All Core Devs - Execution #50

Transcript

[Music] [Music]

you [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] you you

hello is this working now it's working now yay okay good morning everybody if we pull up the agenda I think it's updated I think someone asked for a prog pal update so I'll add that there right now if we can have anyone give us a prog pal update that's gonna be item number six okay just added that to the agenda so the first item is there was a document posted by Grieg in the agenda that was also mentioned in coin desk and what I consider a little bit of a sensationalist article so what that was was a series of ad hoc meetings that

happened in Prague I guess Peter pretty accurately explained it in the core devs chat if you all want to go in there and kind of see what he just wrote but basically the summary of all this is that it's really cool when people meet in person so basically it makes sense I was just reading some more comments it makes sense when people meet in person that things develop a little bit faster as far as ideas and things like that and when it's more like when it's not on a public court of meeting things can be a little bit more candid which I think are

both very good things however I think there's this impression that these meetings were super official I actually for my part personally just fell into one of them I wasn't formally invited or anything and I don't think a lot of people were either I just happened to walk into the room and there was the meeting going on at least for one of them another one I decided to go to because I just like heard about it after the fact that there was gonna be just a small meeting of developers getting together to talk about some stuff that they didn't want to talk about like in public yet by the way if you hear anything or if I mistyped something it's because I have to do this in the cat

room today so there's gonna be some cats running around so all in all I think that the notes taken by Daniel were for people who didn't attend they weren't released widely yet but I were would would have hoped that they would have been released more widely at the time of the meetings I believe there were some people who wanted this to be kept much more private and some people who wanted this to be much more public and the people who were doing the proposals and the working groups definitely wanted to have their working groups work without interference from public comment at first while we while we gathered data about some of the

proposals that were being initiated so in short the Stefan coin desk about the accelerated tech roadmap and stuff like the like this hard fork date and stuff like that those were all suggestions that were thrown out but nothing is in stone at all especially the June 2019 date I think someone was like what's a good you know date for the deferral hard fork and someone threw that out there is an answer if I remember correctly so it's not something that should be very controversial even though the document wasn't made widely available the meeting wasn't made widely available because of

how ad-hoc it was either so it was just Daniel taking notes over something that people got together about does anyone have any comments concerns etc about this I would add that the goal is remember was I was in most of these meetings and the goal was never to like try to set a roadmap or decide what to do or not to do it was more like what are the problems that we see how can we address that how can we work to produce the IPS to propose to fix these things so truly the goal the end goal was to try to produce some like decide who and what

fork is done to produce the eye piece asked to think things to be private maybe it was a mistake in hindsight and I remember some people were I think Hudson actually was one of the people who wanted to be more public but anyway so I don't I mean I didn't realize probably that it's gonna be such a such a big deal because for me it's basically I cannot as I said in a chat I cannot effectively communicate with the whole

community and I just wanted us to get some work done in in small groups and then unfortunately like I don't I don't know how to kind of invite all the people who will be interested but I there's no no intention of actually just secretly decide where a team is gonna go it's because I just realized that a lot of the discussions are happening on other forums they just meandering around the topic we have discussed this thing's hundred times before everything there's nothing new that we're actually talking about it's been there's lots of VIPs there's alts proposals but actually somebody has to go and extract this information from people because most of the time they actually talking past each other nobody is really taking in and like summarizing me the whole thing

digging up the data and stuff and for me personally I cannot do it while constantly communicating or I read it on Twitter I need some I need some quiet time to do these things so but so I think without this kind of balance we can't produce hype - we will just be endlessly talking and I also saw some people alleging that this is the reason why we don't go to Syria magicians I mean personally I can never go to magicians because I cannot travel so much I can only have a couple of travels a year and they always in different ways welcome Prague I could not earlier to Prague I only is very difficult to me to plan such long trips

so I actually only could come for Def Con I could not come earlier so and I don't like the insinuations that we have discouraging people to go to magicians or anything like this this is completely not true so I asked could you please stop making these connections I'm really on offense because I was in a room with 250 people at East magicians and everyone wanted to solve problems and you are saying you don't know how to invite people and I was asking and the big the big rumor to status had for us I was asking who considers and said if Tim core developer or is young researcher and out of 250 people only to

raise their hands waiting for me we had so many amazing work groups we were sitting in one room with like people coming through from either standing all these problems about the theorem and now two weeks later I learn about these these hoc meetings I am really really angry about well you know are free so why do you put more importance on this meeting than on other meetings is your magician I think they should be a week Oh significance I don't know why you make such a big deal of it and maybe because the victaulic and Joe who's happened to be there and I as I said they're not even required to be there miss meetings they didn't almost say anything so maybe next time we shouldn't

even we make sure that they are not there because lots of people make the big deal that some such and such and such sat in a room but they were wood you know they weren't required okay so I cannot organize a meeting of 200 people very easily I can easily organize a meeting of 10 people so you need to think about a scale right we don't it is as as everybody as I've mentioned before this was a spontaneous meeting I don't want to every time I want to have a meeting I want to talk to somebody about stuff I have to organize like livestream and seating 400 200 people it's just not possible

and I don't know why this is such a big deal now that we happen not to provide all these things I can I can see where some people would consider it a bigger deal I do think that it's it's a little bit some of the topics that were discussed in these smaller meetings were big topics and I think that is why people take this as something bigger than it was and I think that that's totally fair I also think that there needs to be a balance of meetings that in working groups that are more closed to an extent or maybe have only notes released so that we can be more candid I

do think that as much that can be public and open as possible should be public and open I think all I think most of us or all of us pretty much agree on that but it's it's just hard to balance that I think in meetings like this the ones that are live streamed and open people don't feel like they can speak up as much and that is a sentiment that was talked about a lot in the ad hoc meetings that we had so and that's kind of proven itself out by the fact that now we have this article from Coyne desk that's pretty sensationalist talking about you know roadmaps and things that were discussed you know and private and the notes were only taken so that we

could be a little more organized about the workgroups before we make the e ip's public at this point the e ip's weren't even written or I'm pretty sure the e ip's weren't even written about it yet so this was like even a pre EIP meeting which I'm sure happens I saw the you know members of the goth team and others meeting about different e IPS throughout the event so and my opinion I think this could have been made a little bit more this could have been made a little bit more public I think that there is an argument that that was a mistake that it wasn't however it was the type of meaning that didn't lend itself to being made public immediately because it was ad hoc and there were some people in the

meeting who suggested it remain private so I set this off late last night maybe I shouldn't have but the minutes were up there they were accessible by anyone with the lake so they looked published to me and they looked interesting to the core devs for meetings over the course of two three days don't look at hoc and I'd complained to Danny about the first meeting um and it struck me first you know who's invited I never saw even notice on the Chordettes

if you're worried about too many people putting a notice on the private core devs list is not going to bring in too many people and is going to bring in more people who really needed to be there well real quick that list isn't private as the is an issue so there's 288 people or so in the chat I think there's 249 row brawl core developers we weren't all there we weren't all to go show up at the meeting and to some extent it's just suck it up you know we're we're a public project we're an open project and yeah it's difficult to have these private discussions and that's just too bad

and you can say it's ad hoc but when you have that many people from that many different groups different companies it doesn't look like an ad hoc meeting it just doesn't and then all we've got to go on are these minutes you know it's like no make a recording make a transcript you know yeah it's too late to have a public meeting at that point but open up as much as you can and if you're going well we I have a meeting where we can say what we want and not have it be made public you're you're just on the wrong project form yourself a corporation then do whatever you want behind closed doors

well no it wasn't that we didn't want it to be made public it's that we didn't want it to be made public immediately so that we would me surrounded by a lot of either don't don't put a public link on the Internet no there's that's impossible with the way we have this setup right now in the future I think that there's going to be maybe a little bit more of a closed chat to an extent or maybe not as close chat I should say a list of core developers who attend the all core devs meetings that I can reach out to for meetings like this I think that might be a good resolution to having meetings that include the core devs without necessarily inviting the media and that's the thing it's like whenever we have these you know very open meetings

we're inviting the media which I think you'd agree it's not always the best way to get things done why because that distracts people and makes them not speak up about their actual intentions that was revealed by multiple people at those ad hoc meetings so the issue is that you as a developer I can many times I cannot freely say stuff knowing that coin desk is waiting to misinterpret every sentence that I make and if I'm going to say that if it doesn't scale then it will result in Norfolk elliptic article and it completely misses the point and it's completely taken out of

context and then people instead of saying what's on their mind and having open discussions people start feeling bad and start with withheld ink or with holding their own opinions because they are afraid of the media backlash and maybe that's something we have to learn to live with as Greg says I don't have a solution to that you're just saying that this is a problem that people are kind of afraid to speak their minds and that this kind of makes things harder to progress don't quote people before isn't that what we did at the ap0 no need to be quite right idea so AIP zero was partially closed in

order to permit to have people be more candid yeah at anything to discuss right now well I also you know I also sort of realized after coming back from Def Con which you know which is very interesting but also very exhausting I realized that a lot of times the way we go about the ip's is that somebody writes the IP on their own mostly I'm then it goes goes into public and people start discussing it but then it's kind of a bit too overwhelming to try to keep up with this and so a lot of people just give up I mean I gave up on the before and then the thing never move anywhere so what we

