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

All Core Devs Meeting #14 #12

Closed
Souptacular opened this issue Apr 12, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

All Core Devs Meeting #14 #12

Souptacular opened this issue Apr 12, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@Souptacular
Copy link
Contributor

Souptacular commented Apr 12, 2017

All Core Devs Meeting 14 Agenda

Meeting Date/Time: Friday 4/21/17 at 14:00 UTC

Meeting Duration 1.5 hours

Agenda

  1. EIP 186: Reduce ETH issuance before proof-of-stake.
    Carbonvote link.
    Reddit thread #1.
    Reddit thread #2.
  2. About EIP86 (a.k.a EIP-208), there is a difference between the EIP pull-request and the implementations. Which should be fixed?
  3. Metropolis updates - specifically an update on where each client is at in implementation and an update on the tests. Some accepted EIPs are not yet specific enough to form a protocol consensus. What is the next action by whom?

Please provide comments to add or correct agenda topics.

@vbuterin
Copy link
Collaborator

Regarding 2, maybe expand to focus on (i) how much every client has implemented, and (ii) how much there are tests for?

@pirapira
Copy link
Member

  1. About EIP86 a.k.a eip-208, there is a difference between the EIP pull-request and the implementations. Which should be fixed?

The point is whether to change the addressing scheme of CREATE instruction, in addition to the create transactions.

  • EIP86 PR does not change the addressing scheme of CREATE instruction (only the addressing scheme of create transactions change).
  • cpp-ethereum is going to change the addressing scheme of CREATE instruction.
  • Parity is also going to change CREATE instruction.
  • YP PR is also changing CREATE instruction.

@pirapira
Copy link
Member

pirapira commented Apr 21, 2017

2 (iii) some accepted EIPs are not yet specific enough to form a protocol consensus. What is the next action by whom?

@gumb0
Copy link
Member

gumb0 commented Apr 21, 2017

@Souptacular
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants