►
From YouTube: Core Devs Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Everyone
to
the
eleventh
step
scored
a
goal.
We
have
quite
a
lot
of
things
on
the
agenda.
Today
we
did
a
poll,
as
in
T
voting,
to
serve
try
to
find
the
sort
of
things
that
people
want
to
talk.
Most
look
we'll
see
how
far
we
we
get
but
yeah
as
a
start
from
the
top
and
see
how
far
we
get
within
time.
We
have.
A
Also,
just
a
small
PSA
we
have.
If
you
go
to
the
repository
status,
I
am
/
p.m.
we
also
have
sort
of
an
index
of
all
the
previous
videos
and
notes
as
well.
If
you
want
to
refer
back
cool
so
with
that,
let's
get
started.
So
the
first
topic
is
whisper
availability
inside
sub-step
browser,
which
is
something
that
would
benefit
tell
network
as
well
as
schedule,
a
err
and
possibly
others.
So
I
guess
Richard.
Do
you
wanna
elaborate
on
it?
If
you
don't
mind,
yeah.
B
Can
you
hear
me
yeah,
okay
and
so
basically
the
development
of
the
case
relator
and
teller
network?
We
saw
that
we
have
a
need
to
have
a
spur
available
inside
called
that's
a
mostly
because
we
want
our
taps
to
be
able
to
communicate
between
each
other.
So
I
think
I
wanted
to
know,
and
maybe
most
of
the
team
working
on
legis
every
layer
and
would
like
to
know
is
what
is
the
coordinate
state
of
PS
functionality
and.
D
Well,
since
I
have
been
discussing
this
before
I
like
since
probably
it's
building
so
I
can
probably
answer
so
first
question,
so
I'll
start
with
the
question.
So
the
first
question
is
doing
you
this
functionality.
Only
when
the
D
app
is
open
in
the
status
browser
or
do
you
need
it
to
like
Santa
synchronous
notifications
to
somewhere.
D
So,
for
the
first
one,
it's
like
it's
pretty
trivial
to
just
allow
the
namespace-
and
we
already
block
there
because,
like
by
default
whisper,
has
a
pretty
poor
API
in
terms
of
security.
So
it's
like.
If
we
just
allow
you
all
the
whisper
API,
you
will
be
also
able
to
like
say
they
give
their
private
keys
and
things
like
this,
we'll
replace
them.
Yeah.
B
D
D
So
we
were
discussing
things
like,
for
instance,
you
get
a
notification
about
I,
don't
know
you
won
the
bet
or
something
like
this,
and
you
need
to
send
a
certification
and
that's
it's
pretty
useless
to
just
allow
it
in
status
browser,
but
that
we
thought
about
different
things
and
I
even
had
a
hacked
version
of
whisper
like
status
whisper.
That
allows
you
to
I,
guess
me
and
Andre.
D
We
were
working
on
this
that
allows
you
to
in
JavaScript,
essentially
make
a
whisper
envelope
and
then
use
some
HTTP
API
to
just
or
an
RPC
API
to
just
send
it.
But
then
the
problem
is
where
to
host
it
and
I
know
that
there
was
a
huge
push
back
against
hosting
our
own
server
with
that
because
of
the
decentralization
reasons.
So
that's
the
biggest
issue
right
now.
So
how
to
what
will
be
this
place?
D
D
D
Essentially,
you
can
pretend
to
be
somewhere
else,
someone
else
or
you
can
replace
that
keys,
and
things
like
this.
So
all
this
API
whisperer
doesn't
split
for
some
reason,
like
management
API
is
versus
like
normal
user
API.
So
if
you
allow
always
very
API,
so
you
will
have
also
all
admin
API
is
that
you
don't
want
so
what
we
did.
We
did
a
whitelist
of
methods
that
we
can
allow
right
now.
We
just
block
everything
whisperer,
but
we
can
write.
D
For
instance,
allow
like
send
what's
a
post,
I
guess
system
at
is
the
method
that
you
want.
It's
probably
the
only
one
that
you
that
you
want
if
you
want
to
send
stuff
and
also
creating
filters
and
region
from
filters
which
well
it's
also
a
question,
doing
it
to
be
allowed
to
read
from
whisper,
because
otherwise
you
will
theoretically
will
be
able
to
read
all
the
messages
from
ulta
chats.
D
D
D
So
so
maybe
I
don't
know
it's
worse.
Also,
maybe
it's
setting
up
in
the
meeting
with
Cori
about
how
should
we
treat
those?
Maybe
we
should
just
generate
a
second
key
pair
for
like
the
apps
separately,
so
you
can
figure
out
if
it's
a
person
sent
this
message
or
it's
a
D
app
on
behalf
of
this
person,
so
I.
G
A
H
D
B
D
E
E
E
G
Don't
think
it
is
I
I
think
if
we
kind
of
bundle
this
in
in
the
same
dialogue
that
allows
you
to
access
web
three
in
the
first
place,
the
only
concern
the
major
concern
that
I
have
only
one.
The
major
concern
I
have
is
having
the
private
key
of
the
logged
in
user
in
the
whisper
key
chain
that
is
accessible
by
it.
If
we
can
mitigate
that,
then
I
I
think
then,
is
basically
down
to
a
responsible
disclosure
of
a
public
key
to
the
to
the
tap
itself
right.
E
Yeah
I
think
a
possible
solution
program
would
be
that
the
the
user
would
the
imminence
stated
that
B.