I thought we needed is that essentially we needed some kind of the IP produced not by just one person but by the by the group but before that could happen they they have to synchronize and do the what I call the knowledge extraction because somebody has to come and basically start asking all the stupid questions as I did I did attempt this in in Prague as well with the group oh he wasn't developers are just sitting there like a dummy and asked him though the stupid questions that for them it's very implicit but for me it's not clear at all and it took maybe it's like an hour to do this extraction and then I started to get an idea of it and I would never be able to achieve this over the chats or over the

recorded conversations it's just just way it is and then after that you could you could create like a a IPS which were produced by a group rather than by individuals which I six expect will be much higher quality so you oops do we have other people who have comments on this just one more comment I would like to

add I think it I'm not sure whether after your Greg brought it up that for example this could have been discussed during the Athena magician's forum and to be honest yes it would have been a lot better opportunity but again unfortunately I personally really hate it when we have a conference and then it turns into this two week long thing because I have a personal life and I cannot make it and I couldn't make it through if your magician calls simply because I had other stuff during the weekend I generally I have other stuff during the weekend and this resulted in me missing the quarter sorry the east magician calls and since I had these

ideas in me I just took the opportunity to talk about them with people during Def Con so yes the Thira magicians would have been a better forum but unfortunately I wasn't there so I took the next best opportunity I had to rally up a few people and I don't and this is my fault but I don't completely understand the purpose of a magician's mean if I thought it was much more political than technical and so no like what is the white bones and bringing like technical issues there okay I can figure that out actually digging in the yeah I did not suggest this should have

been a teeth magicians I just suggested it shouldn't have been closed or if it needed to be behind closed doors it shouldn't have been so ad-hoc for something so important I just had time to skim Rachael's article it doesn't look that sensational to me it looks like a reasonable summary of what you could get from just the minutes and that's just a danger of not doing things completely in the open the press is going to make what they can make of it and that's that I think he makes some really good points but yeah go ahead lame

I think one of the main purposes of Devcon for all of us is to facilitate these ad hoc conversations right because we work in such a distributed fashion we don't otherwise have the opportunity for the sort of water-cooler type conversations that I think are more common in big companies I also don't think anyone here is suggesting that every one of those private sidebar conversations whether it's two people or four people or six people should be streamed recorded you know etc and that is that is how this started right to my understanding this was originally a very small group of people who had a very specific topic to discuss which was around the sort of time frame for the roadmap and and how consensus it can map to that internally and work on product

ization etc etc and as with many things the scope expanded both in terms of the topics we were discussing the number of people etc and so from my perspective the interesting question to ask here is like where's the line and how do we know when we're crossing that line right when it's two people or four people are six people with a limited scope I think everyone's fine with that happening over a beer or on a side bar but if you know the meeting happens and then more people come and more people come and suddenly it's a room with 20 people in it I just want people to understand that that this is you can't always plan proactively for these things sometimes these things evolve organically and then you realize hey we have suddenly a critical mass of people here and the scope is expanded and what

do you do in that moment when everyone's already in the room and the meetings already halfway over yeah x'q did you have something to add well most of it was said by lane but I wanted to just reiterate a bit on the explanation peter has given on the Gator channel and in general I think all of these people are really good at working together remotely and these coasts like the old code of coasts are quite useful but it's a very different environment if you meet people in person and I think they're the first meeting the first two

meetings nobody could say that they weren't ad hoc because they were at heart people just and started joining and people opened up a lot about the ideas they had and I think that's one of the reasons it wasn't part of anything like the magician's because most of these people are not really following they too much magicians that closely and none of these you know most of these people with these ideas they haven't really put these ideas forward but I think going forward it will be you know most of these people on the the all kind of cults they will be in a much better position to you to

form more public groups and discuss ideas you know around like the future of it even 1.0 and because they had like these initial conversations where they they felt safe yeah the point I kind of made earlier is that we need to find a balance I believe and I think we can i I disagree with Gregg that everything that can be open has to be made open in every single scenario because I think that's detrimental to the protocol I think that that makes it so that people can't have open conversations I think that people who have working groups they can have working groups that are private you can

you just have to consider what is going to happen yeah I mean we say these are ad hoc but I'm looking through and there's like at least 15 people at every one of these groups and there's four of them it doesn't look at hoc it just doesn't look at hoc I'm told it's ad hoc but it doesn't look at hoc to anybody from the outside it looks like an organized series of meetings so so at DEFCON that we had specific like we had meeting rooms that people could rent out and those meeting rooms could hold 15 or you know they could hold at minimum 15 people at maximum you know I think 50 people and a

Mir Taqi had a candid pretty ad hoc meeting that ended up having 40 50 people so when we say ad hoc I think were meaning ad hoc even though some people you know invited other people I think it became a little bit bigger than we were expecting in fact if you notice the list of people being invited there's some people who aren't core devs and the part of that was because like Lane said originally the idea for some of these meetings where that consensus would get a better idea of what the core devs were up to based on inviting some of the core devs so that they could plan their internal roadmap more accurately so I I think I think what we're trying to say

