What's going on guys, welcome to a new video. So another week, two more brilliant products to show you, two products that are working right now. If this is your first time tuning into the channel, the way these videos work, the way I structure them is I'll show you the creative and the product itself, of course, I'll show you the evidence and the data behind the product just to prove to you that these products are indeed working right now. So if you are watching this video still looking for that one kind of like golden nugget of a product to launch your business and get it off the ground, then stay tuned, because I've got two brilliant products to show you. I'll also go one step further than that because obviously your product and your ad creative are only two pieces to the puzzle. Along with those other pieces, you need a Shopify store to sell the product on. So I'll also show you the competitors, the people selling this product. And then last but not least, I will show you where you can source the product from or I'll show you what the ballpark numbers are for buying the products that you have, kind of like a rough idea of what sort of profit margins to expect. Before we go any further, I just wanna let you know that I do have a mentorship program. We currently have one space open as I'm recording this video. So if you like the content I put out on my YouTube channel and you like the idea of working one to one with me and perhaps we could even take one of these products we're about to show you and help you build a brand around it and launch it and get you to that kind of like 10K per month milestone, make sure you stay tuned to the end of the video and I'll show you how to apply for that. That being said, thanks for tuning in guys. Hope you enjoy this one. Let's get straight into product number one. Okay, so product number one, I was just playing the background while I kinda talk you through some information about the product. So what's really interesting about this is it's not like a typical camping light that you've seen done time and time again. It actually has, I believe it's 10 meters of LED fairy lights built into it. And as you can see, it's quite, it's like built onto a wire as well. So not only does it look good but there's actually some kind of like real life case use, use case scenario. It's a handy tool to have as well as it actually looks good, looks pretty. There's lots of different applications for it. You have like the festival market, you have the camping market, of course. Perhaps if you wanted to take it fishing, there's lots of different applications for the product, lots of different markets, massive, massive potential and opportunity for this product. The ad creative, if you've not already noticed, is a real rather than, so most people, myself included, when it comes to testing things on Facebook, just to instantly go for a square aspect ratio. But this one's selling really well in the real. So that's something to think about and potentially split test in your own businesses. Enough said then, so how do I know actually this product is selling and it's a winning product and it's working right now? So we can have a look at the engagements, nearly 10,000 thumbs up, three and a half thousand comments and nearly 700 shares. So that's obviously really good. People are obviously enjoying the post, enjoying the product. Let's jump into the comments section though. So I just draw your attention to this right hand side here. And there's a couple of things we're looking at. So number one, we're looking for intent from people. So people who are asking how to buy it, people who are saying that they want one or we could even go one step further than that and even stronger sign of a winning product is if you see comments like this. So Sue Thomas, excellent, very clever design. James Clifford just got mine, I love it. So there's somebody who's bought the product. Andrew Smith, I just got mine awesome. Another person that's bought the product. What we're also looking for as well is feedback about the product. We want to start a business that can make us some good money and make us some good money in the long run. Something to kind of build upon and provide a platform for launching our business. So we want to make sure that the product is high quality so that when people receive it, they're satisfied with it. And of course we don't get any charge backs or disgruntled customers. So the fact that people are showing that they've bought this and they're actually really happy with the product, that's all win-win, it's perfect. This would be amazing for festivals. Got two sets, very good, good quality, very good. That's awesome. I want one of these in my life. Great lights, just ordered three more. So that could even indicate that Suzanne here has bought four of these things. There are some kind of recent timestamps here as well from a couple of weeks ago. Some from a bit further beyond like five weeks and seven weeks. So let's just check out the newest and make sure this is still going on right now. So first of all, if the top comment you see, if it starts with an M, if it's within minutes, then you know for a fact that this is still going really, really well right this second. The first thing that I've noticed here though, still no response from you despite emails. Please contact me to refund me. So these guys, it sounds like they're a victim of their own success and they're not potentially keeping up with the level of orders that they're getting. Or perhaps Eugene has ordered it from a different company and getting these guys confused, who knows? But 20 minutes, 20 minutes, one hour, one hour, one hour, two hours. We can keep opening these up, but I think you guys get the gist. There's lots and lots of comments from recent which would prove that this is actually working right now and people are buying these products right now, making it a great contender to start your business around and get tested. Okay, so we've seen the products, we've seen what it takes to sell it, the real, the creative. We've seen that people are happy with it. Let's jump onto the Shopify store then. The first thing I noticed personally is that it's a .co.uk website. Like 90% of the people or businesses I come across at .com dropshiping is such a kind of like USA heavy based topic. Most people instantly think go to the US, that's where I wanna sell my products, but there's plenty of other countries out there. There's billions of other people out there that will be interested in your product that don't live in the USA. So 20 pounds was the second thing I noticed, a very, very cheap product. Super tight margins on this. So they either have a super good backend where they're kinda squeezing a bit more out of their customers somehow. Or, so free shipping from 30 pounds is also shipping costs on top of this. Or potentially the