He
authorizes
a
public
public
private
key
generated
by
the
DEP
itself
as
representative,
so
to
speak,
and
then
it
gets
sent
client-side
kind
of
like
a
central
transaction
in
in
web
tree.
But
the
thing
is
that
whisper
does
not
support
this
API.
As
you
know,
it's
kind
of
a
whole
lot
server-side,
so
to
speak.
That's.
D
A
D
E
D
B
G
E
D
E
D
It
depends
on
how
do
we
want
to
exactly
enable
it
so
that
that's
the
point,
because
just
enabling
the
post
message,
or
like
post
ROI
and
like
if
it's
just
it's
just
yeah
question,
including
the
release
it
probably
take
of
it,
but
not
more?
But
if
we're
talking
about
like
also
having
this
API,
that's
or
them
in
some
UI
that
shows
that
okay,
this
the
app
wants
to
use
whisper,
does
it
allow
and
yeah
so
it
it.
G
D
Actually,
a
good
idea,
I
think
yes,
so
the
simplest
post
that
will
actually
use
the
privacy
of
a
user
in
if
it's
a
separate
branch,
that's
just
for
testing
its.
It
shouldn't
be
a
concern
so
far,
then
that
that
can
be
done
like
a
day
or
maybe
it.
So
then,
post
role
might
take
like
a
few
days
more
because
I
kept
this
code
in
a
separate
branch.
It
might
be
already
outdated
after
all
the
guest
updates,
because
it's
a.
G
F
Think
that
this,
the
this
concern
about
using
whisper,
is
actually
something
to
in
the
concern
of
using
the
entity
of
the
user,
because
exactly
I,
of
course,
there
is
other
problems
about
about
the
too
permissive
a
pay
API
of
whisper
that
should
be
solve
it,
but
it
I
think
the
main
concern
should
be
the
use
of
intensity
in
what
these
apps
can
do
automatically
or
by
request,
for
example,
as
someone
mention
it.
Yes,.
D
F
F
D
E
Just
another
quick
question
regarding
what
we
were
just
talking
about:
just
the
central
transaction,
so
to
speak.
What
just
for
in
the
the
whisper
package
you're
talking
about
RPC
server
and
all
that,
but
can't
we
just
do
the
whisper
object
that
we
inject
into
the
tab
and
we
put
an
API.
That's
all
it
does
is
just
forward
the
package.
H
D
E
Yeah
and
this
way
that
injection
object
would
just
have
that
that
entry
and
and
murmur
could
just
connect
to
that-
and
this
actually
will
put
the
teller
will
be
great
because
then
we
would
have
we
could.
If
the
browser
supports
whisper,
then
we
could
use
that
and
if
not-
and
you
know
we
can
use
a
lipid
TPA
that
kind
of
stuff.
C
C
F
C
E
That
depends
were
at
what
level
we're
talking
about
the
protocol,
because,
in
my
opinion
the
whisper
should
just
be
the
transport
and
nothing
else
so
opera
or
any
protocol
which
you
should
be
within
within
was
we
did
a
whisper
message
basically,
and
so
it
shouldn't
affect
it
should
really
matter,
for
the
tap
is
using
that
back
negation
part.
It
shouldn't
affect
us
and
now,
with
your
protocol.
E
C
Synchronization,
basically
or
or
replication
as
a
feature
which
would
not
probably
not
be
based
on
mail
servers.
So
if
we
want
to
explore
some
kind
of
message
streaming
or
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
reliable
messaging
as
a
feature,
we
sort
of
make
yourself
a
little
bit
into
a
corner.
If
you
offer
mail
server
support
and
then
remove
it
and
try
to
introduce
decided
for
I.
E
E
But
if
it's
only
it's
done
or
protocol
level
or
RPC
level,
then
everyone
wants
to
implement
a
whisper
client
compatible
with
series
as
to
was
same
call
same
extension
and
because
a
really
couple-
and
then
it
brings
all
this
issues
that
you're
saying.
But
that's
relying
on
something
and
because
they
are
done
in
a
certain
way.
We
basically
are
super
support
them
forever.
I.
G
C
A
A
H
Yep,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we
were
on
the
same
page,
so
just
to
start
I'll
give
an
overview
of
the
problem
for
those
who
haven't
been
participating
in
discussions
in
this
space.
So
our
goal
is
to
be
able
to
build
old,
commits
and
be
sure
that
they
produce
the
same
binaries
right
now.
Our
repos
are
not
set
up
for
that.
H
H
So
sometimes
we
we
fork
repos,
but
we
still
reference
like
the
master
branch
and
it's
very
easy
for
some
other
status
contributor
to
just
do
a
commit
on
that
master
branch,
and
that
means
that
we'll
never
be
able
to
to
rebuild.
You
know
to
just
check
out
an
old
commit
and
be
able
to
build
the
same
thing
so
what
I've
been
doing
to
mitigate
this
is,
for
instance,
self
hosting
the
external
tools
which
don't
have
reliable,
versioning
and
replacing
the
node
references
that
that
targets,
a
branch
or
a
specific
commit
with
with
release
tags.
H
Whenever
possible,
so
in
order
of
preference,
we
would
like
to
use
as
much
as
possible
release
stats
and,
if
not
possible,
then
commit
sure.
Even
though
the
Kamisha
is
the
problem
that
if
someone
rebase
is
a
branch
and
force
pushes
its,
then
we
that
will
be
broken
and
we
won't
be
able
to
build
it
again.
So
as
much
as
possible,
we
want
to
rely
on
release
tags
of
course,
I've
last
week.
