NEAR Protocol Community, 17 Aug 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Protocol Community Meeting (August '22)

Description

In this edition, the Protocol team discussed Phase 1 of Sharding, the new NEP process, and Meta Transactions.

See the New NEP Process:
👉 https://github.com/near/NEPs/blob/master/neps/nep-0001.md

Become part of Stake Wars:
👉 https://near.org/stakewars/

Join NEAR's community:
Website: https://near.org/
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/nearprotocol/
Discord: https://near.chat/
Medium: https://medium.com/nearprotocol
Blog: https://near.org/blog/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/NEARProtocol
GitHub: https://github.com/near https://github.com/nearprotocol
Dev Docs: https://docs.near.org/
Create a wallet: https://wallet.near.org/create
Apps on NEAR: https://awesomenear.com/
Learn to Build On NEAR: https://www.near.university/
Grants & Funding: https://near.org/grants/
#Blockchain #FutureisNEAR #NEAR #nearprotocol
#nft #dao

A

Hello, hello, everybody, my name is dennis I'm part of the deaf real team here at pagoda or near inc. um Welcome to this uh protocol community uh uh session um yeah to get today we'll have uh bowen here. Who's gonna, walk us through uh through the rest of the program I'll be uh looking at the chat. uh Looking at your questions and moderating on in between and uh yeah picking them up as we get them. So uh one nope.

B

C

Yeah, can you see my screen yep? Okay, okay, let's get started.

C

So um yeah, I have a few agenda items today. uh First, just I'll just give a quick update on the progress we're making on the protocol development and then george will talk about um stakeholders and then I'll talk about the new ap process for contributions towards the protocol and then uh we'll have a discussion with folks from the central bank on meta transactions and then well as always, it will be time for questions and answers.

C

Okay, so yeah a very quick update, um so phase one of starting the thing that people have been looking forward to for a long time is uh finally coming. It's going to come in the 1.9.0 release. um The the release will go to testnet on august 15th, uh which is next monday, um and then the main net release uh will happen.

C

uh The main release would go live on september 21st um and, as you probably know, um there is a period of time between when the release is populated and when uh everybody there actually upgrade, and then the network actually switched to the new protocol version, uh and that is um projected to happen before or by september. 28Th yeah, that's kind of the quick update from me. uh So now I'll just pass it to george to talk about stakeholders.

D

Thank you, berlin.

D

So if you can yep go the next slide, um I want to first recap a bit what our intention with stakehouse is uh just to to keep everybody on the same page before uh looking back retrospectively of how things went until now.

D

So what you want to achieve with stakeholders is basically uh a set of three things on one side: to give the community an early access to check on your producer code and also give a playground make a network where that note can be exercised, and this will help uh becoming familiar with what the the next milestone of sharding brings and get your hands on it and play and play with it a bit uh at the same time, given that we're going to increase the number of validator seats on mainnet, we want to help people that want to become validator with technical guidance and with a motivation to actually learn what it means to be a good validator.

D

And third, but not least, we want to have a good chance of battle testing the code before we go into mainnet. To get data points that give us confidence. The release is working as we expect it to do it to be.

D

The program is running uh from mid-july until early september, so we are almost half through um that time frame and what's very, very interesting about it, is that we are running the program as a partnership with community members with menopause linear, everstake and osa, who all of them are supporting the program and coming up challenges, offering technical guidance to participants and basically running it um yeah. The last bullet is something that I just mentioned.

D

We expect to to increase the number of validator seats in mainnet from 100 up to, depending on on the data points that we get from sharpness, 2 2 3 x.

D

So where are we with the program? Now? uh We got a lot of interest and we're really happy about how many people wanted to join the program and wanted to take on the challenges and to be part of this learning experience for the community.

D

So we've seen the number of nodes in chardonnay by the way sharpness is the test network. um This playground to avoid confusion where stakeholders is happening, but we've seen the number of nodes going fluctuating a bit, but it was more than 1 600 uh throughout the last days, and this shows the interest that that people have and we only have 400 validator seats there.

D

So it's it's quite a size compared to our initial plans, and this is a definitely a positive uh feedback that that we're getting regarding the interest of the community um for the people that want to learn.

D

The way the program is designed is to give them challenges and rewards, and if they complete those challenges, we have in 11 challenges until now and a few more to plan for later this week and we're going to continue releasing each week until the end of the program, uh two to three challenges: to keep people engaged and give them an opportunity to learn what it means to operate a note and to have a very good operational uh posture in keeping your validator uh keeping the editor running.

D

We have a lot of engagement uh on discord. There's a channel the stakeholders channel. Where people ask a lot of questions and uh it's it's a learning community and it's also a place where we discuss the issues that we encounter and things have been colorful to call it like that. uh At the end of the day, it's a shard net, uh it's a playground where we're battle testing code and where we're stressing the whole network as much as we can to see what it happens when we push it to the limit with decent velocity.

D

So where we don't intend to hit the wall, but things may uh may happen and we may see hiccups.

D

um The good thing is that the whole setup was designed in such a way to give us tools to adapt to the issues that we find and to be able to steer the whole program and the whole playground in such a way that we adapt to the problems and we fix them and it does the fixes and we move on as quickly as possible. So we made we made um incremental adjustments to the token economy.

D

For example, we switched to a delegation model to make the economy more stable and prevent bad actors from influencing stakeholders, and that proved to to calm things down a bit or another example is that we had to use the hard fork tool. We avoided as much as possible, but there were cases when we had to use it um to bring uh shard net back into a good state.

D

And while we do not expect to see hard forks in mainnet, it was still like a good learning experience for the the participants to see what it means to go through that uh that event and what they need to do to adapt to it.

D

um So, as you've seen, stakehouses is mostly focused on the community and the learning experience and giving people access early access to the code as a separate track. The chunk only producer code will be available on testnet, like bowen mentioned on an earlier slide on monday august 15th, um and that is part of our regular release process. It is part of the regular steps that we take when we do any mainnet release, so we're seeing testnet as a separate playground from from stake wars.

D

I guess that's it from my side. Thank you. Everyone.

C

Yeah thanks george, um and I think we can move on to talk about the new mp process, which is going to be exciting, uh so just to kind of give people some some background uh for those who don't know uh near enhancement, proposals or or any piece uh have been in existence, for, I think quite a long time now. Maybe the the initial version uh was was there even before uh mainnet went live uh so yeah, probably more than two years by now, um but the process wasn't fully fleshed out.

C

There is essentially a template that people can use to submit proposals, um but then that's basically it it's not really clear how to move forward. Once you know someone submits a proposal like that. uh You know who should actually review that um and and what what are the next steps um and and as we we grew larger and larger um there.

C

I've been hearing more and more complaints that you know there are people who are very interested to contribute to the protocol, but they don't actually know how to get started and how to move forward, uh which is a problem that we're trying to address here so yeah. So for the before I talk about the actual process, uh it's important to first talk about the roles and the responsibilities and who are the stakeholders uh in this process.

C

uh So so, first of all we have the answer. um Maybe we will we'll change it to a different name in the future, but basically this is the person uh who drives the uh the proposal forward. So essentially uh it's it's. uh The ndp process is supposed to be a process where anyone from the community can participate.

C

There's no restriction now who can write a proposal, so the answer would be the person who writes the proposal following the the templates we have and then they would also submit the uh the proposal uh which a prototyping rotation ready for review, and then uh we would um and then the author would kind of go through the review phase.

C

We would talk about uh and then, after the other review is done, uh there will be a final process uh in which they present their work to the uh to the protocol working group uh which we'll also talk about later um and then the working group would make a final decision uh on the proposal.

C

So uh that's what the author does and then there's the moderator. So basically moderator um are the the people that make sure that you know we don't receive spam proposals and the proposal actually are formatted properly.

C

They um they follow the the template that we're using and it's not something that has just been rejected so and then they're also responsible for kind of coordinating, uh coordinating the uh the proposal and with different stakeholders in the process uh make sure that they they move along and doesn't get stuck, but they would not uh assess the the technical feasibility of the proposal itself and who does that? Well, so we for each proposal, a group of subject matter.

C

Experts will be assigned to review the proposal for each and the current process is that for each proposal there will be at least two subject matter: experts. uh They have the power to reject the the proposal based on the lack of technical merits, but they don't have the ability to single candidate to say. Oh, this proposal is finally approved, so who does? Who has the power to do that? Well, it's the uh it's.