average customer is actually buying two or three of these things. So super basic website, if I may say so. Nothing too like crazy or too difficult to kind of like replicate or create for yourself. These guys are definitely leaving themselves vulnerable to copycats. But obviously I don't condone copying any of these businesses that are purely, for example, purposes to take inspiration from. If you wanna be successful in a job shipping space, then you should be aiming to do things better than the next person, the better you do it. And the more difficult it is for somebody to come in and essentially compete with you on an equal level, i.e. have a similar store design, similar products, that sort of thing. Then the easier it is for the kind of market to get flooded that you're competing in and your business to drop off. Whereas if you do have a super slick website, you have a private labeled product, obviously makes it more difficult for that to happen. So one piece for 20 pounds, you can buy one piece on AliExpress to live for free for about 11 pounds, 27. To be honest with you guys, this was one of the first suppliers I found. It's probably for example purposes. I'm sure if you did a bit of research, contacted a couple of different agents, you probably could get one of these things for in and around eight to nine pounds. So that's product number one. Hopefully you guys enjoyed that. If you did, make sure you hit that like button on the video. Any questions on anything at all, by the way, make sure you leave a comment down below. I do read every single one, so I will see and get back to you. Moving on to the second product in the pet niche in a dog niche. This is a massive, massive product. Just look at the engagement. It's 90,000 likes, 4,000 comments and over 7,000 shares. It's one of those products that is in one of the biggest niches of all time, which is of course the pet niche. And it's also an emotional type product as well. So it's definitely aimed towards those people who have a really strong connection with their pets. Perhaps they've lost a pet recently or they live on their own with the pet, whatever it may be, it plays on those emotional heartstrings. They might be thinking, seeing the snow in the background, this is a Christmas product. It's outdated, it's not working. It is. Let's take a look at the comments section. I was arrived yesterday five days ago. These aren't even the newest comments either. I got one as a gift and I just love it four days ago. Absolutely love mine three weeks ago. Just received mine eight weeks ago. I love this. I ordered one this week and I can't wait to receive it. So, in fact, that was 11 weeks ago. Excuse me. Let's go into the newest comments then and drill down into these. So, two minutes ago, that reason, just ordered mine, looking forward to seeing Ted. Can I have the dog color changed to black? I bought one, absolutely love it. Can't find this on the site to order. It's never your last goodbye. So, like I mentioned, there's gonna be some people on here who've lost a pet and want to commemorate and remember them in this lovely way. When it comes to sourcing this product, so we jump on to the store first. No, we won't. Yes, we will. And you might have seen these guys before, Poorfect House. They sell lots and lots of products like this. Absolutely brilliant, brilliant business. Super slick website, as you can see. Everything is custom. Everything is original. Just a brilliant, brilliant business. I don't like to spend too much time on the Shopify stores because you guys can go and look at the things in your own time. But the key takeaway from this is that if you are gonna be selling these customized and custom products, then you have to have a super slick website that makes it as straightforward and easy as possible to order the product. Any confusion whatsoever and it's gonna leave the customer puzzled and probably think, oh, I can't be bothered. It's not worth the hassle. So you gotta have it super slick, step by step. So choose your style, enter the man name, enter the pet name, add to cart, simple as that. Let's jump on to sourcing of the products. This one is a difficult and I'm gonna leave this one with you guys to do your own kind of due diligence when it comes to finding a supplier for this. Obviously, it's not the sort of stereotypical thing you could get dropships from China. You could actually, I couldn't find anyone on Aliexpress. So my go-to for this would be contacting some businesses on Etsy in your local country and asking them if they could even put together a different design for you, but encompasses that same kind of idea. So the idea, of course, is showing love to a pet with the names on. Like this one here is the same product but a different design, contacting some businesses and see if they could do something similar for you or perhaps instead of a dog, you could even go for a cat. There's lots and lots of options. The idea of this video is to get the kind of creative juices flowing in your mind and spark some ideas of your own. So they're selling the products for about 25 pounds once we do the conversion. You can get one on Etsy for like 16 pounds. That's including three delivery two. So there is room in there. And of course, this will be retail price. If you contact the manufacturer potentially, you could get it even cheaper than that. And so with that being said, guys, that is it for today's video. As promised, stay tuned and I'll show you how to make an application for that mentorship program. Okay, so it's a very simple and straightforward process. If you like the idea of working one to one of somebody on a monthly basis, somebody with experience like myself, I've been doing drop shipping now for seven years, then this is what you need to do.  I only wanna speak to those people who are actually serious about making a drop shipping business that can actually change your life for the better and they're ready to go all in and commit to it. To do this, what you need to do is head into the description of this video. At the bottom, you'll see this. So this is a secret link. It's gonna take you to a type form. It's like half a dozen questions. It takes two or three minutes to fill out. Basically, it allows me to get to know you a little bit before we speak on the call so we can see if we're gonna be a good fit for working for each other. So a couple of things that I want to know basically is what your current experience level is, what you want my help doing and ultimately what your goal is to get out of the mentorship. If I feel like it's something that can help you achieve, then you can schedule a date and time. We can jump on a call and have a chat in a bit more depth. So if that sounds good to you, head over there now, fill in that application form, takes two or three minutes and I look forward to meeting you on the call. Cheers.