I
did
this,
but
in
order
to
to
make
sure
that
in
the
future
we
don't
continue
to
run
into
these
issues.
H
The
the
thing
is:
there
are
a
ton
of
repos
that
we
rely
on
right
now
and
it's
not
easy
to
go
through
all
of
those
and
make
sure
that
we
mirror
in
added
shape.
So
I
would
like
to
ask
everyone,
even
if
you've
for
three
posts
and
you
like
added
a
reference
to
status
reactor
or
something
if
you
could
go,
make
sure
if
those
repos
are
in
good
shape
and
not
relying
on
on
the
master
branch
or
some
other
branch
just
create
a
release.
H
H
Proactive
and
like,
if
there's
a
repo
that
will
never
be
touched
and
the
bot
will
will
not
say
anything
so,
ideally,
we
would
go
to
repos
that
we
forked
and
create
a
release.
If
there
isn't
one
already
created
a
release
for
the
specific
commits
that
we
we
want
to
use
and
update
that
in
status.
React
you
know.
Sometimes
we
have
two
or
three
levels
down
so
yeah.
H
It's
it's
something
that
everyone
needs
to
be
aware,
as
they
add
dependencies
to
to
our
repos
that
we
we
might
want
to
build
them
in
the
future,
not
just
the
current
head
of
the
repository,
but
some
other
like
we
might
need
to
build
a
patch
too
and
all
release,
and
we
want
to
ensure
that
we're
building
the
same
thing
and
not
with
some
uncontrolled
dependencies,
so
just
be
critical
of
of
dependencies.
That
you
see
and
ask
yourself.
Can
this
be
built
in
the
same
way
in
the
future?
H
F
Think
that
most
things
can
be
written
by
themselves,
but
I
think
that
some
simple
things
that
are
just
like
for
convenient
that,
if
you
take
like
100
lines
to
write
it,
that
of
course,
should
not
be
a
dependency.
But
what,
if
something
very
large
that
and
also
it's
something
about
the
trust
about
about
that?
If,
if
we
don't
trust
the
the
dependency,
we
can
hold,
it's
that
specific
version
and
get
that
commit
hash
of
that
dependency
lock
there.
So
there
is
this
two
cases.
That's
let's
see.
A
B
F
Think
that
if
we
have
something
like
sticker
markets
and
the
creation
markets,
then
having
this
operational
over
the
sticker
packs,
we
might
have,
they
do
a
kind
of
optional
fee,
and
it
may
be
when
you
you
can
the
owner
of
the
that
sticker
pack
can
specify
how
much
a
fee
goes
to
the
Croatian
market
automatically
based
on
the
user
buys.
So
it
goes
lonely
right,
rising
organically
as
users
buy
it.
And,
of
course,
if
the
sticker
market
artists
want
to
promote
their
own
sticker
pack,
they
could
just
deposit
in
the
Croatian
market.
B
G
From
an
implementation
standpoint,
going
back
to
this
at
a
registry
discussion
like
I
mean
from
implementation
standpoint
like
a
lot
of
these,
that
look
very
similar.
Basically,
it's
a
it's
a
certain
number
and
sending
it
to
a
certain
address
if
we're
choosing
to
to
burn
that
it's
just
zero
zero.
Otherwise
the
address
be
like
Eurasian
market
or
whatever,
so
we
can
definitely
defer
this
decision-making
while
not
impeding
implementation.
So
much
if
we
just
these
calls
yeah.
F
Yeah
I
think
I
think
we
can
go
with
free
fee
or
maybe
we
can
settle
optional
in
the
smart
contracts.
So
if
we
see
any
problems,
we
can
rise
it
and
start
zero,
but
the
question
about
having
the
fee
is
also
about
the
appeal
to
treat
to
the
artists,
because
then,
if
you
have
no
fee
you,
you
have
a
strong
appeal
for
artists
joining
this
system
with
the
competitors.
They
get
a
lot
of
hire
haircut
from
the
artists.
B
You
know
and
I
mean
in
competitors,
I
guess
I'm,
like
one
of
two
versions
of
sticker
markets.
There
there's
much
higher
fees
taken
out
of
every
sale
and
it's
much
harder
to
get
stickers
included
in
the
market.
It's
very
hard
to
even
do
that
in
the
first
place.
So
it's
a
huge
advantage
of
our
marketplace
that
creators
will
be
able
to
do
so.
Permissionless
lee,
but
I
think
like
when
it
comes
to
economic
incentives
for
the
artists.
B
F
F
Yeah
and
the
reason
that
they
were
the
ways
we
can
have
fees
for
going
to
the
development
is
exactly
by
the
idea
of
slashing
maybe
bad
bad
things
on
it
and
in
having
some
sort
of
creation
over
it.
So
I
think
we
we
can
go
sticker
markets.
We
felt
the
the
diss
face.
Maybe
we
include
introduced
some
feature
like
the
first
sticker
pack
that
I
artists
need
to
create.
They
need
to
commit
something,
but
I
also
don't
think
it's
good
man,
but
might
be
interesting
because
of
maybe
spam.
F
Maybe
there
is
too
much
junk
going
inside
of
the
market,
and
then
we
need
to
us
some
way
to
filter
it.
So,
but
then
these
fees,
it
doesn't
go
through
the
status
it
just
gets,
lock
it
there
to
just
like
the
user
names
and
and
see
how
we
can
maybe
create
these
in
the
decoration
markets
and
maybe
see
if
we
can
have
like
some
sort
of
tourist.
F
Besides
the
the
there
is
some
loss
of
deposits
in
case
in
case
of
internal
slashing,
but
I
mean
yeah.
