All Core Devs - Execution #37

Transcript

[Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music]

you okay we are lies just posting in the toy box nation here s that's interesting all right sounds like we're good so let's go ahead and kick off welcome everyone let's start with testing first

thing on the agenda here you need to do the testing update for us and and also let's make sure we touch upon this string test add transaction from last week I'm sorry can you guys still hear me I'm

just a little bit of an audio thinking I'm trying to fix I heard I rode fine the whole time yeah with their line but now we don't can you guys hear me hello yes you can hear me okay yeah yes yeah sorry it's trying to mix these audio streams it's a little

tricky I'm just fixing it give me one quick sec okay okay hey how's that we still hear you yeah okay I think I think that may hopefully fix the audio issue here sounds good yeah again guys sorry about

the audio pick ups to meet you where I'm sorry it was the last time or your comment just there I'm not sure where the issue happens so I was talking about that our PC meters was a test state tests like almost complete and they implemented in CPP Klein so I post a link at the Skype chat so you could follow the distribution and these are discussions almost all of those are implemented in CVP basically is also

posted in the awkward of get your channel perfect thanks great anything else on testing Dimitri and the transaction and Europe is mated for the transaction I removed that method from the protocol and implemented the transaction signing on the client side so no need to introduce new methods

above that a client requires to be to have a sign their own transaction made but I guess well every single client has it because it's in the same protocol small and you say no need to introduce a new method you're talking about this sort of tests that transaction that was proposed yeah I'm using you don't send roll John's action instead got it excellent ok it sounds like we're good on that topic last call for anything testing related if not we'll move on to the first Eid and the agenda ok yep so the first VAP

an agenda let's move on here is the IP 908 reward for clients and full nodes validating transactions I believe that was James Ray and Micah this proposal and there's a related proposal here yeah related proposal goodbye Micah as well which is not a formal VIP this is in the e3 search forum this was on the agenda for last the last call we didn't have time for it which is why I put it first on the agenda here alright I guess our James or Micah here to discuss this looks like maybe not does anyone else want to offer comments

on this or make the case for or against this yaki mmm it feels a little unfair to beat up on them when they're not here but personally and I think it's an unwarranted complication to the protocol yeah to me it looks like this or well actually exactly the sort of thing that should be done at second layer or not a base protocol layer here we get a tldr of how it works um let me check for [Music] changed when he come when a client signs a transaction it attaches accuser agents to the signature this could then be used

to send some amount of each to the author of that user agent in other words so amount of eath can be sent to the organization that develops the client issue parody the etherion foundation etc when the transaction is processed similar to mining rewards so basically it's like a standardized way for wallet developers to charge for transaction fees yeah it totally seems like something that could be done with like authority contract or with the transaction signature treatments I came to make clients just use message signing

to transfer tokens etc and have a second deployer that's also seem like something that could be done so that that would be a replacement where the wallet the wallet contract could perfectly to do these and get tokens in in in return so therefore I also agreed it's a more a second bigger thing but maybe we do wait for them to come on and try to defend defending the idea cool okay so it sounds like we have some consensus here that this is you know at this moment people feel that this is better she was sort of thing but I agree with glad I think we should give the authors

of the CIP a chance to kind of defend it or argue for it so shall we table this and bring it back hopefully in the next call yeah sounds good to me or on the next call that one of them are definitely going to attend yeah definitely well we have a lot of magenta today so let's um let's keep moving so the next thing I have here is also a continuation from the last call I think so it's it's Bennington's proposal that all the IPS ought to contain a PR against the yellow paper before being merged or accepted this was brought up kind of verbally on the last call I'm not aware of a formal VIP for this do we have been with us yes yep

yeah hi everyone so then from consensus protocol engineering yeah there's no nothing written yet on this I just wanted to kind of test the water and if people are interested I'll write it as a PR - VIP one but that the background is a few months ago I raised question about maintenance of the yellow paper which was months out of date at the time gavin has relicense that and ueg is doing sterling work with others of maintaining it we also discussed other potential formats for a specification for aetherium where the yellow paper was right or k EVM or something else but that's kind of to one side the point is whatever format we

agree for the canonical specification if we believe that their interests have one this needs to be maintained and what I'm suggesting is that that maintenance should be done at least part of the maintenance should be done as part of the EIP process so where relevant to core VIP before it's accept in order to contain the core request or a date or some sort to the spec and that did should be subject to the peer-review process the same as the EIP text is so that would be a PR to the yellow paper today I guess and that link to that PR can form part of the header preamble and I think that will clearly make it easier to maintain the specification the

yellow paper but it will also I think my sense is that it will also help with bringing rigor to the specification of VIPs mere act of interacting with respect to formalize the EIP I think will help to identify edge cases and ambiguities which do sometimes arise so that's the idea I'm just kind of floating that for feedback if people think it's a good idea or we're pursuing our lumps goodies as a PRT ip1 we can discuss it there any any thoughts or reactions so this is clearly only for changes that affect that protocol right yeah sure so whatever the scope of the

formal spec is at that point so I think a ip's defines as core at the moment would come under the scope with this and you're proposing it for is a requirement for acceptance not a requirement for merging the drafts they're writing yeah I mean I'll tell you guidance on that of course Nick but that would not everybody will be capable or interested in writing you know a yellow paper pull request is some something of a specialist sport so it may be listening Ivy gets motors draft but somebody can work with the author to spec it up in the right format

for the formal specification to be clear to be clear sorry the proposal is that like rather than the changes hypothetically eventually happening the changes need to happen before that you gets gets promoted to some status the the changes are included as some sort of vehicle for request within the EIP that would you know the spec is potentially moving targets so that in itself would require some maintenance in the ERP but that's also probably a good thing to do because there are sometimes incompatible changes so but this is going to slow down

develop the development process for any core change forever right if we have to do the spec before doing the code well not if it is if it's part of like the full like acceptance or some sort of final state then that seems reasonable but not not to just get things merged some kind of in as drafts um I would bring up the account abstraction eat that only exposed its complexity at implementation time so if somebody had spent the time to fully spec it out ahead of time that wouldn't have actually gotten us anywhere because once it got down to implementation things

started to fall apart just a counter argument against this isn't an argument for this we should stake it out so that way to take these issues before people started lamenting yes it's in theory I think it's nice to spec it out before anyone starts implementing it and it's even nicer to open up for requesting as yellow paper but in all honesty how many people here can actually open the full request against the yellow paper meaning top so my problem is that if everybody starts opening for requests and the quality of the yellow paper wolf comment only if they get excited I mean I assume