Greg is that these weren't meant to be these were ad hoc these were meant to be ad hoc meetings the fact that they ended up having more people than we expected was not the plan I understand that I'm just you know to say yeah and I think and I do agree with you that it's unfortunate that it ended out this way and that the notes seem to be private and that you know things like this I think things like this just happened and we learn from them I don't think anyone was meaning for this to be malicious I posted the notes and there is nothing about them that looked private there there's a neural you go to it there's

the notes and if you do that on the web it's not private oh of course and that's why I'm saying I think that they like may have eventually been made public I don't think we're at a place to make them public yet so the least you do in that situation this somebody just turns on the record button on their cell phone and volunteers to make a transcript but it becomes clear that this is an important meeting maybe it wasn't planned to be that it was an important meeting okay I think we understand that now yeah as a core dev I'm just like squinting at partial minutes wondering okay what does this

mean to my work I'm not sure I would disagree that it's an important meeting I don't think it was important at all and a lot of these conversations happen all the time in parity and I'm sure in 50 oh yeah that's what I also wanted to say that I don't really see why this was an important meeting so the thing that we wanted to figure out is who can help produce initial proposal on how to go for who can have for example AXA collect the data he needs to to put a number on for example how large is the state trying it here and because nobody has a clue as to exactly how large it is and somebody needs to make that data essentially these were the stuff we discussed who is going to help do that

yeah as much as it sounds like I'm defending the meetings in general I was one of the people who spoke up for them to be a little more public and as part of that because I was one of the people tapped with Daniel Hyneman to organize the future the follow up meeting on the 30th what I did was every working group member let me pull up exactly what I said every working group member I said hey you know how's your working group stuff going and my last question them was I'm having reservations on how open the meeting on the 30th should be I'm not exactly sure we had said we wanted it to be you know somewhat closed in private until January but I started to feel like they should maybe be more open here's some options should it be

completely closed notes taken and released to the public but no video taken video taken but published later or live streamed like we do the core death meetings and the reason I asked just the working group leads were because it's not fair to them for us to just suddenly say this is gonna be public whenever the ad hoc meetings kind of made it seem like it would be more closed so there were there were some potential for the meetings and the notes to be more open I just don't think we had enough time for that to completely culminate and for the 30th meeting I kind of want to get a temperature from everyone does that still need to be somewhat closed because if it does we're at least were being

open about it and I don't know if everyone's comfortable saying their opinion on that but the people who especially the working group leads if you are comfortable what what do you think about the the meeting on the 30th where you present your research okay so I'm gonna say I'm generally okay with the with the releasing whatever whatever we've got the only want the thing I wanted to avoid it I actually wanted to avoid two things there are certain things in the material which my basically start like a kind of a witch hunt in my opinion that there would be like contracts which consume most of the storage or seems about the gas token blah blah blah so I

don't want this to happen I we need to kind of make sure that this doesn't happen so this is no goal the goal of this is not to blame certain contract developers that they've written the contract consume a lot of stores or something like that and the second thing is that the if somebody reads this document and they might think oh my god the serum is doomed right so I don't want that to happen as well because it's that's that's my reservations we have to present it in a way that it's not the problem statement it's or it's not just a problem statement it's also a solution so I mean I'm happy to release it but it's it might not be kind of and again I'm not even comfortable that all the

data is actually correct so you see when people make the public presentation they you know the professional ones they say well I'm calm I don't I have more data but I'm only comfortable to release this one because I'm actually kind of sure that I've double-checked this and everything is correct or rather just throwing something around which might be actually a mistake and then somebody is going to suffer because of that hey AXA cuz your hands still raised I don't think so but I just wanted to clarify one thing to Greg when I met

mentioned ad hoc and i strictly referred to what peter has posted on the old code F channel today 2 p.m. and that the the first ad hoc meeting there was truly ad hoc and the one I was involved with yeah I understand that I'm not I'm not saying they weren't ad hoc I'm saying they sure don't look at hoc from the outside when I find myself in a hallway behind with a closed door I'm going what's going on and someone says oh there's a big meeting in there Vitalik and joe Lubin

and people from trinity people from i'm gone i didn't hear about this meeting it's a pretty strange feeling yeah and I actually am not sure who was responsible for inviting who that's why I think it was originally meant to be very small with people like metallic Joe Lubin and a few other consensus folks and it just grew so I think it's nothing we can for the first couple meetings and it was sort of everyone invited whoever they wanted to and so I think Danny who was there to discuss to play no stuff invited metallic and then it just kind

