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 59 Agenda #93

Closed
Souptacular opened this issue Apr 3, 2019 · 16 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
10 participants
@Souptacular
Copy link
Member

commented Apr 3, 2019

Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 59 Agenda

Agenda

  1. Review previous decisions made and action items
  2. Roadmap
  3. EIPs
    a) Refer to Roadmap link for list
    b) Please add more EIPs to the agenda
  4. Working Group Updates
    a) State Fees
    b) EWasm
    c) Pruning/Sync (ETH V64 Call for Proposals & Stopgaps for cleaning up discovery peers pre-Discovery v5)
    d) Simulation
    e) Istanbul & ETH1x Roadmap Planning Meeting - April 17th & 18th in Berlin
  5. ProgPoW Audit Update
  6. Testing Updates
  7. Client Updates (only if they are posted in the comments below)
    a) Geth
    b) Parity Ethereum
    c) Aleth/eth
    d) Trinity/PyEVM
    e) EthereumJS
    f) EthereumJ/Harmony
    g) Pantheon
    h) Turbo Geth
    i) Nimbus
    j) web3j
    k) Mana/Exthereum
    l) Mantis
    m) Nethereum
  8. EWASM & Research Updates (only if they are posted in the comments below)
@GriffGreen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 6, 2019

I would love to see some support from the core devs on the Tennagraph effort for measuring something besides coin votes for progpow :-D

https://tennagraph.com/eip/1057

They make signaling yea nay or abstain really easy... just tweet your opinion and put it on the site or hope someone else does ;-)

@fubuloubu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 8, 2019

@GriffGreen there's a couple double counts in the "influencer vote" on both Yay and Nay. I noticed a few other inconsistencies that I think may be misinterpretations as well (someone I think was being sarcastic in a Tweet)

@fubuloubu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 8, 2019

I would like to discuss EIP 1344 (Chain ID opcode). Positive sentiment has been logged in EthMagicians, and I think we could propose moving this to Last Call after following up with some client implementors confirming a few small decisions with the implementation. If everything seems good, it could potentially be a candidate for Istanbul as it would be valuable to EIP-712 implementations.

@poojaranjan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Apr 11, 2019

I think it will be useful to also look into proposed process of selection of EIPs for future upgrade #1929 with regards to Agenda item 3(b).

@fubuloubu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 11, 2019

I did the suggestion in 1929 for EIP-1344 here: ethereum/EIPs#1934

@Souptacular

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Apr 12, 2019

@GriffGreen tennagraph is outside of scope for the core dev meetings.
@fubuloubu will you be on the call to 1344 and 1929?

@fubuloubu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 12, 2019

Just for 1344.

I used 1929 in order to make sense of the process, so I can attest to it's utility however! 😺

@Souptacular

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Apr 12, 2019

@fubuloubu cool! Tim is running this meeting and should add your stuff to the end of the meeting.

@fubuloubu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 12, 2019

It's early here on the West Coast. Will there be an approximate time?

@Souptacular

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Apr 12, 2019

Meeting time and duration are listed at the top of the issue. I don't have an ETA on when the meeting will end unfortunately. Could be 30 minutes if things go fast.

@AlexeyAkhunov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Apr 12, 2019

Unfortunately, I won't be able to join today. Updates:

Since last time, written the post about the estimation of contract storage sizes.

Regarding sync protocols, the latest version of Red Queen's doc is here. We are about to start Proof Of Concept implementation, while still trying to unify with Firehose (Trinity team's proposal).

On the stateless client prototype, gathered more data. The first version of the blog post had data up to 5.4m block, then I updated it to 5.8m block, currently gathered data up to 6.4m blocks. Hoping to update it further when I get data up to 7.1m. Will fix outstanding failures and move on to the slightly stateful clients, to see how much reduction in the block proof sizes it will get.

I have been thinking about storage hoarding a bit, and I am becoming more sceptical that the hoarding would actually be practical (I will likely write a post about it later). Therefore, I am going to explore the variant of the roadmap with EIP-1559 (fee market change for Eth1.0) + making SSTORE/SLOAD more expensive in the first hard fork, instead of introducing prepayments.

No updates on Turbo-Geth.

@chfast

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Apr 12, 2019

Aleth: two release candidates for 1.6.0. If nothing happens, the release will be done on Monday.
Changelog: https://github.com/ethereum/aleth/blob/release/1.6/CHANGELOG.md#160---unreleased

@phillux

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 12, 2019

Parity Ethereum updates:

Parity Ethereum 2.5-beta:

  • Clique consensus added to Parity-Ethereum
  • Enables support for the cross-client PoA Goerli network

For a full list of changes, refer to the changelogs on our releases page: https://github.com/paritytech/parity-ethereum/releases

@veox

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 12, 2019

@hugo-dc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 17, 2019

Actual live-stream link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfC92gQKKnI

@Souptacular the video is unlisted, couldn't find it directly on YouTube. Thanks @veox for sharing the link.

@lrettig

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 19, 2019

Closing in favor of #95

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.