00:04:58 Dima Gusakov | Lido: Good morning devs 00:05:05 Kalo | Obol: gm 00:05:26 Dima Gusakov | Lido: Reacted to "gm" with ❤️ 00:05:32 cayman: gm 00:05:35 Chris Berry: Reacted to "gm" with ❤️ 00:06:03 jochem-brouwer: gm 00:06:07 lightclient: gm 00:06:10 Lewej | Optimum: gm 00:06:24 Ben Edgington: gm 00:09:04 Dima Gusakov | Lido: My concern here is that Lido was not able to properly test how our Oracles and tooling passes hardfork because of the loss of the finality 00:09:42 Barnabas: Replying to "My concern here is t..." we might have unfinality on mainnet too. Why would this be an issue? We had no consensus issues 00:10:18 Dima Gusakov | Lido: Replying to "My concern here is t..." We might. For sure. Tho we expect that it will go well on mainnet… 00:11:37 Chris Berry: Will the new devnet be open everyone? It would be good to see a successful fork before we head to testnets 00:11:41 Toni Wahrstätter: Will the fork transition bug be fixed? https://discord.com/channels/595666850260713488/874767108809031740/1534880634470924359 00:11:54 Kalo | Obol: Reacted to "Will the new devnet ..." with 👍 00:13:23 potuz: Is Terence here? 00:13:37 Parithosh Jayanthi: nop 00:13:40 Parithosh Jayanthi: Might need to be you @potuz 00:14:11 potuz: Pinging him, but it’s essentially the same thing as LH 00:15:03 Dima Gusakov | Lido: Reacted to "Will the new devnet be open everyone? It would be good to see a successful fork before we head to testnets" with 👍 00:16:02 Barnabas: great edge case test guys 00:16:20 Eitan Seri-Levi: Replying to "great edge case test..." Totally on purpose 00:16:38 Barnabas: Reacted to "Totally on purpose" with 🥦 00:17:00 Parithosh Jayanthi: Reacted to "Totally on purpose" with 🥦 00:17:13 pk910: for mainnet I'd expect deposits coming in way earlier than the latest node restart? depositing right before the fork is more a devnet scenario, no? so clients shouldn't rely on all deposits coming on during the process runtime 00:18:14 Barnabas: we could already have deposits now 00:18:25 Nico Flaig: no, potuz that is not correct 00:19:21 Dima Gusakov | Lido: 38 days now 00:20:07 jochem-brouwer: Why does the zoom 😂 emote (the big version, this small one looks fine) looks like someone crying if I emote it 😭 00:21:11 Barnabas: Feels like non finality network would need to have stable cache implementations that will work. 00:21:20 Barnabas: Ideally also trunk branches imo 00:21:31 pk910: yes, we'll defnitly repeat the mass deposits there 00:21:37 Barnabas: Reacted to "yes, we'll defnitly repeat the mass deposits there" with 👍 00:21:44 Mario Vega: Reacted to "yes, we'll defnitly repeat the mass deposits there" with 👍 00:21:54 Parithosh Jayanthi: Reacted to "yes, we'll defnitly repeat the mass deposits there" with 👍 00:22:05 potuz: Reacted to "yes, we'll defnitly repeat the mass deposits there" with 👍 00:22:17 Nico Flaig: Replying to "yes, we'll defnitly..." https://gist.github.com/nflaig/c02c00714d07df076bed23200805d2d6 has my malicious deposits documented, so can repeat there, maybe even scale it up a bit 00:22:25 Nico Flaig: Reacted to "yes, we'll defnitly..." with 👍 00:22:36 cayman: Lodestar ready for next week 00:23:23 Chris Berry: Could we get a week before gloas fork on devnet? Just to give chance to get validators online etc. 00:23:48 Kalo | Obol: Reacted to "Could we get a week ..." with ➕ 00:24:04 Dustin: Reacted to "yes, we'll defnit..." with 👍 00:24:12 potuz: Is it really needed to be on trunk? there’s some paths that I’d like to keep longer on the devnet branches 00:24:14 Barnabas: Replying to "Could we get a week ..." thats what devnet 8 was for 00:24:25 Chris Berry: Replying to "Could we get a week ..." And we would like to do it again but with finality 00:25:10 Barnabas: whats the absolute min time you would need? 00:25:36 Chris Berry: Replying to "Could we get a week ..." We can do 1-2 days if we know. It might be better if we just get genesis validators, but I can follow up offline. 