that I should only be accepted when the features actually implemented since the elevators supposed to go straight the current stage of etherion well sure but my point really was but I don't think it's so the yellow paper has a certain style a really math heavy style now if I want to add my VIP modification to that style I'm almost certain that I will not be able to add it in the same style that's actually the reason IMG to the size of states because I think we need a bigger specification for a theory of the yellow paper before we start requiring the IPS the proposer had changed yeah yeah and you'll note that I was somewhat

ambiguous about this in in laying out the the idea so it may be this prelude to this we should revisit the KVM or other spec format conversation with people feel it's worth doing I think it's worth considering to that presently the yellow paper only reflects the current state of aetherium and I think an ideal speak would actually reflects the history or rather what's necessary to buyer to build a client for six magnate from Genesis yep yeah it's good point so um okay appreciate the feedback and I don't want to take too long on this

because there plenty of juicy topics they discuss later on and what was a good way of continuing conversation on this I mean shall I put a PR to EIP one and we can discuss it there just as a placeholder then one other thing you may want to consider is the theory magicians discourse forum I'm not sure if you've sort of seen that one yet but that may be another option for kind of discussion about this topic yeah another another one is to realize it oh look the way the yellow paper probably has its own process for you know and like you know you Ishii and maybe others are involved and that having the dev process people walk down their process will affect them

also and so you know definitely should talk to whoever is working on the yellow paper how they feel about it what you think they'll feel very relieved but that's the yo ichi is kind of thing landed me back quoting all of the VIPs to a yellow paper at the moment that yeah okay i think your theory magicians is probably the right place for this conversation so i'll take you there Thanks next thing okay next item on the agenda is the IP nine six two zero cap total ether supply at around 120 million by way of background this was the Tallaght April Fool's joke that wasn't

really an April Fool's joke that we discussed on the last call and I believe the place we left off at the end of the last I left off with this topic on the last call was that we would wait for some more community feedback and then come back and discuss this here a bit further any additional thoughts on this one well I mean I have like like a kind of processed question like oh is this even

in an implementation to any of the repos or is this you know just like a some more like a norm be you know or do we have actually explicitly used reward units at the Bertil I think it was discussed on as you know if it were to move forward is actually an implementation there was an implementation proposed as having the rest of the issuance live in the 0 address and kind of be distributed from there but again that's if they were to actually be moving forward so I've read the blog post about this

and I kind of agree most about it but I'm curious do we have is anyone here can be proponent for it and we want to champion it I mean I I mean I think that like the kind of you know public debate about it is still kind of too early to like warrant implementation or I didn't like that you sure about the like norms yeah once you agree there to italic just

appear I think the priority of development like we have a lot of heavy hitting things we need to get out and this is maybe something that if it were to happen would be after that we tell it just to be clear about a comment you made a moment ago you're saying you agree with Vlad's comment that the sort of community consensus is not clear yet is that accurate yeah and and then we generally have this idea that like oh if there's not strong consensus it may not be worth the dev effort and so it might not be the highest priority thing or or like do Deb's implement stuff whether or not there is community consensus it's kind of a meta question that's a

bit of a governance question the devs implement things even if there isn't community consensus I think it's maybe a little bit beyond the scope of this particular agenda item yeah totally just curious I'm just curious if anyone like knows is there a historical precedent for devs implementing things people don't want to implement well the day the Dow is like probably there's well there's origin stuff is not interesting and most people don't pay attention to the Dow was a good example of lament it Eleni something contentious when there was only some indication of you senator run this issue is the development effort to

implement something that probably will not fly because that's just a waste of time I'm also not sure if this topic is a really good use of the awkward Deb's time it doesn't really I'm not sure what we're trying to figure out here yeah at this moment I think it's probably time to move on at least this week okay shall we schedule this for the next call or shall we just kind of say we're tabling this for now and we wait until if someone doesn't want to kind of advocate for it they can do that well given that any issue on this question is probably going to happen along with Caspar changes I would say that it's better to

be scheduled when about the time we are discussing other heart date for the Casper heart for food convictions discussing a hard date for the Casper hard fork no no no I'm noting that I'm saying that we think yes having the debate about a hard date for the Hartford I'm not saying that you should have that debate now yes that's one way to do it and then I mean there is also the other debate around yep you know which is like when is the right time to

if if it is to be able that's it when is the right time to do that including like at the same before hybrid Casper same time is hybrid Casper what like full Casper that's when hybrid Casper has been running for sick for 12 months like there's a lot of different options there so that's um okay it's not so that it sounds like we're sort of at consensus here that there's some open questions about this maybe we want to allow a little more time for community consensus to coalesce and at the same time there's this meta question about if this were to happen when is the right time for it to

happen so maybe we can move that debate to either the EIP or to the fellowship of a theory magicians forum as well any final comments on this one before we move on I think we should table it until someone comes someone wants to champion it yeah I agree let's go wait don't bring it up next time and do the same thing okay got it all right so let's move the next item on the agenda the next item is AIP 969 modifications to eath hatch to invalidate existing dedicated hardware implementations so this was also discussed in the last call and I believe the place we left this one was very similar which is to say let's wait and

see how the community feels about it and if it's clearly of interest to the community we'll bring it up in the next call anecdotally I can share that you know there has been obviously some ongoing dialogue about this one I'll read it and a few other forums Hudson very kindly wrote an article and read it sort of summarizing both the sides of the debate that he sees I'll share these links in the various channels right now so what are the thoughts on 969 um I can speak up about this um so I have acted as this piper I've acted as a facilitator for this and where this left off was that the person and I cannot remember their name on them on mobile

now who opened up e96 9 I was leaving it on their plate to come and champion this if they wanted to continue pushing this forward so if they're here they can speak up and if somebody else here wants do champion its we can do that but if there's nobody here looking a champion and we can move on does anyone want to champion 8969 and my own opinion is that we wrote that we should wait for more

data and I mean if people like wants to like yeah good keep digging around for that data great but at this point we just like know too little to be discussing concrete plans so like how exactly does very sick work like will certain spec except yeah that kind of traction yeah no not like oh do people support it or not pet nutrition yeah and yeah I would say I was thinking more tech know the technical stuff okay from from from my side I see I mean I get a lot more people telling me that like oh it's

