All Core Devs - Execution #74

Transcript

[Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause]

[Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] hey everybody and welcome to today's core developer meeting number 74 we're gonna go through the agenda mostly we're going to talk about the Istanbul block number that was accepted that was suggested by dan-o and affirmed by a few others in the gaiter chat and we'll also go over the Berlin hard fork a little bit to talk about some of the tentatively accepted EIP s get some testing updates out of the way and we should be good so this might not be a huge call today so first off we did pick a block number for Istanbul I think it

had which one was it like I can scroll up and see oh six nine nice so let me just type that in real quick okay I have that for the record and whoever note-taking can also talk about that in the notes that that's the number we picked on getter so that's one of the decisions are there any other Istanbul updates from clients or the tests net or anybody or really worked can we paste the block number into

chapter please sure someone someone say that's the right one I think I copy and paste at the right one great okay and then coin desk did correct their article on that so yeah if there's no other updates I guess another thing to think about is when our clients going to release their updated client that has the block number attached is that gonna be kind of weeks away like we should check on that next coordinated meeting I think for bases we can have it within the next two weeks if I'm if

that's correct so like mid-november we should have something cool yeah that's about the timeline that we had suggested having at about two weeks after the block number decision so people can have two weeks or more to upgrade yeah also the Foundation's gonna put out a blog post or the cat herders are both about the block number and what software to upgrade to right around the time that most clients send out their update software download links next up we have

Berlin so the first topic is the ice age Tim I think he did the agenda what what what route did we want to go for for for the ice age conversation can I interrupt I just wanted to ask that for every EIP change it would be nice to record a decision in the meeting notes saying for example mark ii IPU 188 for as final because then yet the editors could just execute on the meeting notes and make those changes and only to ask for nation and I think that would help

because we have a couple of PRS outstanding changing the CIPS to final or you know whatever changes and it's unclear whether a detour should apply them or not and having a final decision line in the meeting notes which would just help excellent yeah let's do that for the Berlin for sure and for the ones we're talking about today if they're if they are in final state I don't know how many of them would be there probably needs to be more conversation on a few of them at least whose note-taking today thank you cool so on the Ice Age what direction do we want to go for that Tim

or we just stop talking about it or did someone request that so a couple cause ago think we said that the Ice Age would start kicking in next summer and and I I'm not a hundred percent confident in this so please correct me if I'm wrong anyone but so will probably want to eat in Vernon that takes back the Ice Age box oh yeah someone said they were gonna write that I forgot who I was gonna do that sweet not a huge rush on that but yeah let's let's do that and figure out how long we want to delay it I think we just delay at the same amount of time each time so next up we have tentatively

accepted a ip's VIP 663 is unlimited swap and doop instructions let me pull that one up Oh click the wrong link so there has been a lot of comments in the etherium magician's forum on this I'll post the link in the chat too I think may be good to do go through the accepted ones and formally have them be done on the call first I said something yeah that sounds good I'd do you have a list of that handy that you could like go on that Jimmy wonderful while that's happening

Ratan and Dominic and Ed's son the Allen are you all from the same organization or y'all just joining the call or audio on New York but I'm from be no problem yeah Oh awesome nice to meet ya I'm scheduled for its liking notes this meeting Oh wonderful domination and I'm joining an extra because I'm always curious about the notes and for some reason that chat is always used in zoom and it's not visible in the YouTube chatterbox when I'm joining for that reason okay sounds good okay so we have yeah we have James pulling up that link

of accepted and oh it's on the meta isn't it is that all yes I don't think I think the reason I put tentatively accepted as there were no accepted beeps four burdens so far but maybe that the meta EEP is not up-to-date all this for a stained bowl there hasn't been a call where we said DS oh and that and put in the notes and then that's something that can be referenced in the updating for the EIP editors to use oh that makes sense got it so those tentatively accepted lines were copied over from the Istanbul EIP where it said Istanbul part 2 so whatever was part of Istanbul part 2 has

been just moved over yes but there was no further discussion yeah when I understood yeah and I got the PR for the meta deep I made sure to cross-reference and call 68 to make sure those were the heats we agreed on and I did cut the rest off because I saw that they weren't for Lim so I did an update draft to accept it she would formally make 1679 accepted which is the assemble mini yeah that sounds good to me okay yep and I have a list go ahead all

right awesome uh where are you push the link to the list and the chat I do not have those on the same screen that's okay or if you want to just like start with which ones are accepted or tentatively accepted so the this is the VIPs from this from the hard fork Istanbul EAP 1679 that's the source of truth from that and they included a IP is re IP 152 which adds blake to compression function e IP 1108 reduced alt BN 128 precompiled gas cost ya 13:44 add gene opcode ya be 1884 repricing for tree size dependent op codes VIP 2028

called that gas gosh called got call to call data gas cost reduction the IP to two zero zero rebalance net metered s store gas cost with consideration wrestler gas cost change i move that all these VIPs be moved to accepted and final for the in duration of istanbul which has already begun for the clients great I don't know if we have motions but I second that we probably should mm-hmm okay yeah I actually got off an e a call earlier where they did like formal stuff like