00:25:51 Barnabas: Reacted to "We can do 1-2 days if we know. It might be better if we just get genesis validators, but I can follow up offline." with 👍 00:25:53 Parithosh Jayanthi: Reacted to "We can do 1-2 days if we know. It might be better if we just get genesis validators, but I can follow up offline." with 👍 00:26:15 Parithosh Jayanthi: https://github.com/ethereum/remote-signing-api/pull/28 00:26:41 Nico Flaig: Replying to "https://github.com/e..." seems like it's missing stuff 00:26:46 potuz: James has implemented this on Prysm has some PRs for it 00:26:48 james: Replying to "https://github.com/e..." I pinged uzi on it 00:27:04 james: Got a pr open but not merged yet 00:27:33 Nico Flaig: lodestar has all remote signer stuff implemented besides the signed auth request for builder api 00:27:50 Parithosh Jayanthi: Sepolia: epoch 351232, slot 11239424, unix (1790606688), Mon 28 Sep 2026, 14:44:48 00:28:02 Barnabas: Reacted to "Sepolia: epoch 351232, slot 11239424, unix (1790606688), Mon 28 Sep 2026, 14:44:48" with 🚢 00:28:05 Iván | ethrex: Reacted to "Sepolia: epoch 35123..." with 🚢 00:28:22 Nico Flaig: Reacted to "Sepolia: epoch 35123..." with 🚢 00:28:26 Mario Vega: Reacted to "Sepolia: epoch 351232, slot 11239424, unix (1790606688), Mon 28 Sep 2026, 14:44:48" with 🚢 00:28:28 Stefan Starflinger: Reacted to "Sepolia: epoch 35123..." with 🚢 00:28:50 Eitan Seri-Levi: Reacted to "Sepolia: epoch 35123..." with 🚢 00:28:57 Parithosh Jayanthi: Hoodi: epoch 132352, slot 4235264, unix (1793036568), Mon 26 Oct 2026, 17:42:48 00:29:05 kingy_sigp: that date is fine with us provided we get a stable devnet ofc 00:29:09 Barnabas: also no objection = agreement 00:29:20 Barnabas: Reacted to "Hoodi: epoch 132352, slot 4235264, unix (1793036568), Mon 26 Oct 2026, 17:42:48" with 🚢 00:29:38 Dima Gusakov | Lido: I would rather have both dates a bit later. Like a week or so to have more room for the pending devnets testing 00:29:39 Iván | ethrex: Reacted to "also no objection = ..." with 🤝 00:29:43 kingy_sigp: Reacted to "also no objection = agreement" with 🤝 00:29:56 FLCL: EIP-7610 is excluded, will it be postponed or fully cancelled 00:29:58 Pablo Deymo | Lambda: Reacted to "also no objection = agreement" with 🤝 00:30:04 Iván | ethrex: Reacted to "Hoodi: epoch 132352,..." with 🚢 00:30:12 Nico Flaig: Reacted to "Hoodi: epoch 132352,..." with 🚢 00:30:42 jochem-brouwer: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7610 00:30:50 Miguel Tenorio: Reacted to "that date is fine with us provided we get a stable devnet ofc" with ➕ 00:31:14 Miguel Tenorio: Reacted to "I would rather have both dates a bit later. Like a week or so to have more room for the pending devnets testing" with ➕ 00:31:22 Chris Berry: Reacted to "I would rather have both dates a bit later. Like a week or so to have more room for the pending devnets testing" with ➕ 00:31:35 jochem-brouwer: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-8253 00:32:35 jochem-brouwer: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/11855 00:33:14 Pooja Ranjan: Reacted to "https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/11855" with 🙏 00:33:38 cayman: https://gist.github.com/lodekeeper/ab3164dc62c81f2d172ae7ce0f0d2c55 00:35:12 Barnabas: Reacted to "https://gist.github.com/lodekeeper/ab3164dc62c81f2d172ae7ce0f0d2c55 " with 🚢 00:35:22 Nico Flaig: Reacted to "https://gist.github...." with 🚢 00:35:23 cayman: Reacted to "https://gist.github...." with 🚢 00:35:25 Barnabas: Replying to "https://gist.github...." small eip big win 👍 00:35:35 Parithosh Jayanthi: https://github.com/tersec/EIPs/commit/6fc997491b1e3d1d1cb241bdea31a44c9984d87b 00:35:42 Kalo | Obol: Reacted to "https://gist.github...." with 🚢 00:35:48 Parithosh Jayanthi: Reacted to "https://gist.github.com/lodekeeper/ab3164dc62c81f2d172ae7ce0f0d2c55 " with 🚢 00:37:03 Nico Flaig: Reacted to "small eip big win 👍" with ❤️ 00:37:09 jochem-brouwer: Antwoord verzenden naar "EIP-7610 is exclud..." To answer explicitly, cancelled. I will also ask authors to formally withdraw this EIP 00:38:42 Barnabas: feels like EIP 8379 could be an optional EIP? 00:42:22 Parithosh Jayanthi: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/12188/ 00:42:24 Kevaundray Wedderburn: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/12188 00:42:33 jochem-brouwer: frontrun :D 00:43:41 Barnabas: I’d prefer if we also added 8192 + any nonfinality period. 