There's a lot of fire and a lot of hatred, but there's also some laughs Hey guys, this is my review for a film that I just watched on the spot I don't know how long it's been on Netflix for but I watched the most hated woman in America this film is a biography about Madeleine Murray O'Hare one of the most controversial and Technically one of the biggest changers in American history She's the woman that sued the Baltimore School District to take the prayer out of school districts the morning prayer They she's the woman who got that ban. This was a very interesting woman. She was a fighter and she was She had stones even if you didn't agree with her opinion she was strong with it and She would go after the subjects that people would possibly not want to talk about or would Definitely cause controversy this woman lived for it and whether you believe her changes were positive or negative This woman did a lot of stuff that most people would have thought impossible not just for a woman But for anyone in general so this film does Chronologically follow her from a young age all the way up into her late into the end of her life So first off the bat. I definitely want to compliment Melissa Leo. She is freaking phenomenal in this film This is the best performance. She has definitely done ever since the fighter What was cool about her was her relationship with her son because this is a relationship that He is the one who basically gave her the edge the Motivation to start everything and that backfires on him as he slowly starts to kind of Fall away to the side to his mother's political agenda and in the end this the relationship between the two completely sours and He goes back on what his mother has basically been trying to accomplish this film has two timelines mind you first is the present or present ish of when she has been kidnapped and We are recalling events that led up to that moment from when she started her political agenda to all of her major Accomplishments to when she was kidnapped and the other thing I want to compliment is the editing the editing is solid There's really good transitions. There is fantastic pacing For maybe two things the first one is a relationship between her and her son. It kind of sours very suddenly it Starts to break and then all of a sudden it's in the deep end And you kind of wanted a little bit more time with that Mainly because of what happens at the end of the film this film is a kind of a edgy comedy really Even during the kidnapping scenes Melissa Leo is making you laugh because she is a savage woman But then the last 10 minutes Just completely go off the deep end and this film goes from a comedy to an extremely dark Serious film like it goes dark when my buddy and I were watching it We both sitting there with our mouths a gap thinking what just happened This just went from a comedy to something completely different and it's actually disturbing That is probably my second biggest issue with this film Is it has a tonal shift of a boulder smashing you in the face?  They could have shortened that definitely for a certain scene there's one scene in particular that goes on for an Extremely uncomfortable amount of time that you'll be sitting there going. Why are we still watching this? The other part is they could have taken away some of this scenes There's a few things that are that jump it up in the rating department. They probably is rated R Almost for it and it's not because of swearing It's just the tonal issue at the end and that kind of I felt that ruin the film the tone of the film It didn't need to show that it could have shown that in you know in parts or he could have cut away or not shown everything but I don't know it was just a really weird transition at the end, but otherwise the film is still a funny Historical drama it has really great characters Melissa Leo is fantastic as Madeline and If anything Josh Lucas is in this too, and I actually think he was good as his character Which is funny because Josh Lucas really isn't anything except I don't know a Bradley Cooper lookalike but blonde to me. So I thought he was decent in it That's the first time for that either way guys I'm gonna give the most hated woman in America a four out of seven It is a fun movie, but that ending just doesn't make sense in terms of how the rest of the film is structured I enjoyed the film as a whole but just that change is so freaking weird That it completely offsets the rest of the film. Anyways, that's all for me. I hope you guys enjoyed this review I'll see you guys next time


Coming up on this edition of Abledon on Air, we talk about deaf and hard of hearing services with part of Dell deaf and hard of hearing services in Vermont. Coming up next, stay tuned. Major sponsors for Abledon on Air include Washington County Mental Health where hope and support come together. Media sponsors for Abledon on Air include Parkchester Times, Muslim Community Report, WWW, this is the Bronx.info, Associated Press Media Editors, New York Powered Online Newspaper, U.S. Press Corps Domestic and International, Anchor FM and Spotify. Partners for Abledon on Air include Yahad of New York and New England where everyone belongs, the Orthodox Union, the Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired of Vermont, the Vermont Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Center Vermont Habitat for Humanity, Montefere Medical Center of the Bronx, Rose of Kennedy Center of Bronx, New York, Albert Einstein College of Medicine of the Bronx, Abledon on Air has been seen in the following publications, Parkchester Times, WWW, this is the Bronx.com, New York Powered Online Newspaper, Muslim Community Report, www.h.com and the Montpelier Bridge. Abledon on Air is part of the following organizations, the National Academy of Television, Arts and Sciences, Boston, New England Chapter and the Society of Professional Journalists. Welcome to this edition of Abledon on Air, the one and only program that focuses on the needs, concerns and achievements of the differently abledon. I'm your host Lauren Seiler. We would like to thank the partner for this particular program today, Disability and Independent Living Services of Vermont and the Division of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services with us to discuss this important topic is Laura Siegel, Director of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services of Vermont. Thank you for joining us on this edition of Abledon on Air. Thank you. Okay, so tell me the missions and goals of your part of your agency with Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services. Sure, and I just want to clarify before we start that it's not a division per se. We work under the Department of Disabilities and Aging and Independent Living. Apologize. Oh, no, no, no worries, just to clarify. Okay, so what are the missions and goals of your division that works with Dell? Sure, so my primary role is to enhance and improve communication access for both local and state agencies here in Vermont. Okay, what types of services do you have and can people avail themselves of? Sure, so I often provide a lot of different types of resources. For instance, one-on-one counseling consultation, I should say, referrals. I try to make sure that I connect people with the appropriate resources that are available in the state. The main thing that I do is to try to cover up some of the or to accommodate some of those gaps and services that exist. When you say gaps in services that exist, what type of gaps or defined gaps? Okay, so for instance, a lot of community events don't necessarily provide interpreting or captioning services to make them accessible. So we want to make sure that there's better access for Deaf, Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind people so that they can take advantage of those events just like anybody else in the community. Okay, so you mentioned captioning services, what exactly are those and why is it so hard for people to access those types of services? So captioning services, there are some companies that work with the state, but it's limited in terms of captioning services. There are captioning services nationwide as well. That provides access for people who can read, so it's done by a captionist listening to what's being said and then typing that information into a device so that the captions can be created. In terms of why it's so challenging to access those services for accommodations in general, it's often a cost issue. So captioning is a paid service, correct? That's correct, yes. With sign language interpretation, since we're talking about that, per se, also, is sign language interpretation a paid service? I mean, is there pro bono services that provide sign language or not really? Not really. It's most appropriate to consider it a paid service. Some interpreters do volunteer their time in certain settings for particular events that are not required by the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide access. So, for instance, for weddings and funerals, sometimes an interpreter will negotiate a reduced fee or pro bono work, but typically both captioned services and interpreting services are paid services. When we say the Americans, I know we didn't discuss some of these questions, but I'm just going to go top my head. When we say the Americans with Disabilities Act, how do you negotiate deaf services within? Does the American with Disabilities Act become stronger for people who are deaf and hard of hearing or vice versa or just the opposite? Am I saying it right? Yeah, yeah, I think I know what you're saying. Please forgive me if I make a mistake. Oh, no, no, you're totally fine, Lawrence. So, with the ADA, they use the term reasonable accommodations, so they don't necessarily expect people to break the bank, if you will. Well, how expensive is this stuff? Interpreters generally charge between $60 to $100 per hour. So, if you wanted somebody for an all-day event or something like that, you wanted to provide captioning services all day, it might be a couple thousand dollars for an all-day event. So, go ahead, finish what you were saying. Oh, so, right. So, I do encourage people not to necessarily expect that they're going to get the absolute most top best services for everything that they need. It sometimes, if you're doing a series of events in a year, maybe you have two or three where you provide interpreters as a given, and then in other circumstances, it depends on if you get an actual request. So, you want to make sure that you're doing some planning about that, maybe in your five to ten-year budgeting plan, to think about how much money are we going to put aside to make sure that we're providing access. So, anytime you're doing budgeting for those kinds of community events, it's good to think about incorporating some funds for access. But, example, let's say a person with a disability is going to college or a school. Can a person request, what does your office do, or how does your office work with students who need services like hearing aids and sign language interpretation? So, we don't work with colleges per se. Colleges typically have their own disability or access office where those services are organized through and where they're providing those accommodations that they're required to do likewise in the schools. But, for example, there's one college that got in touch with me that wanted some consultation. They were hosting a two-week writing course and they didn't realize until pretty late in the game that they had a student who applied there who was deafblind. So, they got in touch with me and said, you know, gee, how can we make appropriate accommodations for this student in this situation? So, I was able to sit down with them in a consulting role and make some recommendations. This was a small college that didn't have, you know, significant funds, but they didn't want to prevent this student from having a really wonderful opportunity. And so, we talked about, you know, students coming in from out of state. That student maybe has a relationship with their vocational rehabilitation services that might be able to provide some of the funding to cover the cost. So, it might be a shared cost with the college. So, we look into sort of some creative avenues that might be possible to bring together different fiduciary sources to make the opportunities more accessible. So, let's talk about other services. Recently in the news, they had mentioned, and this is going back a couple weeks, a couple months, matter of fact, where hearing aids are now considered, you can get them over the counter instead of having a prescription. What is your thought on that particular situation? And in terms of other situations for services for the deaf and hard of hearing, do you think there should be more, how can I put this, more services in terms of hearing aids for people who can't afford them? How does your office help with those things, if at all? Okay. So, recently, if it's too long ago, no, no, you're good. That's, no, it's fine. So, about two years ago, the legislature passed a hearing aid bill that covered private insurance, which is separate from over-the-counter purchases, which you just referenced. That's at the federal level, that law around that approval that came from actual Joe Biden signed that into law. So, that over-the-counter hearing aid purchase is a federal law. When you talk about over-the-counter hearing aids, those are most appropriate for people with mild to moderate hearing loss. So, what is the difference between mild to moderate, and what are the type of levels? There's basically four main levels. So, there's mild, then moderate, and then severe, and profound. I'm not an audiologist, so I can't probably speak to that to, to, to fulsomely, but anyway, you could bring in an audiologist to get a little more information, but that's the basics. Those are the four general levels. So, for over-the-counter hearing aids, typically those are for people who are hard of hearing. So, in other words, people who hear somewhat, probably enough to hear on the phone, but need just a little augmentation. For someone like me, I wouldn't benefit from that kind of hearing aid, because I'm deaf. I'm not part of it. You're completely deaf. Severe to profound is with the technical term. So, I do use two hearing aids, but I have to use prescription hearing aids. The over-the-counter ones would not be appropriate in my case. Because, because it just, it just doesn't work for you, or a prescription is better. Oh, if it's a difference in quality so much, I think it's more that the over-the-counter hearing aids are designed specifically for people with mild to moderate hearing loss, and mine is probably just, it requires a more advanced technology. So, it's more the technology. So, let's talk, so let's talk a little bit about your story. How did you get to be the director of services for the deaf and hard of hearing, and if you don't mind, it's up to you how you want to deal with this. How did you become deaf, and maybe so people can understand deafness a little bit more? Sure. So, I became the director based on probably 20 years of experience in different jobs, teaching