III I'm like gonna table this meeting and stuff like that and I was like oh man we're not that we're not as organized as that but sometimes those are unnecessary it depends so we've just moved everything in the Istanbul meta EEP to and the meta EEP itself to final it looks like is that accurate unless there's any objections okay great so on to Berlin the hard fork meta has links to all of the tentatively accepted II IPs

none of them are final as far as I know and yeah now we can just we'll just go in order by number I guess does that sound right well there's a part of one point of the Ice Age I don't I have to still get like a real good numbers down but going until July I think is gonna be too much so as far as Windows for when Berlin would work we use the third week of the third Wednesday of the month we could do like April May or June okay is that something anyone wants to

discuss today as far as timelines go I think that was James point before we got started right like that we probably should discuss that and then kind of reverse engineer what are like when do each need to be ready based on that date okay that's right James yes okay that makes um can I pause this for a second in our last sure awkward Deb's meeting I remember us at least talking about doing the EEP centric process which implies that we would not be selecting eeap's for the

next hard work and that we would not be specific I mean we can set a date but in terms of selecting eeap's and things like that I was under the impression that the concept of the EEP centric process was completely opposite of that as in we don't select beeps am I missing something although that was also kind of one of the points that I was bringing back to with making the discussion around available time slots and in what are the what is the time that things would need to be ready to get into any of those and then we can work from there not we not as and we as a group decide what the

IPS but Wiz and the entire core deaf community decides what the IPS get in depending on which ones actually get done in time but knowing that the dates because we are running into the hardware unit above the like yes it's the EIP centric model but we do know within marched to June we're going to need to have some four to have an update for the Ice Age so we have a little flexibility on when exactly that happens but having a good time line of this many weeks before that is the announcement so that or what are the steps that need to happen before that then we can work backwards so I would like to drop a

alternate option on the table which is go forward that sort of is like okay we have a hard upper limit or or whatever of when we can for for the longest however that means that we're like sort of sitting on this concept of EEP centric working for months really I think what we're if we're going to like follow this eccentric model then we are looking at clients finishing up this current pending hard work and then pretty much immediately after that clients can start signaling that they support the new ice age delay and as soon as we see that signaling showing up

across the clients then we are in a position to start executing that as the like first trial EEP centric forking process so so it it so by setting a date that's like as far out as that it feels like we're still sort of like modeling the old model whereas it seems like we don't set hard for updates under this eccentric concept we immediately get this next EEP signaling in the clients and then we start working on the fourth dates for it once the signalling is there am I

missing something or or misunderstanding the concept behind the process know that that's totally fair and what I'm trying to get is so we have a upper bound or but we don't have a lower bound of how soon we actually could for begin so they're test nets need to be launched for a certain amount of time and then that has to be then there has to be a certain amount of time for clients to upgrade so we couldn't fork next month but we couldn't fork in two months could be fork in three months so having the upper and lower bound of time and then keeping it same for implementers so

we're not doing too many or too little it's kind of something I want to be aware of yeah I think on that last point like one objection that like I had to the sort of pure AIP centric model is the idea of one upgrade per Eve just because there's like some fixed overhead they're having an upgrade both for client developers and just for the entire community who has the greater nodes and what not so I and especially given that something like the Ice Age is such a small EEP I I wouldn't advocate for saying let's implement the Ice Age as soon as possible and then for you

know as soon as that's ready in clients because I guess realistically you know we could probably get the Ice Age in the release for clients and like a month or so and then a month test nets and then a month of upgrades it seems like you're kind of incurring all this overhead and coordination for just a single EEP and and so I I feel like it a kind of middle ground approach might make sense where it's like yes we probably want to set some dates where the upgrade happens but we probably don't want to move that date based on things not being ready yet whereas this is kind of what we've done historically it's like we say there's

these five beeps and like one being late can be laid the whole upgrade but if we said something like I don't know we have an upgrade in May going live on main net therefore we need something in April on the test nets therefore we need client implementations by March something like that then whatever is not implemented by March is just not included and and and then the community can use that as a signal to make sure they have their implementations ready but we just kind of commits they're not changing those dates based on on the amount of each that are done I what do you mean by clients signalling however the day in favor of the ice age change or not it

wasn't clear to me this is me Fogg Lee pulling stuff from the eaves in check for working model from my memory but the my recollection was that part of that was clients being able to do essentially flagging the deeps on at which point there's like signaling from the clients that shows they support it have it's enabled that sort of thing now I'm and just fumbling over my words because I'm holding all of this from memory and I'm not at my computer oh that's fine so

basically I I see what you're saying and what I remember from the step which also is just memory is that we kind of decide it in the same way we would normally decide an EIP as far as should this go in or not but there would be things that would happen beforehand like it being fully SPECT out a conversation fully happened and implementations somewhat started right I think my understanding would be similar to yours had some the first step would be that the the Aqua devs whenever in UAP is proposed aqua devs would give

