
the
the
smart
contracts
one.
You
know
we
just
sort
of
lost
some
people
who
wanted
to
keep
it
moving
forward.
A
A
B
A
B
Do
you
have
an
update,
I
I
had
talked
with
him
on
it.
I
can
go
back
and
refresh
my
notes,
Here
a
second,
but
he
he
has
been
working
with
them
directly.
It's
more
about
submitting
a
testing
framework
and
an
automated
testing
framework
and
stuff
like
that,
so
that
they
can
ensure
that
the
you
know
it's
not
broken.
B
Where
there's
a
like
an
automated
CI
CD,
where
there's
a
regression
he's
been
doing
all
that
and
working
back
and
forth
and
then
there'll
be
lags
on
their
end,
where
they're
like
not
getting
back
to
him
right
away,
but
he's
on
top
of
it
and
and
so
it's
it's
making
progress,
I
can
I
can
go
look
to
get,
maybe
better
notes.
If
you
want
I
mean
he
has
them
in
a
telegram
chat
with
me,
I.
Just
that's
my
recollection
of
what
he
explained
to
me.
Okay,.
C
B
Yeah
so
he's
I
said
what
remains
for
them
to
be
happy
in
any
ETA
other
than
the
GitHub
actions
of
testing
with
the
emulator.
Are
there
other
code
fixes
that
are
required?
The
process
isn't
clear
so
hard
for
me
to
say
what
remains
I
will
follow
up
and
ask
detailed
questions
most
basic.
There
are
three
steps:
Ledger
merger
testing
updates,
Ledger
merging
code
and
security,
fixes
Ledger
reviews
and
improved
new
1.4.4
EOS
wallet
for
public
release.
C
So
so
that
sounds
to
me
like
they
are
seeing
this
as
as
something
they're
doing
with
EOS
and
I
have
no
problem
with
it.
You
know
I
think
these
are
reasonable
expectations
that
people
make,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
get
to
the
end
and
they
go
and
they
say.
Oh
we're,
not.
You
know
waxing
what
you
know
in
Telos
and
ux
what
you
know
we
want
to
all.
C
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
working
with
them
as
a
group,
to
the
extent
that
we
will
also
be
able
to
you,
know,
be
used
any
use
it.
You
know
like
tell
us
we'll
we'll
also
have
to
we'll
also
be
able
to
use
all
the
anal.
Sorry
all
the
Ledger
access
and
not
have
to
go
through
a
separate
review
process.
Let.
B
C
That's
my
concern.
There's
no
I,
don't
think
anything.
I
think
I
think
that
I,
maybe
they
understand
everything
but
having
dealt
with
this
for
a
while
I
think
that
there
is
a
natural
and
common,
honest,
totally
honest
mistake
that
could
come
up
in
just
in
US
in
US
thinking.
Oh
it's
for
everybody
and
them
thinking.
Oh,
it's
specifically
for
Eos,
and
if
we
can
head
that
off
now,
I
think
it'd
be
it'd,
be
great
for
all
the
chains.
There's.
D
There
might
be
also
another
thing
that
needs
to
be
addressed
there:
I'm
not
I'm,
not
100,
sure
I
haven't
looked
into
the
details,
but
maybe
Aaron,
maybe
you
know,
but
if
they
are
using
the
extended
HD
derivation
mechanism
each
chain,
each
individual
chain
has
to
have
a
unique
integer
code.
Basically,
that
is
kind
of
like
publicly
shared,
publicly
known
and
reserved
I,
think
I.
D
Think
yes,
as
80
or
something
I,
don't
remember,
but
there's
there's
like
a
code
assigned
for
each
chain
and
it
would
be
part
of
the
of
the
requirement
for
each
chain
to
have
that
code.
Basically
like
reserve
that
number
and
communicate
that,
with
with
the
Ledger
and
another
other
HD
wallet,
vendors.
F
The
way
it
works
right
now
is
everybody's
using
the
same
derivation
path
and
it's
not
causing
any
problems.
It
works
on
every
chain.
It's
just.