We
also.
We
can
then
just
use
the
operation
market,
as
this
is
stated
in
and
have
like
a
minimal
reputations
to
show
me
so
to
have
this
futuring,
so
so
that
that's
what
I
think
about
the
the
the
whole
idea
of
fees,
because
that's
the
only
reason
we
can
charge
a
thief
morally
is
to
filter
order.
Otherwise
we
we
don't
have
any
and
if
you
any
reason
to
charge
that
fee.
A
A
B
F
Maybe
we
will
have
some
other
costs
just
regarding
this
sticker
market,
we
like
to
tell
you
how
the
user
experience
over
this
would
be
this
option
of
things
and
how
how
do
we
can,
because
that
should
be
not
just
for
the
MeV
but
for
the
whole
idea
of
the
final
final
roadmap
of
sticker
markets.
So
it's
to
take
consideration.
We
didn't
have
this.
This
decision
and
I
think
that
mostly
everyone
is
agree
with
with
this
idea.
A
D
D
Well,
there
is
even
a
PR,
that's
integrates
you'll,
see,
but
there's
a
separate.
The
problem
with
you'll
see
is
the
same
as
the
problem
is
in
it
with
less
it
needs
servers
somewhere
and
with
all
this
Constantinople
changes.
There
are
no
reliable
servers,
even
on
the
main
that
nor
Rob's
them
nor
on
winged.
If
we
need
to
be
right
now,
because,
as
I
understand
last
time,
it
was
tested
on
really
so
well,
we
need
to
wait
and
see.
Constantinople
is
finally
resolved.
D
That's
the
big
poker
and
it
was
since
I
started
integrating
this
one
when
it
was
just
a
batch.
Yes,
because
we
started
doing
something
and
then
like
half
of
the
notes
were
like
non
Constantinople.
Half
like
this
and
also
Yossi
is
not
a
magic
thing,
so
it
requires
that
you
trust
just
trust
some
notes,
and
that
means
that
you
kinda
need
some
place
and
it's
not
solved.
It's
just
like
this.
This
PR
is
essentially
technical
implementation
of
what,
if
you
know
who
you
can
trust,
then
you
can
like
do
this
quick
sink
solution?
D
A
D
But
the
problem
is
that
you
can't
validate
anything
it
what's
difference
between
alias
and
you'll,
see
that
you'll
see
doesn't
validate
blocks
properly,
it's
sort
of
yeah.
The
first
is
this
thing
to
some
other
notes
that
it's
quote-unquote
trust.
So
what?
Where
will
you
get?
This
trusted
notes
from
like
sources
of
just
blocks?
It's
like
yeah,
you
can
find
them,
but
which
ones
you
can
trust
or
which
ones
you
can't
that's
vicious.
So.
F
So
if
someone
misbehaves,
they
would
go
to
some
kind
of
court
system
that
maybe
could
be
automated
because
we
probably
can
prove
they
like.
The
notes
can
do
that
automatically.
They
don't
need
a
human
intervention.
It's
not
like
something
like
in
the
teller
network
that
you
need
human
verification
of
that.
That
is
an
honest
claim
or
not
in
this
case
they
how
the
nodes
can
just
verify
from
their
blockchain.
If
that
current
state
was
valid
when
it
says
once
us,
for
it.
F
Can
start
like
by
by
by
being
that's
that
one
entity
that
does
the
verification
in
then
this
decentralized,
that's
as
a
second
step
and,
of
course,
that's
step
zero.
We
would
be
everything
like
just
maybe
the
infer
that
lists
the
interested
notes
and
and
then
you
can
register
there
and
then
these
lashes,
like
bye-bye
state,
as
if
you
misbehave.
F
D
It's
just
a
full-blown
like
project
in
terms
of
once
I
see
other
or
like,
so
we
either
just
do
everything
central
like
centralized,
and
then
we
just
provide
the
second
centralized
decentralized
solutions
like
like
the
as
opposed
to
inferior,
because
you
will
see
and
our
own
trusted
servers
and
sure
the
blocks
will
be
generated
by
some
or
sent
by
someone
else.
But
all
the
validation
will
happen
on
our
nodes
or
we
just
make
the
whole
project
with
like
a
smart
contract
and
this
slashing
and
whatever
that
else
is
there
because
there
are
multiple
ways.
F
Yeah
and
we
can
do
like
a
stay
channel,
there
are
signatures
to
do
the
payment,
these
micro
payments
between
the
nodes,
so
the
nodes
when
they
request
they
need
to
provide
the
signatures
which,
which
then
will
download
status,
remove
these
tokens
from
their
balances
today.
But,
of
course,
after
many
requests
not
like
every
request.
D
C
First
of
all,
there
are
superposed
on
discuss
about
this
specific
thing
that
you
send
to
my
stings,
so
you
want
to
take
a
look
at
that,
but,
above
all,
I
would
say
that
it's
a
big
mistake
to
run
any
ulc
servers
as
status.
We
could
offer
this
as
like
if,
if
a
user
already
has
a
trusted
server
through
the
node
or
their
own
and
then
having
access
to
you'll
see
is
fantastic,
but
us
running
trusted
servers
a
big
deal.
D
C
B
B
D
G
D
D
That
I
agree
and
that's
why
both
ways-
and
you
see
are
not
that
far
they're
a
huge
project
on
how
to
do
the
whole.
Like
crypt
economy
balance.