an opinion whether it's a good idea in general or not and that is practically the same what we have under the tentatively accepted in the burden list I would say we gave a blessing that those generally makes sense to work on but then those who propose them have to work on on specking them out creating tests and likely creating the implementations and I believe then is perhaps the signaling from clients is this implemented etc and at that point the okras have to make a proper decision and review to spec in the tests I mean

that would be my understanding of this yeah there's a there's the step of the clients having PRS and accepting them and then there's a final step of the Chordettes coming back and approving it as actually going into the fork to circle back to it yeah so I guess with this new process we're going through or this hybrid process or whatever we kind of talked about the last meeting we need to reconcile with the fact that there is an ice age and that we need to have some types of timelines for when the ice age hard fork needs to happen but then for

other AIPS it's less important so and then of course the like Tim was saying the overhead of having roughly a two to three month period for implementation testing and or like test net testing and then deployment by major providers as overhead that we would need to also keep in mind so juggling all that we might need to better specify on paper the process is what it sounds like because I think we had a lot of good ideas last meeting but none of it was all combined into a very solid plan I guess oh good reading through the process the

suggestion is that there's the blessing that there's the implementation and then there's clients are released with the ability to turn the EEP on at a specific block number and then there's the awkward EV sort of finalization step that happens where clients are capable of turning it on their the implementations are done testing it's done and then at that point block numbers can be chosen and the fort can happen and at that point those block numbers can define multiple eeap's that are gonna go on or just a single one or whatever but the idea there is that we don't set dates at the beginning we set

dates at the point at which there is fork ready material ready to go so if we're going to follow follow that model as I understand it that suggests that we are not supposed to be picking a date or a block number or a you know time for a fork today that that we we kind of have the material that we need which is we want the ice age delay and we can talk about whether or not there's other ones that should be maybe focused on as well but that what we would really be focused on right now is getting the ice age delay implemented in clients getting

tests and stuff ready for it at which point we can set a fork date somebody let me know if that makes sense if that fits with your understanding of the ebee centric model as it's been proposed but it seems like picking a date is still just doing the same process that we've done before which is very Waterfall ich dich so you're I think I'm having two conversations at the same time I think it's what's happening because there's among us core dev saying when are we going to fork and to decide it isn't it's less of the direction of at the same time we as Cortese are speaking to the community

saying that there's this real that there's this realistic upper bound of say June that something needs to be done there's a realistic three-month it needs to have three months before like test nets are alive before really anything can happen so if you if you take those two dates together then you have April May June that's available for for the Istanbul and if we keep to like one thing I really like from Danis proposal is keeping to the third Wednesday of every month if we're going to have a fork it should be on the third Wednesday then we have sort of three third Wednesday's

that are available one of them will definitely need to have the hard fork that needs to have the update for the ice age but as far as the state of all the other AI peas we don't want to make the decision of what date it's going to be but just as that gets closer we will have to make a decision whether or not we wait one month to put it in so we can have something else that's getting close whether or not we just have it go together because having we there's like both ends of the spectrum as Tim was saying like we don't want to have one yet one fork for one EIP because that will limit us and throughput we don't want to wait super long time and have as men of vips because that also will miss

throughput so somewhere in the middle of hey let's keep to the third Wednesdays every of every month and have a good runway that is like the most the best runway of when things need to happen of previous to that date and then when things are ready we can as things become ready in the IP centric frog process which is what we'll be doing as core devs then they will kind of fit together or not fit together based on how that's happening so we're not really picking a date at this point what we're doing is we're speculating on the we're bait we're being pragmatic and

saying here are some of the possible dates because of the time because of the overhead yeah and stuff like that totally works for me um for that specific conversation I would propose whatever that first one is so basically the soonest seeing as we're trying this new process out and quicker iteration cycles basically anybody opposed to that or opposition this isn't like a binding thing this would be more just where we're targeting for yeah and that's one question I have is what is the soonest then would that be March because that's four months from now three months from

it I think that seems completely reasonable for this yeah I agree because realistically we can decide on implement and do test for e IPS within a you know three to four week period right is that is that actually all depends on the EIP obviously in the complexity but for a lot of these that already have work done on them it's gonna be easier to get that done sooner and that's what needs to be done before it even gets through the process no yeah and the champion will be pushing for that is that is that we also

came to the conclusion that the champion will be more coordinator for the EIP and pushing for things like tests to be created and corden coordinating that right yes okay and i knowwe said that they want to remove their name from some of the ones they've been championing so I had a question for way about that did you have someone in mind or anyone who stepped up to take over some of the e IPS that you will no longer be championing or is that something where we should just ask an accord dev meeting cuz I fear that some of the IPS I thought the account versioning when you were talking about is also a

prerequisite to other a IPS that other people are championing is that accurate six-six treat unlimited swipe and dual instructions nice talkin versioning so that might be one but I think like what I was saying is just it's just that I won't be able to do the the champion rule like I'm I'm just don't have enough time to do all the coronation and take like he's a little bit too policy political for me so I think it's better

to I don't have any anyone to Amman to champion the conversion so it's probably better to ask ochre - or just Kearney just remove it from the burning heart for Ganon if somewhere else which I add it back ok that sounds very reasonable and so instead of immediately removing it I propose that we still keep it in there and to see if anyone wants to champion it over the next two weeks before the meeting so we don't remove it and then immediately have to riad it cuz that's just annoying because it sounds