It
results
in
different
keys
that
are
on
the
device
jumping
back
to
what
Douglas
was
saying.
I
think
that
this
may
be
an
opportunity
if
there's
going
to
be
a
new
version
released
to
rename
and
Rebrand
the
application.
I,
don't
think
that
that
was
in
the
scope
of
what
Eric
was
working
on,
but
changing
the
like
working
with
The
Ledger
team
to
change
it.
F
So
it's
not
called
the
EOS
app
anymore
and
instead
it
is
called
the
antelope.
App
would
certainly
help
alleviate
confusion
on
behalf
of
users
like
even
if
it's
just
a
name,
change
and
potentially
I
think
there's
a
logo
baked
into
it.
Maybe
we
could
have
a
new
ASCII
version
of
the
logo
baked
into
it.
Those
should
be
relatively
minor
changes
and
could
be
included
in
this
next
release.
It.
B
Sounds
like
a
reasonable
statement,
I'm
just
concerned,
because
nobody
has
Antelope
tokens
right.
They
have
wax
tokens
or
Telos
tokens
or
Rios
tokens.
I'm
worried.
Would
people
immediately
understand,
that's
I
mean
I'd
almost
rather
have
it
say:
EOS
EOS,
Telos,
wax
ux
or
something
I,
just
I
totally
get
that
it
should
be
an
antelope
generic,
and
that
makes
sense
other
than
the
fact
that
people
might
not
know
that
okay
I've
got
EOS
and
The
Ledger
for
Eos
I.
F
Want
the
song
right:
we
have
that
today
because
all
Telos
and
waxy
users
that
use
The
Ledger
have
to
install
the
EOS
app.
It's
called
the
EOS
app
right
now
and
we
tell
wax
and
Telos
users.
They
need
to
use
the
EOS
app.
So
if
it
was
something
that
weren't
named
after
one
chain,
it's
probably
less
confusing,
except.
B
For
the
people
who
already
have
the
EOS
chain,
like
so
I,
have
to
represent
our
chain
right,
I,
don't
mind,
making
it
EOS
wax
comma.
Tell
us
comma,
you
know
ux,
but
to
lose
EOS
off.
That
I
think
would
be
bad,
it's
better
for
Telos
and
wax
and
ux
it's
worse
for
us,
because
EOS
is
clearly
our
token
right.
So
if
there's
a
way
that
we
could
do
this,
where
we
made
it
clear,
you
know
multi,
multi-chain,
EOS,
wax
Telos
ux
or
whatever
order
I,
don't
care.
B
C
F
C
Think
that's
a
totally
legitimate
concern.
I
think
that
we
should
I
think
we
should
discuss
it,
sort
of
armed
with
facts,
meaning
just
looking
at
the
app
or
the
proposed
app
and
where
it
would
say
some
things
and
where
it
would
say
other
things
we
can
find
out.
You
know,
can
we
have?
Can
we
have
an
EOS
app
and
an
antelope
app
and
you
know
and
eventually
have
them
be.
You
know
the
same
thing
but.
E
What,
if
yeah
so
I
mean
we
could
we
could
if
there
is
a
chance
of
essentially
making
a
generic?
So
you
know
maybe
the
core
is
eos
and
the
remains
EOS.
But
as
long
as
it's
it's
it's
open
for
wide
labeling,
then
each
of
our
corresponding
chains
can
wipe.
You
know
we
can
ourselves
work
with
Ledger
and
white
label
it
and
change
it.
So
there
is
a
you
know,
wax
app
or
Telos
app
or
ux
right.
The
problem,
maybe.
A
C
Don't
want
to
have
to,
we
don't
want
to
have
to
work
with
them
directly.
I
mean
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
head
off
like.
We
would
like
to
talk
with
them
collectively
and
then
and
make
sure
that
whatever
whatever
situation
we
figure
out
collectively
is
something
that
satisfies
the
needs
of
each
each
chain
like
I
I.
Don't
think
we
need
to
tell
those
that
I
think
we
just
need
to
you
know
we
need
an
app
that
works
right
from
a.