C

What we call the community working group, uh so more information would come uh later, but basically this is uh going to be the uh the foundation of the the governing body for uh protocol proposals.

C

Essentially, people who have broad understanding and interest in the protocol itself and and can make the the best judgment on behalf of the ecosystem and how this would work is that uh they would essentially be responsible for making the the final decision on whether a proposal gets accepted or not um through a community meeting uh where the the officer would present the proposal and then a decision will be made on whether the proposers accept it or not.

C

So yeah. All of that may sound uh confusing. So here is a nice diagram made by ari our technical program manager, and this diagram illustrates uh pretty well the entire process. Basically, the author would create the proposal. It would enter this draft stage and then the moderator would look at the draft and see whether it complies with all the standards and and now the um yeah, about the uh everything that the uh proposal needs to to follow, and then the moderator would move the graph towards the the next step.

C

Marketing is ready to review and then a set of subject matter. Experts will be assigned by the working group to review um the proposal, and once the review is done, there's basically two outcomes. Well, one is that the the reviewers think that um the on the technical side, the proposal is, uh is ready to move forward.

C

There's no, uh no objections to the proposal or or rather that the the pros and cons are clearly um uh clearly laid out in the proposal, and it makes sense um so then it would move towards voting and then uh the uh the committee working group would uh uh would make a decision on whether the proposal gets approved or rejected. uh However, there is also another case right, because the reviewers can keep giving feedback on.

C

You know the the proposal, maybe that uh well maybe they want to see uh in more detail how how this, how certain part of the proposal would work asking the author to give examples or like or explain more how certain things work or they think there may be. There is better way to do certain things and then uh they would ask the other two to revise proposal.

C

That could take time. However, the uh one of the reasons why we designed this process is that we want to make sure that the process is time, boxed that it doesn't go on forever, um because uh we have seen uh proposals that kind of get stuck in the state of like you know, there's there's comment and then the uh the author address comment and then the kind of review goes on now uh just doesn't stop uh and therefore we kind of explicitly set a uh time box here.

C

uh Basically if there, if the a proposal has been in the review stage for more than a month without moving to the next stage, then it will get automatically rejected. uh Getting rejected doesn't mean that uh you know it just forever rejected um the the answer of the proposal. If the uh they understand, you know the reason for rejection uh and they, you know, think about it more and come up with a better proposal later uh they can resubmit their proposals after a period of time.

C

Yeah, that's kind of the brief overview of the entire labs life cycle of the ap process and more information can be found on this document. That's on the labs repository and we will start executing on this process pretty soon.

C

So, since we talked about you know as part of this process, there's going to be this community working group meeting and people may ask well uh what's going to happen with this meeting. uh That is a good question and the current thinking is that we will still keep having this meeting uh primarily for two reasons.

C

One is that I think it's still nice to have a place where we can provide protocol updates to the progress we made on protocol development as well as a place for people to service their ideas, so the community working group meetings would be geared towards actually making a final decision on whether proposal gets submitted or not. It's not really a place for people to discuss ideas which may not be extremely well formed.

C

So I think this would also be a place for us to do that and also yeah. This is general uh q, a so yeah. That's uh the current thinking for for this meeting, and you know if you have any other suggestions, yeah feel free to let us know, and we can think about uh how to make this meeting more useful for uh for the entire community.

C

Yeah, so that's basically the update on the uh ap process. uh Yeah dennis, can you promote uh alex, oh actually, yeah, um alex and igor? Can you signal yourself so that dennis can promote you to a panelist.

A

Yeah, please raise your hand or similar. I can see from the list there we go remote to panelist.

A

E

C

Hey guys, hey uh so yeah, uh just a quick uh introduction. We have uh uh alex and uh igor from um decentral bank uh and uh yeah we'll have a discussion about uh meta transactions alex. Do you want to introduce yourself.

E

Yeah, um my name is alexander and I'm developer of uh near native stablecoin, u.s and andy igor is not connected by the way you you yeah is.

C

E

A meeting he's on the meeting, uh but you attached george, he is.