That's
you
can
everyone
can
run
notes
and
they're,
somehow
communications
where
they
willand
at
each
other,
or
it's
not
yeah,
maybe
even
worse
than
in
Fuhrer.
D
D
You'll
see
probably
has
the
same
issues
with
like
chain
being
too
far
away
from
putting
from
what
it
actually
is
and
doesn't
really
and
when
the
chain
forks
and
then
Ramirez
it
didn't
handle
this
like
well,
neither
in
areas
nor
and
you
will
see
because
it's
essentially
the
same
thing
in
most
of
the
cases
so
yeah
we
can
try
to
enable
that
and
see
at
least
for
as
a
test
mode
again
we
have
alias
as
a
test
mode.
We
can
just
provide
us
as
a
test
mode
when
we
upgrade
status
go
next
time.
We're.
F
True
I
think
that's.
Some
of
the
USC
improvements
today
are
also
can
be
used
for
the
mail
servers
improvement
so
like
getting
rid
of
the
new
servers
because
it
seems
to
solve
the
same
problem,
but
instead
of
solving
for
this
store
story
of
messages,
I'm
Network,
so
it's
kind
of
similar
problem.
In
my
my
point
of
view,
I,
don't.
H
D
You
don't
download
all
the
days
you
download
just
select
a
date,
but
you
still
verified
and
da
area,
and
he
OC
is
the
same
as
less
like
literally
the
same
code,
but
it's
just
that
verification
of
blocks
code.
Instead
of
you
doing
this
locally,
you
like
call
some
RPC
methods
or
something
to
some
other
node
that
returns
you
there.
Was
it
the
hash
or
something
like
this
I.
Don't
remember
the
exact
details,
but
it's
essentially
yeah.
B
D
F
Yeah
I
agree
that
there
is
this
difference
between
the
that
immaterial.
You
have
this
this
linkage
information
because
they
are
the
blockchain
and
while
in
stages
you
don't
have
that
we
actually
need
to
solve
that.
That's
problem
in
like
having
a
proof
of
stake,
or
something
like
that
for
sending
a
message
that
we
didn't
solve
it,
and
so
every
message
is
valid
well
in
each
ear:
iam
not.
A
Just
on
the
topic
of
like
what
the
difference
is
between
this
and
having
your
own
sort
of
remote
node,
whatever
I
mean,
if
it's
just,
if
you're
running
everything
yourself
in
just
one
to
one,
then
there's
no
prints,
but
this
also
opens
up
because
if
you'll
see
you
can
have
multiple
nodes
right
and
you
can
trust
so
you
can
have
semi
trusted
set
up.
So
maybe
you
have
multiple
friends
and
they
let's
say
you
have
sort
of
less
service
and
dappin
or
whatever
you
connect
to
multiple
and
you
don't
need
to
trust
anyone.
A
But
it's
still
it's
it's.
If
you
sort
of
check
that
three
out
of
five
return
the
same
hash
and
then
you
are
so
better
off,
so
something
that
type
of
reasoning
you
can't
and
maybe
there's
also
other
types
of
reasoning
you
can
do,
but
you
can't
do
that
with
if
you
just
have
someone
else's
remote
server,
so
it's
slightly
more
sophisticated
as
well
I
think
it's
a
difference.
A
Okay,
all
right
arbitration,
so
this
bunch
of
teams
have
been
looking
into
sort
of
thinking
about
arbitration
mechanisms
and
sort
of
it
seems
like
a
common
need
and
just
trying
to
figure
out
what
this
looks
like
and
you
will
implement
it
and
so
on
guess,
Hester.
You
had
some
points.
You
wanted
to
discuss
more
detail.
I
I
I'm
trying
to
find
my
list
of
questions
sure
it's
not
I
mean
yeah,
it's
not
to
go
in
ten.
She
would
not
be
to
go
too
much
in
depth.
It's
more
to
make
a
kind
of
inventory
of
who
is
concerned
about
arbitration
is
in
like
what
swarm
would
need
some
form
of
arbitration.
It
kind
of
came
up
in
both
stellar
Network
sticker
market
app
store.
So
it
seems
to
be
a
relevant
topic
and
I'd
like
to
understand
like
for
whom
it
is
most
relevant
variable
years.
I
F
Think
that
the
most
solid
implementation
of
arbitration
that
I've
seen
is
Calero's
dot
IO
from
consensus
and
seems
that
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
running
but
I
seen
the
presentations
and
I'm
like
I,
have
I
think
in
YouTube.
There
is
two
presentations
about
them
and
it's
very
like
it
seems
like
a
good
solution
and
they
provide
examples
of
user
experience
and
but
it's
mostly
like
people
trusts
random,
random,
other
people
to
deal
with
their
problems
and,
like
the
majority,
will
select
the
most
obvious
answer.
That
is
the
truth,
and
that
is
kind
of
the.
F
How
Claro's
found
out
how
to
make
it,
and
it
seems
like
it's
something
like
this.
What
we
want,
but
in
this
swarms
that
I
see
that
that
requires
this,
like
you
said
teller
network,
for,
for
example,
do
the
disputing
of
claims
and
I
also
might
be
relevant
to
sticker
markets?
About,
for
example,
a
copyright
claim
something
like
that.
F
If
we
want
to
implement
that
stuff,
because
copyrights
is
not
really
nice,
but
maybe
we
want
to
have
it
just
because
like
to
prevent
not
not
exactly
copyright
but
removing
duplicates,
and
only
inside
of
our
own
registry
and
just
letting
the
first
there.