really important to them and that they that this happened then people telling me almost no one tells me that they don't want it to go through people who don't wanna go through her the most notable maybe it's Phil he wrote a really nice post about his thoughts mm-hm like well I think there's really three viewpoints one is Rob Rob let's do it another another extreme is like it's actually bad in service of effects and then there's the kind of middle to right position which is that it would be unmet good but it's not worth the development effort because it would be better to just spend those resources on caspere Martin my mo my mining firm isn't

profitable people yes okay they would you mean like my GPU mining farm isn't profitable people yeah they've probably go in either the pro fork category or the or by in possibly the moderate event the moderately answer for that for category if I misunderstood your categories got it yeah no sorry but ya know the categories are basically like crow will category 1 Pro category 2 Pro if it were zero cost but anti given like actual real-world costs and ante even given zero okay one more thing I would like note is that if if you decide

if you want to move forward with with Isaac and we eighty protection and if it's something that we know what upstate about I would try to put it together with the first view s from GPU miners to the POS for so if we we also provide them with might bring more of them into our site I think it would be a good compromise with them but that's purely tactical as they compromise this yeah that seems developer Mesonet estimate

about how how complex would it be to make one of those small changes to eat ash just as parameters I mean how much development are we talking about it's an existing fork I think I think you know we know we don't really know what exactly these Asics are like if there are bunch of GPUs or on a rack that are just somehow like a little bit more efficient and it's gonna be much harder than if they're super specialized right but if multiplying a parameter is cheap

then it could be basically an experiment right if modeling a parameter is cheap and it has you know some probabilistic payout to the community by potentially forking out the minor the Asics it might be worth it yeah might have to be worth it just to measure the drop in difficulty due to the change assuming that all of the miners that we do know about are still compatible with the change that's gonna be heard isolate with caspere's work if we reduce the mining reward at the same time yeah yeah this wouldn't work if it was I moved in with another fork that affected the running well it might work could it just be hard to measure right it wouldn't be ideal experimental design yeah I mean

personally I'm inclined to suggest just rolling in for the X hapless the only needs loan and initial I mean regardless of how we do it if at all we're girlís I'm assuming here the the current EIP proposal of changing some significant V constants if it was a larger change it would require it more with you I hear you but I still think there's an interesting even it's a small change I think of it there are there are there we still do need to think about like is there community

support although I think for this one it feels like yes but I don't know this is just no subjective let it go yeah my impression is that there are no people who are strongly or few people maybe who are strongly enough know against this that they you know their due to the very idea it's just people like myself questioning whether the costs and benefits there does anyway above and so do we agree to table for now pending more information or what's the how do we move on from this topic just one clarification here do we

does anyone feel that this should be kind of a hard fork of its own or are we suggesting just kind of tying together a few threads here that this should be bundled into another Fork if it were to happen it would not be its own fork and on top of that for ideal experimental design we want it to be a fork that doesn't otherwise affect mining rewards for growing it into the next hard fork as an experiment even if we don't have more data at that time yeah I think was enough and there's enough for us to add it to another to existing handful but not enough evidence or religion C to create a heartful just for it there is still the argument to specifically

bundle it with Kasper even though it reduces the experimental evidence of the asics because of other change it's kind of like a compromise as it was said with the miners yeah but but it does also mean that we have less clear agreed when okay it sounds like the consensus is yeah I guess there's like no there's no I don't I don't know I personally I also agree that there shouldn't be a special

right now it doesn't seem like something deserves its own hard fork but I also am not convinced about which one it should be it you know if at all is anyone here specifically against rolling this into a plant another clan hardcourt okay well it sounds like no one is opposed to its going into another heart

fork again there's no consensus at this moment for it to be its own heart fork so I guess the question here is do we again do we schedule this to bring it up again on the next call or do we wanna kind of wait until the sort of roadmap forward and then hard for chrome app roadmap becomes more clear it would be good to have somebody who was owning this to move it forward so I will reach back out to I think the person's github name as air squirrel or something like that and see if they're willing to come to the table and kind of be the the lead on getting this well defined for a subsequent heart fork so

tentatively on a subsequent all quartets meeting assuming that they are up for that responsibility so me reschedule for the next part for where we have a champion uh-huh okay the next meeting that we have a champion yeah oh yeah that's what about great thank you Piper thanks everyone any final thoughts on this one before we move on okay great the next item on the agenda is VIP $9.99 restoring contract

code related to a parody wallets a free I believe this is your yeah key would you like to kick this off yes one I've written this proposal to replace the self-destructed poverty wallet wallet library it was yea destroyed last year in November figure out how to proceed with us and tell us if there's any feedback so it should this court of call discuss the kind of governance process here or should we discuss the technical stuff regarding the what's your take on that

I'm not sure a capable of really going into the governance process that would be probably but if there are like reasons to improve this proposal or to reject it straight away as in canto VI p1 I would love to hear now because the things much more easier if there are no objections to accept those proposal within context of AIP one that would be nice too but yeah I want to get general feedback on this and I personally would say that like technically speaking the

proposal seems team so I could be like if you ever risk and I could the net natural and cleanest way to achieve its objective but it and whether or not it actually gets implemented just because it's more a matter of like social trade-offs and not technical trade-offs it should be the domain of like community debate in discussion rather than the score desk hall specifically and like only if the community a community discussion ends up being strongly in favor what it makes sense to actually talk about it in this role I mean I don't know if like Vlad would us say something is similar or yeah more or

less I mean I think the the broader question that that I have though is like whether or not acceptance as a neap it should be locked on community questions I think like implement implementation and deployment you know it makes it makes more sense if to try to avoid a set is hard fork if possible and they it's unclear whether the community discussion will resolve or come to a kind of steady state now if it's if it's clear that the consensus will never happen then I think it might make sense to dude to have like an implementation and a and potentially contagious

hardboard but if the discussion is still ongoing and process questions are still coming up and we're in and there's no clear deadline then then it seems more sensible to wait for a consensus I would say that I think from a chef's side it's clear that the issue is contain enough that you eventually if it if it goes forward is infinite that it will generate a contentious heart for and I think that I think it seems in the community which is that they want the one be like a con samples and I think

the Dow has had a much more clear consensus on the the pork side and yet you still had a contentious heart for at least you it still live today is unavoidable the date will create a split I want to be really careful for us to not map this to the Dow because the Dow was a security issue for the network and I want to make sure that we know the Dell was not a security issue for the etherium network for the network was like one partner was it yeah well okay so the only conceivable issue for the

