►
From YouTube: Filecoin Core Devs #56
Description
Recording for: https://github.com/filecoin-project/core-devs/issues/134
For more information on Filecoin
- visit the project website: https://filecoin.io/
- or follow Filecoin on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Filecoin
Get Filecoin community news and announcements in your inbox, monthly: http://eepurl.com/gbfn1n
Follow Filecoin!
Website: https://bit.ly/3ndAg44
Twitter: https://bit.ly/3ObND0x
Slack: https://bit.ly/3HKfFy7
Blog: https://bit.ly/3HFZFNv
Reddit: https://bit.ly/39N4Jmv
Telegram: https://bit.ly/3bkP8Ly
Subscribe to our newsletter! https://bit.ly/3Oy8J9j
#filecoin #ipfs #libp2p #web3 #nft
A
A
Hello
and
welcome
to
filecoin
code
Dev
score
number
56,
which
is
also
doubling
as
an
Avenue
for
us
to
have
the
hybrid
stuffed
consensus
discussion
for
the
56.
My
name
is
lucky
and
I
am
the
five
file
I'm
at
the
file
coin:
Foundation
governance
project
manager.
A
The
time
now
is
around
1202
eastern
time.
I,
don't
know
what
time
it
is
wherever
you
are
good
morning
good
afternoon
good
evening
and
welcome
on
the
agenda
today.
We
have.
We
have
three
welcoming
all
of
us
and
the
next
lineup
would
be
the
56
hybrid
soft
consensus,
deliberation
I'm.
Looking
at
the
oversee
of
the
deliberations,
the
discussions,
the
next
steps,
we
will
also
have
technical
discussions
from
what
happened.
A
Sorry
about
that
yeah
technical
discussions,
I
think
Nemo
is
facilitating
that
on
Windows
post
credibility
fix
we
look
at
nv19,
fit
scope
and
timelines
and
take
additional
q.
A
thank
you
so
much
for
joining
us
and
with
that
I'll
be
passing
it
over
to
King
claim.
B
Great
thanks
lucky
next
slide,
please
all
right,
so
the
question
at
the
top
of
the
hour
is
really
about
fit
56,
and
what
is
it
that
we
should
do
with
it
right?
So
a
little
bit
of
brief
background
for
everyone.
We
have
been
deliberating
this
across
the
Falcon
Community
for
the
last
several
months
and
we,
unfortunately
through
our
soft
consensus
processes,
which
work
well
for
some
tips.
We
have
not
been
able
to
reach
clear,
Community
consensus
as
to
what
to
do
with
this
one
in
particular.
B
Fit
56
is
a
crypto
economic
FIP,
which
means
that
there
are
some
complexities
to
it.
That
I
think
all
of
us
are
very
well
versed
into
this
point
and
what
we've
asked
core
devs
to
help
with
today
is
to
holistically
assess
all
of
the
conversations
that
have
happened
around
this
FIP
to
date,
to
think
to
the
community
conversations
that
you've
had
the
feedback
that
you've
heard
and
also
the
technical
reviews
that
you've
done
of
this
fit
to
help
assess
whether
it
is
the
best
interest
of
the
network
to
accept
or
reject
the
FIP.
B
This
is
not
standard
practice
for
us.
This
is
something
that
we
have
asked
cordovs
to
do,
because
we
think
it
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
filecoin
community
for
there
to
be
a
decisive
answer
as
to
whether
or
not
we
are
moving
forward
with
a
sector
duration
multiplier
in
the
next
Network
upgrade,
and
for
that
reason
I
really
appreciate
all
of
you
coming
today,
especially
if
you're
in
really
disadvantageous
time
zones.
B
We
have
Center
on
guidance
document
prior
to
this.
Just
for
quick
reference
here
is
a
link
to
the
guidance
document
for
core
devs,
and
here
is
a
link
to
the
high
level
decision,
doc
that
the
filed
brain
Foundation
put
together.
These
have
already
been
shared.
If
you
haven't
looked
at
them
yet
now's,
maybe
not
the
time,
but
they
are
relatively
short,
so
maybe
scan
through
them.
We
will
also
be
sharing
these
with
filecoin
community
members,
as
well
as
a
recording
of
This
call
and
all
meeting
minutes
like
we
always
do
so.
B
Please
keep
that
in
mind
and
I
want
to
very
quickly
talk
through
what
we
expect
this
process
to
look
like
today
right,
so
we
are
going
to
discuss
this
question.
Everyone
is
welcome
to
speak,
but
do
know
that
you
are
not
obligated
to
do
so.
B
Danny
from
thefile
Queen
Foundation
has
offered
to
join
us
as
a
co-facilitator
I.
Have
this
awkward
role
of
being
both
a
facilitator
of
this
conversation,
but
also
a
cordov,
so
Danny
has
agreed
to
step
in
only
if
I
end
up
sort
of
giving
up
my
neutrality
in
my
position
and
talking
about
a
certain
perspective,
one
way
or
the
other
on
the
fifth
to
that
end
again,
this
is
really
oriented
around
a
soft
consensus
process.
B
We
also
want
to
respect
the
fact
that
core
devs
have
various
roles
in
this
ecosystem
and
may
not
feel
comfortable,
giving
their
personal
opinions
on
the
fifth
casting
a
vote
or
anything
of
the
type.
So
we
are
asking
this
group
to
reach
soft
consensus,
much
like
what
we
typically
task.
The
filecoin
community
with
soft
consensus
is
a
process,
that's
pretty
common
for
open
source
organizations
and
different
types
of
political
organizations
also,
and
it
really
refers
to
the
feel
of
the
room.
B
It's
kind
of
the
swishy
watchy
thing
that
can
be
difficult
to
ascertain,
which
is
partially.
Why
we
are
all
here
today,
but
what
I
really
want
to
call
out
is
that
if
we
do
not
end
this
conversation
with
a
really
clear
sense
that
the
Sip
should
either
be
accepted
or
rejected,
we
will
default
to
the
conservative
choice
of
rejecting
this
fit.
B
B
Again
I'll
be
the
primary
facilitator,
but
Danny
is
here's
backup,
just
in
case
Danny.
Do
you
have
anything
you
want
to
say.
C
No
not
really
usual.
Apologies
for
this
being
the
longest
three-line
diff
code
review
in
well
I'm,
not
even
gonna,
say
in
history,
but
but
happy
to
help
in
any
way.
C
B
Cool
thanks
Danny
and
for
anyone
who
doesn't
know
Danny
has
been
a
faithful
and
very
neutral
Steward
of
both
all
of
the
feedback
processes
we
LED
after
36
and
also
during
the
recent
56
Community
AMA,
and
we
flagged
this
for
core
devs
earlier
this
week,
whether
it
be
any
issue
for
him
to
join
us
as
co-facilitator,
and
no
one
raised
any
so
with
that
again.
This
is
really
just
a
conversation,
so
we
will
kick
it
off.
B
We
have
reviewed
many
many
times
and
I
want
to
first
start
just
by
opening
the
floor
to
see
if
there's
any
starting
comments
that
anyone
wants
to
offer.
The
group.
D
I
I'm
happy
to
be
the
first
to
kick
things
off.
I
think
that
my
short
answer
to
the
question
on
this
slide
is
that
it
should
be
rejected.
It's
not
a
position.
I
hold
very
strongly,
but
just
kind
of
up
along
the
axes
that
you
were
talking
about,
of
the
technical
details
of
the
film
itself,
Community
sentiment
and
then
kind
of
the
should
we
do
this
or
not
from
a
technical
perspective.
I
have
no
concerns.
D
I
think
the
proposal
makes
sense
and
you
know
I,
don't
see
any
risks
from
that
stab
inherited
kind
of
the
implementation
of
it
a
couple
weeks
ago,
and
he
and
I
have
kind
of
worked
through
it.
I
haven't
fluid
with
the
pr
yet,
but
no
concerns
there.
Community
sentiment.
It
looks
like
there's
we're
divided,
but
it
does
seem
like
the
majority
Falls
closer
to
disapproval
than
approval,
which
is
mostly
what
guides
mine
nudged
towards
no
and
the
the
last
thing
I'll
say
is
I.
D
Think
I
I
do
worry
that
we
kind
of
run
a
risk
from
a
governance
and
Community
security
perspective.
Almost
with
this
thing
we
haven't
had
as
contentious.
If
we've
reached
the
stage
before-
except
perhaps
it
was
flip
36,
but
that
was
a
clear
decision
as
well.
D
I
do
worry
that
if
we
accept
the
slip
in
its
with
the
kind
of
divided
stage
that
we're
at
we
do
run
the
risk
that
some
community
members
simply
choose
to
not
participate
or
Fork
off
of
Falcon
as
a
result
of
that
or
that
I
think
that's
less
likely.
But
the
the
what
I'm
more
concerned
about
is
just
damage
to
kind
of
the
reputation
of
our
governance
process.