It's
not
like
a
copyright
that
you
are
suing
someone,
but
it
feels
like
that,
and
you
may
be,
the
creation
market
could
be
a
way
to
get
over
arbitration
in
so
in
this
Super
Markets
case,
but
not
in
your
seller
network
in
our
circulation
market,
it
can
solve
the
difference.
F
I
F
Right
was
an
example,
but
we
can
have
other
things
like
like,
for
example,
obscene
emojis.
We
don't
want
that
like
maybe
or
maybe
we
have
a
rating
claim
over
it
and
then,
if
someone
register
are
not
seen
like
sexual
sticker
in
a
plus
18
claim,
then
it
could
be
and
the
arbitration
could
queue
it.
So,
of
course,
this
is
a
much
much
more
said
in
the
roadmap
of
seeker
market.
F
The
MVP
would
not
include
that,
but
at
the
end
of
the
final
product
we
certainly
would
have
that
kind
of
sauce
like,
for
example,
in
the
MVP.
We
will
have
Qatari
categories
and
the
controller
would
be
able
to
remove
or
change
the
category
of
the
registered
sticker
back
to
be
sold
in.
So
this
disco
could
be
done
by
this.
Maybe
this
arbitration
in
systems
so.
I
B
F
Yes,
it
actually
depends
on
how
the
croatian
market
would
end
looking
like,
but
in
general
says
there
is
this
limitation,
because
you
cannot
take
an
action
to
change
something
in
the
clinical
operation
market
you
can
only
create.
Maybe
you
can
create
a
sticker
market
over
topic,
for
example,
but
then
it
kind
of
gets
like
inconsistent,
not
consistent.
We
follow
the
data
set
of
the
sticker
market
itself.
That
says
that
it
has
only
one
category,
so
it's
m'q
cents
in
the
in
this
case,
so
maybe
they,
the
croatian
market,
would
be
use
it
for
sticker
market.
F
F
For
like
the
the
closest
solution
that
we
have
like
the
MVPs,
that
requires
this
type
of
solution,
we
are
using
controller
that
would
be
a
multi
sig
wallets
and
later
we
can
decide
on
how
the
arbitration
would
look
like
in
the
case
of
Glaros
the
arbitration
it.
It
actually
looks
like
a
governance,
and
it's
basically
that
if
you
see
these
marks
constructs,
so
that's
a
kind
of
solution,
maybe
like
maybe
maybe
maybe
we
just
go
to
working
to
the
dow
and
set
the
dow
to
do
their
betray
ssin.
I
A
I'm
sure
it
is
strictly
ounces
arbitration,
but
but
I
mean
there's
likely
going
to
be
both
itself
you'll,
see
kind
setups
which,
on
the
priority
right
now,
but
but
network,
isn't
in
civilization.
There
might
be
sort
of
sourcing
schemes
where
you
put
up
some
stake
and
then,
if
certain
conditions
are
met,
you
you
slashed
that
state
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
but
I.
That's
it
kind
of
dispute
resolution
in
a
sense,
I'm,
not
sure
if
you
want
to
have
it
on
the
same
umbrella
but
might
come
up
there.
F
While
we
don't
have
it
like
same
thing
like
if
we
at
least
send
an
email,
but
do
I
think
we
can
like
send
a
message:
insider
status
using
normal
Dixon
and
maybe
today
to
someone
that
is
taking
care
of
this,
because
even
we,
if
we
don't,
have
the
perfect
solution,
we
need
to
have
that
that
kind
of
solution
to
it,
because
that
we
need
to
kind
of
have
the
this
expectation
of
what
we
need
to
solve.
And,
of
course
we
include
that
report
feature.
F
A
Would
it
make
sense
to
similar
to
what
was
proposed
for
fee
structures
want
to
create
like
an
interface
for
this,
and
then
you
can
demand
that
whatever
sort
of
contract
deals
with
this
it's
kind
of
generic
and
then
the
specific
mechanism
that's
used
can
be.
Maybe
it
depends
on
the
use
case.
So
maybe
it
depends
on
research
we
do
and
so
on.
Would
such
an
abstraction
make
sense
and
be
useful
to
those
products.
F
Yes,
I
think
we
could
have
a
swarm
for
like
opening
arbitration
cases.
That's
several
like.
Maybe
we
could
implement
that
even
for
profiles
that
are
the
more
I
depends
on
on
the
future
of
us
of
how
messaging
will
be,
but
for
now
we
we
only
send
that
message
to
someone
or
to
some
channel
I
can
be
a
public
channel
that
receive
all
the
reports.
So
when
you
click
reports
in
a
sticker
pack,
it
will
go
through
a
public
channel.
A
I
think
this
is
two
legal
systems
here,
because
you
can
look
at
it
as
kind
of
like
a
common
law
based
system
where
you
say
well,
we
all
we
know
is
there,
might
there's
going
to
be
conflicts
and
they
might
involve
these
agents.
But
it's
specifically
how
the
decision
is
made.
It
kind
of
depends
on
right.
A
So
if
you
defer
to
like
some
abstract
interface
and
then
you
could
build
up
this
like
depending
on
what
type
of
like,
maybe
you
start
off
with
those
common
offenders,
whether
that's
like
stickers
and
corporate
claims
or
something
else,
and
then
you
can
sort
of
buddy
start
by
under
specified
it
and
just
say
there
might
there's
going
to
be
something
like
this,
but
it's
sort
of
not
clear
exactly
what
the
mechanisms
are
and
then
you
can.
You
can
evolve
from
there.
Maybe.
