Pm: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 37 Agenda

[lrettig]

Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 37 Agenda

Meeting Date/Time: Friday 04/20/18 at 14:00 UTC (http://www.timebie.com/std/utc.php)

Meeting Duration 1.5 hours

YouTube Live Stream Link

Agenda

1. Testing including: string test_addTransaction(string _jsonTransaction) (continuing conversation from last call)
2. EIP 908: Reward for clients and full nodes validating transactions + @MicahZoltu proposal (time did not permit on last call)
3. Ben Edgington's proposal that all EIPs ought to contain a PR against the yellow paper before being merged or accepted (continuing conversation from last call)
4. EIP 960: Cap total ether supply at ~120 million (continuing conversation from last call)
5. EIP 969: Modifications to ethash to invalidate existing dedicated hardware implementations (continuing conversation from last call)
6. EIP 999: Restore Contract Code at 0x863DF6BFa4469f3ead0bE8f9F2AAE51c91A907b4
7. Research Updates
8. Constantinople hard fork timing and what to include (continuing conversation from last call) - Afri: meta-EIP for Constantinople? Hivetests already has tests enabled, Parity failing, cf. paritytech/parity#8427.
9. Client updates
10. Timing of next call (EdCon)

Please provide comments to add or correct agenda topics.

[5chdn]

Re (7): Maybe we can start a meta-EIP after this call for Constantinople? Apparently, http://hivetests.ethstats.net/ already has tests enabled, and Parity is failing them because we did not start working on it yet. Ref. https://github.com/paritytech/parity/issues/8427

[jamesray1]

Regarding (2), @MicahZoltu also proposed Incentivizing full state nodes, although that hasn't been made into an EIP.

[lrettig]

Updated the agenda to reflect these!

[jamesray1]

Thanks! You may want to move "Afri: meta-EIP for Constantinople? Hivetests already has tests enabled, Parity failing, cf. paritytech/parity#8427." to append it to point 7, and it would also be good to more clearly differentiate the EIP 908 proposal from the full state rewards proposal, e.g.:
EIP 908: Reward for clients and full nodes validating transactions + @MicahZoltu's proposal for [Incentivizing full state nodes](https://ethresear.ch/t/incentivizing-full-state-nodes/1640).

[djrtwo]

Casper EIP draft has been published https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/1011

[AlexeyAkhunov]

Update on Turbo-Geth: still working on reorg functionality, more detailed report will be delivered at Edcon

[5chdn]

Also, I would like to get feedback on EIP999 from the client developers / teams.

[lrettig]

Agenda updated! Thanks

[cforce07]

What ?? Where is the EIP 969 ?
Is it considered not important to discuss ?

[ghost]

Opposing EIP-960 , EIP-999, and EIP-1011. All of them requires a full consensus of community and it will eventually harm ethereum as a immutable blockchain network.

[lrettig]

@cforce07: I added 969 to the agenda for today's call. According to my notes, the place we left this topic on the last call was: "We'll let Piper update the EIP, community discussion will continue and if it's still an important topic to the community we can bring it up again in the next meeting."

Since I realize there are some controversial topics in today's agenda, for avoidance of doubt I've ordered the topics using the following algorithm:

1. Items that were on the agenda for the last call which we did not have time to discuss on the last call
2. Continuing conversation of items on the agenda for the last call, where we said we would revisit the items in this call
3. New items added for this call

[CryptoBlockchainTechnologies]

Thanks for adding 969 to the agenda!

[5chdn]

Thanks, Lane.

My initial question is already partially answered by EIP 1013 that Nick created :+1:

[jamesray1]

I am going to update EIP 908 with more details on the specification and the rationale. I left a comment on the Gitter discussion for EIP-908 with more details.

[jamesray1]

I edited the EIP.