D
I
think
it
would,
it
would
feel
like
we
are
going
ahead
with
the
FIP
that
is
fairly
unwanted
by
the
community
and
I.
Personally,
don't
think
we
should
be
doing
that,
which
is
why
I
lean
towards
no
here.
E
Thank
you,
yeah.
Thank
you.
I
also
agree
that,
from
the
varying
different
Community
participation
groups,
you
know
we
have
a
number
of
different
stakeholders
across
the
Falcon
Network
and
folks
who
hold
different
roles
within
the
network
and
I.
E
Think
we've
seen
relatively
low
engagement
from
a
number
of
communities
that
I
would
generally
expect
to
be
very
much
in
favor
of
this
FIP,
including
clients
and
token
holders,
and
we've
seen
I
think
relatively
strong
negative
feedback
from
at
least
a
subset
of
storage
providers
and
the
number
of
others
in
the
storage
Community
who
are
either
neutral
or
maybe
slightly
positive,
but
there's
definitely
clear
contention
in
that.
E
Community
I
believe
personally,
I
think
that
a
number
of
those
concerns
come
from
either
misunderstandings
or
misinformation,
and
maybe
maybe
intentional,
maybe
not
unintentional
misinformation
about
those
situations.
However,
I
haven't
seen
a
change
in
that
community's
alignment
and
sentiment
since
like
efforts
to
help
alleviate
that
misinformation
and
and
bring
a
lot
more
information
into
the
the
decision-making
process,
so
that
groups
could
see
how
the
FIP
could
be
net
beneficial
for
them
net,
beneficial
for
the
entire
network
and
for
all
of
the
stakeholders.
E
But
given
that
I
haven't
seen
it
I,
don't
think
that
we
have
the
data
that
there
is
enough
alignment
from
the
community
all
and
because
there
isn't
also
enough
strong
participation
from
other
community
stakeholders,
say
you
know,
clients
or
token
holders
or
many
other
builders
or
ecosystem
developers
or
others
being
strongly
in
favor
of
this
FIB
I.
E
Don't
think
that
we
net
have
strong
enough
alignment
across
the
community,
even
if
there
are
some
they
saying,
voices
which
again
soft
consensus
does
not
mean
that
you
get
held
hostage
by
one
party
in
the
network
being
like
screw.
You
I,
don't
want
this.
So
therefore,
I
can
hold
everyone
hostage
and
making
any
sort
of
improvement.
E
But
again
I.
Don't
think
we
have
enough
alignment
and
I
agree
with
ayusha's
position
that
I
don't
think
the
FIP
has
generated
enough
broad
Community
Support
in
order
to
be
accepted
within
our
governance
process
and
so
I
think
it
should
be
rejected.
It
does
not
match
my
personal
feeling
for
what
the
FIP
should
be
and
what
is
best
for
the
Falcon
Network,
but
that's
what
I
think
is
is
appropriate
for
our
governance
process.
B
Thanks
Molly
stab
you're
the
next
on
the
list
of
the
hands
up.
F
It
was
It's
relatively
straightforward,
the
hip
is
relatively
straightforward.
Unfortunately,
it
does
add
some
technical
debt
and
it's
actually
been
quite
frustrating
the
way
it
adds
this
because
in
the
past,
we've
only
had
one
opportunity
to
change
power
of
sectors,
and
that
was
you'd
either
you
snap
a
deal
or
you
replace
the
CC
sector.
This
adds
multiple
points
and
the
way
it
handles
that
is
it
like
the
hip
itself,
actually
just
hand
waves,
everything.
It
doesn't
really
specify
what
should
happen
here.
F
So
we
implemented,
we
had
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
make
this
work,
and
the
the
resolution
is
not
great,
basically
takes
a
maximum
of
a
bunch
of
of
different
penalties
over
time
to
try
to
like
to
to
try
to
avoid
ways
in
which
you
can
gain
the
system
to
reduce
your
penalties.
F
But
this
is
just
technical.
That
I'd
rather
not
take
on
I'd,
rather
find
a
better
solution
for
this
in
terms
of
process,
I
I
think
going
forward.
We
we
need
to
adjust
how
we
handle
the
implementation
of
fips.
The
shooting
had
been
a
one
team
proposes
it
someone
else
that
goes.
There
should
have
been
more
of
a
collaborative
process
of
like
hey
I.
Have
this
idea.
Everyone
works
together
to
figure
okay.
F
How
do
you
find
compromises
to
make
something
that
everyone's
okay
with
and
then
we
work
together
and
actually
find
implementation?
Then
we
finally
go
back
to
the
FIP
this
developer
and
it's
like?
Oh
here's,
a
FIP,
and
then
we
go
try
to
implement
it.
A
lot
of
people
are
objecting
to
the
fit
as
it
was
written,
yeah
and
it.
This
is
not
not
the
way
I
would
like
to
see
this
happen
in
the
future.
B
Typically,
the
way
that
we
have
handled
this
trade-off
right
is
that
in
the
past
there
has
been
really
close
collaboration
between
FIP
authors
and
implementers
in
part,
because
a
lot
of
FIP
authors
were
also
implementers
and
as
that,
dual
role
separates,
which
is
a
good
thing
right.
That
is,
that
shows
growth
in
this
process,
that
more
people
are
involved
and
more
people
are
writing
fips.
B
This
is
a
coordination
challenge
that
we
do
need
to
solve
in
the
past.
What
we
have
allowed
is
that,
as
long
as
there
has
not
been
a
actual
change
to
the
stated
policy
of
the
FIP
that
the
spec
can
change
in
order
to
accommodate
needs
around
implementation
to
ensure
that
if
it
was
then
accepted,
we're
not
going
to
introduce
some
kind
of
security
issue
or
sort
of
Uncertain
technical
Choice
in
favor
of
keeping
things
static.
B
So
again,
this
this
requires
a
judgment
call
and
if
you
go
back
to
the
Phil
sip
black
Channel,
you
can
see
places
where
we
have
debated
this,
sometimes
in
really
granular
detail,
but
I
think
with
56.
It's
sounding,
like
consensus,
is
moving
towards
a
rejection,
in
which
case
this
is
not
going
to
be
an
issue.
B
Should
the
sentiment
of
the
room
change
significantly
and
we
do
accept
I
think
it
is
worth
noting
that
we
should
be
really
really
careful
about
how
we
accept
any
additional
changes
for
implementation
to
the
FIP,
not
because
you
know
we
haven't
passed
or
anything,
but
because
community
members
are
uncomfortable
with
some
of
what
this
that
proposes,
that
feedback
from
community
members
has
been
quite
negative
and
we
want
to
make
sure
it
doesn't
look
like
the
FIP
is
being
changed
after
the
fact
so
to
speak.
B
We
want
to
be
really
clear
about
those
changes
and
step.
I
saw
the
pr
that
you
opened
this
morning
seems
pretty
straightforward,
but
I
I
do
want
to
flag
that
this
is
something
that
we
should
be
aware
of.
G
Yeah
just
quickly
follow
up
on
what
Katie
said:
I
a
50
disagree
a
little
bit
because
I
had
using
this
particular
FIB.
If
we,
if
FIB
Arthur's,
did
engage
with
implementers
a
little
bit
earlier,
we
could
have
found
a
lot
of
the
design
Gap,
as
that,
like
mentioned
earlier
in
the
days,
including
like
the
termination
fees
like
the
The
Collector,
like
the
penalty
and
stuff
that
can
res
resolve
some
of
the
feedback
and
get
that
block.
G
Sign
is
actually
pointed
out
like
violating
the
process
and
and
I
do
think,
with
the
expertise
from
the
implementers.
We
could
have
helped
design
and
propose
a
better
with
in
a
way
that
may
help
with
driving
and
Community
consensus
a
little
bit
more.
You
know,
but
that's
just
a
slight
back
call
on
this
question,
particularly
I
personally,
would
also
suggest
we
reject
this
fit
a
very
basically
advertising
like
Molly
solution.
Step
has
already
called
out
for
me.
It's
like
I
had
earlier
in
the
community
engagement
process.
G
G
You
know,
like
a
lot
of
questions,
are
around
multiplied
for
like
qaps
and
stuff
like
that,
which
is
a
turn
off
for
some
other
storage
providers,
and
that's
one
of
the
major
failures
of
this
like
driving
consensus
perspective
at
one
point,
I
do
think
we
should
have
just
like
landed
in
the
network
and
see
where
the
adoption
goes,
because
one
of
the
goals
is
two
also
incentive
people
that
has
experience
actors
in
the
upcoming
months
to
extend
them
longer,
so
that
the
networks
still
have
those
sectors
for
security
reasons
and
also
for
data
for
the
later
on.
G
When
the
demand
is
driving
up
the
the
we
don't
have.
However,
to
me
we
didn't.
We
failed
to
get
together
like
strong
user,
a
user
data
points
to
to
like
justify
that
people
will
actually
extend
those
sectors
and
they
will
actually,
you
know,
use
that
feature
instead
of
like
committing
new
sectors.
So
that's
one
like
major
piece
from
a
Princeton
of
you.
G
That's
like
we
were
missing
and
also
the
reason
why
I
personally,
don't
feel
like
strongly
that
we
should
push
for
acceptance
for
this
particular
FIB
at
the
moment,
but
there's
one
more
point
in
my
brain,
but
like
I
kind
of
just
like
break
up
like
suddenly
but
but
like
in
general,
based
on
everything
just
being
said,
to
help
with
facilitating
our
governance
process
and
do
you
think
we
need
stronger
engagement
and
better
moderation
when,
in
the
future,
for
like
driving
consensus
across
the
community
key
stakeholders
early
in
the
days
to
help
with
the
governance
process?
G
This
whole
thing
lasts,
like
eight
months
is
way
too
long.
It
weighs
a
lot
of
like
energy.
We
could
have
done
a
lot
of
other
things,
so,
like
I,
think
that's
one
Improvement.
We
can
making
I'm
also
okay
with
rejecting
this
for
now
and
maybe
revisit
that
in
six
months.
Just
because
I
know
there's
some
concerns
on
the
cholesterol
on
like
from
search
provider.
G
They
are
not
gonna
get
enough
collateral
to
actually,
you
know
commit
commit
towards
like
the
longer
qap
I
know
there
are
a
couple,
but
that's
not
an
issue
just
with
regarding
this
fit.
That's
a
general
issue
that
Falcon
ecosystem
network
has
today
I
know.
G
There's
a
couple
like
flips
that's
coming,
one
is
called
the
short
four
network
collector
saying
that
folks
should
take
a
look
at
that
can
potentially
mitigate
this
concern
a
little
bit
over
the
next
couple
months
and
once
that
constraints
out,
maybe
sort
of
Provider
will
feel
more
comfortable
to
open
to
the
idea
to
have
a
longer
a
sector,
duration
incentive,
and
maybe
we
can
revisit
that
like
later
on,
but
at
the
moment
I
do
think
it's
the
right
choice
to
reject
it.
For
now,.
H
So,
as
a
member
of
the
crypto
econ
lab,
who
was
not
you
know,
listed,
who
was
not
an
author
of
this
weapon
was
not
directly
involved
in
it.
My
personal
stance
is
that
there
are
clear
advantages
to
this
Five
Point
Improvement
proposal,
and
it
takes
us.
You
know
One
Step
Closer,
towards
the
goal
of
Falcon.
H
It
is
to
have,
like
you
know,
a
reliable
and
useful
data
stored
in
the
network
and
just
a
couple
of
points
in
the
governance
perspective,
so
I,
I,
guess
my
personal
stance
in
this
is
that
sometimes
it's
important
to
you
know,
look
at
the
bigger
picture
as
to
what
is
good
for
the
network
and
I
would
like
to
cite
one
instance
where
you
know
in
the
ethereum
community,
when
eip1559
was,
you
know
she
initially
proposed.
H
There
was
such
strong
backlash
to
it
that
there
was
also
a
risk
that
the
chain
would
be
fought,
but
then
you
know
the
the
community.
Still
the
the
developers
still
went
on
to
you
know
accept
that
upgrade
because
you
know
they
had
in
mind
what
was
best
with
the
network
and
and
and
what
was
needed
at
that
point.
H
In
time-
and
a
second
note
is
that
I
feel
that
you
know
the
flip
has
changed
a
lot
so
since
it's
initial
form
and
it
to
exactly
account,
for
you
know
what
what
the
community
wants
and
and
the
perspective
that
the
community
has
given.
So
from
my
point
of
view,
my
personal
stance
would
be
inclined
towards
an
acceptance
of
this
trip.
B
I
Yeah
I
just
want
to
push
back
a
bit
on
a
idea
that
that
was
now
taught
by
Stephen
and
Jenny
and
then
also
I
inert
in
the
comments
that
I
I
generally
disagree
that
we
should
place
a
higher
bar
on
like
meeting
some
implementation
standards
before
opposing
a
FIP,
in
a
sense
that
this
is
kind
of
a
luxury
that
we
as
like
PL
team
members
can
afford
that
we
have
everything.
Okay,
so
I
have
this
idea.
I
Let
me
talk
with
the
engineers
and
and
figure
that
I
want
fips
to
be
available
to
any
Falcon
user
on
the
internet.
That
has
much
fewer
resources
and
maybe
has
no
idea
how
to
implement
on
Lotus,
but
has
a
economic
idea
that
can
be
viable
and
I
want
that
idea
to
make
it
to
FIP,
and
they
may
have
no
idea
how
to
implement
this
and
I
mean
I
get
it.
I
It
will
make
job
a
lot
convenient
if,
like
everyone
helps
out
I
know,
Engineers
are
like
have
a
lot
of
work
and
a
lot
of
demand,
but
I
just
don't
want
to
raise
the
bar
to
entry
for
for
fips
in
this
one
just
yeah.
I
A
second
point:
I
want
to
make
kind
of
independent
is
maybe
a
a
soft
critique
about
self-consensus
moving
forward
in
a
sense
that
I
think
I
mean
so
fifth
36
and
56
are
kind
of
starting
to
show
was
that
our
self-consensus
has
some
limitations
in
a
sense
that
through
self-consensus,
which
yes,
it's
unclear,
what
it
means,
but
it's
like
generally,
it's
always
to
see
that
everyone
is
in
agreement
that
can
only
work
for
like
easy,
small
fips
that
that
everyone
as
a
in
the
future,
we
may
need
to
make
some
stronger,
maybe
more
difficult
decisions
for
the
network
and
if
the
approach
we're
gonna
take
moving
forward
is
only
some
consensus.
I
I
I,
don't
think
any
such
decisions
could
be
made
moving
forward.
So
yeah.
B
I
want
to
say,
I
fully
agree
with
you.
There
is
a
huge
component
of
56,
which
is
about
governance
and
I.
Think
those
conversations
are
very
necessary
and
very
important
within
the
scope
of
this.
The
hybrid
stop
consensus
process.
B
Let's
try
and
keep
it
focused
on
the
context
of
this
stuff
in
particular.
If
we
want
to
at
the
end
of
this
call,
though
I'd
be
happy,
we
can.
We
should
have
plenty
of
time
in
Q
a
also
to
talk
about
the
specifics
of
the
soft
consensus
process,
but
I
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
everyone
and
I
don't
want
to
commit
us
to
anything,
but
I
think
it's
generally
understood
that
soft
consensus
has
value
in
certain
contexts
and
very
strong
limitations
in
others.
B
So
your
point
is
very
much
heard
and
I.
Think
broadly
representative
of
how
a
lot
of
folks
feel,
including
myself
Stephen,
hasn't
spoken
yet
Stephen.
You
want
to
go.
F
I
spoke
earlier,
but
I
have
to
respond
to
that
point
in
terms
about
or
in
terms
of
implementation.
My
objection
is
not
that
this
was
right.
This
proposal
was
made
by
non-engineers.
My
objection
is
that
it
was
like
it
was
completely
formed.
Oh
different,
Stephen,
sorry.
F
But
my
objection
was
that
it
was
basically
completely
formed
and
then
tossed
over
the
fence,
and
that's
just
not
how
this
this
should
be
done.
F
It
was,
it
was
frustrating
trying
to
implement
it,
trying
to
get
feedback
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
do
it
and
had
been
basically
pushed
all
the
way
to
the
end
before
it
actually
went
through
the
implementation
that
just
doesn't
work
like
that
cannot
scale
because
it
wasn't
actually
implementable
in
as
it
was
proposed
in
the
implementation
needed
to
change
a
bunch
of
details
of
how
it
worked
and
it,
but
it
felt
very
different,
like
basically,
by
the
time
we
talked
to
the
implementation
stand
or
the
invitation
Point
like
it
felt
like
there
wasn't
room
to
adjust
the
fit
itself
to
meet
the
realities.
F
So,
for
example,
like
the
way
that
it
was
actually
implemented
snapping
a
new
sector
resets,
the
sector
duration
multiplier,
which
means
that
if
you
try
to
snap
or
snap
a
deal
onto
a
sector,
small
enough,
you
might
actually
lose
power
which
would
incentivize
people
from
snapping
sectors,
which
is
something
we
don't
want
to
have
happen.
It's
stuff
like
that.
That
was
very
frustrating.
That's
all
I
want
to
say
out
there.
B
Good
for
the
record
thanks
Deb
Stephen
Lee
from
ipfs
Force.
J
Yeah
sorry,
yeah,
okay,
yeah
I'm,
not
and
I,
don't
want
to
discuss
about
the
yeah,
the
consensus,
the
hybrid
consensus
that
I
want
to
discuss
about
yeah.
There
are
so
many
discussions
and
disagreement
of
this
of
this
yeah.