F
They
we
it's
the
best
interest
of
the
stages
network
to
get
rid
of
that
things,
and
we
we
now
have
this,
but
in
a
centralized
way
in
a
multi
seek
and
what
I'm
proposing
is
likely
to
have
an
open
channel
communication
in
the
UI
to
send
that
messages
to
these
public
channels
and
and
then,
of
course,
as
I
said
it's
not
very
well.
They
specified
how
it
will
be,
but
it's
something
in
that
some
start
that
we
can.
F
A
G
Depending
on
the
regulatory
climates,
the
jurisdictions
we
distribute
binaries
in
and
the
distribution
channels
that
wheat
policies
that
we
have
to
adhere
to
it's
things
that
the
GmbH
may
be
forced
to
create
binaries,
that's
in
conflicts
with
the
vision
of
what
the
community
is
about,
and
in
this
case
it
makes
other
sense
for
us
to
move
a
lot
of
our
code
base
into
the
public
domain,
which
is
actually
a
lot
more
complicated
than
it
sounds.
It's
very
difficult
to
waive
your
copyright.
G
However,
if
we
rely
since
under
CC
0,
it
basically
waves
everything
in
the
public
domain.
However,
it
degrades
into
a
very
liberal
license
in
in
the
event
that
the
law
does
not
allow
you
to
put
code
into
the
public
domain.
So
in
this
case
that
would
allow
the
community
to
take
the
source
codes
and
create
a
new
source
of
truth
in
which
the
GmbH
would
probably
maintain
a
fork
of
and
contribute
to.
So
that
requires
the
participation
of
every
contributor
is
contributed
to
the
codebase.
So
basically
I
want
to
see.
G
G
B
G
B
G
Don't
think
that's
really
an
issue
I
mean
if
we're
using
the
dependencies
and
they're
not
they're,
not
an
issue
with
GPL
MPO.
Then
they're
not
going
to
be
something
an
issue
with
a
consumer,
because
those
dependencies
still
retain
their
own
licenses
right.
It's
only
our
code
base
that
we're
waiving
the
copyrights.
A
In
terms
of
practically
moving
forward
with
this
like
how
what
would
help
would
you
like
to
see
from
other
people
and,
if
there's
some
sort
of
minimal
core,
that,
in
terms
of
this,
is
the
most
important
that
we
would,
for
example,
maybe
cells
go
instead
direct
or
like?
How
do
you?
How
do
you
look
at
that
practically
stuff?
Yes,.
G
A
A
Yeah,
this
is
also
where
maybe
sort
of
decoupling
the
protocol
from
implementation
would
also
be
useful,
because
that
way,
if
they're
a
shoes
with
specific
implementation,
then
that
would
be
less
severe
as
well.
I
said
on
that
note
would
be
useful
to
make
sure
that
also
when
we
do
all
these
specifications
and
so
on
that
that
I,
just
for
my
templates,
are
always
of
say,
zero,
but
I
don't
know
if
there
are
other
types
of
specification
documents
where
this
will
be
applicable
as
well.
G
A
Cool
all
right
and
I
guess
we
had
skipped
with
skipping
this
warmup
place.
I,
don't
think
we'll
have
time
for
that
and
we
also
have
the
town
halls,
but
we
can.
We
serve
recently
started
blocking
PRS.
Well,
we
had
some
issues
with
Pierce
being
merged
that
broke
develop
and
we
are
trying
to
block
them
with
automated
tests
and
so
on,
and
there's
been
some
efforts
in
that
area.
Recently,
I
guess
I
don't
know
Pedro.
Do
you
want
to
give
a
brief
overview
of
the
state
of
things
there
and
maybe
thank.
H
H
So
the
the
issue
that
we
had
is
that
there
was
a
period
of
time
during
the
the
pipeline
of
pull
requests
where
we
weren't
checking.
If
automated
tests
had
been
run
and
what
I
fixed
last
week
was
to
ensure
that
a
PR
already
starts
failing,
you
know
when
you
created
PR,
it's
it's
in
a
failed
state
because
there's
no
automated
tests
running
and
that
fixes
the
the
majority
of
the
issues.
H
The
thing
we
don't
have
running
yet
is
actually
blocking
the
the
PR
from
from
being
merged
even
through
a
script,
and
to
do
that
we
would
have
to
change
some
other
things
in
the
the
way.
The
repo
is
set
up.
I
try
to
do
this
with
Jakob
last
week,
but
we
had
some
some
issues,
so
we
quickly
saw
that
it
wasn't
an
easy
solution
and
that
we
would
need
to
investigate
further
in
another
repo
certain
that
we
wouldn't
step
on
other
people's
shoes,
while
they're
trying
to
do
their
work
and
merge
PR.
H
So,
ideally,
we
would
create,
like
a
replica
of
status,
react
with
all
the
automations
and
do
the
tests
there,
and
once
we
are
sure
of
that
everything
is
working,
then
we
can
deploy
that
and
a
mysterious
react,
but
right
now
at
least
we
get
a
visual
indication.
That's
the
the
PR
is
not
in
a
good
State,
which
is
already
very
good
to
start.
D
Yeah
I
actually
have
some
addition
to
that.
That's
this
issues
that
when
developed,
got
broken,
they
weren't
like
any
malicious
case
or
like
for
purpose
breaking
something.
It
was
because,
mostly
because
the
visual
indication
on
the
PR
was
that
everything
is
okay
and
just
test
didn't
run
yet.