sign language, working one-on-one with deaf-blind people, providing advocacy services, working with deaf and hard of hearing people. So, in a whole range of different kinds of work settings, and I think the experience is really what brought me to my current position. So, were you born deaf? No, I was not. I was born able to hear, and I actually have a twin sister, I'm a twin, and both of us were born hearing, and we were pre-needs, we were premature. So, as a result of that, we were more vulnerable to illness, and I became sick, and at some point my parents realized that I wasn't responding. So, I was diagnosed at 16 months, but when exactly I lost my hearing, we don't know. It was probably as a result of antibiotics. Gentamicin was an antibiotic that was given at the time, so that was probably the immediate proximal cause. And I first started wearing hearing aids when I was about 18 months old, and have used them ever since. What are some of the misconceptions around people who are deaf or hard of hearing for people that don't know enough about it? Well, for example, people think that ASL and English are the same, which they're not. They don't realize that they're quite different, or they assume that ASL is a universal language. It's not that either. Every country has their own signed language. Some people assume that every deaf person is a lip-reader, and is very skilled at lip-reading, and that's certainly not the case. That skill really varies widely among deaf and hard of hearing people.  That's not true. Right, exactly. Definitely not true. Go ahead.  You can function just like anybody else. Well, talk about history of people. Lou Ferrigno, who used to be the Incredible Hulk, he had a cochlear implant. He was 85% deaf. Let's talk a little bit about the history of how words were used, because way back when people who were deaf-blind and other disabilities within them, talking about way back 1800s, they were institutionalized. A lot of people with disabilities were institutionalized. What are some of the words that described in terms of advocacy? What are some of the words that described the deaf and hard of hearing way back when? Past, present, and future, how have we come a long way with advocacy and how not to use those words when describing people? If I said that right. Yeah, so I think, for example, hearing impaired is a term that you hear more and more people trying to avoid that term nowadays because it's kind of a demeaning term or can be- Demeaning? How so? Because the term impaired by itself, if you think about that, if you look up the definition of the word impaired, it really means all kinds of negative things. If you pick that apart, it doesn't sound very positive or very neutral. We try to use more positive terms like deaf, hard of hearing, late deafened for people to lose their hearing later in life, deaf people with disabilities, hard of hearing with low vision.  The important thing is just to let people come up with their own terms, how they feel comfortable identifying. So to respect people's own labels. Well, yeah, they were institutionalized way back when and not treated to, you know, they're still, for example, just so you know, there's still 41 states that institutionalized people with disabilities. Oh, really? Yeah, and they don't treat people quite as the way they want to be treated. But not in Vermont? No, nobody has been institutionalized and they stopped that. No, yeah. Ever since Brandon State School, they have stopped. Right. Yeah. So what other services does your agency provide? Gosh, every day in my job is different. So we respond to issues as they arise basically. Trying to think of some other examples that I haven't shared. Let's see. Oh, so for example, people will often ask me, how do you find resources for accessible housing? So for instance, Yeah, housing is a big issue. Housing is a huge issue. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.  So where do I find housing? People might ask that has that that has a visible door bell, you know, with the light that flashes when someone rings the front doorbell. How do you, you know, what kind of equipment do you have to, for instance, to shake the bed for a wake-up alarm or for a fire alarm? So what sorts of accessible house equipment would there be? So for the phone, people might either have a wireless or a wired phone system that would have a flashing light again or a vibration of some kind to let them know their phone's ringing. So all kinds of technology that people need to have in terms of their home when they're choosing a place to live that might not be automatically available that they would have to purchase or add. Why are people so afraid to sometimes ask for services, especially if you're deaf or hard to hear? They don't want to be perceived as being a burden. That may be part of it. Or they may have a feeling that the things that they're asking for are costly. So that may be part of the hesitation. Or that even if the cost is an issue, that they may not be available. So are there grants available through the state to get some of this equipment if you can't afford it? So there is funding available through the equipment distribution program. But again, it's a very limited fund. So, you know, you have to qualify. There's some income guidelines and so forth. And those are specifically around communication access. So let's talk about that for a minute. What exactly is the equipment program that you're describing? Yeah, it's called the Equipment Distribution Program. And the funds are through the Department of Public Service. There's actually two components to that. There's the Universal Service Fund. That's on everybody's phone bill. So there's a small fee that's on your monthly phone bill. And that money is collected. It's a very small amount on your bill. It's maybe 1%. But it goes toward this Equipment Distribution Program, as well as providing support for 911 centers, telecommunications relay services. So there are a number of things that are supported by that fund. And then there's also an annual $75,000 fund that was created by the legislature. What exactly is that? It's to cover all those things that I just mentioned. Oh, okay. Those needs that people would have. So let's talk about equipment, even though we don't have any here. What is the TTY system? Because that's a big thing that's been around for ages. And then the other type of technology that is provided for deaf or hard of hearing for like telephones or operators and that kind of thing. Sure. So TTYs, it's interesting because a lot of people are familiar with TTYs, but they're almost obsolete. You don't see a lot of TTYs in use nowadays because they're an analog technology. They're not a digital technology. We're kind of in a digital age now. So TTY is TTY where someone would call up and the operator would be on the other end of the line. Yeah, they would have a relay operator, relay service. So anybody with any kind of phone service could use that, could use the relay service to contact someone. So the operator would have a keyboard and then they, you know, anybody could call a person who was a TTY user. So it's part of the whole telecommunications opportunities, but a little piece of cool trivia that I'll share with your listeners. You know Alexander Graham Bell, you've heard of him who invented the phone. He's also been a teacher. Yes, and also a teacher. But just an interesting fact about him, he invented the phone as a way, he thought a way to communicate with his deaf mother and his deaf wife, but ironically the phone as it was developed really was not