This
paper
way
and
yeah.
Somebody
mentioned
that
there
might
be
some
misunderstanding
of
the
information
and
also
perhaps
yeah
information
alignment
issue.
J
I
yeah
I'm
kind
of
disagree
about
that
I
think
yeah.
There
are
three
things
we
should
concert.
One
is
about
I,
think
yeah.
It's.
J
And
disagreements
how
how
to
evaluate
the
difficult
value
actually,
actually
a
different
group
of
people
have
different
a
different
person
or
different
points
of
the
whole
Falcon,
a
network
of
value
evaluation
yeah.
J
Some
people
may
may
more
focus
on
the
how
much
real
data
has
been
stored
in
the
network
and
with
others
was
thinking
about.
There's
always
and
also
some
other
people
will
think
about
the
the
price
of
the
of
the
token
and
and
amazing
things,
and
also
and
other
people
will
think
about
how
many
people
are
actually
being
involved
and
or
and
or
your
participated
in
the
ecosystem.
So
there
are
many
factors
behind.
So
from
my
point
of
view,
I
would
say
that
we
can.
J
We
could
consider
that
your
Falcon
Network
as
a
block
box-
and
we
say
how
many
other
parts-
yes
Real,
World
yeah
connected
with
the
network,
including
the
data
and
also
the
people,
and
also
the
machines
and
Hardware
capitals,
yeah
and
publish
all
of
this
and
yeah
connected
yeah
profile.
I
J
Network
yeah
I
was
into
the
board
the
better
okay,
so
I
think.
Perhaps
we
should
have
a
discussion
about
how
to
evaluate
Network
value,
okay,
yeah
that
may
be
it
may
be
helpful.
This
is
Western
I'm
thinking
about
another
thing,
I'm
saying
about
is
all
of
this.
Actually
we
had
just
discussing
people
are
thinking
more
about
the
Falcon
class.
J
So
there
are
many
many
arguments
about
this,
and
you
know
disagreement
about
the
their
Falcon
players
and
we'll
have
the
notaries
we
have
yeah
full
current
co-heads
of
the
notice
we
have
even
both
both
and
we
have
a
very
big
plan
to
to
your
food,
your
food,
all
this
yeah,
but
many
people
think
that
were
not
very
successful
on.
This
is
because
yeah,
how
about
the
quality?
J
Okay
and
of
the
usual
data,
and
and
also
the
corrosion,
and
also
description
between
the
notary
and
the
your
storage
providers?
There's
something
like
that
and
also
so.
How
could
we
how.
J
Okay,
to
have
the
quality
evaluation
yeah
by
the
network,
it
is
very
hard
and
out
of
that,
we
have.
We
have
been
working
very
hard
to
drive
this
but
yeah
and,
as
you
can
think
about
this,
so
yeah,
if
the
network
capacity,
yeah
I
mean
yes
rooted.
J
Data
storage
versus
yeah,
600,
okay,
so
what's
the
difference
yeah,
if
there
is
real
world
that
will
make
very
huge
difference
of
the
data
body
evaluation,
but
in
Falcon
Network,
so
yeah,
you
could
say
that
yeah
from
three
hand
to
the
petabytes
to
save
100
petabytes
There
is
almost
low
difference.
Okay
body.
J
J
So
the
third
thing
ever
since
that
for
the
coding
that
how
could
we
avoid
this
kind
of
discussion,
this
kind
of
these
agreement,
this
kind
of
yeah
consensus,
would
cannot
and
achieve
so
I
was
reading
like
we
yeah
do
something
to
simplify
the
new
one
and
to
have
all
this
evaluation
or
different
points
to
higher
level.
So
we
don't
need
to
have
this
kind
of
discussion.
Anybody
want
to
you.
J
You
want
to
yeah
Implement
what
idea
yeah
they
could
do
that,
okay,
so
to
have
the
to
have
the
community
or
Market
to.
J
There's
a
change
of
value
as
a
value
of
change
or
the
value
of
evaluation.
So
we
don't
need
to
discuss
all
of
this,
so
it
means
that
with
you
to
do
something
very
sore
very
soon
immediately
to
change
this
kind
of
Adventure.
Okay,
to
avoid
this
kind
of
discussion
on
the
there's
really
another
little
one
and
we're
over
there,
so
both
is
yeah
to
higher
there
and
yeah.
Of
course
we
leave
all
of
that
from
this.
You
just
kind
of
yeah,
frustrating
And,
discussing
okay.
J
E
Yeah
I
was
gonna,
respond
to
me
more
to
some
of
the
stuff
that
that
shiam
had
mentioned,
but
maybe
I'll
just
respond
immediately
to
Stephen,
because
I
had
maybe
some
data
points
there
like
I,
think
Falcon
has
a
whole
host
of
like
ways
of
assessing
like
the
value
of
the
network,
and
you
know
a
lot
of
those
are
highlighted
when
people
talk
about
Falcon
like
talking
about
the
amount
of
like
storage
Hardware,
it
has
amassed
and
put
to
work
within
the
network.
E
The
utilization
of
that
storage,
Hardware
I
would
disagree
that
people's
assessment
of
falcoin
hasn't
changed
as
like.
The
amount
of
data
stored
on
the
network
has
grown.
Like
sure
we
have
other
conflating
signals
at
the
same
time
like
economic
collapses
and
things
collapsing,
and
all
sorts
of
fun,
exciting
things,
but,
like
I,
absolutely
do
think
that
the
amount
of
you
know
useful
data
stored
on
the
network
is
a
very,
very
valuable
and
very
important
signal
for
Falcon.
E
If
you
we
don't
achieve
that,
then
we're
just
another
Chia
and
that's
like
not
what
we're
here
to
do
and
I
think
even
more
important
than
the
amount
of
data
is
also
the
the
success
cases
and
the
proof
points
of
real
high
value
clients
in
the
world
who
are
using
filecoin
to
store
useful
data
and
highlighting
those
as
case
studies
that
others
can
learn
from
and
emulate
and
follow.
Which
is
less
of
a
kpi
and
more
of
a
like.
E
You
know
it's
more
more
of
a
thing
that
you
would
browse
through
to
understand
say
how
CERN
or
how
the
New
York
public
data
sets.
Or
you
know
the
USC
show
a
foundation
or
you
know,
XYZ
different
groups.
Internet
archive
are
are
utilizing.
The
network
and
I
think
those
do
carry
a
lot
of
weight
and
I
wouldn't
conflate,
like
crypto
token
prices
with
the
value
being
created
by
the
network.
I.
Just,
unfortunately,
do
not
think
those
things
are
going
to
correlate
in
a
moment
by
moment.
E
Perspective
and
I
would
not
judge
the
impact
of
our
work,
a
hundred
percent
in
those
worlds,
because
there's
lots
of
correlation
that
happens
between
all
sorts
of
different
networks,
so
I
would
just
I
would
just
disagree
that
that's
a
valuable
or
that
that
is
the
sum
total,
or
way
that
we
can
assess
whether
we're
making
impact
and
making
the
network
better
and
I
and
I
would
also
point
out.
From
my
vantage
point
at
least
I
have
seen
a
number
of
like
specific
misconceptions
like
I.
E
Don't
like
this
proposal,
I
think
it's
going
to
be
negative
for
the
raw
by
power
in
the
network,
and
then
you
have
both
crypto
econ
lab
and
block
science
agreeing
and
like
creating
analyzes
that
point
out.
No
SDM
is
going
to
be
based
on
our
modeling,
based
on
our
assessment,
the
hypothesis.
E
It
is
going
to
be
net
better
for
things
like
raw
by
power
in
the
network,
and
so
this
was
an
argument
that
was
used
against
the
FIP,
which
was
disproven
and,
from
my
vantage
point,
I'm
I
still
hear
that
argument
coming
from
some
storage
providers
and
so
like
I,
think
there
is
still
miss
information
about
the
the
potential
values
of
this
FIP.
E
E
You
know,
having
an
informed
public
who
can
go
through
soft
consensus
and
we
have,
you
know,
tried
as
a
network
to
improve
the
the
knowledge
and
understanding
of
our
you
know,
participating
community
and
I
completely
agree
with
you.
There
are
challenges
with
things
like
Phil,
plus
and
I
think
those
are
very
valid
and
that
I
don't
agree
with
everyone's
take
on
the
right
solution
there.
Some
people
are
great
just
like
there
should
be
no
incentives
for
storing
data
on
top
one.
E
We
should
just
be
proof
of
work,
but
you
know
I
think
I'll
put
that
a
aside
like
I,
think
there
are
good
examples
of
specific
misconceptions
and
and
I
do
think
that
I
agree
with
some
of
like
the
broader
points
you're
making.
There
are
lots
of
different
parties
in
the
network
who
wait
those
ways
of
valuing
Network
output
differently
and
I.
Think
you
know
one
of
our.
E
You
know
one
of
the
things
we're
trying
to
do
is
make
sure
that
we
represent
those
correctly
and
despite
I
I.
Think
a
number
of
folks
here
are
having
deeper
or
or
having
having
an
understanding
of
a
lot
of
the
having
spent
the
time
to
dispel
a
number
of
those
misconceptions.
I.
E
Just
don't
think
that
we
have
the
governance
process
here
to
move
forward
with
this
fifth,
given
that
there's,
we
still
have
a
very
divided
community,
from
my
vantage
point,
at
least
or
non-participating
or
divided
and
I-
think
if
we
had
more
broad
participation
from
a
number
of
other
community
parties
like
clients
and
token
holders
and
other
that
we
might
be
in
a
different
place,
I
think
the
maybe
it
was
shiam
who
pointed
out
there
was
you
know,
debates
within
the
ethereum
community
about
moving
to
proof
of
stake.
E
That
was
a
massively
you
know
contentious
decision,
but
there
were
a
number
of
different
stakeholder
groups
across
the
ethereum
ecosystem
who
all
came
together
and
were
able
to
be
like
nope
like
you
know,
there
are
going
to
be
some
groups
in
this
part.
E
This
network,
who
disagree
and
like
are
looking
out
for
their
own
interests
and
aren't
looking
out
for
the
broad
interest
of
the
network
and
are
not
positive
on
it,
but
it
required
the
whole
network
Community
coming
together
to
be
supportive
and
where
we
don't
see
that
engagement
and
support
from
other
parties
in
the
the
network.
We
don't
see
a
strong
positive
support
there
I,
don't
think
that
the
core
Dev
Community
being
positive
on
this
fit
this
efficient.
B
Foreign
I
think
that
that
is
a
really
helpful
summary
of
a
lot
of
the
sort
of
input
that
I've
heard
from
a
lot
of
other
folks
as
well,
and
so
I
just
want
to
time
check.
We
have
about
20
more
minutes
for
this
conversation,
there's
a
lot
to
discuss
around
56
I.
Think
Stephen
highlighted
it
really
well.
B
Molly
gave
a
really
good
summary,
so
I
am
more
than
happy
for
us
to
continue
this
conversation
up
until
we
switch
to
the
next
topic,
but
I
do
want
to
say
that,
from
my
perspective,
it
does
seem
to
be
quite
clear
that,
as
a
group,
we
seem
to
be
pretty
much
in
alignment
about
rejecting
the
Sip
and
to
the
points
made
earlier
again.
B
That
does
not
mean
that
everyone
necessarily
agrees
with
that,
but
it
seems
like
we
are
choosing
to
prioritize
the
capacity
of
governance
and
Community
feedback,
regardless
of
the
type
or
the
flavor
of
it
over
what
we
may
believe
as
a
solid
technical
proposal.
B
If
you
disagree
very
strongly,
now
would
be
a
good
time
to
let
us
know
otherwise.
I
think
the
next
person
with
the
hand
up
is
Kieran
Karen.
You
want
to
weigh
in.
K
Sure
so
I
I
think
Molly
kind
of
addressed
some
things
that
I
was
going
to
say
that
the
Counterpoint
to
but
I'll
just
say
it
since
since
I'm
on
the
air.
Now
so
my
personal
opinion
is
that
we
should.
We
should
accept
this
FIP,
but
I
understand
just
to
address
kind
of
the
governance
perspective
of
it.
This
is
just
my
personal
perspective.
K
Is
that
I
think
we
can
assume
that
most
people
participating
in
the
network
are
going
to
be
pretty
self-interested
and
push
for
decisions
that
are
advantageous
to
their
own
personal
economics,
rather
than
necessarily
what's
good
for
the
network,
and
so,
as
a
general
point,
I
understand
that
it
would
be
nice
if
we
could
reach,
we
could
have
a
very
informed
public
that
can
make
that
can
reach
us
off
consensus.
K
I
think
that
it
would
be
very
hard
to
do
that
in
real
life
for
any
sort
of
proposal
that
goes
beyond
like
I
mean
I,
don't
know
how
a
good
way
to
say
this,
but
like
trivial
updates
like
let
me
update
the
documentation
to
be
better.
You
know
whatever
there's
economics
involved:
people
are
going
to
get
real
loud
and
so
I
I.
Think.
From
that
perspective,
we've
acknowledged
that,
like
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
participation,
and
so
you
know
I
I'm
not
going
to
suggest
like.
K
The
engagement
that
we
do
have
is
from
a
very
limited
number
of
people
on
GitHub
who
are
I,
I
would
say
completely
in
one
camp
and
they're
not
going
to
be
convinced,
no
matter
what
economics
or
analysis
we
ever
put
out
and
so
using
that,
as
our
signal
to
make
decisions
on
what
two
different
independent
consults
have
said
is
good
for
the
network
is,
is
a
very
kind
of
like
to
me
seems
like
not
I
mean
I,
understand
both
sides.
K
F
F
If
you
talk
with
them,
make
them
feel
like
you're
on
their
like
you're,
both
in
the
same
team
you're
both
trying
to
do
the
same
thing
because,
like
I,
don't
think
a
lot
of
people
are
really
objected
to
the
core
idea
of
of
rewarding
longer
term
term
sectors
more
but
I
think
a
lot
of
people
did
feel
like
they
were
kind
of
being
handed
down
this
thing
and
that's
where
a
lot
of
the
the
contention
came
from
and
I
really
want
to
push
us
towards
more
talking
with
people
working
people
and
again
less
trying
to
explain
I,
don't
know.
B
I'm
gonna
I'm
gonna
abrogate
some
of
my
neutrality
for
a
moment
and
also
would
be
happy
to
seed
my
facilitation
to
Danny
if
everyone
else
think
that's
appropriate,
but
I
want
to
touch
on
that.
I
very
frequently
hear
from
Storage
providers
about
this
too
and
I.
B
Think
Karen
is
right
right
that
it's
usually
safe
to
assume
that
most
people
are
acting
in
their
own
self-interest
and
there
can
sometimes
be
really
loud
voices
who's
loudness
is
proportional
to
their
investment,
but
storage
providers
also
see
that
of
folks
who
are
very
involved
in
this
process
also
and
I
think
that
that
framing
has
helped
create
the
sense
of
being
unable
to
bridge
this.
Like
communication
Chasm,
there
has
been
a
lot
of
sort
of
misheard
voices
on
both
sides
which,
again
from
the
governance
perspective,
makes
it
very
very
difficult
to
justify.
B
Accepting
this
Sip
and
I
had
a
conversation
with
someone
about
this
yesterday.
Right
because
there's
always
an
argument
and
I
think
it
is
a
good
one
that
you
know
if
you
really
are
trying
to
act
in
the
best
interest
of
the
network.
There
comes
times
where
you
know
the
Democratic
masses,
perhaps
regardless
of
how
flawed
their
methods
of
engaging
may
be.
Sometimes
you
need
to
overrule
those
in
order
to
make
a
choice
that
is
difficult,
but
is
in
the
best
interest
of
this
mission
that
has
brought
us
all
together
again.
B
This
is
a
very
important
argument,
and
it's
one
that
comes
up
time
and
time
again
when
trying
to
make
governance
decisions,
but
a
framing
that
I
thought
was
really
interesting
and
very
helpful
in
this
context
was
that
if
we
are
going
to
apply
a
principle
of
precaution
as
block
finds
it
or
a
conservative
point
of
view
in
deciding
what
is
best
and
whether
or
not
the
sense
of
community
preference
to
reject
ought
to
be
overruled,
which
I
don't
think
anyone
is
advocating
for,
but
I
think
it
is
worth
including
as
part
of
this
discussion.
B
There
is
logic
here
that
says
that
what
we
really
need
to
decide
is
that
Network
conditions
are
objectively
such
that
it
is
more
it
is.
It
is
more
of
a
conservative
choice
for
us
to
accept
and
to
force
technical
changes
than
it
is
for
us
to
defer
to
what
we
are
seeing
as
math
sentiment
and
and
from
my
perspective
in
this
case,
where
we
really
differ
from
other
examples
in
ethereum
ETC.
Is
that
we're
not
seeing
that?
That
is
the
case?
B
Yes,
there
are
very
strong
economic
headwinds
that
filecoin
has
to
navigate
but
to
choose
to
accept
fit
56
from
the
perspective
of
maybe
there
were
misinformation
or
miscommunication,
or
you
know
we
haven't
had
robust
enough
Community
Management
in
order
to
persuade
folks
that
this
is
really
important,
I
I
personally,
don't
know
if
that's
compelling
and
I
also
believe
we
should
reject
this
FIP.
B
So
I'm
going
to
see
this
today,
I
need
to
make
the
final
call
Danny,
I,
hope,
that's.
Okay.
Next,
in
line
to
talk,
is
Juan.
L
Hey
everyone
I
think
I.