So
this
thing
was
like
actually
blocking
the
script
from
running
because
to
my
I,
don't
know
what
I
think
is
much
less
of
an
urban
importance,
because
if
a
person
like
just
sees
that
okay,
the
PR
checks
aren't
green
yet
then
it's
not
safe
to
merge
its
yeah.
A
B
A
Last
few
months
and
reverting
things
because
like
breaking
develop,
is
really
it's
a
real
hit
to
productivity,
everyone
else,
because
user
depend
on
it
working
and
it
can
be
very
frustrating
for
people.
We
just
want
to
work
on
something
and
then
also
them.
It
doesn't
build
because
of
something
completely
unrelated.
So
please,
like
test
your
stuff
before
you
push
it
and
then
let's
be
mindful
of
other
people
and
their
productivity
and
and
if
something
is
breaking,
don't
be
afraid
to
revert
it
and
code
reviews
as
well
like
just
yeah
blocking
it.
If
it's
not
good.
B
I
just
wanted
that
I
describe
the
actual
work,
how
it
works
now.
Basically,
as
you
said,
we
want
we
are
not
going.
We
are
not
blocking
everything
from
the
beginning,
because
it's
it
can
slow
us
too
much
science.
A
lot
of
Tears
need
to
be
merged
without
any
testing,
without
even
after
me
to
test,
if
in
case,
if
it's
infrastructure
or
any
other
PR,
which
is
not
related
to
the
product,
so
right
now
tests
setting
pending
status
only
when
they
start
it
means
that
they
start
when
the
car
is
into
that
column.
B
They
want
block
it
or
set
pending
status
before
they
are
getting
to
that
column.
So,
and
it's
not
even
like
first
block,
you
still
can
use
massage
and
energy
spare,
but
it's
like
failed
status
in
the
end.
If
any
of
tests
are
fire
is
failed
or
passed
status
or
all
statuses
will
be
green
when
all
of
them
are
passed
mud
we
can't
block
them
from
the
beginning.
H
What
I
did
is
as
check
at
the
beginning
of
the
pull
request,
saying
the
tests.
Well,
the
this
is
failing.
The
e2e
tests
are
failing
because
they
will
only
be
run
when
this
moves
into
the
to
test
column,
so
at
least
it
gives
an
explanation.
It's
also
makes
it
easier
for
people
who
are
not
familiar
with
with
the
process.
They
get
an
additional
explanation
of
when
the
actual
end-to-end
tests
will
run.
C
A
Alright
cool
so
I
guess
we
we
actually
managed
to
go
through
pretty
much
everything
that
was
suggested
except
swamp
dates,
which
is
very
impressive,
I
guess,
quick
announcements.
Could
we
wrap
up?
So,
let's
start
with
what
one
we
saw
stem
this
week,
Nimbus
is
gonna,
be
presenting
I.
Think
it's
talking
about
making
an
apparent
client
from
scratch
is
really
exciting,
and
then
we
also
have
the
protocol
workshop.
A
D
Yep
and
the
second
one
is
that
we
are
so
first
we're
going
to
release
one
more
hotfix,
but,
put
that
aside,
we
are.
We
are
planning
to
wrap
up
the
next
release.
That's
public
release,
0
933,
so
if
you
have
some
PR
that
absolutely
have
to
be
in
the
next
release,
please
tell
me
or
Anna
about
this
until
the
end
of
tomorrow,
essentially
working
day.
If
not,
then
we
can
guarantee
that
it
goes
to
the
race.
That's
it.
A
C
A
C
C
So,
if
you're
interested
in
and
these
discussions,
there
are
recordings
and
there's
going
to
be
lots
of
discussion
on
this
topic
in
all
Chordettes
calls
going
forward.
So
I
suspect.
So
now
is
a
good
time
to
sort
Union
and
think
about
what
I
really
feel
about
these
changes
and
participate
in
the
discussions
surrounding
them.
I.
F
A
B
Quick
we're
starting
a
hacker
one
campaign,
probably
my
private
campaign
that
allows
us
to
work
out
the
details
of
dealing
with
the
incident
response,
dealing
with
the
disclosures
and
and
so
on,
and
so
forth
start
in
about
a
week
and
a
half
when
we
get
back
from
oh
I
get
back
from
from
Belgium,
so
you
can
expect
we're.
Gonna,
try
and
tune
the
disclosure
rate
for
a
valid
report
rate
from
a
hacker
one
hackers
to
about
five
per
month.
So
you
can
expect
five
bugs
from
hacker
one
per
month.
B
The
scope
that
we
are
starting
off
with
that
people
will
be
looked
at
will
be
any
any
of
our
current
releases
on
mobile
and
desktop
and
then
whatever
infrastructure
we
have
to
ballot
like
to
serve
that
to
the
public.
So
if
there's
problems
in
any
of
that
that
they
can
find
that,
wouldn't
there
there
will
be,
then
you
can
expect
bugs
from
them
that
are
well
formed
because
we
have
they
do
they
have
I
got
triage
service
that
validates
reproduces
and
manages
the
quality
of
reports
before
sending
them
to
us.
A
All
right,
any
elf
device
that
would
cool
I
would
I
would
like
to
ask
people
to
rate
this
call.
I
know
the
core
team
is
doing
this,
so
just
in
terms
of
how
useful
this
just
scale
from
one
to
ten,
if
you
just
write
the
number
in
status
kordell's
on
status,
less
any
any
thoughts
on
how
these
calls
can
be
improved
and
be
more
useful.
So
please
just
put
a
number
one
to
pretend
over
10
is
highest
in
terms
of
how
useful
these
calls
are
of
you.