accessible to deaf people until the 1980s, 1970s, 1980s. So the phone, all of those years when you think about it was developed in the 19th century and it was out there, but it really didn't benefit deaf people for a long, long time. And I think it's funny that people who've used the relay service often don't know, they think it's a hoax when they get a call through the relay service or they think it's something related to running like a relay race or something. So you have to educate people about when you get a relay call not to hang up. Why do people get scared of relay calls? Because it's new to them. It's sort of foreign. It's not something they're used to. They don't realize that, oh there's a third party on the call who's allowing us to communicate with each other. They just don't understand. So let's talk about some of the people in history that revolutionized services for the deaf. Helen Keller, Alexander Graham Bell and others. Go ahead. You mentioned Alexander Graham Bell. Sure, right. I'm trying to think of some other folks, some other examples that might be interesting. Andrew Foster is someone who was the first African American graduate of Gallaudet University, got his bachelor's there, and opened 32 deaf schools around the continent of Africa, so a very important historical figure, really promoting education in Africa. So he's one just historical figure that's very interesting, I think. Another example would be Alice Cogswell.  So he ended up taking a trip to Europe for 15 months and did all kinds of research in different countries to see how are the Europeans educating their deaf children. And he met a teacher in Paris named Laurent Claire, and he brought Claire back to the US with him, and they established the very first deaf school in America called the American School for the Deaf in 1817, a couple years after they returned. And after that time, the whole system of deaf schools started to be established throughout the US, but that was the very first deaf school. So Alice Cogswell had a key part of that history, and that school is in Harkford, Connecticut. So has education of the deaf changed over the years? Yes, no? Yes, very definitely. Yeah. So one of the things that I've noticed is that, unfortunately, a lot of the deaf schools have started to go under. I mean, there's still quite a number of them around the country. Including Gallaudet. Absolutely. Yeah, in Washington, D.C. Now, why go under? Is it because of funding? Probably because of funding. I think that's probably a major reason, or because there aren't enough students enrolled possibly, so they weren't able to make a go of it. That happened to our school here in Vermont. The number of deaf students dropped. What was the name of the school? To place their children in public schools, Austin, the Austin School. So that school is no more? That school is no more. Yeah, they were established in 1904, and they closed in 2014. Oh, wow. Is there anything that we haven't covered? Gosh, oh yes. I think a couple of things that I'd like to mention. One is, you sent me a question, and you were wondering about how many people in Vermont have hearing loss, and I would say it's about... I hope that wasn't a bad question. No, no, no. No, it's a great question. Yeah. It's a question that's commonly asked. Unfortunately, we don't have a really accurate count because we don't really know, in terms of the census, people don't always reply to the question on the census, so it's a little bit difficult to get an accurate count. But in Vermont, we have between 400 and 500 culturally deaf people. And then right now, as of last year, we started a program through a two-year grant where we're serving about 32 deafblind people. Not all of them identify as deafblind, and some of them are signers, and some of them are not, some of them are hard of hearing, some of them have partial vision. So you can imagine it's a mixed group that we're calling a deafblind cohort. We started last year being able to provide some opportunities for people to get out in their communities more so that they weren't feeling so isolated. So now we're trying to figure out how we can extend that program beyond the life of the two-year grant. So the two-year grant is just a pilot program right now. Okay, and the two-year grant does what? It allows people who are deafblind or who have limited vision, limited hearing to get out into their communities more to participate in activities. So if they want to take a Tai Chi class or they want to go have a manicure or they want to go buy a pair of shoes or whatever it is that that particular individual wants to do or providing ways for them to access those things. Because they just couldn't or lack of money? Lack of money is part of it, but they don't necessarily qualify for other types of services because they don't have other disabilities and so they don't fall into those categories. They have vision and hearing loss but not some of these other things. Okay, so before we get your address or phone number, what are the future goals of your part of your agency when providing services or going forward? Again, to enhance defined creative ways to provide funding and resources to folks for access to assistive technology and you know of course we're part of Dale so we follow their mission to make the state the best we can be to make living situations for people disabilities better so that people who have disabilities can feel respected and live a full life. So where can people turn if they want to find out about services? Well, they can go to the Dale website. That's probably the easiest way and to find my page there and all of my contact information is there at the bottom of the page. So it's www.dale.vermont.gov. Okay, so it's www.dale.vermont.gov. Okay, well I would like to thank you for joining me on this edition of Abledon on Air. For more information on services for the deaf and hard of hearing, you can contact Dale, the disability and independent living at www.dale.vermont.gov and also if you want to find out more information on Abledon on Air of what you've seen today and other programs, you can go to www.orkamedia.net and for those that would like to find out more about Abledon on Air through our new blog, you can go to www.blogger.com. That's www.blogger.com which is part of Blogspot, the Abledon on Air newspaper blog. Well, thank you again for joining us on this edition of Abledon on Air. I'm Lauren Seiler. See you next time. Major sponsors for Abledon on Air include Washington County Mental Health where hope and support come together. Media sponsors for Abledon on Air include Park Chester Times, Muslim Community Report, WWW, this is the Bronx.info, Associated Press Media Editors, New York Powered Online Newspaper, U.S. Press Corps Domestic and International, Anchor FM and Spotify. Partners for Abledon on Air include Yahad of New York and New England where everyone belongs, the Orthodox Union, the Division for the Blind and Visionally Impaired of Vermont, the Vermont Association for the Blind and Visionally Impaired, Central Vermont Habitat for Humanity, Montefiore Medical Center of the Bronx, Rose of Kennedy Center of Bronx, New York, Albert Einstein College of Medicine of the Bronx, Abledon on Air has been seen in the following publications, Park Chester Times, WWW, this is the Bronx.com, New York Powered Online Newspaper, Muslim Community Report, WWW.H.com and the Montpelier Bridge. Abledon on Air is part of the following organizations, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Boston, New England Chapter and the Society of Professional Journalists.