etherium network is basically if an obviously bad act or it has access to or four million if then this bad actors dude I could then use those profits to do things to like try to run 51 percent of the transactions and I think that's the extent of it Hypertech could you your mic and like I actually think that like if our systems can't like find some way to handle a bad actor with four million if then you know we needs to make our protocol better in any case

well it's not saying that we couldn't do something to handle it it's more that we did something to handle it right like isn't taking the four million eighth out of their possession the thing that we did to handle that yes but I know I was there was lots of reasons for that and it wasn't like I you know the fact that it's a mistake he would have a lot of coins potentially was it's just like a one of them one one piece of the debate right yeah yeah I personally don't recall that argument being dominant yeah it was I don't think it was like the main the main thing that he were talking about but it was definitely notable and

you know but but the main reason why I think that I bring up the Dow the Dow is basically is this so it's about we kind of all agree that ideally in the best case the implementation would follow a community consensus and there would be alignment so that everything that is released is adopted but when there's a but what what happens when there's a lack of consensus is still a kind of question and in in the Dow we had somewhat of an answer which is that like oh there is like a flag that you can set to have like one outcome or the other and that way like oh both sides of the debate get served by the developers and

they can and and and then later the developers could decide oh like you know where the users are and which fork they want to serve so because you know I don't think that like we should have a devastating the decision ideally there would be like a community-led decision but if the community doesn't come to consensus then then what do we do is kind of the question yeah but well it's our decision it it in the end the only decision happens is that the committee split right it's not as if the committee decides takes a vote and goes one way or the other the result is that you have truth of signing community

if you complain if something contentious happened and I think and my main argument in my post is that there is a huge cost to that and we have to ignore it we cannot ignore it so ideally we need to try to avoid getting to that point and any way that we in some way that we can so you know I mean I actually am Not sure that every single contentious orc will lead to a new community because it takes a community sustaining itself takes a lot of work also there needs to be like a critical mass and IIIi don't know that it's the case that for every contentious hard book there will be a sustained community

for both sides I mean probably for a few blocks but like I'm not sure for how many well especially on the order of years I think a lot of the communities of sponsor but in the short term I imagine a lot of them could have somewhat seemingly sustainable change in the structure so I guess the kind of depends then on who what does the exchanges consider being the canonical ethereum and either right and do they list the other one that's one of the things that's gonna set the tone for that to react the next changes as far as I know the reason why I am plastic

survived was that Palani axe decided after three days to list it after it seemingly died so basically my point really is that from an exchange point of view I think it always makes sense to list a fork because it's fun it's it makes the money so you can't really assume so look at them from a business perspective it's in their interest to list the four but but they do need to always the same one as eat and they do need to do that in a way that doesn't upset all their clients and they also an even if I mean considering one scientist out before that happens how what process do they use to determine which they

considered to be the canonical one you know I think there's I think that's really two main two main parts to it one of them is like oh you know are they getting a trademark like are like either is the control controller the trademark going to hit them with that lawsuit and then the other one is what do their customers think and what do they are traitors and the market makers who work on their on their platform building it doesn't matter which one becomes the canonical just the fact that they are now two of them once the and there is an incentive for exchanges to listen though there's an incentive for spectators to buy them but by and I'm trade and put them them out there's an incentive where

if you bite early and it's become feed you can use that for the development just having it two of them it is a big is a big it is a bad thing for the community at home because suddenly you have you have to all the debts that need to solve which one of them will they will serve and they will be dragged into a political mess and then there might be and some some that will enter in a amigo mess if they they haven't protected themselves from and I think that date my main argument that I we know the tool there will be a split doesn't matter which which one is the canonical or not but the other side of that is that like

the there there is a cost associated with not ever making any contentious decisions or not ever allowing anyone to have any changes that are contentious with like this norm that says oh we should avoid citrus forks should try to avoid contentious for if we can find other solution so I would I would also not support just sharing parity and WebKit foundation completely out of this option because I think they have that they are good for them having having their front unlock and because once you do it then they have even more incentive just

create a split shine my my augment would that we should keep explore especially things we don't have like a clear date we should try to keep exploring other ways in which we can bring like every everyone to disable and allow everyone that is if it's feeling disenfranchised to a common solution I think doing that by by proposing may multiple attempts of offering of having recovering and I think that that should be applauded that they did multiple attempts of try and solve the problem but it but but at the end of the day are you just saying oh we

should have we should either come to consensus to recover them or not okay but if we don't come because I just want to recover them or covered its not to recover them then there is still going to be this contentious question of whether or not this change is implemented on you know one side of the network if you if there's definitely gonna be a split my point is that it's part of a governance question and it might not be a good a good use or occurrence of this particular call but my issue that if it goes into it goes

into a larger governance question and it goes back to your question on what sort of public goods because we can fund we by not reducing issuance and I think if we if we feel try to focus the discussion if there a governor solution on on how to issue funds on how what to use the pump we're going to be issued that could be used to help recover like victims of bugs and like people that have been damaged by it by bugs and I think that's that's my more general thing it's a government official and and and so the suggestion man is the easiest way for the governance debate to

continue in terms of the all times my suggestion is that we put that in the governance pile and keep doing the governor till we find a way to fund public I would say that parity recovery is a public good like it could be considered a public good and that that we should we should try to keep some sort of governance discussion on how we advocate but that is not going to happen with coal that's my point so it sounds like you're against eight nine nine nine but you want to use some

of the source of issues I want to use what some other source of funds as opposed to there's the recovery of the contract I yes I would say we should explore other ways to other sources of funds to recover the problem without having to recover the moody foody's oh okay anyways III I think like in terms of process we should try to like wrap up this conversation and hey I'm free do you have any like thoughts on what you

would prefer inter or like in terms of what the process is in terms of the community consensus versus the implementation but do you really want like to just have the implementation ASAP and released ASAP as a hard fork I'm certain that I'm coming here with more questions and answers and what I can do right now is like just using existing processes as like orientation and I'm just following VIP one and trying to figure out where this proposal stands and to answer a question directly I would like to see implementations going forward yes

but the idea of waiting for more discussion the idea that the discussion is still ongoing and like you have do you have like hope for the public debate so far the debate was quite constructive however it puts me on a personal stress and I don't know the next step would be in four weeks and I don't know if I will survive this I don't know I'm open for account of proposals but I we have seen several different proposals let it be the proposals from this chamber of cavity

made that changed the EBM semantics around the service contracts that they are obviously rejected let it be the efforts around VIP 156 or so a covery process in the IP eight six seven for me this is most logical step to take just implement nine nine nine I don't see what waiting another four weeks to conclude on this what benefit we would benefit from what's the community but but I'm up for suggestions well the abs is concerned I think

everyone's concern to some extent is that this is a contentious hard fork and therefore will lead to a lot of headaches and the hope is like oh by delaying maybe eventually it will become non contentious as we get more clarity but that is obviously uncertain the other alternative is just to embrace the contentious hard fork and you know hope people figure out which side they want to be on and are able to coordinate by the time of activation by putting it into an implementation it doesn't automatically mean too hard oh yeah sure if you don't if you don't act it if you don't actually turn it on yeah I mean that's first the next step

right to do the implementation there's yeah in the next release we're putting it on I mean my concern is very similar to Alex's there if it leads to the splits then any benefits will be far outweighed by the costs to the theater systems at all and it certainly informally seems like that's a reasonable probability at the moment but implementing it without releasing it it doesn't seem like it will lead to a contenders hard work no sorry I mean about the idea of foking in general for

those agree yeah just regarding the implantation I think one of my issues with that would be that if we just roll out all the implementations for the client then we kind of inherently say that we want to fork whether or not it's enabled or not own you need to add a flag or not that's beside the question if it's in the client is that there is willing pork or that were definitely definitely willing consideration definitely definitely like willing enough to put in the work to have the option available so so maybe is that maybe maybe that's

an implementation my implementation specific question maybe all that is just for coordinating when it is gonna be contentious critical sorry consensus critical yeah I mean like I personally don't see the point in like speeding ahead implementation of something that is unless it actually has a very high as in you know more than 75 percent chance of being implemented and because otherwise were just like basically wasting development time and like waiting for more like basically more

commute like more like inclusive community discussion as the yeah or at least Moore's you know issue only I could ever see anything like this getting to that points in the first place anyway so I mean development Africa gets pretty low for this it was just a matter of chucking in some contract code at a place someone good well yours are there's also testing and then there's also all of the yeah contentiousness handling stuff like there was for the Dow hard work there's like the United State is non-trivial so just to reiterate I'm not just expand a bit on what with Alex said for when we did the

Dow hard fork there was a ton of extra code and extra networking mumbo jumbo put in place just to ensure that the two forks can survive now if if we wouldn't have implemented that then if your classic wouldn't exist now maybe I don't my point really is that if we truly want to offer the community a choice then it's not that trivial to implement this so that's why I'm kind of agree that maybe it's it's it would be nicer to wait until semi community consensus reached before we'd into the whole thing it is a little easier than it was last

time because we now have China ideas with reply protection but I agree as well sure well we have chain ideas but for example what you do not have is a theorem protocol separation at a networking level which means that unless we put in extra special header rules that we did for the Dow it means that clients will always try to synchronize to the vias chain which might not be on the same fork sites that they want you figure out the way on how to split the chains and then it gets I'm not saying it's it's hard to solve it just extra stuff that needs to be done and dusted

yeah sure I mean I think everyone agree would be nice if there was more consensus about this issue and about um you know the process surrounding you know maybe similar issues but imagine that that never happens imagine that we never get consensus then do the table definitely well from my opinion is that if there is no consensus that will have to be theorems do we want that I mean I mean I certainly if it was if we were talking about Casper versus not having Casper it would be like yeah let's show

so so I don't think the answer is always gonna be no to that question I think like you know if so but then so you know you know and and who who is the judge right yes sure but for example with Casper yeah it could really happen that you have a Casper a theorem and a non Casper a theorem but then the two networks are technically different with different guarantees there's it's a bit different here we're talking about exactly the same networks and then we're basically starting a tribalism war wasn't blood wouldn't remain if there isn't social consensus

to it are we going to table this definitely wasn't that yeah that's the question yeah that's the question I don't think we'll reach a consensus here on that yeah and so if we're never gonna reach a consensus consensus I think contentious Forks is preferable to tabling indefinitely it I'm not sure I'm not sure you know when is the right time I mean somehow somehow like if know like difference between an unsettled debate and a settled debate that's content where the shadow state is contentious well then so let's say that we decide to not move with the petition and maybe

maybe guess who not implement it would would parity move forward and implement it anyway or or not I guess you mean deploy yeah deployment my question is if there's no and if and if other clients are not sure to move or or not with parity still still go forward and incremented and deploy it can make the option table we haven't decided yet on that I still think I mean that although there is a lot of contentious

discussion on Reddit and social media based on the personal conversations I've had I'm not convinced that it's that as contentious as it sometimes seems in the social media hey fair point so and do you important I mean because often social media and it's not the only space where so yeah yeah I think community community consensus is really

really hard to measure right I don't have has anybody read all of the comments on the area magician site and there seems to be a pretty solid consensus there oh yeah what's that I feel like there's a pretty consistent vocal not support against it on but and then but do we have like a power-law distribution where a great greg has most of the time I ignore comments that are from completely unknown sources but there are plenty of people on there who are known quantities in the community who've spoken out against it I am not

aware of I do not recall seeing the same level of support in that department so that's at least one metric yeah so you know it's it's definitely not easy to from any one vantage point to measure the community in its entirety I don't think we have this isn't published for what five five days I don't think that that's enough conversation or consensus to start development work just quite simply no yeah but the recovery thing has been part of it to have people have

been talking about for months yeah like I did I definitely agree that I don't think that any that much of the kind of strong support or opposition to this really depends on the details of exactly how it's technically Apple that's it like the idea itself has definitely existed for pretty much half a year now on the topic of consensus community consensus I just want to mention as well that there was a coin vote here on a thirteen org that's linked inside the fellowship of a theory magician's threat if people want to take a look at it I don't know if there's any consensus about those sort of legitimacy of this type of poll I just wanted to mention

that that is there as well and that's another channel of some some degree of community feedback here during the coin boat I switch multiple times from yes - no - yes at all so I think we we don't know that what consensus it but I think we can we can have a good idea that it is contentious yeah the court the coin holders are watching some of them and they're piling their coins on to vote or like not literally but you know voting with their coins yes so my problem with the coin void is that when I checked there was maybe 170,000 ether voting and maybe no that's like yeah well it's up to 350,000 ether the other problem is that it uses

like signing instead of transactions which makes it harder for contracts to vote and also the in general I don't I'm not even sure if a lot of people with cold wallets see that or even have mission the like machinery readily available to do signing with them so like it is definitely not in especially accessible poll so for to participate in just because just for that technical reason and yeah yes but but even if it was like a single column isn't like the whole communities consensus right yeah that's what do we know like I said I definitely don't don't believe that something that passes that coin vote