F
C
E
B
Well,
EOS
is
paying
for
it
right
now,
the
coalition's
not
paying
for
it,
but
again
I
don't
want
to
snipey
about
this,
but
maybe
we
can
have
it
say,
and
you
know
really
we're
talking
about
a
labeling
and
a
marketing
issue.
So
if
in
the
live
store
in
The,
Ledger
live
store,
if
it
said
Antelope
open,
paren,
EOS
teles
wax
u-wax,
then
that
might
be
good
enough,
because
then
you
start
to
start
to
make
it
more
explicit.
Like
oh,
it's
got
to
you,
I
said:
oh,
it's
got
Telos
in
there
and
wax
and
ux
too.
B
Oh
it's
the
N.
Okay
I
get
it
I.
Just
don't
want
to
lose
something
absolutely
have
today
where
we,
you
know
people
go.
This
is
the
EOS
wallet
I,
don't
mind,
adding
the
others
on
and
I
do
agree
with
Aaron
it
probably.
We
should
start
to
somehow
condition
them.
It's
the
antelope
wallet
and
that
that
would
be
great,
and
it's
really
coming
down
to
now.
How
many
letters
can
we
have
in
the
Live
Score?
So
when
they
download?
B
C
C
We
can
come
up
with
a
solution
that
that
works,
for
everybody
and
and
and
and
doesn't
you
know
and
doesn't
is-
is
additive
for
for
the
entire
group
and
for
everyone
not
not
looking
to
take
anything
away
by
the
way.
I
did
not
know
that
that
was
something
that
I
I
thought
that
that
was
an
antelope
thing.
C
E
B
C
Banking
I
think
there's
we
just
look
at
it,
we'll
we
can
all
come
to
a
good
good,
good
decisions
and,
frankly,
you're
paying
for
it.
So
if
we
I'd
say
if
we
can't
come
up
with
something
that's
acceptable
to
you,
you're
paying
for
it,
so
you
guys
can
just
say:
no.
If
you
give
us
the
opportunity
to
look
at
it
and
make
some
suggestions
yeah,
absolutely
that's
how
I.
B
Would
oppose
it
yeah
I'm
I'm
trying
to
be
open-minded.
That's
why
I'm
saying
like
I
agree,
the
better
thing
is
say:
Antelope
I,
just
don't
want
to
lose
EOS
off
it.
Then
the
question
is:
can
we
say
Antelope
and
show
what
the
four
Antelope
chains
are?
You
know
yeah
EOS
fellows
wax
ux
onto
it,
makes
it
also
better
in
search
I'm
I'm,
trying
to
I.
B
And
it
will
load
for
some
reason
because
I
want
to
see
in
the
live
store
when
I'm
searching
for
apps.
If
I
searched
for
you
know
like
what
is
the
length
I
just
can't
make
the
damn
thing
load
for
some
reason,
because
I
wanted
to
bring
it
up,
but
right
on
my
desktop
here
and
and
search
it
and
and
see
it
open.
Does
it
let
you
search
because
there's
a
list
of
apps
right?
Is
there
a
search
box
on
it?
There.
F
But
we
might
want
to
check
with
them
just
to
make
sure
that
we
can
put
a
bunch
of
different
token
names
there,
but
I
think
the
goal
here
that
we've
identified
is.
Is
that
like
we
want
a
common
name,
but
we
want
the
Search
terms
to
be
able
to
Target
all
of
our
chains.
So
that
way,
no
matter
what
chain
you
search
for,
that,
one
app
will
come
up
and
it'll
make
sense
for
the
user.
F
C
B
All
right
so
I'll
I'll
try
to
get
Eric,
so
Eric
I've
already
asked
Eric
to
make
sure
it
is
testing.
It
does
work
on
all
the
chains.
This
will.
This
is
a
little
above.
What
he
normally
does
is
like
ask
them
like
hey
what
about
the
label
in
the
live,
store
and
stuff
I'll.
Have
him
try
that
at
some
point
you
know
Jeff
or
I
might
need
to
take
that
part
over
I,
don't
even
mind
if
Aaron
does,
but
it's
just
not
something
Eric's
used
to
dealing
with
honestly.