of grew yeah yeah it just got more and more people and then yeah understood ok so does anyone have any other comments on the meeting on the 30th just so we don't spend the entire time on this topic that was partially due to me kind of keep bringing stuff up but as far as the meeting on the 30th goes what are people's opinions it can be completely open to completely closed I'm ready to hear whatever is what this meeting is about and how it was probably quality meeting this meeting is to present research that the groups that were ad hoc said I want a

working group and on in this working group I want to figure out some data points in order to then publicly talk about some proposals and when I say proposals I mean any ip's and when I say e ip's I mean II IPS that affect aetherium one point X or a theory in one point what what do the people doing the presentations want to do the people doing the presentations let me see let's see they mostly wanted it closed I think

because they'd they might not be sure of their research as Alexei mentioned or because they think that sooner or later the topics will come up in the core Deb's chat but starting a forum on Earth magicians might be more prudent that's what one of them said so that some of them are arguing that it shouldn't be a live call because it should be instead in a text format on earth magicians so it would still be public but it would just be public in a different format that makes sense and then they can working the working groups can meet in person at the next magicians meeting or any time they want

and when I say closed I'm gonna put the meeting link in the awkward Deb's chat as my plan however I'm not gonna livestream or record the meeting on YouTube because I think that wouldn't serve the purpose that we want for the meeting I would just kick people out who aren't core devs from the call so the media wouldn't be invited but any thought any interaction that happens should happen textually on earth magicians and you know data be released prior to it being discussed in the call alexey specifically how is that for a compromise further close you know I'm

okay I'm basically I'm personally or not bothered about the openness or closeness of this because I would say what I think anyway so it's more the other PI I'm just trying to trying to protect other people or whatever because I always try to find out like the the other people are much more sensitive into topics that's why I that's why I actually asked for the blanket kind of closeness because I myself because I'm not belonging to any of these bigger organizations that are kind of invested in the future of aetherium so I I can say whatever I want and I don't really you know have this reservation but I just need to be very

careful while working with other people yeah I completely understand so unless anyone has any qualms about this I think that the working group leads should post a for a thread on a theory of magicians at some point of their choosing about the topics they're gonna be discussing on the 30th and the call on the 30th will be a closed call to anyone but core developers who will be invited via the core developer channel and just to reiterate that call will not be live streamed and recorded on YouTube that call will have potentially have notes taken if someone wants to take notes but those notes don't even have to be

released to the public if we don't want them to we can decide that on a later date does anyone have any comments on that or objections sounds very strange and why does that sound strange it again it's a once you have meetings across groups it just shouldn't be secret is that that causes the very thing you don't want once it's not out in the public then the press will report whatever they can find out and it it won't be complete and accurate okay so

if I'm the only person who who ever said that it needs to be closed and let's do it open if there's no other bit no anybody else I don't want to be the only person who seems to want to keep the private because I don't I don't want to keep it private I just maybe it was my mistake that I was assumed too much about other people Aleksey there were definitely other people in the room who who wanted to be private but I think those people may not be present on this call hall I'd actually don't remember specifically who they were I specifically said that I I agree that at least for me I can speak my mind a lot easier if I'd know that there's no recording of it being made or no coin

desk article but the Kapiti fine but you have to like the consciousness has to be unless some constraint if you make it private you must be make sure that is properly announced so people that are not invited can at least have has a chance to say hey I know you access private meeting I want to be part of this this is one thing and if you decide the lapses private meeting and just take notes you can't say these notes of secret because of open source software is open source protocol and it's not only kinda it's not only the petals also we are totally totally disenfranchised community out there and we are trying to

like keep them involved and we cannot argue that that we are like very decentralized governance whatever by just keeping meetings private unannounced and locking away the notes to only I don't know participants you can have private meeting that's fine but announce them be transparent about it and share the notes and if you don't want to help in line name attention and then just say it in the meeting and make sure that the notes are like not try to go back to a single person contributing to these unattributed yeah like Chatham House Rules well this is one of the mistakes with the current notes it they

were they would continue attribution and yeah I think that's a good compromise though offeree personally I think that that's similar to what I just suggested except for the fact that the notes would then be decidedly made public so basically as far as figuring out how to invite everyone I would just use the all core devs channel and basically say anyone who wants to come to this that's Accord EV reach out to me I'm also posting the meeting link in here so you don't have to reach out to me but if you come to the meeting and you're not considered a core dev by the majority of people who are attending or if you provably have not been to previous meetings because we have notes

some previous attendance then I can say you're not a core developer and you shouldn't be here cuz it's hard to define who's a core developer or not so a line has to be drawn and I don't know how else to draw that line okay I think that's the problem is drawing the line because if you have these rules for everything then cross client cooperation becomes practically impossible we had like another sit down where you were part of it as well after talking about fast work and challenges so fast sync and warp sync and how we figure that out and we didn't announce that anywhere there's no public note to that meetings and worked just happened