A
lot
of
the
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
the
voices
that
have
spoken
up
so
far,
I'm
gonna
the
way,
the
way
that
I
think
we
should
proceed
and
and
I'll
give
out
a
maybe
dissenting
opinion
here
that
to
many
many
folks
my
perspective
is
that
I
agree
with
Karen
that,
as
soon
as
there
are
economic
changes,
you
will
get
primarily
opposing
viewpoints
being
very
focal.
L
You
might
have
some
that
that
will
just
end
up
in
like
high
division,
where
there
are
two
very
loud
camps,
but
in
general
you'll
just
get
lots
and
lots
of
resistance
because
it
is
economically
easier
to
preserve
status.
Quoes
the
and
you
will
end
up
in
situations
where
the
protection
of
those
of
those
conditions
becomes
the
the
bigger,
stronger
Stronger
argument.
L
Also
I
think
it
is
the
case
that
the
level
of
economic
changes
that
need
to
happen
to
Falcon
is
so
large
and
is
going
to
be
so
large
over
the
next
few
years,
and
we
saw
through
536
a
large
set
of
economic
changes
that
got
rejected.
So
then
56
greatly
decreased.
The
rain
of
economic
changes.
L
L
Just
it
has
been
so
large
that
it
makes
me
very
negative
on
the
Outlook
in
general,
of
Falcon
being
able
to
implement
the
level
of
economic
changes.
It
needs
to
be
successful
in
the
long
term.
L
So
what
it
really
tells
me
is
that
either
something
like
56
is
accepted
and
moves
on
and
the
network
moves
into
a
mode
of
being
able
to
change
itself
economically
or
it
likely
will
tend
to
ossify
more
and
more,
with
even
smaller
and
smaller
kinds
of
changes
to
the
point
where
it's
just
not
going
to
be
able
to
make.
The
economic
adjustments
requires
to
be
successful
in
the
long
term.
So
for
that
reasoning
from
a
long-term
oriented
upgrade
oriented
perspective.
L
The
my
sense
of
precaution,
like
the
precautionary
principle
perspective,
is
to
accept
this
change
that
moves
us,
and
not
just
us
closer
to
to
where
we
should
be
economically
and
sets
us
up
in
in
a
in
a
good
direction,
to
accept
even
larger,
much
more
significant
economic
changes
that
are
that
are
going
to
come
in
the
future,
and
so
I
think
that
unless
the
Falcon
network
is
able
to
greatly
decrease
the
level
of
investment
required
to
make
these
kinds
of
changes
and
makes
these
kinds
of
changes
much
faster,
it
is
likely
won't
be
successful.
I
M
Sorry
I
was
gonna,
speak
from
the
angle
of
Phil
blast,
as
opposed
to
respond
once
points
so
I'm
gonna
do
that
first
I'm
on
the
cortex
group,
primarily
because
of
the
work
involved
in
the
governance
team
and
setting
up
and
operating
the
Falcon
plus
program.
In
terms
of
you
know
this
particular
event.
The
discussion
that's
evolved
around
it
We've,
certainly
taken
a
lot
away
from
the
discussion
in
the
Falcon
plus
Community.
M
There
have
been
several
new
discussions
that
have
spawned
as
a
result
of
the
consideration
of
the
segregation
multiplier
and
Alternatives
that
have
been
proposed
and
overall
I
would
say,
it's
been
an
extremely
healthy
and
good
exercise
for
the
field
plus
Community
to
be
exposed
to
a
bunch
of
this
stuff
and
be
forced
to
reconcile.
M
You
know
some
of
the
the
trends
that
we've
observed,
some
of
the
changes
that
we're
seeing
and
really
push
ourselves
in
a
direction
where
we're
actively
taking
a
stance
on
a
lot
of
the
the
topics
that
people
are
waiting
for
the
community
to
take
a
harsh
response
on
and
so
I
think
you
as
a
group
should
look
forward
to
a
much
more
active
communication
from
the
Falcon
plus
community
on
what
we're
doing
in
terms
of
this
space
that
we're
entering
where
we're
going
to
be
explicitly
prioritizing
quality
and
better
estimating
sizing
in
terms
of
utility
of
the
program
and
like
what
we're
hoping
to
achieve
with
operating
a
program
at
that
high
level.
M
M
We
wanted
to
see
how
notaries
and
you
know
highly
engaged
stakeholders
in
the
community
would
vote
or
would
want
to
show
support
for
56,
whether
it's
on
the
count
of
increasing
collateral
on
the
count
of
increasing
duration
of
deals
on
the
count
of
having
a
multiplier
that
multiplies
with
qap.
Specifically.
So
if
you
have
a
10x
qap
multiplier,
then
would
you
mod
you?
M
Would
you
further
compound
that
with
sector
duration,
so
going
from,
you
know,
10
to
a
potential
Max
of
20,
let's
say
as
opposed
to
going
like
10,
plus
2
or
any
of
the
other
Alternatives
that
have
been
proposed
and
then
count
of
urgency
of
implementation.
Where
there
were
some
questions
around
you
know,
do
we
actually
need
to
do
this
right
now?
Is
this
the
right
time
in
the
network
for
it
and
I?
We
had
about
36
respondents
in
the
initial
days
after
which
the
survey
would
run.
M
So
before
last
call
and
the
majority
sentiment
across
many
of
these
is
either
neutral
or
some
kind
of
supportive
and
so
overall
I
I
find
from
the
polling
that
we've
done,
that
less
than
30-ish
percent
of
the
community
ends
up
coming
underneath
neutral,
which
is
to
say
cautiously
unsupportive,
moderately
unsupportive
or
extremely
unsupportive,
and
on
that
basis,
as
you
know,
the
person
in
the
room
that
can
also
represent
the
voice
I
find
myself
to
be
neutral
or
positive
towards
this
web
and
support
progressing
with
it.
B
Thank
you
deep
I
I
think
this
may
be
the
final
word.
Tom
you're
up.
N
Yeah
sure
I
mean
I
can
be
pretty
quick,
so
maybe
you
can
squeeze
somebody
else
in
I
would
just
say
explicitly
weighing
up
the
point
that
you
made
and
the
point
of
Wildland
and
Cheyenne
of
community
risk
versus
inaction.
I
think
we
should.
We
should
move
forward
with
this
I
think
the
risk
of
it
in
action
is
being
substantially
underestimated.
I
think
the
risk
to
the
community
is.
N
B
Thank
you,
Tom
and
Vic.
O
I'll
be
very
quick,
I
think
there
are
a
couple
of
things
here
that,
after
hearing
everyone,
everyone
speak
I'm
curious
to
hear
thoughts
on
the
first
is
we
seem
to
be
kind
of
like
we
are
doing
kind
of
this
soft
consensus
process
within
cordoves,
because
soft
consensus
wasn't
reached
in
the
community
and
that's
for
a
reason,
so
I
don't
think
we
should
be
deciding
whether
or
not
there
are
some
consensus
in
the
community.
O
I
think
we
should,
as
core
devs,
be
assessing
what
is
best
for
the
network
and
I
think
maybe
like
it
is
inevitable
that
the
reason
we
are
here
is
because
there
is
a
small,
or
at
least
some
population,
of
vocally
dissident
individuals.
If
that
was
not
the
case,
then
this
fit
would
have
passed
right.
So
then,
there's
a
second
question,
which
is
what
kind
of
precedent
are
we
sitting
when
it
comes
to
government's
risk
or
Community
risks
and
I
think
there
are
two
different
precedents
that
people
have
isolated.
O
The
second
note
is
that
we
are
also
setting
a
precedent
of
not
allowing
for
economic
that
10
technically
have
been
audited
and
vetted
by
not
just
Cel,
but
other
people
like
block
science
Etc,
who
have
been
very
very
involved
with
Falcon's
economy
over
the
course
of
its
history
and
Lifetime,
and
we
are
certainly
a
precedent
that
that
should
all
that
that
that
local
kind
of
minority,
which
we've
also
isolated
to
me,
would
be
misinformed
or
not
necessarily
true,
to
the
intentions
of
what
might
be
best
for
the
network.
O
Has
that
ability
to
kind
of
act
as
a
blocker
right?
So
that's
also
another
dangerous
precedent
too,
insofar
as
we've
also
heard
from
people
like
deep
and
others
that
there
is
actually
Community
sentiment
outside
of
just
the
storage
fighter
groups,
and
we
have
the
data
for
that
rather
than
like
some
comments
that
are
fairly
I.
O
Guess
vitriolic
on
get
on
on
GitHub,
so
I
think
my
overall
assessment
is
that
there's
also
a
precedent
being
set
in
in
in
rejection
too,
and
that
precedent
can
be
more
dangerous
than
the
one
in
which
we
have
kind
of
established
as
technical
implementers.
That
this
is
not
a
sweeping
economic
change
this,
if
anything,
an
incremental
one
in
reality,
for
regardless
of
what
you
know,
folks
in
the
community
may
say
to
block
it.