C
Okay,
well,
thank
thank
you
for
for
doing
that
and
for
managing
that
relationship
and
I
truly
believe
that
that
not
only
will
it
be
best
for,
for
you
know
my
particular
change
I
think
it'll
be
I,
think
it'll
be
great
for
for
the
Coalition
and
and
just
the
perception
that
it's
as
we
do
these
things
and
make
them.
Oh
people
become
more
familiar
with
the
fact
that
oh
okay,
this
is
this
is
antelope.
C
B
B
F
D
A
E
E
B
C
B
Do
do
you
think
you
know
we're
I,
don't
know
where
we
are.
We
might
be
39th.
We
might
be
41st
on
coin
market
cap.
Do
you
think
that
it
might
be
just
a
syndrome
of
they're
like
if
you're,
not
in
the
top?
You
know
and
we're
we're
just
not
gonna
even
waste
our
time
replying
to
you?
Do
you
think
it'd
be
better
if
maybe
Jeff
arrived
out
or
if
Aaron
reached
out
I
mean
Aaron
comes
from
well
Aaron's
kind
of
like
competition.
B
C
Know
yeah,
you
know
he's
the
early
bitcoiner,
guy
and
he'd
had
slash
slash,
pool
I
mean
anyway,
never
mind
I'm
I'm,
some
since
the
stroke
yeah-
it's
not
it's
not
coming
through
for
me,
but
the
the
he
was
an
early
bitcoiner.
These
guys
are
very,
you,
know,
Bitcoin
forward,
but
they
do.
But
you
know
they
have.
They
have
all
kinds
of
ethereum
and
you
know
they
work
with
a
lot.
I
think
that's
I
think
they
want
to
be
with
these
ecosystems.
E
B
B
C
A
He
is
now
traveling,
so
this
one
is
more
or
less
going
to
be
de-prioritized,
since
the
chains
that
we're
really
interested
have
not
been
responding
at
this
point.
If
they
do
respond,
we'll
kind
of
dust
this
one
off
and
bring
it
out,
everybody
else
in
that
meeting
is
that
also,
your
recollection
recollection
did
I
yeah.
C
One
thing
I'd
add
was:
is
that
they
something
that
came
up
was
a
lot
of
people
who
were
asking
and
their
their
excitement
about
joining
Antelope.
They
thought
they
were.
They
thought
that
they
were.
You
know,
I
thought
it
was
a
source
of
funding,
not
as
they
thought
there
was
revenue
and
not
costs,
and
once
they
found
out
that
it
was
the
opposite,
they
read
the
Crickets,
see
the
Crickets
started,
chirping
right,
so
so
I
don't
think
we
need.
My
take
was
just
like
yours.
We
don't.
C
We
don't
really
need
to
revisit
this
until
there's
somebody
who
does,
except
for
the
one
thing
that
I
think
is
important,
which
is
that
I
do
think
we
need
some.
We
do
need
to
have
some
kind
of
discussion
about
levels
of
membership
so
that,
at
the
very
least,
if
any
any
chains
say
hey
we're,
not
you,
you
know
we're
not
joining,
but
we
are
using
the
software
and
should
there
ever-
and
you
know
we
want
to
be
included
in
any
kind
of
alert.
Should
there
ever
be
a
critical
alert.
C
C
That
can
all
be
done
in
GitHub,
but
we
might
at
some
point
want
to
talk
about,
have
some
kind
of
like
you
know
something
where
they
are
able
to
show
their
users,
and
we
are
able
to.
You
know
that
they're
that
they
are.
You
know
in
in
this,
like
some
kind
of
just
like
little
logo
bug
you
know
and
name
to
to
indicate
that
not
only
are
they
using
the
software,
but
they
are
in
connect
in
communication
with
us
and
on
our
list
for
security
updates
patches.
Anything
like
that.
B
Updates
I
have
an
update,
so
we're
gonna
have
two
more
meetings
with
them.