especially when you're in a conference you're in the same room you start talking about something I don't know how we proactively plan for every conversation and make disclosures and notes and like I don't sound like I don't see it how this actually works but different things if you have a meeting where you agree on a time where you go to and take notes and then decide is a secret and you don't invite everyone or for some reason you can't invite everyone and what the past was meeting was this was indeed a talk we just met after the pegasus and decided let's talk about this because they just said in their presentations they want to talk

they want to implement fast walk faster and I was like ask me some questions and then it was both naturally but it's different if you say oh let's meet tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. and talk about assume 1.8 well actually that meeting was also pretty mediated so it was already we just wanted to go to the Pantheon meeting and then go and meet up and talk about sync protocol so it wasn't if you look at it from that perspective it wasn't ad hoc because we had to sink to up with a few people to make sure that everybody has time that's a certain point yeah I think I do think we should move on and talk about

other stuff if I if I may just make a suggestion I think I'm still myself confused about where that line is I think I think we all have consensus that as I said sidebar ad hoc truly ad hoc chats of two or three or four maybe as many as five people are okay and don't need to be you know announced recorded etc and that on the other side of that line there's clearly you know meetings that are ahead of time and you know 20 people are there or something and I think it'd be interesting for everyone to think about where that line is and if we can't come up with some criteria and use that as some basis going forward you know how about general understanding in this community that that certain types of meetings will always be recorded and made public which I believe they should

be is it's this line influenced by by the fact if it's not just a number of people but whether what kind of projects mesh companies they are from if it's a larger number then it should be public because it's difficult very subjective I think it's very subjective I think that's part of the challenge yeah it's subjective and more danfa traditionally has been controlled by maybe as I choose who's in the meetings or not I like will kick people out if they're not a core dev so it's incredibly subjective and I wish there was a better way or there was more to clearly defined rules on whose accord EV right now my personal rules that I use

are you have to be working on a low-level protocol development for aetherium unless there's a very specific circumstance where you can contribute to low level development but you're not a low level developer so for instance so for instance in fira or ether scan they work on some low level stuff with regards to I guess maybe I guess RPC calls would be just about low enough but as client developers II was um swarm those are very low level engineers and so those would be the kind of people who would be at the meetings so that's kind of the loose definition I have for those who attend them

but I'm really open to suggestions on how to make it more fair and so it's not just me picking them maybe we need a meta meeting or a separate meeting to discuss this further I say yeah I agree lane Constantinople stuff today okay yes we absolutely can especially since there's some Newton news on that so the meeting on the 30th right now we'll discuss it more in the all core devs get her chat but for right now the meeting on the 30th is not closed but it may be closed to anyone but developers who will be all be invited as much as we can and notes may or may not be released but right now we're leaning toward them being released it sounds like and that's

kind of what I've come to is there any closing thoughts on that I don't think anyone would be troubled by notes being released if they're not attributed I do think that's a generally reasonable compromise any other closing comments okay so let's move on to item 2 which is testing I don't know if Martin can make the call today but he had some updates to EVM fuzzers are still running and no new issues have been found in the last few weeks one test case found by fuzzing has now been added to the test repo it affected Gethin aetherium J at least and concerned EXT code hash so it was a

fairly complex edge case scenario so it sounds like it wouldn't have been able to been easily used on the on the test net hive is currently down for maintenance there's some hopes that we'll get it working again during the day it's been moved into the etherium org and is now death team member Frank has been working on improving it further with a test suite for p2p networking as well as support for more advanced multi client suites so that's his update does anyone else have a testing update I can probably add that that some good progress is being made on the Xcode hash

tests in general there's a kind of list of tests being aimed to be completed and there's an awful lot of green on it now so that's that starting to look really good there's a few tests still there to come but hopefully we can fill them in in the in the coming week or two okay great client updates let's start with parity no me drop it okay yes just a tiny performance update that you've been

playing around with our caching and it seemed that we managed to do LASIK therefore think we can manage to do about fifteen percent faster for sync and about 30% faster block processing after a sync is done I'm really happy about and this guy seems to be almost reduced to zero during normal block processing after you're in sync so I'm kind of happy about that and also Martin found a really nasty bug that we had in our code for the whole year that affected only if you run with some insane cash allowances and that may or may not actually have influenced the pruning efforts so it's a the background

info we have of pruning algorithms implemented since summer but there was some corner case that we didn't manage to find yet and that bug actually might have been causing this corner case so probably will try to pick up that that pruning effort again and see whether whether now it actually works as it's supposed to work so that's about it okay harmony we have released their of giant harmony with the fixes that are related to rob stone constantinople hard fork yep a couple of no notes to participate in

this Derby testing network that is gonna be used for testing transitions cross client transitions to Kristin Donato and spend pretty much time on if to pronounce back limitation it's pretty magic should okay etherium J s anybody LS o pol we can't hear you I know you're unmuted but I don't think your microphone is working okay I think we can hear you now hello