to me like someone will step up if it affects other AIPS that someone else is championing that just seems to make sense yeah pour some context for that there were a bunch of VIPs that were gated by some kind of account versioning none of those got into constant - noble so that's why I count versioning it was pushed till when we need it so whether it's specifically ways or something else's proposal account versioning will need to happen for certain changes to be implemented ok let's try to map those out and talk to the champions of those the IPS - first let them know what a champion means now and to let them know that there is you know potential hiccups

if there's not a champion found for a prerequisite EIP and I also want to give a notice conversion because I think we actually have I mean I have a sophistication that I try some of the previous concerns like when was the last time when we talked about our conversion II resistance was mostly that because we need to introduce our conversion every six months so that's not doable but I have a specification that basically just make sure we can change gas code so add our codes freely with fullback workability

only require like two versions so future like we only need like C version and the forward alpha version and in the former couple version we can just apply any F here amount and because of course is not observable so it it just works but I what I want to say is that if we if if some1 review that model and we think that's really the thing going on what I would recommend is to do a conversion in in a like you know separate hard work that we have a Hartford just for a

conversion II to to to make sure the process is smooth oh sorry I was on mute okay that sounds good once we have any champion for that AIP there you should pass on that specification to them would be my recommendation or actually yeah is there a link to what you're talking about way or is it not written there are links but I mean so version a CBM is not in Yankee is not a yeah he has this moment but I

have this context I think that we would benefit from a validation step that would do things that have covered a lot of what's in there such as keeping invalid opcodes out including begin block data but there's also some coordination that needs to go on with the solidity community that's there at least to make sure that there's warm URLs or click behind or - there's found stuff is behind that call data so I don't think what we need to get done is doing in the Berlin timeframe is reasonable yes that's what I'm saying and I'm seeing is better just have a separate hard work just for a conversion if we really want to apply it

okay and just guys per Alex this point in the beginning of the meeting should we record like an official action on 70 notes you yeah that's a great idea if it's not gonna go into Berlin probably which is what was just indicated I guess we would scrap it for Berlin are we tracking oops against works now or do you just go in their own bucket irregardless of works it's not it's not scrapping it like completely it's more taking it off the meta if like it's not tentatively accepted anymore and that's an official decision do we need a second track VIPs in the new process why not

just have like a blessed section in the meta like you're literally renaming tentatively accepted to bless or green light or whatever it is that was in the process I think it's valuable for the point people towards like you know this is likely what's going in it doesn't have to be a super strong commitment but otherwise it's already hard for people who are not attending this call to keep track of all the work that's going on so I even if it doesn't purely reflect the process I would be in favor of having like enlist somewhere and just naming the the categories appropriately the that I think a good way to reconcile those two is not to have it be a fork

medallist but just have an EIP that contains blessed VIPs and then maintain that as a list as the ones so have that VIP status and and like a page on the website basically I better just to have an EIP that's sort of like an hard fork list but instead it's just the blessed list and it just gets updated I like that idea and there's actually a zani IP let me find it and the IP one there is a status a status and type of VIP that would fit into that I think it's informational and active I

thought that tentatively accepted would be the same thing as blessed it is but it but saying that it's blessed for Berlin is no longer really accurate from how we are looking at e IPS from the forks Hendrick model but Tim is pointing is pointing out a very good part that's missing is a list of what are the blessed di peas in the first place for people to look at so that should exist somewhere yeah blessed di peas don't mean they're attached to a fork anymore with the new process right I thought the tentatively accepted list were those which are intended to go into a future fork when they're ready but listing them

on a specific for it gives the impressions for that fork that's why I'm putting in a separate IP will better communicate the intent of that state yeah that I agree to I just don't see the need for yet another category oh no it's not a it's a renaming its yeah it makes it a little more specific cuz tentatively accepted it's very vague but it doesn't have a fork attached to it okay we just came out with the term sort of out of thin air that's called a summer so I would better yeah we've been mostly meta for 43 minutes now with stuff I think that's okay because there's not a lot on the agenda today but what were you saying Greg sorry to interrupt well we just have a little

list of VIPs we haven't discussed yet that's I don't think we that's where I would motion that we this is just a suggestion that we have the list that it was the list of tentatively accepted VIPs it's not so important that we go through each one and talk about them unless but we should move them like I would move that all of those and we can go through my number get moved to a plus state and then I'll create a an EIP for bless di peas and then put they put those in there no I I think a few of them should not be blessed they're not

actually technically ready no the being blessed isn't meaning technically ready it means the idea can move forward like it's not it's not a show there's no showstoppers and the idea itself I disagree on I think at least two of those and what way what do you mean like that they shouldn't go forward or yeah if you track the discussion it tapers off with no with no actual consensus on whether they should be moved forward sometimes there's options and it's not clear an option was actually chosen in the unlimited swap and Duke there