Next
week,
I'm
embarrassed
to
say
that,
after
looking
at
their
training
program
more
closely,
it
is
a
52-week
training
program
and
what
I
have
to
get
back
from
their
data.
It
looked
like
it
was
a
five-week
training
program
to
me
because
I
looked
at
the
phases
as
being
a
week
like
I've,
never
heard
of
going
away
to
a
52-week
training
program
and
I
won't
even
get
into
their
billing
model
on
how
it's
going
to
work.
B
But
so
we
have
a
call
with
them.
Next
week
where
I'll
be
asking
like
hey
is
this:
was
this
person
supposed
to
be
training
and
working
in
a
ratio
and
how
many
hours
a
week
we're
training
and
how
many
hours
a
week
were
they
actually
on
the
job?
Working
that'll
that'll
help
that
it's
like
okay,
they're
working,
they're
20
end
of
the
time
like
one
day
a
week,
they're
doing
this
training
and
stuff
and
four
days
a
week,
they're
coding
and
the
program
stretches
out
over
a
year
since
that's
how
it
works.
B
B
Bart
did
a
good
job
of
reviewing
the
syllabus
of
the
the
of
what
they're
building
and
he
started
giving
Pete
meznier
feedback
that
the
he
wanted
it
grouped
differently
in
the
syllabus,
so
that
it
would
help
a
developer,
come
on
board
and
start
tackling
problems
more
immediately
versus
just
like
linearly
learning
things
that
you
know
these
three
items
grouped
together
and
then
they
could
solve
these
types
of
bugs
or
problems.
These
things
group,
together,
Phil,
seemed
open
to
that
and
I
believe.
B
There's
a
call
tomorrow
afternoon
at
two
o'clock,
where
Bart
is
going
to
go
through
that
with
them
and
and
get
them
a
regrouping
of
the
syllabus
and
stuff.
But
this
concept
of
how
long
the
training
program
lasts,
and
you
know
what
what,
if
a
person
did
it
nothing?
You
know
straight
full
time
did
not.
You
know
part-time
or
is
that
them
expecting
this
to
be
a
full-time
training
program,
so
I
I
need
to
get
some
clarity.
It
was
a
it's
one
of
the
most
unusual
proposal.
D
C
B
What
is
usual,
we
we
felt
that
when
we
were
hiring
just
people
off
the
street,
we
felt
that
training
they
weren't
really
able
to.
You
know,
be
super
productive
and
close
bugs
until
about
the
fourth
to
sixth
month
like
they
were.
They
were
such
a
steep
learning
curve
and
we
we
had
all
the
at
block
one.
B
So
you
know
the
just
on
the
internals
just
just
on
internals,
and
we
had
a
taxonomy
of
about
21
different
items
of
the
internals,
and
you
know
we
we
kind
of
felt
that
they
had
to
at
least
get
to
a
reasonable
degree
of
Mastery
of
about
half
of
those,
so
that
we,
you
know,
could
consider
them
to
be.
You
know,
useful
and,
and
eventually
the
goal
would
be
that
they
would
have.
B
You
know
reasonable
level
of
familiarity
with
all
21
items
of
the
taxonomy
and-
and
we
had
obviously
you
know
people
that
were
the
original
authors
of
all
21
areas
of
that
taxonomy
and
that's
how
they
would
go
through
their
training
and
and
where
they
would
ask
questions
and
stuff
so
I
mean.
Would
you
say.
B
They
were,
they
had
no
blockchain
in
general,
but
they
were
C
plus
plus
they
had
to
do
modern,
C,
plus
plus
meaning,
like
version
14
or
newer
of
the
C
plus
plus
compiler.
We
wanted
them
to
be
able
to
do
version
of
version.
17.
Sorry,
and
you
know
they.
We
wanted
them
to
have
a
systems
programming
background.
B
So
you
know
we
have
worked
on
database
servers
or
worked
on
operating
systems
or
worked
on
very
low
level
coding,
not
high
level
application
stuff
like
so
that
was
generally
the
group
of
people
that
we
were
looking
for,
but
then
they
had
to
start
from
scratch.