should be considered as like having community consensus by itself although it gets just it's one of many factors we have about 300,000 single coin boats at hold over a hundred thousand so there is you you have understand that it it there is a big power laude attrition there this is so my personally might the reason I don't really like the coin boy to volt approach because I don't really consider it fair so to say I'm basically just spilling the beans parity obviously the parity team was part of the original B

theorem team they control probably quite a significant sum of ether which kind of means that they have a huge sway on the on the boats from this point onward I don't really consider it a fair vote period it's a measure like any other right because the other hand you could argue that a person that has been developing for a long time the Tyrians should have a higher weight than someone who never heard about it here and just like just came in to Twitter and posted something so the issue is that we don't have any good a fair enough Alex but consider that depending whether you join

the etherium in in August 2014 or April 2015 that basically does two zeros in your ether holding I just give you an example and you both person have been on the team so to say for example for three and a half years now yet a coin vote kind of assumes that the guy who was lucky enough to join three months earlier has all the weight yeah definitely coin coin Holdings are not fair the the the thing that's interesting about Coit voting is that like it will at least there's a lot of non developers

there's a lot of people who aren't technical who own who have coins maybe they're less likely to vote but it does provide if we lure it was look at the opinions of all the coin holders it would provide more of a sense of people think but it's not everyone and it's definitely not a fair measure I mean to be kind of brutal what we would probably want in an ideal voting system isn't necessarily fairness per se but a good reflection of the eventual outcome like ideally a voting system will tell you whether there will be a split and what portion of sort of users will accrue to

each side split and also determine the outcome well there's obviously a feedback issue there yeah well that's concerning yeah but I mean it's less useful to know how many people are willing to put their money behind yes or no or how many people are willing to say yes or no that it would be no you know if this wins through mean we would end up with you know X percent sort of economic majority your use level on each the various options okay but so so this is a still conversation about like detecting consensus and trying to figure out what trying to figure out what is like paella legitimate basis for

deciding that like oh there's enough support you know we still we sold I still don't have clear I still don't know what we would do if we if the debate was settled meaning that like there's no new arguments there's no new information coming out and also but not but not consensus like there's it's contentious and settled so the ideas I will know forever we know that it's never going to be settled that with consensus then like what you know is the process like so somehow like the question is like Oh in that case is the possibility of a contentious hard fork worth like like worth it or something that we would be

comfortable releasing yeah in my own interview if it's contentious then I don't think it's worth the cost but if there are people who think it's worth the cost even with in credit cause in your splits then of course those people push it forward because it's open source it's not a binary thing right so why shouldn't anyone else suggest some other patches to small conference I mean this is right it's not do you this hot fork or do you not it's it's a question whether to this hard fork and very many

other subsequent well okay with or without the sad form yeah so it's definitely like a deep kind of governance question but from the point of view of you know the all devs as a institution for coordinating the release of software upgrade updates you know there is a it is something that's gonna be ended up being important you know is it is something that like we're gonna need to think about here perhaps different because you said something like when the discussion is not over at

some point I'm I'm just saying that the discussion will never be over because if not okay yeah but but by that I just mean like oh it's at some point is gonna be contentious for enough that people are gonna feel like oh it's gonna be contentious forever we should go ahead and just cut conversation off on this since it doesn't seem to be necessarily going anywhere and it feels like we might be just talking about the same things repeatedly yeah there's enough there's a I agree thanks Piper yeah we're beginning to get close to kind of a 90 minute mark here

we definitely a few more agenda items to go through it sounds like we don't have consensus pretty clearly so maybe we table this for the moment and you know kind of continue the discussion on the Fellowship of ethereal magicians forum and an EIP does that sound like a reasonable course of action yes okay great so let's move on to the next topic actually I noticed that James Ray was able to join us in James I know we discussed yaki 9:08 earlier on this call and you weren't on the call at that moment if James do you want to quickly make a case for that James if you're speaking your unmute

right now can you hear me now yes yes okay sorry yeah so just saying yeah I heard that you're saying that layer two is preferable and I guess that would manager that is going to reduce protocol complexity which is fine I guess the advantage to having it in protocol is it will directly make sure that you don't have a try to give the Commons where you don't have a Miss incentive we don't have a missing misalignment of life not having

incentives for providing a resource which in this case would be to verify transactions or provide like maintain the whole state in their case of full state notes we hold on so first of all this the proposal as I remember reading it was that the funding would end up going to the the author of that user agent so which could be sent to the organization that develops the client so what does this have to do with state storage so that so there were two different proposals and that was just one like way of doing it a proposed way

of doing it for providing for just for it's not full state notes mica made another proposal in every search which was to to also incentivize full state nodes so ones that like maintain the whole state so that's a different proposal yeah he didn't go into too much detail about how that would actually work in the proposal I think it's still not very much a matter of research but yeah so they're two different schemes really yeah so I mean how exactly it's done is like it's

another debate but I think it would be good to do it some way because yeah it's him I think it's important to incentivize like different resource providers for the protocol so what is sorry no I was just going to say that I was just going to ask what is the concrete proposals I've actually incentivize a state storage okay so let me have a look now yeah I mean I think Michael will probably be best to talk to

that but it's just on after research so I just have a quick book to refresh my memory I think it would be good if we postpone this discussion throughout yes justification mm-hmm for Madiba yeah I mean it's nominated it's just a research post at the moment yeah but I just reading out the solution it has periodically the system asks everyone to commit encrypted what is at a particular address in the state anyone can commit that they know what is at the address along with some staking amount staking some amount of coins sometime later short-duration everyone that reveals what they believe is that bath

dress anyone who is right gets a share of minted coins proportional to their stake and anyone who's wrong doesn't reveal that a stake and then he goes in to implement detailed problems and issues like how do you know what data to choose for this random select you want ran in the selection but you don't also know you but you also want the answer to be not some random amount between 0 to 99 percent of the time and this yeah he goes into further issues as well so I mean it's not exactly a strong

proposal so I mean it's probably maybe elbow solutions but this is just one of them I've personally thought of any other alternative solutions that would have more advantages any other comments or thoughts on this one sorry just asking I think to be more formal as for further discussion and wish yeah all the time I understand yes great all right thank you very much James let's keep moving so the next topic on