appeared to be a show stopper on the preferred option and I didn't see any any way around that that was presented got it so for today's call there's definitely gonna be some low-hanging fruits of EITS that are in the tentatively accepted list that have agreement and implementations that we can say are blessed there are also ones as you pointed out that still have disagreement may not be blessed or because that's a new thing we're doing or might be in somewhere in the middle in which case they wouldn't be blessed and they would stay in this unknown state until more research is done and more discussion

happens on them yeah that's why I'm here this morning and we only have 15 minutes left no good meetings go till 10:00 or an hour and a half okay still let's get that done sounds good eyes there actually since I mean is there any that anyone want to focus on because Greg if you're here for a specific one we can totally skip to that one in my opinions because yeah let me try and get both on this screen yeah fat chance the unlimited swap and do and the article gas were the main ones okay you can go over why you think like what

you think of the current conversation around them and why they would or wouldn't be blessed and then we could have a short discussion on that if anyone has any few comments and then we can put it in blessed or leave it in unknown State yeah I think you're here right Alex can I can I give a quick update well just one comment regarding the blest status my understanding of that is it's just a green light that the idea in general may be good but that only means that work has to be done to spec it out properly and it doesn't mean anything more and under that understanding I do think that 663 does fall under that

category and then the actual update I wrote this a couple of days ago on the Gator channel that yes Greg you were correct here a couple of options and the preferred option had an issue discovered and resolution of that is that it would need to go behind account versioning so it's basically blocked by debt I don't think there was any anybody preferring any of the other options I think there was convergence on that single option which realized in account versioning so that's the stasis of six extreme okay I

has it made it through last call on the magician's no I'm not sure we're at that point yet yeah so I don't I don't see why they should be our concern until they've made it through that process I'm confused yeah last call process had it applies to core piece in general but I think the confusion is that the the blessing only means that people should work I mean the champions here whoever wants to work on it should work on it but it doesn't mean anything else we don't need to be

concerned any any more than that exists Gregg maybe a better term than blessing is basically that there are no vetoes from awkward eggs that nobody has said that's that's not viable we can't do that we won't do that something like that but it's literally the first gauge okay but core Debs can do that in the last call process and get it you know off of the workload that we have here because we buddy eye peas you know so I would say from the community side they also have a problem of do we even get this AI pee to like how much

work is it going to take to get the total specification and the test done is it even worth doing so for them validating that if they went through this work it would be it would be at likely at least talked about seriously that and that's discussion of being blessed it doesn't have to be a long drawn-out discussion about specifications and such it's just oh yes this would be a good idea to implement if you have and so community you're good to work on this this is it's like a passing the torch to them and making sure they it's validating their effort just like we want our work to only be can I various I hear you but if you really care about something you're going

to put the work into it and you can't be asking the community for for blessing for something they haven't seen yet yeah there's is sort of your problem to feel out the community and yeah if you really need to push it to our level fine but mostly I don't think so if someone does a quarry IP to delete like every er C 20 token we want to be able to say don't work on that it's stupid and propose that we may be tabled this sort of like and yes let's go on and Greg you had some things you wanted to talk about is

that any idea yeah I don't I don't think the swamp doop should be here until you know some basic decisions have been made on it spec and I think it's far along in the process those decisions can be made without being discussed here so I I wouldn't consider it blessed but it's not like there's a mountain of work that needs to be done to either get it bless a boulder saying no this isn't going to work yet okay and what's the other he IP the particles of gas yeah that discussion seemed to trail off with some

strong objections of we really don't need these and so that's one I didn't see there was actually consensus on doing this was that your proposal Alex partially but I just wanted to reflect you the the previous conversation that the under Martin's VIP centric proposal what we have been discussing in the first half for majority of this meeting the blast status only means that nobody

objected for the idea but then there is no there's no work put on the shoulders of the client developers having these blast doesn't mean that a client developers have to work on this it only means that those who propose them where I interested in them they have to work on it okay so that's the status of the particle gas ghost as well I don't think there was an objection to the idea but now it's it's it's on the shoulders of those who proposed it or are interested to spec it properly okay I still don't think they should be here until there's a consensus

you know and discuss other discussions that that we actually have a design that's gonna work but let's not go mad on that so those those were my my two comments and those two VIPs that they they didn't look ready and there would be substantial disagreement among the people you know discussing them including some chord amps okay thanks Greg any other comments on those two before we move on to other ones okay if I can find the meta and the agenda

what's the next one we should do is there any way that one that wants to pick the next one we do that has like strong opinions on it cuz otherwise we'll probably be going through with a lot of silence on each one I don't think so maybe I missed this but I don't think we actually had like a final say on 1702 like I feel like the conversation kind of got sidetracked and it seems like we all were kind of agreeing to remove it from the list but I just want to make sure that you know it's like an explicit agreement and not just implicit not Berlin I'll try and get together with my ideas about what needs to make it useful for London probably I agree great and they would stay blessed is for Sophie IP