Nimbus etherium it's hard to remember the next wait Oh Pantheon yeah I just want to say thanks for all the people who have given us a great reception after our or at least you think this is one of our first calls since then we put out a zero point eight point two release with some fixes around the edges of things that people have reported and so on

and continuing to work well the the Gauley test net and the ster be test nets have been really useful in getting things up and running and were to seem to be thinking well with that so we're all on track for Constantinople I think great anyone here from Trinity okay Who am I missing clients why is anybody manna manna I thought manna combined with X theorem or did that not happen yeah so man that X theory I'm unfortunate again there's one client wonderful what's the client

name I should describe it as I think we're gonna sleep with the man a name okay sounds great go right ahead um yes the progress is really good we have nearly a complete sync up we're working on getting kind of tooling performance proof of work fabrication and warp sync together and you know we're kind of targeting q1 2019 for having a kind of early working full client awesome any other clients I missed Hudson I can give a quick update about DT MJ s a wonderful Holger has released a new version of the VM this week which has full support for Constantinople and and the last release

of solidity which was also released this week or last week comes with what for the Constantinople opcodes and the ones remix and the other frameworks pick up both of these then end users and developers will be able to test Constantinople changes outside of the chains as well okay and then there's there any other clients barely participate in the efforts to set up

these networks and do the testing and that's the main thing that we're working on okay great yeah sorry for forgetting that one let me see oh by the way I'm posting this link in chat the Constantinople Constantinople what's it called chart I guess progress tracker is filled out completely and it's been moved to a wiki format so that we can edit the test cases spreadsheet as well so I'll post it in both chats oh and it looks like a Lexi's noticing - Rob Stinson Elyse oh he's with turbo

gasps next Izzie wasum the update is quick we have launched a test net at DEFCON and we have made a community call last Thursday and on that call it is recorded it's on YouTube on the iam account and and we show a demo had to run a client and we also show demo how to interact with the test and deploy contract all of this is in the testing documentation and to anybody everybody's invited to give it a try great research anybody okay

I don't think Danny could make it today probably Trinity and Danny are celebrating Thanksgiving what was next on the agenda Oh Constantinople Robson hard fork and stir B I don't think we talked about stir B last meeting so could someone give an overview of stir B and what's going on with that yeah Marty proposed to sweeten our oil cadets to have proof test nets to just redo the content in open heart fog Jovi and was very limited on time so I stepped up to create a same

spectral parity and updated I will exit the Heart Walk schedule a bit so we are at block 14,000 right now and I think on Monday or Tuesday will be at block for this cause we will perform for constant awesome and then go ahead Peter can I ask one thing so I've out of the loop of this this new test that I mean sorry this if this fork nut one thing that we saw during the Rob stone heart Fork is that clients started to behave really weirdly when the heaviest chain was actually the non

forked chain so if we want to do fork test perhaps one interesting data point would be to actually have a minor not working but keeping keep producing blocks and have that miner be more powerful than the fork miners because it might they might surface interesting corner cases I know for panthéon one of the the difficult things with the Robson forking that that unfortune was actually this sheer weight of peers that were on that other train you could lose a lot of time during sinking because you you know you

pick up one pier that you think had a good chain and by the time you got through verifying that they had the bad block you had another ten years that all you had to head to them go through as well there's some improvements that we've got planned to make around more directly checking bad blocks which I think some other clients already have but I think that scale is something that that he's missing from stir B and probably won't be able to be there I wonder how do we had we kind of simulate that in terms of peers but also in terms of the transaction the data on there so one one thing that comes to mind is that way back when we did the Dow hard fork back then we had an explicit explicit rule during the fork that I'm Heather

the extra data fields of the headers were explicitly set so that fast thinking and warp sinking and light sinking cannot end up on the wrong chain and we had a few more protective measures and well we haven't really done those measures since the remainder of the hartford's because we don't really consider these hard Forks contentious but maybe maybe for the next one after Constantinople it would be worthwhile to to create this this special rule which each hartford follows whereby we kind of somehow ensure that the network separates cleanly otherwise we'll always have these weird problems if something goes wrong some comments on that so you're invited to just run bits on some

minor other things on main that we don't expect to be contentious I don't expect these are food to mind the Oh chain so what we are doing on Derby what I understand is having like reassurance that this is how focus running smooth under perfect conditions and I know that's not a year but yeah we just want to redo the rocks in Hartford because we didn't know where roughly yeah okay any other comments on stir be is that named after isn't it yeah I was

gonna ask the same thing well how is it spelled and what's it named after it'd be helpful for the notes I assumed it's Swedish because it sounds like a Swedish name of a subway station is that big how do you spell it Stockholm it's not home how is it spelled if you re dy awesome thank you that's four that's pretty cool I bet it was named that because of Martin so let's see any I don't think there's anything else for Constantinople