the agenda is research updates live italic do you have research updates for us well the biggest research update is probably gonna be from Danny are you still around here Danny yeah we have published the hybrid Caspari IP just published it this morning or well last night for most of you I guess ready for review for a community discussion etc the spec is in general ready for clients to implement there might be minor tweaks and I'll make it very clear on the

appropriate channels when those Deker were not walking in the bike code and some other things until we've locked the contract after a formal verification but that said we're we're definitely ready to go and do kind of full swing client implementation conversation around around it can happen on an issue you can see in the EIP but also we're gathering in the etherium slash Kasper getter to coordinate client development and testing etc sweet yeah sweet I'm excited I hope

you're all excited thanks for the update any that's really exciting I shared the link to that he I pee I other channels any other research updates I could tell that Michael from our team my daugher which we trans private custom Network mr. peaceful data and minor in just one comment so you could test it with harmony and we will add later Python Caspari and when when it will be available thanks Mickey and I'll generally kind of keep an update as

to progress in these meetings and we can when you're getting closer to client of being ready and I'm also in correspondence to the follow verification engineers so as these pieces of the puzzle are getting closer to being completed I'll signal that it's time to start talking about four o'clock numbers etc and in terms of testing Demetri i I don't know when exactly that happens or in terms of like how we begin formalizing and deciding on tests but I guess we should leave the EIP up for discussion a little bit longer before we start doing testing on that side great

thanks Denny any final research updates cool ok let's keep moving next item on the agenda is Constantinople heart for timing what to include this is also a continuation of a conversation from the last call from the issue for this call here Alfre had asked a question whether there's a meta a IP for constants and no and I believe Nick created one EIP one zero one three I'll go ahead and share this link as well any thoughts on this new e IP here or what goes into Constantinople or timing decline financed excited I'm sorry Nick I did I

didn't catch what you just said what was the clarification big assignments don't labor oh sorry sorry about that my apologies I'll free there have been a question here about Constantinople tests being added to high of tests and parity failing them was that issue sorted or is there still any outstanding question there no that's a solid must have to start with limiting I'm just saying yeah any other comments or thoughts on again the timing for the Constantinople for

Corps or what goes into it I believe that EIP I just shared contains I think there's - I guess non-controversial VIPs 145 bit by shifting instructions and two one zero block hash for factoring and I believe the consensus from the previous call was that we don't have enough to do a fork yet any any thoughts on that am I missing anything are those developed or in active development or just poised to be in active development so the shifting those are implemented in CBP and guess block has I guess the simple ethnicity is not

implemented in gas and neither is implement imperatives right now the EIT status of these that so one four five is accepted and two ten is draft again those are sort of up-to-date metallics the author on the second are you gonna try to move that forward to being accepted what's is there anything left to do now which purple what's all is this yaki 210 block block hash refactoring mmm block has refactoring um let's see so you know I'd

be in favor if it being released as a kind like if we are gonna have a hard fork before hybrid Casper so that we can have a kind of dry run of basic like code manipulation and so like what remains at this point I I'm not sure if so the emphasis was asked to a for blog basically what exactly is left between like where we are now at an implementation I was just have it's not finalized EIP

so I was wondering if what the hang-up on that is I'd say and ice I mean unless there's something that I personally missed I see no reason and I I would be okay with it being a finalized the IP so I remember now believe that we will just wanted to have more testing and I'm not sure if anyone has taken on the responsibility of making more test

suites for it like I mean I suppose that's technically not like that could be done in parallel with finalization because basically the only thing that I expects testing could reveal is testing could review potentially reveal look like in the serpent code but if that happens then there could just be modified migrate that code to not be certain yeah I mean we can migrate it to be just like the serpent is basically just like assembly style serpents so it could really dirt and like lol or fiber assembly or just like any kind of assembly and okay it sounds like we need a little more time on 210 maybe to do

some more testing like italic just mentioned mm-hmm again I believe the consensus was that we don't have enough yet to schedule the next hard fork is anyone feel otherwise about that otherwise I'll say this table doesn't come back to the you know the next call yeah another thing by the way that a baby worth discussing for hard Forks is create too so this is basically the the the part of the counter abstraction where you can create a contract at an address where the address is dependent on assaults and the code of the DNA code of the contract and this basically just lets you do stuff like precent addresses

where you know that those addresses are definitely going to have one particular piece of code or it also lets you it's also really useful for state channels because it lets you send do a set make under to actual transactions go any counter factual addresses that where no no object exists yet but an object could exist and then have certainty that you'll actually be able to instantiate the objects later italic is that certainty more about making sure nothing else appears at that address or is it more about sort of capturing you know ether token does it might be sent to that is about two things and one is definitely being sure about the codes it'll be at that address

another thing is being able to kind of have multiple objects in the cue of which you can instantiate any particular one if you wants to move italic previously it creates to was based on the init code of the yes and it so should be I think but I think can't be sure about the contents of that contract well well you can be if you know that the init code it if you don't think it could actually will what be an ED code of a particular type all right so I don't yeah so I don't mean being sure of in the kind of strict sense that everyone will always be able to tell

without the source code but I mean in the sense that like if you trust the init code and you've looked at the init code then you'll be able to do it you know basically that you'll be able to know that the contracts will have code that is produced by a particular piece of a net code so essentially when you run a contract or create a contract you basically have a context the context locks but more importantly the context also contains the sender which means that if you're not paying attention then init code might react to the sender or

first half of my story yes is that a problem though well for example if I want to create a multisig and I create kudos oh okay so there's one thing to clarify it's very important that it has to be it the address has to be the hash of the anit code and not the hash of the contracts code precisely because like when we're processing the initialization we know what the net code is but we have no idea what the contracts code is yet yes fair enough but even so when I if if it's the hash of dated I can create basically creators multisig and ice at the owner to the message center basic I said the message to others all right yeah and it depend depending on who runs

this the controversy so ich we are create the the thing that's that gets hashed into the address creation for creative includes both the sender and the salt and the beer code so there's actually all three how can you understand there's nothing yeah over taco this is to eat we have this kind of two stepped create things create thing I think is like abstract should for sure excellent abstraction but well like here I'm suggesting a much more limited thing which is we just make create two and even without any other abstraction benefits creates who will make it easier to do like I mean stay channels and a

bunch of other stuff okay so need for this not yet but I should be easy to make yeah that's fun about it next time okay great sort of to-do item here is to created a gnocchi for create two things metallic just yeah reiterating what I said before I can I think that consensus at the moment is that we don't have enough for a sort of hard schedule for Constantinople hard fork any objections to that okay great I'll add this to the agenda for the next call let's keep moving

we're on client updates now let's start with guest do we have any updates from the guest team well I'm not sure how much so I think the only interesting update that could be of interest here is that we've that I think this week at the beginning of the week we released get one eight four and the most interesting thing from our perspective now is that it has 40 percent speed increase on may not so it kind of reduces basically on the on the AWS machines that we tested on it reduced block processing times from 200

milliseconds 100 on may not so that's that's really when I say movement yeah but I think that's that's essentially the only only interesting thing that I could say here other than that we're hacking on gas oh one more thing that might be of interest although it's again maybe why their ecosystem interests are necessarily hard fork interest is we've merged in Martin's work with the signer stand alone signer it's not yet ready not even for so by far not ready for production use but we're kind of hoping that we can get it interstate that other

clients can depend on and then essentially we'd like to have a standalone signer that that would handle all the hardware wallets and would implement all the nasty things and then every other client implantation can take use of it if they want they don't have to screw around with implementing reciprocal for example so that's that's something that people might be of interest here especially client developers or new new client developers who don't necessarily want to roll their own account management thanks Peter ok let's go to parody a free do you have anything I parody for us no client updates not not directly the only change

we published this week was like so my crypto integration is our mobile signer like say I kept wallet let's receive pretty very but that's not directly related to client updates I guess thanks Alfred okay CPP aetherium I think poeple may not be with us on the call anymore did anyone any here have any updates and CPP aetherium okay let's go to harmony do we have any harmony updates yeah we are working on

the database we are benchmarking currently different database settings we have moved to zero DB so we are changing DB settings and cache settings and we have found that we could get great improvements and block processing time we saw figures like five times faster and we think when we will finish it we we could see something close to the parity maybe longer possessions and entirety but similar figures and also we have big memory issues memory leaks and

we are working on with so I think we could have good good release in a few weeks we will have great processing time and we will fix these memory issues thanks to Nietzsche okay next year next client on the list here is he was and I think we probably don't have any updates for me he wasn't team Jared I saw your on the call do you have anything you want to add no nothing really ok

basically basically we've spent the last two weeks moving from sir from Travis to Circle CI and fixing a few things but fighting the CI a lot so not not any huge updates on the equals inside for this call thanks Jerry okay next is turbo guess I'm gonna read an update from Alexi here posted the agenda he said still working on reorg functionality more detailed report will be delivered at VidCon next up is Pegasus Ben are you still with us yeah yeah I'm still here

so we reached some nice milestones recently we're processing all frontier blocks we've got p2p discovery working well we've got pluggable key value storage in place we're reaching a point now where we feel it would be useful to get some advice or consultancy from those of you have traveled this way previously so if any of you seasoned client those are interested in taking a look at what we're doing and sharing some wisdom please get in contact with me or we may reach out to you correctively all right thank you thanks Ben okay next up is Trinity Piper do you have a Trinity update for us yeah we've got in that full sync real close we've

been spending the last probably week and a half two weeks chasing down performance optimizations to get our block processing time down to a reasonable amount yeah things are continuing to move forward feels like we're always a few weeks away from an initial release but we're a few weeks away thanks typer okay next up uh it looks like we have a new client and a new individual named Jessica I apologize if I mispronounced your name there this is a new aetherium client called Nimbus from the Status team that will hopefully see the light of the day light of day in a few months Jessica you want to quickly introduce yourself tell me how to pronounce your

name and tell us a little more about your client yeah sure your pronunciation is actually very good yotz I hear from status so what status we're about trying to bring a theorem to the masses that line and and and our theorem client is going to be focusing on resource restricted devices mobile phones and those kind of things so where there are trade-offs to make we're going to tilt them towards you know small things that you hold in your pop-under pocket we're obviously in the early stages here we're playing a catch-up danger first of all I wanted to

extend my team's thanks to all the great testing tools that are available for like the ATM test repo and so on we were very much appreciative of that obviously documentation on and all the clients on um he theorem itself and so on big thanks for that on the development side we've just finished the crypto parts we finished the peer-to-peer parts so we can basically connect now we're going to start working on under various RL B's so expect a lot of breakage on the test nets we hope we don't mess up your stuff too much there

once we reach sort of 1.0 the focus is going to be on light client technologies obviously we're trying to even that the devices we running cannot really was twofold chain most of the time we were going to be relying on light clients and and and we're keen on following research in these areas and that might be showering stateless clients whatever else we see what else can I say about it we're we're obviously trying to implement we're going to be aiming for the full web 3 stack here with whisper

swarm as well our licensing is permissive on purpose is to help with adoption often on hardware the licensing can be an issue so we've we're going with a more permissive license than many of the other clients yeah and finally I just like to say that we're building the competence right now and once once we're a little bit further on the road we hope to join the EIP process join the community and participate as as much as we can so any questions at all just approaches we very

much welcome reviews and ideas of how we're doing things right now in the early stages that will obviously impact the final product please do approaches if you if you see anything that that you think is off or or or exciting yeah and that's it thanks for the update in the introductions I think James you posted a note here that you wanted to introduce your drops of diamond climb would you like to briefly introduce that one oh yeah yes guys um so yeah we just start working on shouting in rust so we

started a month ago and working on that so we just put together a basic COI weave notary functionality based on the initially on the phase one shotting spec which is now retired and then we put it updated to match the latest specification with the minimum starting fruit call available serialization and deserialization and they're shining p2p networks and storing dot off aged shod

with word so yeah there's issues we've got like things to do issues project management in the repo on github and myself and two others working on it so yeah it's I mean a little license is unlicensed so we just wanted to be license yeah not too much more to say at the moment we're just working away but others are welcome to if they're sitting in blending rust in conscious being that

were there Walker to do so if there's anyone else in the community that's interested sounds good thank you very much cool thank you did we miss any any clients any other client updates great all right well we're almost at the end here I think the last item on the agenda is just the timing of the next call two weeks from now is going to be the middle of the ED con conference in Toronto we sort of decided to skip a call during you see see in Paris does it does anyone feel that we should have a call in two weeks otherwise it looks like the next date would be May 17th which is a month

from now I'm sorry May 18th all right I don't hear any opposition I hope everyone can hear seems cool all right well yeah again like last time we decided to kind of skip that that call during ECC because everyone was probably distracted so let's plan for the next call to be on May 18th inning uh in four weeks I think that's it thank you guys very very much for your patience since there's a longer call than usual okay thank you thanks guys Thanks Thanks all right [Music]