72 would be would stay blessed or green-lighted as a concept but removed from Berlin yes and there would need to be definitely changes before and a champion before anything else would happen with it okay anybody else have specifically ip's they want to talk for talk to okay one that I found interesting was a IP 1962 the ICI arithmatic and pairings with runtime definitions to replace 1829 I

feel like don't we already have one going into Istanbul that like does something similar no okay presentation one of the concerns that Martin brought up was that it's just not very well spec and it's very dependent upon a single implementation which I agree is a huge barrier that it would a spec says use this implementation that presents a systemic risk to the way we do with these material so I think it would be good but what we need is for the champions to go through and give better specifications I know in the theory magician's threat I

asked them to split out into about four different pre-compiled calls rather than jamming everything in one freaking file call with a bunch of magic set up in the in the call structure that has yet to be reflected to the EIP so I think it's a good idea to provide it general interface to all the EC curves and let them be parametric based off one of the parameter verses which curve but I it needs work from the champions I think I think it's a good idea but we need some work for the champions and it's very much at risk for Berlin we don't get work on that quickly yeah so we need to contact the champion about that one okay

the EIP 1380 reduced gas cost for call to self any comments that would need some benchmarking against one of the clients I would say yeah I think that's Alex is one of the authors on that did you have anything Alex I gave an update on on Kidder that that one and there is another one with the pre-compile cost 2046 for both of them Martin had made benchmarks and and and those benchmarks show that some of the numbers need to be adjusted but I

think they kind of showed that there can be some reduction made of course not to the extent originally proposed so there were some work on it those benchmarks are listed on the e3 Magicians links the discussion URLs for those the IPS and if the defcon5 videos for the workshops go live there was an EVM panel and this topic was discussed there for a couple of minutes so that might be interesting to watch if they take a life okay anybody else okay moving on to another one let's see

we've done 1702 1985 I think we haven't touched on that same limits for certain EVM parameters and I think you had that in get her to write Alex I feel bad speaking again but the the hope with that is it can be applied retroactively Leigh without the need of a hard fork and there was only one one I think one limit which was questioned whether that would require a hard fork and this discussion is there on the human magicians discussion URL I kind of

hope this won't even need to be part of our effort okay so it definitely shouldn't be in blessed status because it's still it's still being discussed it sounds like and it might not even be necessary I mean it was I guess the Martin has explained that the reason for one of the limits where I did with need a heart Fork and I would ask others who who are interested in in those limits to to read that and give an opinion I think that's the only decision needed there three magicians that my question is that

if something is violative what's the behavior for example the account size limits 165 to 255 if you do load it up higher and operate on it what should be the behavior at that point account size limit what do you mean point three for the calls that operate on an address sorry not accounts I address size on them fraud proper actions operate on an address limits it's 165 bits of something in bit 161 to hire as part of that operation to the operation fails

you did ignore it should have treated as zero there's I think some things that although I'll make a discussion and the theory magicians it's very technical question yeah I think it's better to discuss it off the call thank you okay um let's see have we done 20:46 reduced gas cost for static calls made to pre compiles it sounds like we haven't and that one is Alex you're on a roll today here's another one of yours no we actually discussed it as part of

the ourselves Oh yep we did my bad alright the only one left is oh no prog pal so yeah prog pals on here what's everyone's feeling on prog pow we kind of know we I guess we all agreed on it a couple of times so we don't really need to rehash the entire thing but there has been some community sentiment that they don't want it in for me personally it's hard to tell if it's a few loud voices or the actual majority of the community that would you know find this thing to matter to them and stuff like that

anybody here have a perspective they want to share on that otherwise this was already and blessed state in my opinion it's already been implemented mostly at least the zero point nine point two version implemented so one question I would have for this group about Prague Pal is given that there is you know at least some controversy either way and and it seems like some of it also comes down to like a values questions like some people just you know seem to believe that basics are fine some people believe we should optimize for GPUs and you can't really reconcile those two things just like a fundament know like difference in belief if we

were to implement it is this something we'd want bundled with other AI P's is this something we'd want a way for like the community the signal you know through their nodes whether or not they want it like do you do a single prog pal yeah hard fork and that's a question I've been thinking a lot and and you know do we value sort of user choice maximally even though having like a single VIP upgrade would like increase the risks of the network spilling do we value keeping the network together so like even if we include prog pal we don't give it any special treatment and

we include it with the other heaps in the hopes that people just upgrades to the entire upgrade so I'm curious with people's perspectives are just on that like if you were to go through you know house how much or little do we want to change your process yeah I'll stop there I'd say we don't change it at all unless it is impending that there one less there is very high probability on a technical level that there would be a controversial hard fork where the decision would need to be made to have

people choose and even then that's up for discussion at that point that's my opinion though and I'm not a core dev so anybody else is to not treat it any differently as any other VIP that's going to go through it may or may not go through depending on timing with other things or it may go on its own that just

depends Piper did you have something yeah I just may be expressing a common sentiment or maybe it's just my own but I am just born down on this topic and mostly don't care I'm being brutally honest and I'm willing to implement it in our client if that's what everybody else wants to do but otherwise I have no desire to put energy towards it it is strictly a there's other things that are higher priority and it seems

like a distraction and I'm maybe going to get railed on the internet for saying that but but that's where I stand I'm not opposed to it I'm not going to advocate for it or run with it unless everybody else is doing it so that's where I am yeah everyone just wants to stick with their friends and that's in a positive light I should say as in like doing what everyone else is doing whatever consensus dictates I did really love the idea of if everybody really wants this