or Rob stand hard for updates anybody else have an update on that or do we want to I mean we have like four four weeks to Christmas and we wanted to have the rocket number for the main that hard for in the Christmas yeah so do you want to discuss that today or next meeting is it too early to discuss it without forgetting it accurate though just for parity earth would be

sufficient to discusses next meeting I can't speak for other things yeah absolutely thing will probably do two more releases this year one on Monday and one maybe on the 10th of December so that's it's enough next week of for us too okay between now and then let's talk about it on the Chordettes chat if we can find a nice number that sounds good and then oh it looks like okay cool and off we put down some updated block numbers for discussion is the first comment on the

agenda for agenda 50 so thanks for that and then Oh before we do the last item ah free can you talk about Gourley because it's really blowing up right now it's in a good way it's like real interesting can you kind of explain updates on that oh yeah a lot of things happened or first of all thank for everyone who's contributing too girly we really appreciate it and we did not expect to happen so fast we are still in pretest message so it might break any time and all all the visa will be burned at some point when we reach a real royal

justice for now I am personally surprised how stable it is we have four clients connected yes Pantheon and nevermind who have full support of Gurley the parity implementation of the click engine was experimental that needs a lot of work some features are missing but it's shrinking the same at least so can be network yeah and Crete launched a one-way bridge this week so people can burn their tests netezza on other tests nuts to Bridget too early so they we have like those tests net 2/10 net which

forces now I just announced about this for open tasks we want to work on yesterday in a blog post okay thank you very much lastly someone requested a prog pal update could anyone give me any kind of update on some of the prog house stuff going on I saw some activity and some repose but I think it was mostly Martin well I can how can you hear me yep I could hear you great okay so first of all we requested and that has been done the specification and the reference

implementation are versions now and twelve version is 0.9 point one currently and my implementation and Martin's implementation are are on this on this point I think I don't sure exactly but I think for it this implementation is one change behind but it wasn't significant one so it's easy to implement so this is more or less about current implementation so we have four of them and more or less in sync so what we require is to some kind of announcement from the altars of protocol

that they believe this is the final spec and then we can consider having separated test net to check it on running log train okay excellent which is the fourth implementation because they say we have gas parity and C++ but you mentioned the four yeah deep rock ball team so it's open CLO and could I implement it okay great thanks um has the spec for propio W been explicitly licensed now I

saw a PR going to an actually IP but previously most of it was was pointing to a GPL reference implementation which isn't particularly useful for us is an apache license client yeah so I think that was pointed to to the team at DEFCON that they actually used a lot of if minor code and is GPL license so but I'm not sure if they working on any kind of resolution or a solution to that and how it affects using this back and if it actually affect the spec ID so I cannot

comment on that I don't think the problem here is the GPR code already there are France implantation I think the question was really that is there a spec which states that yes you can use the algorithms in non GBA code I don't know I know the answer I mean the issue was particular about so the spec is actually has code snippets that are taken from the implementation but the implementation was done within thief minor project so it's may may or may not make it a bit more complicated but yeah I haven't tried the spec for some time

and particularly I haven't pay attention if there's any mention that what the license is and how can you use it so I can track it for the next team or try to figure out after and maybe comment on all call deaths but I'm not really good at licensing so probably and ice would be good yeah it's certainly not my area of expertise either so I won't try and and assume anything but yeah if we if we are able to get a clear licensing kind of statement around that that would be really useful it's a lot easier to to know you've got a clear spec that you can implement then to have to try and

jump through hoops of black boxing and clean rooming in that kind of thing yeah this one thing III forgot so there's one one guy from if miner there's one if miner dev that actually preferred alternative spec that is it's similar to if if her spec so it's I think it's mostly Python code snippets that describe how it works so it was it was posted on if magicians if yeah I would try to find out the link and post it as well so that's kind of alternative version of that and and one last comment

is if someone needs language bindings so I can provide these to C++ C implementation separates like library Apache licensed so if someone wants don't want to implement it from scratch or based on other software I can provide some language bindings if you are interested so let me know okay thanks that gives us some good options so we can look into thank you probably if you want a second pair of eyes to look at the licensing stuff I'm just wondering Adrienne is there anyone

in your team who might be able to help him take a look at the licensing stuff since it's of interest to you guys I don't know there is somewhere in consensus there will be but I don't know if them directly myself but yeah we can trace that up okay awesome I just realized I was on the wrong microphone like this whole time so whenever I was muted I wasn't muted so hopefully I didn't cough too much let's see what other is there anything else on the agenda there is not anyone have any other comments any other items okay we'll see everybody in two

weeks thank you all very much thank you [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music]

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