Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 56 Agenda #82

Closed
Souptacular opened this Issue Feb 20, 2019 · 10 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@Souptacular
Copy link
Member

Souptacular commented Feb 20, 2019

Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 56 Agenda

Agenda

  1. Roadmap
    a) Constantinople Success!
    b) ProgPoW Audit
    c) Istanbul Hardfork Roadmap
  2. Subroutines and Static Jumps for the EVM - Magician's Thread
  3. Reject EIP-1355
  4. Working Group Updates
    a) State Fees
    b) EWasm
    c) Pruning/Sync
    d) Simulation
    e) Appetite for future in person meetings?
  5. Testing Updates (time allowing)
  6. Client Updates (time allowing)
    a) Geth
    b) Parity Ethereum
    c) Aleth/eth
    d) Trinity/PyEVM
    e) EthereumJS
    f) EthereumJ/Harmony
    g) Pantheon
    h) Turbo Geth
    i) Nimbus
    j) Mana/Exthereum
    k) Mantis
    l) Nethereum
  7. Research Updates (time allowing)
@chfast

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

chfast commented Feb 28, 2019

Reject EIP-1355: ethereum/EIPs#1785. Again, but this time I will attend the meeting.

@gcolvin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

gcolvin commented Feb 28, 2019

@Souptacular Just a heads up to be announced, Hudson. We are discussing Subroutines and Static Jumps for the EVM on a Magician's thread. Participation most welcome. Depending on how the discussion goes I'm wanting to be through Last Call in time for our March 29 meeting.

@axic

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

axic commented Mar 1, 2019

When will Petersburg go live on Rinkeby?

It is still set at block "9999999" in geth, while the network is at ~3954000.

@winsvega

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

winsvega commented Mar 1, 2019

Tests byzantium to Constantinople at 5 is updated to have both Constantinople and ConstantinopleFix enabled

Also any test cases that fail not because of hive must be fixed to have a consensus between clients.

Tests like dybamic account overwrite
And CodecopyZero

@axic

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

axic commented Mar 1, 2019

Proposing EIP1352 and EIP1380 for Istanbul.

Proposing EIP1285 for discussion, especially in the light of SSTORE-reentrancy issues discovered for Constantinople.

@AlexeyAkhunov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

AlexeyAkhunov commented Mar 1, 2019

Before we dive into the EIPs for Instanbul, I suggest we try to address some issues with how we deal with the proposed changes, and what are our priorities.
I proposed to look at these things:

  1. Introduce higher standards for EIPs - they require Proof Of Concept implementation + pre-generated test cases (so that that testing is not an afterthought as usual)
  2. Revisit the assumption that we need to bundle a lot of updates into one big release instead of making smaller releases more frequently. I heard before on this call that coordination costs are too high to afford smaller releases - but are they really?
  3. Appoint dedicated reviewers (not necessary from the people who are regularly attending the call) for changes rather than wait for someone on the call to look into the changes
  4. Do we need to create a deluge of EIPs for Instanbul now or do we spend some time on discussing what the most important changes are?
@conor10

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

conor10 commented Mar 1, 2019

@Souptacular - @iikirilov from the web3j team are going to be joining the call today - is it too late to add an update from us to the agenda? If not, please can we be added on future calls?

@karalabe

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

karalabe commented Mar 1, 2019

This was my leaf-sync prototype code (last few commits): https://github.com/karalabe/go-ethereum/tree/state-leaf-sync. I'm mostly happy with it, the Achilles heel is huge contracts, which I haven't found a solution yet for.

@karalabe

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

karalabe commented Mar 1, 2019

@axic 2 weeks after the next stable release :) I.e. we can set any block number, we just need a release for it first.

@Souptacular

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

Souptacular commented Mar 1, 2019

Closing for #83

@Souptacular Souptacular closed this Mar 1, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.