A

No, he hasn't raised his hand so far, so no okay, yeah but uh yeah. If you could igor you, please uh raise your hand uh in the uh through the ui, then I'll be able to spot you immediately. Otherwise, it's igor you lay ski right. Well, yeah, yeah, yeah,.

E

Great yeah so um bo when what is the format of the current discussion? uh Is it kind of a free-rided discussion.

C

Yeah, it's yeah mostly that, but uh I think it's probably a good idea for you guys to first give an overview of what the proposal actually is and why we're doing that yeah.

E

So we are working on poc proof of concept of managed transaction. uh What is it? It is a transaction that can include another transaction and why is it needed for different purposes? However, the major one is is that some entity can pay gas for uh for alice who doesn't have money doesn't have near to pay for gas herself and so, for instance, you're a um you have a new account in uh near echo system, and so you don't have any money.

E

However, you still want to start. Somehow. Probably you received the erc20 token in your pocket and you you wanna, send it back to someone still you don't have near, you don't have money and you have to pay gas. So you have this problem that having no near you can't do anything and meta transactions uh enable uh gasless transaction which enable um paying by, uh for instance, crc20 tokens paying for gas. um You know uh with some commission to us to proxy uh and it is um uh yeah so paying not only using near.

E

That is the basic thing. um I think that it can enable many different use cases also um and yeah. That's that's it. We are working on poc, it's not! Actually. You know 100 persons ready, and I also think that we are going to use your new um uh proposal.

E

um You know that, that's what you you introduced, then you uh you, how is it a new way to prepare proposal, review yeah, yeah yeah? So that's it. That's it.

C

Okay, yeah, so so yeah alexander, can you talk a bit more about? Maybe some other uh potential use cases just uh so that people here can have a better understanding of you know why we actually yeah so why this is deeply important. So, like I know you talk about the the years it's like playing in like front world tokens, um but yeah, I think like I. I do believe this has much larger implications. So if you can talk about that.

E

um I know that, for instance, there are different ways are developed on ethereum um also, um it also includes gasless transactions, and uh I probably don't know every case. However, what we are considering is that we have uh uh usn, which is a near native, stable coin, and so um it could enable, um I would say, like different uh cases, to make it uh more unique for near ecosystem um yeah.

E

C

uh How how does the usn uh play into this or like what would the use case be there.

E

um You have a new account uh and someone sent you uh usn and um we faced with the situation that uh when you have enough usn, however, you still have not enough uh near uh you'd like to uh you know, continue you you you'd like to send it back or just send some someone yeah. So I probably like getting back to the same use case. uh I'm sorry bowen. However, I'm kind of technical guy, not a business business level of things.

C

Yeah no worries, so um I think one one of the important thing is that it will enable this kind of subscription model where the application can um the user don't need to worry really about paying cash for um for their transaction of using application. The application can pay on their behalf uh very easily, even if um so like today. You know there is like access key and so on, but well that has limitations. One in the the gas would run out. You need to ask user issue another access key.

C

Another thing is that uh you know for a function. Call access key, doesn't allow you to transfer um locals and then so on. So yeah.

E

So if you for, for instance, um like I believe it enables many use cases, however, um why we do need meta transactions on the level of blockchain. It is because, uh as we considered like work arounds and um like hacks, you know um instead of uh uh meta transactions in on the level of blockchain, and so we found that uh it's pretty pretty hard to overcome it and also workarounds may have security issues and.

E

And like they are also limited in in usage, so meta transaction should be a transaction that have signature that back another transaction and you know can be executed on the blockchain. It still have many challenges uh like we found that.

E

You know there are challenges to integrate the new code into the existing infrastructure, as there are um well-known uh actions well-known, um I don't know like like the scheme of the near core is pretty established and it disrupts it a little bit, but I I think it's yeah.

C

Yeah uh but yeah before we talk about that, I just want to mention that uh I think we've seen some quite some success with ro plus, uh which essentially is you know, meta transaction for or or like it's like a similar model. uh So I wonder whether so I saw I saw that marcelo is in the meeting, so not to put you on the spot. But uh you know if you're free, to talk, uh wonder whether you can also talk about how this works or like some of the implications there.

C

A

Why there are two more.

B

Hi, can you hear me.

C

B

Okay, excellent yeah, so in aurora we have some sort of uh meta transactions. Basically, users sign a ethereum like transaction, and we do all the decoding inside of the aurora contract and compute the sender, and we are paying the near gas for our users. They actually don't need to pay anything and the the gas they pay, which is beneath it's some sort of artificial mechanism to prevent spam, which is the whole point of of using gas, but they don't need to pay any near gas or they don't need any near account.

B

I understand this doesn't solve completely the problem you're trying to solve with uh near, like first citizen level, uh near meta transactions, but to some extent uh this model can can be used as well. Yeah.

C

Okay, but sorry, if I understand correctly the uh you, the users don't have to pay they, they can just pay a subscription right and then the.

B

Okay, yeah fair enough yeah without error, plus they don't need even to pay uh if uh they have some amount of uh aurora transaction, the three free transactions in aurora. uh I don't think it's implemented right now, but the idea is that users will pay like some sort of premium model. So you pay in advance some amount of tokens or you get it uh or the application. Does it for you, so you you always interact for free with the system and.

C

Okay, I think we lost you for a few seconds, but yeah.

B

uh Yeah, the the the tldr is that users don't need to pay, and actually our repos right now provides uh 50 transactions for free and users can buy. Applications can provide an interface so such that their users don't need to pay gas at all.

A

I I have a question while hearing this marcelo, what kind of um system do you guys have in place or uh yeah a logic to handle abuse of this subsidy.

B

um That's a good point like right now all attacks we have uh received it's a about uh uh what near can handle uh what we can put in a in the system. So it's not about the amount of money that it's been drained. uh Basically, we have like right now with aurora plus it's uh significantly easier. The system is quite complex, but we have a lot of filter in the ips and what nuts, but if you subscribe to our plus uh well, there is a there yet another system, I think we're doing kyc.

B

If I recall correctly so basically, we authenticate our users and we only provide free transactions to authenticated users. Otherwise you need to to pay gas.

C

Okay, yeah sounds good. Let's uh maybe move back to talking about meta transactions. uh I think uh alexander has been eager to talk about the actual technical details. I think maybe yeah that's actually a good time to do that. uh Yeah alexander, wonder whether you can give an overview of like how this is actually going to be implemented.

E

Yeah, I think I have some lag. However. Okay I'll I see, uh I see many questions from matthias. What should we do with it? Should we uh we can answer them.

C

Later but I think yeah, let's go with the discussions.

E

Okay, so a technical aspect.

E

How deeply should I you know, go into the technical aspect like implementation, all right, yeah? Basically, it looks like uh you probably know that there are a few predefined actions like create account or or call the contract or transfer some near.

E

You know or what's up, add key delete key. We add additional action, um which is called we. We, we call it delegate action and uh what it can it can include other actions and so from the uh from perspective of rust, it it. It means that we introduce kinda recursive type, and uh it also you know, introduce additional challenges to code it properly. However, anyways it's additional action that includes other actions, and now it includes another transaction which includes uh and other other actions yeah. So we we have this.

E

You know packed uh structure um in that um delegate. Action.

C

Action be processed.

E

It's gonna be um okay, so we have um on some. uh I I would say you know to not over complicate.

E

uh From the user perspective, user creates a new transaction, however, user doesn't have gas right, so it can. Just uh you know, throat into the nodes.

E

This transaction uh is passed to a special method like if you see some code in javascript.

E

We have additional method that uh converts the the transaction um it wraps with the signature of some proxy of gas station or we we didn't come up with an idea how to call it. We probably call it gas station or back-end station or something like that. It wraps the transaction into its own with its own signature.

E

However, uh it has a special action, type delegate action and so, after that, uh all this bunch is being thrown into into the notes into the mechanism of blockchain and then the new like handling rules are involved and that's we are working on because we you you have to you know like uh you're, starting to unpack, uh you verify signature and probably igor, can explain more. However, you know it's not the easiest topic.

E

I think uh once we have a pr pull request ready for review, it's gonna be simpler um by the way answering on one of the media's questions. Is that the reason uh nap not sure about pronunciation? How you pronounce it? I will pronounce snap and there is an old nap.