Learning
the
blockchain
concepts
and
everything
right.
C
A
A
C
A
Don't
believe
the
value
per
requirement
was
high
enough
to
spend
the
money
per
requirement
is
probably
the
best
way
to
say
it.
So
he
was
thinking
it
would
be
a
cheaper
solution
that
it
turned
out
that
it
was
which
is
fine
right.
The
vendors
tell
us
how
much
it
costs
and
and
that's
their
way,
but
we
just
couldn't
get
to
that
place
where
we
felt
the
cost
was
worth
the
value.
We'd
get
back.
C
C
C
C
A
F
A
A
I
would
encourage
people
to
go,
read
that
when
we
get
that
published
shortly,
like
maybe
with
today
or
tomorrow,
and
then
looking
at
the
remaining
items
on
the
agenda
provable
State
domains,
just
a
quick
update
is
those
requirements
are
still
in
process
of
being
written.
There's
just
the
people
participating
in
writing.
The
requirements
are
just
over
allocated
to
quite
a
number
of
projects
right
now.
That's
what
is
slowing
that
down.
A
Okay,
this
next
item
sign
up
for
external
organizations
to
get
security
updates.
This
is
what
Douglas
referred
to
about
10
minutes
ago,
where
people
might
not
be
joining
the
Coalition,
but
they
are
kyc'd
into
you
know
a
process
to
bring
them
in
as
known
entities
so
that
one
security
updates
critical
updates
go
out
an
antelope
that
these
people
will
be
notified.
I,
don't
believe
at
this
point.
We
have
an
owner
to
drive
this.
A
E
C
I
mean
it
frankly
doesn't
have
to
be
a
tear
or
it
doesn't
have
to
be
membership.
It's
it's
it's.
Who
are
we
good?
Who?
How
do
we
know
if
we
had
an
exploit
today
and
we
had
Pat
and
we
were
going
to
patch
it?
How
do
we
know
who
to
distribute
that
patch
to
right?
It's
it's
something
we're
it's
something
we
can
just
do
through
GitHub
it's,
but
we
just
have
to.
We
just
have
to
have
a
way.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
any
kind
of
formal
membership
or
at
any
tier.
C
It
just
has
to
be
a
way
for
us
to
sit
for
Ultra
or
or
metal
or
whatever
to
come
in
and
go
hey
guys.
We,
you
know
we're
using
leap,
and
so
how
do
we
get
on
the
patch
for
for
leap
there's
so
far
as
I
know,
only
EOS
and
Telos
are
using
leap
right
now
and
and
the
it'll
be
probably
a
while
before
any
non-coalition
members
updated.
C
C
Yeah,
but
we
off
often
when
things
these
things
come
up,
we'd
like
to
discuss
them,
have
an
internal
discussion.
You
know
for
zero
days
and
things
like
that,
so
that
right,
you
know,
I,
don't
want
to
say
too
much,
but
there's
there's
reasons
to
have
a
existing
quiet,
Discussion
Group
already
set
up
before
we
ever
need
it
same
reason.
You
have
like
a
a
spare
tire
right.
E
C
I
love
that
you
I
I,
think
you're,
absolutely
right,
Lucas
I
think
you
have
the
right
understanding
of
it.
It's
now
that
I
think
about
it.
It's
probably
much
better
than
my
understanding
of
it
would
be
and
do,
and
with
all
of
that
in
mind,
you
would
probably
be
a
great
guy
to
to
to
lead
the
discussion
whenever
we
whenever
we
end
up
having
it,
you
would
probably
be
a
great
owner
for
this
project
because
of
your
excellent
understanding
of
of
the
things
involved.
E
E
C
A
All
right
we're
four
minutes
over,
but
I
think
we're
basically
done.
We
can't
talk
about
the
top
up
to
fund
the
rfps
today
and
I'm
gonna
combine
the
scheduling
the
vendor
reviews
for
P2P
with
the
other
one,
since
we're
gonna,
follow
up
on
we're
gonna,
discuss
this
on
Monday
and
determine
next
steps
any
last
minute
things
before
I
call.
It.