@Souptacular please add web3j to client updates

Re: Istanbul Hardfork Roadmap, it may be worth discussing specifics and seeing if anyone has objections to the previously proposed roadmap dates. If not, it could be good to get consensus on those to provide clarity to the community.

Requesting to add again EIP-1418 for discussion. Code owner @AlexeyAkhunov

Title of YouTube stream should be 57 instead of 56.

I'm finally seeking formal approval of EIP-778 (Ethereum Node Records).

EIP-778 has been lingering in draft state for more than a year, but I have received little to no feedback on the design. I want it approved because it already has two dependent EIPs and I'm about to submit a third one building on it. EIP-778 is a simple, stand-alone format with no dependencies beyond code that Ethereum nodes already contain (RLP encoding, secp256k1 crypto) and can be implemented in a week or less.

Title of YouTube stream should be 57 instead of 56.

Fixed, thanks

To start the conversation, here's my proposal for Istanbul hardfork roadmap:

• 2019-04-26 (Fri) Hard deadline to accept proposals for “Istanbul”
• 2019-05-17 (Fri) Soft deadline for major client implementations
• 2019-06-26 (Wed) Testnet upgrade (Ropsten, Görli, or ad-hoc testnet)
• 2019-08-14 (Wed) Mainnet upgrade (“Istanbul”)

@unipaul thanks for posting. There was also talk of a Security Consideration period, proposed by Boris Mann. It would be good to also have that be part of the discussion. Link: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/security-review-period-for-hardfork-roadmap/2721/4

Istanbul Timeline

@unipaul that is a lot faster than the previous plan https://en.ethereum.wiki/roadmap/istanbul -- which had already been agreed upon as far as I know?

Release Manager

I have emailed @Souptacular about this and spoken to @decanus. I don't think it's necessarily a role, it's just doing the work. I have stuck my hand up to volunteer for the communication, project management, and organization so far, and have been doing the work. There still needs to be a technical expert role as well. Should we write down what we want from the role / what the tasks are? Is this something that will be compensated? If it's not compensated, unclear why we need this as a label.

I am not against the label, but want to understand the purpose of it. As well, having someone responsible for the next hardfork, and deciding if that is 6 months or 9 months after Istanbul, would also be good to flesh out.

In Person Meetings

On 2(e), the Istanbul & ETH1x Roadmap Planning meeting, April 17th & 18th, is now confirmed -- please let us know if you're coming via the signup form.

If we want to meet again, that timing should be decided soon, so that people can plan ahead.

Depending on what the goals of the meeting are, either late July (post July 19th implementation deadline) or mid September (post Aug 14th testnet upgrade).

As mentioned in the Cat Herders call today, can we add an agenda item to discuss steps towards ProgPow Implementation? Specifically, would it be OK for ProgPow to be proposed as an EIP for Istanbul before the EIP acceptance deadline even if the audit results have not come through? In other words, to propose to have the EIP be "accepted conditional on the results of the audit". cc: @lrettig

@Souptacular I have two things to add to the agenda:

1. ETH V64 Call for Proposals
2. Stopgaps for cleaning up discovery peers pre-Discovery v5

@decanus I heard you want to become one of the release managers. What is your proposal for the Istanbul hardfork roadmap?

@unipaul there is no point of making new timelines as there is one which has already been seemingly agreed upon.

Souptacular I have two things to add to the agenda:

1. ETH V64 Call for Proposals

@matthalp I'll make a quick call for collaboration on a v64 proposal to support a new fast-sync during this section, if that works for you.

@carver Sounds good! I know @AlexeyAkhunov is also working on some ideas with @yperbasis, so it would be aggregate those ideas there.

I know @AlexeyAkhunov is also working on some ideas with @yperbasis, so it would be aggregate those ideas there.

Yup! We're collaborating already 👍

Now that I re-read the agenda, though, maybe it belongs here:

Working Group Updates

• Pruning/Sync

I also want to see an item about progpow. I want to know the status of the audit, and, specifically: what questions will the audit attempt to answer. It's fine if the answers aren't done yet. An estimate of when would be nice.

Associated with that, I'd also like to get an update about signals there's been coinvote signalling and extradata signalling. Raising that on the allcoredev will raise the general awareness.

Requesting to add again EIP-1418 for discussion. Code owner @AlexeyAkhunov

Thank you for writing this EIP! Now I finally looked at it closer thank before. This is a state rent EIP created in September 2018. It is mostly in line with the series of pre-EIP proposals I have been publishing (though with different terminology, for example, stipend vs pre-payment, name of the fields are different), though with some differences (for example, it requires eviction priority queue that was in State Rent proposal 1 and was then removed for simplicity) and with some things not explicitly spelled out (like contract recovery, or the way the contract storage size is introduced). I think it is not practical to try to encompass the state rent into 1 EIP. I would like to ask @fulldecent to consider this EIP to be subsumed by State Rent research happening within Ethereum 1x working group.

We'll miss the call. Harmony demonstrates ~1.5 months worth of stable runtime; there were no consensus breaks, memory leaks, disk space issues and performance degradation detected during that period. Looks like a pretty reliable version.

@AlexeyAkhunov Thank you for looking over the EIP. I am happy to cite your work in 1418, please provide any references in that issue so I may include it.

Are more collaborators welcome to join the Ethereum 1x working group for rent research? If yes, could you please contact me by email for a brief orientation.

Thanks again for your help.

Closed in favor of #89