E

I think, from the april of this year that we also use as a reference. It was introduced by ilya and eugene, probably yeah,.

C

Yeah uh we can link the we can put the link there.

E

Yeah, if you have one, I, if you can put the link or I can find it real, quick.

C

E

C

That, um okay, okay, okay, yeah, so so kind of, basically, uh to summarize what uh what alexander was talking about um yeah, so essentially you have this wrapped transaction and then, uh after after it gets to after it's processed, it would first check that the signature would match and then uh it would uh basically unwrap the transaction and then convert that to receipt and send it to um to be executed. And in this whole process, the uh uh the designer id would remain the same.

C

It's like the basically the conversion make sure that uh it's essentially converted as if the uh transaction uh is actually coming from the original user um and uh and then based on how receipt works. The predecessor id would just be um the uh the account id of the of the user itself. uh So there wouldn't be a question of um how uh you know the like in the web, whether the uh if there, if you interact with smart contract, it would have like you know the wrong predecessor id or something.

C

So that would not be a problem um and yeah. We will link the uh proposal in the chat.

E

Yeah, so we have a rough really rough poc, we just implemented. uh You know really really really.

E

Like like a draft of sendings some near tokens and uh um at the first step it works, it worked just with a a hard-coded number of near and like it was like 42 number.

E

uh If you put 43 it doesn't work, it didn't work, it works now, so I mean like we are on in the progress of debugging. uh Sometimes mathematic doesn't um doesn't uh uh doesn't work.

E

We are fighting with search here and there um and by the way, the good thing in the near core design is that uh there are many uh mathematical verifications, so you won't do stupid things. At least you you can do stupid things, but it will cost you a lot.

E

C

Yeah uh dennis, I think we can move on to answering questions and yeah.

A

C

For the brief overview of how uh meta transaction is going to work,.

A

Great, thank you alexander, so moving from the most recent, uh so we have here would meta transactions have their own function on the runtime to be able to process efficiently.

C

uh Not sure what I'm not sure what they mean by their own function on the runtime it's process, basically as similar to how a normal transaction is processed. It's just in that logic, there will be a special logic that that unwraps, the meta transaction.

A

And next up we have. Could we use meta transactions to create payment channels between two parties in order to avoid multiple transactions or receipts and improve processing times for many transactions at once between them?.

C

uh I'm not sure yeah alexander. What do you think.

E

No, I I'm I'm not sure I'm trying to.

A

I'm a little confused, yeah yeah matias. Could you please type your question in a simpler way? Thank you.

A

uh Let's see, we have a new one that just came in. I do not see the link to the proposal in chat. Oh.

C

Yeah, I think one of the answers. If you click on the answer tab, I guess we can understand each other.

A

And uh this one is uh so I'll tackle the meta transaction ones. First, a couple more from matthias here: uh what meta transactions influence the underlying receipts.

C

Matter, transaction influence, no.

A

C

It's not going to uh yeah exactly correct me from wrong, but my understanding, if I remember correctly, there's no change on the receipt level.

E

um I'm not probably gore can can say more correctly because it depends it depends. You know, influence than the blind receipts. It should not. It should not.

E

Maybe some refactoring uh is involved, you know, because you obviously can face with some technical uh issues like maybe you have to move some pieces of calls here and there, however, shouldn't.

C

Yeah, so so my understanding is that basically, the the target action can only be um on road once so it's like there's a logic that makes sure like you. Don't there's no way to you know um indefinitely recurs on that, so it's like. Basically it's only. You can only put that as part of the transaction and then once you process it to unwrap that and then the rest will just be regularly received and then that receipt cannot have delegate action.

A

Cool and um so the last one would be uh what meta transactions support batch transactions any limit on the actions they could include.

C

ah That's uh that's a great question uh it. I think it's basically same as like how like a normal transactions. Would uh I don't think, there's much change to that.

E

A

I think those were the questions now for uh meta transactions so, and also people. If you have questions in the meantime, please ask but uh there's one relating to something else. Now it's uh is it possible for notes defined in genesis to unstake or unlock their locked balance.

C

Yes, uh yes, if you are violators defining genesis, you can on stake after the network starts.

A

Great, thank you. uh Those were the questions uh we have for now. um Yeah.