I
B
G
I
agree
that
the
court
apps
should
make
the
best
decision
for
the
network
and
doing
I
personally
do
agree,
but
I
personally
think
that
what
our
user
want.
And
yes
one
thing
that
you
know
is
one
of
the
things
we
should
consider
who
is
seeing
what's
the
best
for
the
network
when
that
downside
of
not
listening
to
one
of
the
major
Network
participants,
for
example,
start
from
other
community
and
they're
concerned,
their
needs
will
be
they
some
of
them.
We
don't
know
if
it's
not
going
to
happen
or
not.
G
We
cannot
predict
the
future,
but,
however,
we
do
want
to
make
sure
that
people
will
actually
stay
in
the
network
and
providing
the
storage
the
Falcon
now
needed.
That's
why
I
think
their
voices
are
very
important
and
we
we
should
like
listening
into
that
and
I
think,
because
there's
no
strong
push
from
the
majority
of
the
network,
user
and
participants.
G
That's
why
I'm
personally
feel
like
just
because,
like
all
the
analysis
that
CEO
has
been
performing,
has
a
projection,
the
assumption
that
the
storage
onboarding
is
going
to
keep
growing
and
and,
like
you
know,
there's
going
to
be
a
extension
on
some
of
the
sectors
and
that's
how
it's
going
to
impact
the
network
Baseline
and
all
the
dynamic
of
the
things
and
which
Drive
driven
into
the
conclusion
of
SDM
is
a
good
thing
for
the
network,
Network
as
a
whole
I'm
concerned.
If
that's
assumption
is
wrong,
it's
the
gross
projection.
G
It's
actually
not
going
to
be
the
same,
because
those
provider
actually
don't
want
to
participate
in
the
SDM
Dynamic
that
may
that
could
be
a
potential
risk
for
the
network,
maybe
not
a
risk
for
the
network,
but
might
be
a
no
op
for
the
network.
In
that
sense,
I
would
say
not
having
yet
not
spending
a
lot
of
resources.
Implementing
that
in
the
network
sounds
like
a
good
choice
to
do
for
now.
E
I
know
we're
pretty
much
at
times
for,
for
this
discussion
like
I
I
would
take
like
Juan
and
Tom's
comments
to
Heart,
like
I.
Do
think
that
this
is
this
proposal,
like
from
from
my
vantage
point
from
the
the
data
that
block
science
and
CEO
and
others
have
before
I.
Think
it's
not
good
for
Falcon
I
think
it
is
going
to
be.
E
You
know
a
rough
ride
for
the
network.
I
think
a
lot
of
storage
providers
are
making
the
Assumption
like
right,
A
or
B
I
want
B.
Therefore,
B
is
going
to
happen.
It's
like
there's
a
lot
of
work
and
timeline
and
other
things
that
are
happening
and
we
are
throwing
away
the
a
at
a
time
when
it
has
spent.
You
know
a
year
going
through
various
different
governance
proposals
and
I.
E
Don't
think
that
I
don't
think
it's
good
but
I
again,
I,
don't
think
that
there
is
enough
positive,
Community
Support
to
outweigh
the
negative
Community
Support
in
this
current
model
and
I.
Think
probably
what
that
highlights
is
that
for
things
like
crypto
economic
fips,
we
need
to
do
we
need.
We
need
a
better
process.
E
That's
going
to
do
a
better
job,
highlighting
and
assessing
overall
Network
benefits,
and
you
know
realistically,
if,
if
folks
are,
if
we're
not
able
to
identify
and
get
clear
alignment
on
the
overall
like
parties,
you
know
the
way
in
which
the
network
is
going
to
benefit
in
the
long
term.
I,
don't
think
we
can
overall
push
move
forward
with
the
fifth
in
this
ground
world,
so
I
I,
guess
like
the
biggest
Delta
here
is,
like
you
know,
in
our
current
governance
process.
E
Can
we
move
forward
with
this
stuff
right
now
and
I?
Just
don't
think
we
do
have
a
the
soft
consensus
needed
to
accept
this
FIP
again,
I
wouldn't
say
that
a
couple
of
dissonant
voices
are
is
here.
I
would
say
that
they're,
like
relatively
like
neutral
to
negative
perception
in
this
across
many
communities,
I
haven't
heard
mcdeep
was
highlighting
in
the
chat
that,
across
the
field
plus
Community,
there's
neutral
to
positive
support,
which
includes
a
number
of
the
storage,
a
number
of
clients
and
folks
who
are
working
in
that
Community.
E
But
again,
I
just
haven't
seen
that
participation
and
from
the
position
that
we
have
to
make
right
now.
I,
just
don't
think
that
we
can
assess
that
soft
consensus
has
been
made
across
the
community
and
I.
Don't
think
we
can
assess
the
soft
consensus
exists
amongst
the
core
Dev
Community,
either
in
in
our
assessment
of
whether
this
should
be
approved.
E
Again
there
might
be
more
software
consensus
and
whether
or
not
this
is
good
for
the
network,
but
I
think
that
the
overall
perception
here
you
know
and
again,
if
we
can't
reach
a
strong,
unified,
positive
acceptance,
thing
I
think
we.
We
have
to
agree
to
reject
this
as
not
having
consensus.
B
B
I
think
that
makes
sense
for
the
group
that's
assembled
here
today
and
I
think
that
we
should
confirm
that
the
fif
is
rejected
and
focus
on
all
of
the
next
steps
that
need
to
happen
afterwards,
not
just
in
terms
of
crypto
economics,
but
also
in
terms
of
governance.
C
C
It
tends
to
to
aim
for
a
very
strong
kind
of
precautionary
principle,
one
of
the
places
where
it
really
really
struggles
and
we're
in
that
now
and
I
think
many
crypto
economic
fips
will
fit.
C
This
pattern
is
when
it's
unclear
what
that
precautionary
step
is
out
of,
though,
that
A
and
B,
which
is
the
one
which
is
the
safer
route,
which
is
the
conservative
thing
and
I
think
fundamentally,
one
of
the
reasons
we've
struggled
with
consensus
here
is,
as
Tom
says,
there's
a
genuine
disagreement
about
which
one
of
these
is
a
continuation
on
the
path
that
Falcon
has
always
set
out
to
be,
which
is
to
be
a
valuable
storage
Network
for
Humanity's
information
and
whether
we're
just
continuing
on
that
Arc
in
a
relatively
conservative
way
to
get
that
goal
or
whether
it's
a
radical
change
to
the
business
models
of
some
of
our
course.
C
I
think
that
just
to
touch
on
the
governance
I've,
like
I,
say
I've
been
in
these
discussions
in
other
systems.
I,
don't
think
we
live
in
a
political
world
and
it's
perfectly
possible
to
construct
systems
that
understand
that
there
are
times
when
you
have
to
flip
that
switch.
We
didn't
build
that
necessarily
into
fit
one
and,
as
Caitlyn
has
said
fit
one
doesn't
quite
match
what
we
do
now
either
so
I
think
there
are
two
things.
C
One
is
that
we
should
go
back
and
think
about
how
we
build
a
governance
process
that
can
involve
everybody,
implementers
stakeholders
and
The
Wider
silent
majority
of
our
community
and
work
out
how
to
do
that.
But
at
this
moment
in
time,
perhaps
with
some
sadness,
I'll
have
to
say
that
this
this
56
is,
has
not
passed.
Soft
consensus.
B
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you
very
much
everyone
for
English.
We
have
additional
presentation
today,
just
one
Windows
postgradability
fix
by
Nemo
over
to
you.
P
Thank
you,
and
please
bear
with
me
as
we're
shipping
gears
a
little
bit
here
so
I
wanted
to
present
the
existing
potential
security
weakness
in
the
current
window
post,
that's
deployed
on
mainnet
and
address
how
we're
resolving
it
with
the
fip61,
which
is
otherwise
known
as
the
the
window
post
grindability
fix
Ed.
So
as
a
quick
background,
this
is
an
issue
that's
been
known
for
a
while.
P
Actually
since
before
mainnet
was
launched,
and
it's
just
been
kind
of
an
identified
issue-
that's
been
hanging
around
since
the
reason
it
hasn't
been
fixed
to
date
is
for
a
few
reasons,
but
it
was
reviewed
a
while
back
and
deemed
possibly
less
of
a
security
threat
than
we
imagine.
P
The
potential
attacks
are
arguably
on
the
complicated
side,
but
that
being
said,
my
team,
Phil,
crypto
and
Kryptonite
lab
did
discuss
this
issue
several
times
and
recently
we
decided
that
it
was
in
the
best
interest
of
the
network
to
resolve
it,
and
it
should
actually
have
a
minimal
impact
on
anyone,
that's
honestly,
mining
and
with
fip61
we're
looking
to
deploy
it
as
soon
as
possible.
P
So
what
is
the
actual
issue
here?
All
right?
These
images
are
a
little
more
complicated,
probably
than
they
need
to
be,
but
the
the
image
on
the
left
shows
roughly
how
the
current
window
post
works
today
at
the
top,
we
have
some
set
of
sealed
sectors
when
it's
time
to
generate
a
window
post.
The
service
provider
select
some
subset
of
the
sectors
in
places
them
in
some
sort
of
specific
ordering
or
maybe
random
or
whatever,
but
they
do
have
control
of
the
order
of
those
sectors.
P
The
red
box
on
the
left
at
the
top
sort
of
illustrates
that
that
at
the
core
is
the
that
is
the
problem.
If
a
service
provider
can
choose
the
ordering
for
the
sectors
in
the
window
post,
it's
a
problem
because
there
does
exist,
a
relationship
in
how
the
challenges
are
selected.
Based
on
that
order,
and
because
of
that,
if
somebody
were
trying
to
sort
of
gain
their
challenges,
then
they
have
some
input
to
what
those
challenges
are.
P
So
as
an
example
like
a
service
provider
could
provide
one
set
of
sectors
to
a
window
post
and
generate
the
in
so
I
generate
the
challenges
and
then
inspect
them
and
then
see
if
they
look
favorable
for
whatever
that
means
for
that
provider,
and
if
they
don't
look
favorable,
they
could
reorder
the
sectors
and
or
choose
different
sets
of
them
and
keep
generating
challenges
sets
until
they
find
one
that
does
look
favorable
for
them.
P
In
that
sense,
this
is
the
grindability
where
they
can
essentially
just
do
this
repeatedly
until
they
have
the
challenges
that
they
want.
This
is
considered
a
protocol
bug.
We
do
not
believe
that
it's
being
exploited
actively,
but
that's
one
of
those
things
that
is
very
difficult
to
say,
fit
61
results
of
this
showing
the
image
on
the
right.
So
what
we're
doing
here
is
we
are
removing
the
dependency
on
how
the
challenge
is
generated
based
on
the
order.
P
So,
instead
the
fixed
elements
affecting
The
Challenge
Generation
are
just
the
sector
ID
and
the
randomness
from
the
chain,
meaning
that,
like
it
doesn't
I
apologize.
It
doesn't
really
matter
what
the
order
of
the
sectors
are
in
and
the
challenges
are
consistent,
so
this
is
closer.
That
was,
that
was
actually
what
was
like
originally
intended
with
this.
It
just
turned
out
that
that
was
something
that
was
overlooked
in
implementation
at
some
point
in
time
and
61
results
that
this
is
a
summary
and
I
am
here
to
discuss.
A
Thank
you
so
much
Nemo.
Are
there
questions
or
comments
based
on
this.
E
Okay,
if
there's
any
negative
sorry
just
if
there's
any
like
negative
implications
of
like
hey,
we
think
that
in
some
subset
of
cases
it's
gonna
like
cause
some
process
to
take
longer.
That's
maybe
the
only
relevant
thing
to
like
point
out
just
to
make
sure
that
we
understand
the
cost
of
fixing
this
potential
like
abuse
Vector,
but
overall,
like
I,
think
it's
pretty
non-controversial
that
none
of
us
want
anyone
to
be
able
to
grind
their
window
posts.
G
Now
that
we
have
a
decision
on
an
SDM
I
do
think
we
have
a
final
scope
for
the
next
Network
upgrade
v90,
so
I
just
want
to
quickly
update
the
timeline
and
align
the
now
we
have
Venus
team
and
a
forest
team
with
us
as
well.
I
just
want
to
quickly
a
lie
on
the
timeline
really
quick.
So
as
we
speak,
I
updated
this
page
and
I
want
to
thank
Caitlyn.
This
is
all
Caitlyn.
Thank
you
for
being
a
network
coordinator
this
time
and
this
work
is
from
her.
G
So
so
this
is
the
page
that
we
are
using
for
coordinating
this
network
upgrade
I
post
a
link
in
in
the
song
chat,
So,
based
on
everything
in
being
discussed.
The
final
scope
of
the
next
Network
upgrade
that's
happening
in
May
is
going
to
be
542,
which
is
increasing
the
max
sector
commitment
to
3.5
years,
which
will
enable
the
deal
duration
to
be
the
the
maximal
duration
to
increase
from
1.5
years
to
3.5
years
as
well.
We
have
a
rejected
SDM.
G
Sadly,
we
are
gonna
so
fit
47,
which
is
the
gas
fit
for
fevm,
and
we
are
adding
some
batch
balance
of
parameter
recalibration
and
to
to
just
make
sure
the
aggregation
and
pre-commit
batch
are
still
in
the
right
range
for
for
the
network.
We
are
also
including
fit
60,
which
is
a
big
one,
and
the
title
is
like
said:
the
market
deal
maintenance
interval
to
like
30
days,
which
means
like
the
deal
payout
is
moving
from
one
days
to
30
days.
G
This
is
going
to
be
dramatically
helping
and
the
recent
longer
block
validation
time
that
we're
seeing,
because
this
is
taking
a
lot
of
the
crown
usage
in
the
market
actor
since
only
18
upgrade.
We
are
seeing
more
like
community
members,
especially
no
operators
to
reporting
that
that
they're
observing
longer
block
validation
time-
that's
impacting
their
thinking
and
stuff
like
that.
So
this
is
like
a
timely
fit
that
we
want
to
include
that
ship
to
the
network
to
mitigate
any
concerns,
and
we
are
going
to
be
including
the
window
post.
G
Groundability
fix
that
Nemo
just
presented
and
we're
doing
like
a
small
fevm.
Evm
actor
follow
up
just
so
that
we
can
enable
more
like
use
case.
The
the
overall
timeline
is
over
here,
so
the
the
calibration
upgrade
is
targeted
on
the
April,
the
18th.
We
are
trying
to
Target
an
earlier
date
instead
of
waiting
as
I
mentioned,
because
the
crown
issue
we
do
want
to
resolve
that
mitigate
that,
like
solar
Radisson
later
so
a
forest
and
Venus.
G
If
you
think
the
state
is
like
challenging
to
you,
do
you
reach
out
to
me
we
can
definitely
like
support
and,
like
you
know,
collaborate
on
this
a
little
bit
more
and
given
that
being
said,
the
midnet
upgrade
is
gonna.
Gonna
happen
on
maintenance,
there's
gonna
be
early,
19
I'm,
calling
it
lightning
just
because
you
know
faster,
like
block
validation.
G
It's
really
nice
I
like
that
as
well
like
doing
speed,
that's
what
we
are
aiming
for,
as
you
can
see,
there's
actually
a
second
Network
upgrade
being
scheduled
a
week
after
only
19,
and
that's
because
how
we
want
to
roll
out
the
groundability
effects
into
the
network.
G
So
we
want
to
do
a
quote-unquote
ghost
upgrade
where
in
the
first
Network
upgrade,
the
network
will
start
to
accept
the
window
post
that
generated
by
the
new
proof,
the
red
proof
and
the
second
upgrade
of
the
network
will
drop
acceptance
of
the
old
proof
upgrades
to
enforce
the
security
of
the
network
to
be
to
be
guarded
by
the
new
proof
challenge.
G
So
this
upgrade
is
gonna
happen
again
a
week
after
on
the
first
upgrade
I,
don't
expect
any
node
operators
and
search
provider
has
to
do
any
node
update
during
this
process.
We
are
reserving
one
week
just
in
case
some
start.
Friday
needs
more
time
to
adapt
the
new
proof
challenge
without
getting
penalized.
G
I
think
that's
yet
for
now,
catering
and
I
will
be
working
on
like
an
announcement
in
the
setting
up
the
set
status
page
and
communicate
that
with
the
broader
Community
later
on
this
week.
Any
questions.
G
A
Thank
you.
So
much
are
there
additional
questions
from
anyone?
Otherwise,
I'll
just
take
two
minutes
to
remind
us.
We
still
have
and
we
have
piloted
our
community
governance
calls
monthly.
If
you
have
not
registered,
please
do
so.
I
will
include
the
link
when
I
share
around
the
notes
for
the
today's
call
again,
if
you
have
ideas,
recommendations,
anything
that
can
help
us
improve
the
governance
calls
do
reach
out
to
us,
but
the
first
thing
do
also
register
to
attend
the
3D
thing.
That's
the
first
step.
A
I
think
I
I
got
caught
out
a
bit.
We
can
take
additional
questions
if
there
are
any
two
minutes:
five
minutes.
Anyone.
Okay!
A
Thank
you
all.
So
much
for
joining.
It's
been
an
interesting
conversation
and
we'll
be
preparing
all
the
notes
and
the.
A
Shortly
after
this
call
stay
tuned
for
that
register
for
cgc
coming
up
on
the
24th
of
April,
otherwise
we
are
going
to
see
again
next
month
for
file
coin
file.
Coin,
for
this
call,
number
57.
have
a
great
day.
Everyone
bye
foreign.