so much and if miners really want this so much then shifting a percentage of minor rewards to go towards core protocol development as part of it sort of like a payment for the time and energy that's also probably an extremely controversial idea and not something that I'm looking at us hashing out on this call but mostly my resistance is that it's a distraction for me and there are other things that feel like they're more important so if it's so important then ideally it would be nice if we could get some more core dev resources out of it as well that's a good point anybody else have comments I don't think

there's anything technically about it it should have been a big distraction there's there's algorithm there's the code you write it and you plug it in and it takes some time but yeah and I think we are all completely worn down you pretty much said yes at this point more than once we look for technical problems we haven't found technical problems can we just do this and move on cool thanks for that perspective so yeah this one has blessing for sure I'd say

is that what you all are reading into this James or Tim or anyone else yes I assumed that that makes I don't know I think I'm gonna stop talking before I put my foot farther end of my mouth sure I think we can leave it blessed but it's probably worth recognizing there's like a bit more of a distance for it's the action ego live then utter each would have given that like most concerns are non-technical yeah we still don't really have a way to reconcile non-technical concerns very well which sucks an EF I

literally I think I just said the words this looks blessed to me and I bet that's gonna be like quoted on Twitter and everyone's gonna be like Hudson's evil he is pushing the ip's through so yeah I'm ready I'll say come at me twice a with you you can just blame me I'm a coward I ultimately bless things I'll bless whatever you say I'm supposed to bless but all right sounds good I don't that's the last I really don't care what they say about me they always get it

wrong yep so the that that's all for the tentatively accepted e ip's right did I miss any James you had one in the chat right yeah so this wasn't 1559 as as being blessed the transaction fee upgrade that Vitalik manager originally wrote and Rick Dudley's currently working on uh yeah that looks blessed to me is anyone here have any comments that would make it not blessed I've heard nothing but like I've never heard a negative thing about it so far [Music] there I would say that we should if we

bless it we should keep in mind that the towel did just release something called slim 1559 which is a less complex implementation of it that does trade-offs for how like how nice it were what's it called basically the improvements that would provide would lessen but the complexity would lessen as well and that's why I think it's a great example of the IKEA hood process because you come up with an idea and you find changes that you should make along the way before you come back with final approval so I think that's that's great that it's going through these evolutions and being bought through and we get a prototype that reflects what they think is the best idea to break them and all so that is almost all it says just since it's

been blessed it's been happening so I would agree with that too okay any other he ip's okay we already went through process and scheduling discussions under topic two of the agenda anybody have testing updates otherwise let's see I also brought this on on the Kidder I don't think I mean today may have been a special day discussing those lists from the list but I don't think we should really discuss those AIPS anymore

unless there's like an implementation and a quite final spec for them because they shouldn't be anything special I think that's great that's a really really good idea let's do it and yeah James said he agrees anybody else disagree or to agree I'd like if a champion comes on and it's like hey I want to talk about this we obviously let them on but otherwise we don't bring you up specific eats yeah that's actually would make things a lot easier

yep I'd love what one medic question I have about that is should the Blessed state be something that's officially done on the record that's called then can be linked to in the notes like the movement of it going to Blessed I think we should personally I agree what do you think Alex blessed such as preliminary approval or something like that we can do green light I like green light yeah yeah there's too many millennial connotations with hashtag blessed besides religious connotations and I

think someone asked Alex if that was cool that is a problem so this is gonna be a bit controversial with how about tentatively accepted I like that list of things that we don't hate yeah looks like actually Bitcoin has like it what is it is like concept acknowledged or something like that they use that like on the poll requests mostly but okay

I like LG TM what Tim just suggested looks good to me [Music] there's only accepted Oh in favor that's good provisionally accepted yeah well we'll do that and if someone has a question about what provisionally accepted means they can just go to the process which we will be someone will write up you see Mike is ready to be yeah yes the question the matter provisionally accepting something should be on this call and I personally think it should be in physical and be recorded

I think that's important that it's recorded and then put in the notes where's the agenda I lost it the tab just one more thing earlier in the call there was a proposal to have another like informational VIP listing these provisionally accepted things is that what was decided yes and I I think more than just provisionally I think we should also list for the DI keys lie on the new ie IP process so whether when a champion says that there is a prototype

ready they should update it and punch the prototype many happy so people come folk and review it if there has been secured reviews done about it they should move that the security review has been published and stuff like that if there's a security review needs to be done or or things like that and then when it's ready to come up for discussion for the final awkward I was approval you know for client implementation that should be recorded there as well so I think you need an information elite covering these new stages for from Aaron's model this would also go into EIP one but it could be a basically a sub e IP to e IP 1 or something of that nature a whole new e IP that's one that's active

informational that we can Linda link to for me IP one for core dev stuff specifically and then e rc stuff will stay the same for now with the last call and things like that until we update it which I'm hoping we'll do at some point so can we record a decision then is is the decision to create a new VIP with the status of which list provisionally accepted yeah peace yes I will second that I'll be right back and can we have a sub decision there that the champion of a