C

Yeah any other questions from an anyone here about anything, not necessarily by the transaction that we just talked about, but yeah. Any questions about other scenes are welcome.

A

Remarks as well or ideas.

B

uh Some extra feedback uh I can give uh on the aurora side. Can you hear me yep yeah? um We are actually going forward with this idea of running cross-contract calls from aurora to near uh right now, so, basically from an aurora contract, you will be able to execute uh functions on nearside.

B

uh Well, we have been designing this without transactions in mind, but our we are using an approach which I think was suggested by ilia in one of these calls, which basically, we are deploying one account per uh per per address in aurora, and this account has the ability to execute arbitrary transactions if they are coming from aurora. So this is a way of implementing meta transactions, in some sense, without uh changing anything at the protocol level.

B

So that's I mean probably we want uh not to go with this approach, but at least uh consider it. uh So the idea would be that you deploy a special contract on your account that will be able to allow other parties to execute meta transactions on your behalf, uh where your contract will be able to execute their bitcoin transactions if they are signed properly.

B

C

That so that's similar to how ceremony transactions work right in this area. If you want the user, you need to deploy this uh proxy contractor yeah.

B

Yeah yeah exactly yeah yeah.

C

But I think yeah our advantage is that uh you know if we implement a meta transaction in the proposal. It's actually much simpler, like you, don't have to deal with that at all.

B

Well, in our particular case, I don't think we can use meta transactions because our users are out on a user. They don't know.

C

Yeah, that's a different use case.

B

Yeah exactly it's a little bit different uh but yeah in general I mean we can see how it turns about the meta transactions part and then we can use it, uh but yeah.

A

Great, I had a question about stake. Wars actually, uh george, if you're still around um yeah, will there be? Will there be any new challenges specific to running nodes on test net for uh stake wars.

D

No for testnet, no, so um our just to clarify the space when we started stakeholders. um Our thinking at that point was to actually move the program from the dedicated test environment shardnet to the actual test net. But as the program uh progressed and as our understanding of the stability of the network and the uh whole challenges of setting up a totally new blockchain.

D

Look like we realized it's a better idea to keep stakeholders in sharpnet, since we have better control over the whole uh network and we have a lot more flexibility in playing with the economics and kicking the network in uh in various ways to bring it back into stability and make the overall experience of the participants better.

D

So that convinced us that it's better to just uh decouple testnet from stakehorse and continue with stakehorse as it was intended as a community oriented program and look at testnet and the chuck only producer released there as part of our regular release uh process.

D

So keep those separate and it's better and more clear for everyone. So we we took the decision uh last week to actually continue on shorten it and stay on the dedicated uh playground on dedicated test network until the end of the stakeholders program on september 9th. So all upcoming challenges will all of them target shardnet.

A

Great, thank you. Thank you, george sure.

A

So um well good for everybody, a minute or so in case there are any lingering thoughts, ideas or questions um otherwise uh yeah bowen. If you're happy, we could uh call it a wrap up. I see a couple new points coming in in the q, a.

C

Yeah, I see the question like uh basically, after after they unwrap it, it will be processed as a single receipt right. There's a single receipt can also contain multiple, multiple different actions. That's how normally a transaction will be processed well like how normally processes like your first convert, to a receipt with the same amount of action, and then those actions will be processed. So in that sense, there's no difference.

A

A

Very good so uh yeah looks to me: that's it. What do you guys think? Would you like to wrap it up.

E

Who has special skills to wrap up meetings.

A

Well, very well so uh yeah. Thank you.

E

A

Thank you everybody uh for for coming and for uh uh questions and your ideas uh yeah. We do this uh routinely so uh up until next time. In the meantime, we run uh daily office hours as uh where, when you're developing smart contracts or uh uh comparable dapps on anir, you can uh just pop around ask: ask us me or other colleagues say the different team live questions, uh so I'm gonna shameless plug here for the for the devrel team.

A

Let's see office hours here, we go, I'm gonna post a link in the chat, and uh that contains the link to the to to our discord, server and the hours we we run these office hours on so both for the americas, time zones and uh for europe, uh middle east and asia as well.

A

So, thank you thanks.

E

All right, thank you for invitation.

A

Thank you all bye, bye,.