00:43:55 Barnabas: also this was proposed for glamsterdam LOL? 00:44:39 Parithosh Jayanthi: Replying to "also this was propos..." Nah proposal date is 3d ago 00:44:46 Dustin: One concern: 5 months means if it's nonfinalized that long it's dead. 2 weeks or etc doesn't 00:44:51 jochem-brouwer: Can the EIP-8379 top up sync PR be linked here? 00:44:52 Dustin: it makes it more structurally complicated 00:45:18 Parithosh Jayanthi: Replying to "Can the EIP-8379 top..." https://github.com/tersec/EIPs/commit/6fc997491b1e3d1d1cb241bdea31a44c9984d87b 00:45:41 jochem-brouwer: Antwoord verzenden naar "Can the EIP-8379 t..." Is there a PR against EIPs? Because now I am uncertain if this number is correct 00:47:25 jochem-brouwer: Antwoord verzenden naar "Can the EIP-8379 t..." Ah found it, https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/12154 Number is correct 😃 Thanks!🙏 00:47:28 cayman: Reacted to "I’d prefer if we als..." with 👍 00:47:58 Parithosh Jayanthi: Reacted to "Ah found it, https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/12154 Number is correct 😃 Thanks!🙏" with ❤️ 00:48:51 Dustin: To be clear, I'm pretty open to this EIP 00:49:03 Dustin: This is a mild-skepticism point 00:51:40 Barnabas: currently we dropped pre merge history only no? Lets work on dropping pre fulu first? 00:51:52 Dustin: It is actually useful for the CL/EL to be synced on this point 00:51:55 Dustin: I agree with Kev here 00:52:31 potuz: It doesn’t need to be synced, one need to cover the other 00:52:43 potuz: The CL side is a bound for the EL 00:52:46 potuz: Doesn’t need to be equal 00:53:49 Barnabas: I think its also safe to say if we have 4-5 months non finality its game over 00:54:04 Luca Donno | L2BEAT: Reacted to "I think its also safe to say if we have 4-5 months non finality its game over" with 🥲 00:54:32 Parithosh Jayanthi: Reacted to "I think its also safe to say if we have 4-5 months non finality its game over" with 🥲 00:54:42 jochem-brouwer: Heeft gereageerd op "I think its also s..." met 🥲 00:54:44 Parithosh Jayanthi: https://github.com/ethereum/pm/issues/2187#issuecomment-5336129489 00:54:47 Kalo | Obol: Reacted to "I think its also saf..." with 🥲 00:55:48 jochem-brouwer: Where is this document you are referring to? 00:55:55 potuz: Nahhh let’s go and fight on Devcon 00:55:57 Parithosh Jayanthi: https://forkcast.org/rank/ 00:56:05 Luca Donno | L2BEAT: Reacted to "Nahhh let’s go and fight on Devcon" with 😂 00:56:36 Dima Gusakov | Lido: Replying to "https://forkcast.org..." Forkcast is DOPE 00:56:47 Barnabé + Francesco 🚗: Reacted to "Forkcast is DOPE" with ➕ 00:56:48 Luca Donno | L2BEAT: Reacted to "Forkcast is DOPE" with 💯 00:56:50 Barnabas: [S-tier] strongly recommend inclusion [A-tier] recommend inclusion if blockers are cleared (e.g., complexity assessment, impact analysis, path to adoption) [B-tier] stretch goal [D-tier] recommend rejection 00:56:57 wolovim: Reacted to "Forkcast is DOPE" with ❤️ 00:56:59 Barnabé + Francesco 🚗: Reacted to "[S-tier] strongly recommend inclusion [A-tier] recommend inclusion if blockers are cleared (e.g., complexity assessment, impact analysis, path to adoption) [B-tier] stretch goal [D-tier] recommend rejection" with ❤️ 00:57:02 Oisin Kyne: Reacted to "[S-tier] strongly re..." with ❤️ 00:57:04 jochem-brouwer: Antwoord verzenden naar "[S-tier] strongly ..." What is C-tier? 00:57:04 kingy_sigp: Reacted to "[S-tier] strongly recommend inclusion [A-tier] recommend inclusion if blockers are cleared (e.g., complexity assessment, impact analysis, path to adoption) [B-tier] stretch goal [D-tier] recommend rejection" with 👍 00:57:09 Dima Gusakov | Lido: Reacted to "[S-tier] strongly recommend inclusion [A-tier] recommend inclusion if blockers are cleared (e.g., complexity assessment, impact analysis, path to adoption) [B-tier] stretch goal [D-tier] recommend rejection" with ❤️ 00:57:10 Dima Gusakov | Lido: Reacted to "[S-tier] strongly recommend inclusion [A-tier] recommend inclusion if blockers are cleared (e.g., complexity assessment, impact analysis, path to adoption) [B-tier] stretch goal [D-tier] recommend rejection" with 👍 00:57:11 Barnabas: Replying to "[S-tier] strongly re..." we shouldn’t have C tier 00:57:14 Ben Adams: S - C: should definitely go in D: No 00:57:30 kingy_sigp: Reacted to "S - C: should definitely go in D: No" with 😂 00:57:32 Parithosh Jayanthi: Reacted to "S - C: should definitely go in D: No" with 😂 00:57:35 jochem-brouwer: Antwoord verzenden naar "S - C: should defi..." seems there is no rough consensus on tiered ranking lol 00:57:36 Sam Jernigan: bye 00:57:42 jochem-brouwer: Heeft gereageerd op "S - C: should defi..." met 😂 00:57:43 jochem-brouwer: Heeft gereageerd op "[S-tier] strongly ..." met ❤️