provisionally accepted EEP should be the one making PRS on that new sort of master list to add basically bullet points and order each that points to progress as they have an implementation as they have testing and whatnot I like the idea of the but I wonder how many of these should be in the actual even self and they would only recommend moving needs to stages rather than having the mastery be a big ol white board of what your status okay I'm back sorry the tower of two leaders fell on my wife I

go ahead sorry just for visibility I think it's actually good if like we have this master dist that you're able to see stuff maybe that maps to the various stages of the EIP centric process but like if i'm able to pull up the master this and be like hey the IPX like has an implementation and testing and just like one-click freedom I think there's value there without it being like cluttered I guess at most you'll get like five or six bullet points per each which doesn't seem like it's you know too much overhead I this was I think this will fit in the realm of stuff that I'll be

managing or helping you manage moving forward and I think just doing having the first step be as Alex said it and starting there and then the idea being make that actually useful and then move forward with what needs to be added or changed because there's another request previously like Peter wished that he could see them sorted by which ones are most ready and things like that could be done in that repo they don't think they need to be decided like we decided today about one of those things are gonna happen yeah I agree I mean I would be okay having get into the PM repo as well and I'm not keen on having it in the EAP repo if that's

easier or less work so Jason had a good comment oh suggesting eligible for inclusion instead of blessed and we are what was the thing we said provisionally accepted was that what we decided on earlier yeah I like yeah they both sound good hmm yeah so what is provisionally meand that's the only thing I was having trouble with like I don't know what the

actual definition of provisionally is like a provisional driver's license when you're training someone that you know that right can be revoked if things go poorly but I think I think communicates the intent better because provisional implies we put conditions on it we know what those are yeah let's do that one eligible was it eligible for deletion yeah fi oh hey pooja you had a comment about the e CH doing some stuff we can create the list of all the provisionally accepted VIPs from in Istanbul like going by the

d-wave distinctions made in calls and going forward and maintain it at ACH github if that helps let's not decide a day on where it would be maintained but I'm sure James can work with the e CH to work together to maintain that list because that's gonna be an undertaking if things get more popular I'm also great yeah I'm also unsure if it could fit in the PM repo or like technically something this related to the dead process should be outside of the EIP repo I don't know that's

something I haven't considered yeah okay that sounds good okay the we don't have previous decisions to discuss cuz the call notes aren't up yet because it's only been a week or less since someone couldn't even do them so we don't have testing updates today I don't think anyone spoke up anybody else have any it does catch the instance

where if you using the less than instead of less than equal on the stipend it'll blow up the test so we got coverage for that now the test once it gets merged awesome anybody else have testing updates okay anybody have any other updates client updates anything else like that all right we will have our next meeting and - okay sorry just jump in really quick earlier in the call you said that the cat herders would be putting out an update on his temple

it was between the cat herders and the etherium org Blagh Blagh I think for sure 100% it's got to be on the official blog not not to downplay anything that the caterers are doing but this has to be super super visible and I think there should even be weekly tweets from the etherium account just to get people aware of this what they need to do obviously is there's not a time they just update their node infrastructure by the date but um I think there should be a big big communication push on this front from official etherium communication channel okay that sounds good to me

well we'll definitely push a blog out on the etherium gorg blog I think we might have a more detailed blog post from the cat herders that is linked from the etherium blog so the etherion blog will just say hey update your nodes here's all the clients that you can update from for more information go to the cat herders because they do all the other stuff that might be the best compromise there yeah I think the important thing is just consistently repeating this over and over and over test you know people miss frequently mm-hmm especially when the hard Forks happen early we might actually say for people to upgrade by the second instead of the fourth since it could happen early ok the upgrade kind of much before death mm-hmm we

should look at future upgrades having it by timestamp is that like really hard to do client people can do that if there is we need a right special logic on that we need a test on all the clients to handle that and that's a great way for consensus to get next stop Monterey's remembers there being something weird about uncles that are like ahead of you on the floor like you yeah there was there were definitely

some submissions okay sounds good we can keep it with block number then that's it thanks everyone for coming we'll have our next meeting in two weeks and that will be on the November 15th is that wouldn't Thanksgiving I don't know what day Thanksgiving is it's not then right for the US I mean not for Canada I think regardless we should have it on the 15 because I'm we changed a schedule people like don't come I think if we can keep it you know yeah even if there's not a lot of attendance just keeping on

schedule is good and I'm happy to facilitate that it's Thanksgiving in the US and for some reason you can't Hudson no worries so that would affect the meaning in four weeks but since everyone's gonna go to midnight shopping they'll just stay up a little later and go in for the call at eight to ten one local time and it's deal at seven two times so it's an hour earlier so just coming from all agree shopping all right yeah for those who don't participate in Black Friday that happens in the u.s.

it's like the best holiday so get on over here and participate anyways I'm gonna go take a nap now I think good call see in two weeks everyone Cheers [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause]

[Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] you

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause]

[Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Applause] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Applause] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Applause] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Applause] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Applause] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music]