People are in your life for one of three things. They're there for a reason, a season, or a lifetime, and you mustn't mix them up. If people are in your life for a season, don't cling to them to make them permanent. If people are in your life permanently, don't treat them like they're seasonal. If people come for a reason, that is they've come to help something get done in your life, they're coming to bring an opportunity. Or they're coming to bring an awareness to you, or they're coming to help you get unstuck, or whatever it may be.  I want you always to be here in case I need that reason again.


I think, yeah, we could probably get started. People are still rolling in, but we have a good group here. So I guess the goal of this meeting is basically to make sure we work through all of the spec implementation issues as they come up and that we're all sort of on the same page about where things are at. We're gonna have them weekly for now and we'll see, as long as they're useful, we can keep them at that cadence. And we might slow them down at some point if we feel like, yeah, there's not stuff to discuss every week. I guess, yeah, the first thing I want to go over, so there's a bunch of open PRs in the specs. And I think it's useful to just understand where they're at, if there's any blockers on them and this way the folks working on client implementations can know kind of what to expect and what to keep an eye out as they're working on stuff. So first one, this one's been open for a while and I think we basically just have to merge it but this one is yours, Ansgar, the fee market one. Oh, and then Micah left a bunch of comments yesterday. Yeah, so basically I think the status was that I don't think there was really any remaining open issue. My first time really actively working on the specs so I was a little bit hesitant to just push for it being merged but I think it should basically be ready but then yesterday Micah left a couple comments and I think the only one really that still has to be resolved is I think people disagree around this one constant which is the minimum data guess per block. So I think basically there are three different positions. The original intent of introducing the constant, I think that came out of some conversations that Vitalik and I had was just to have it basically normally non-binding lower bound but basically the idea would be that this would only ever be relevant in case A, in the very initial phase of the API going live there's not yet demand. So like a one-time kind of just a floor or if there ever was some network difficulty or something for some reason for a while there couldn't be any blobs. So the price would fall that it doesn't fall all the way down to zero or one basically like right now the normal 59 basically can go all the way down to seven way. And then whenever the network would recover it just takes a while to ramp back up to normal levels. And of course, of course you have subfloor that normally is irrelevant but like this hit whenever these conditions happen that's a bit higher than you kind of your ramp back up is faster and that is somewhat relevant because the ramp up period of course means that you have like a sustained period of just double X network load. Because you always hit the limit not the target. And we're talking here like an order of an additional 30 minutes or so. So I think right now basically the ramp up with the constant would be something like 15 to 20 minutes coming from all the way to the floor to some reasonable price level without the floor if you go all the way down to one basically would be something more like 45 to 50 minutes. Then there are some people who actually want to make this be like a really high floor that is actually binding and kind of has some opinionated approach of trying to prevent spam. I personally am very strongly opposed to that just because I think we shouldn't be opinionated what constitutes permissible doesn't. And then there are people like Michael very strongly want this constant to be one because they think anything other than one is basically invalid opinion by the protocol. So anyway, this is kind of like one niche last conflict to be resolved I think once that is resolved the PR should be ready to merge. I guess does anyone on the call have a strong opinion about where this should resolve? So my feeling is this basically so generally I mean, I would agree with first I think it's very unlikely in its current form to be a binding constant like even very soon after the whole thing is launched just because I think there are like just stupid applications that don't even have to do with blockchains that we would use these. Like this is cheaper than my roaming data fees. So like that's be honest, it's nothing. Okay, so the reason and so I think it's unlikely to be really like a problem with spam and practice. The reason why it makes a little bit of sense to like be opinionated in this case. So where would contradict Ansgar is that so in a way we are actually subsidizing something here, right? So we are introducing this new thing and it is we don't have a way to scale it just yet. And so like I think like at initially it's very likely that essentially the rest of the Ethereum network is subsidizing this new thing that we're introducing in order to get rollups off the ground. So that's why I think it's actually not crazy to just add a lower bounds to that and the kind of lower bounds that we're discussing are basically still very, very cheap. Yeah, another way to see this by the way is that rollups will in practice actually have much higher costs to use this. Like if you look at the pre-computation or as the pre-compile it's 50,000 gas at the moment. So in practice that will be a lower bound at least for ZK rollups that will be much higher than this. And so you could also argue that it's kind of unfair that applications that just wanna file share on the Ethereum blockchain or I don't know or store the JPEX for NFTs on the Ethereum blockchain will have this super cheap data because they don't actually need to connect it to the actual blockchain in any way. I'm not super, I don't have a super strong opinion on this. I would prefer raising the current lower limit by about 100X, which would still make it very low in my opinion. And it basically, yeah, would remove some loud people on Twitter, which I think shouldn't be like our major concern, but I think it's a relatively trivial change. I don't see any downsides. Henskar, let's see, I have your hand up again. All right, two things, yeah, I don't love that approach and personally I would prefer and I think there's broad support for lowering the target and maximum amount of blobs or in the case of the updated fee market, basically the target and maximum amount of data gas. And I think that makes a lot of sense because they're starting with even something as low as basically one, two or two, four as target max for blobs and for the first rollout of the AP. I think that makes a lot of sense and that already basically very much limits any impact of potential spend but in an opinionated way. So I would much prefer that. But as a more kind of like a how to move forward from this. So I'm wondering what we could do is I could update the PR to set this constant to one, insert the PR and then we could have a separate PR changing that and have the discussion over there so that we would remove it as a blocker for the fee market PR, would that make sense? Yeah, and by one you mean one way, right? That's right, yeah. But like just again, as basically something we're like, okay, now if we want to actually set it to something that would be an opinionated choice to be made in a different location. I would, I think that makes sense. And the thing with one does the, because with 1559 we have this weird integer match which means if it gets below seven, it can't go back up. Do we have the problem with that here? There's no problem with that here. Okay. No, we don't because yeah, because we have the accumulating. Oh, right. So that they can keep accumulating but at some point it will start impacting. Okay. Yeah, I think I would move to do that just because this PR has been open for like over a month if we can just take out like all the contentious bits move into another PR. There's like 300 comments by Micah that are just like descriptions. So I think probably makes sense to just, you know, to resolve those but the one with the actual consent gets decided we can just have a different PR and discuss there. Sounds good to me. Let me press one of that. Anything else on the few market PR? Just a quick question on that. It sounds like nothing has a substance has changed since the DevNet was released at least or is there something where the changes made since, I just wrote Roberto by the way, I left the comments saying, you know, when I put in the changes I'm wondering if there's been so much back and forth I've lost track of whether there were any substantive changes since we last implemented it. No, I think I pinged you right, when the first DevNet with it came out there were like some last minute changes before then but that was before DevCon. Since then there have been no substantive changes and then none planned. Okay, great, perfect. And it sounds like we're up to date. Thank you. Cool. All right, sweet. So yeah, let's split this one out into and merge the actual fee market bit and we can deal with the minimum fee separately. Okay, next one, Vitalik had this comment about adding a modulus opcode or modifying the pre-compiles such as we can read we can take the modulus as an argument. He's not here, but I'm curious if anyone has strong opinions on that and if that's something we should be adding to the spec now because if so, we probably want to notice sooner rather than later. This is probably a question that's best for the L2 developers, I don't know if we have many of them on the call today. Right. Yeah, as I understand it this is more of a user experience improvement and not something that's really necessary for at least L2s in particular. We can deal like we can just keep track of what the current modulus is across upgrades of 4044 in the future and it's not necessary, but it is a nice to have. I guess it's like my take on it. Would it introduce an extra trust assumption where basically now it would have to be part of L2 governance to update the modulus they use because if not they could falsify proofs? Yeah. Sort of like we already do have specifications that our user rely on, particularly to make challenges. So it would just be part of that. Whenever L1 makes changes to this we would make the corresponding change in our specifications and then users can... Yeah, so in a sense, yeah it would be part of our governance process. I don't think that's a bad thing or it's a blocker in any case. And is this basically used in the same way by Optimistic and ZK-Rollups or is there like a difference in need or requirements on this front? Wouldn't you need this though if you wanted to eventually freeze updating of your contracts? Is it so many, Mofir, are you always gonna be in a state where you'll be able to kind of make these changes whenever there's an update to say the version hash? Ideally we should, but it'll be much easier if L1 just handled that. Yeah, I mean like that's a nice thing about being able to access some modules from L1. If we can do that then we could at some point have rollups that don't need any upgradeability functionality but can add that update to a new version hash which would be really cool. How, is it possible to add this in the next hard fork? So say we implement 4.4 as is, can we, yeah, can we? But there's also, there would also be a very simple change to <IP_ADDRESS>, which is to simply make the point evaluation pre-compile return the modules in addition to the result. Or take the image parameter and fail. Or that, yes. Well then, yeah, I guess you could do that. But then you would also need, you always, like where does the contract that calls it get that value? So if it returns it, yeah, if it returns it on like a successful evaluation, that seems like a small change now. And I assume that's not something we could do in a separate hard fork. Like, basically, yes, yeah, because you don't, it would be good to do it now, I guess. Yeah, I don't know, is this like literally like a one-line change in the, I don't have a feeling for like, is this a value that's already being used as part of evaluating the pre-compile or is there more work to like expose it as the output? It is already being used in the pre-compile. Yeah. So that is just a question of like exposing that as a return value while you're making that call, is that right? Yeah. Yeah. And just to briefly come back to kind of the question of whether to take it in or return it though. Conceptually, it seems cleaner to me to have it in as an input value because the point evaluation pre-compile already takes in an external proof that has to be provided from outside. So basically it would just, in a way it was, would just extend the proof format to also include the modulus. Correct. But it would mean that the proof size goes up from 48 to 80 bytes. So is that, I mean, is that a good idea? That seems like, why? Like it just seems like some useless data that you have to pass in now every time. Isn't it the same as if it is returned? Well, for returns it, I mean, it's just some value in your memory, right? Like if you don't do anything with it now, I assume that 90% of contracts for now will not care. This is really for the hardcore. I want to make none upgradeable contracts which will probably come even like in one or two years at the earliest. And only they would actually read this value for memory and the others can simply ignore it, right? Like you don't have to do anything just because some value is in memory. So it seems like this is less invasive as a change. Of course, it would be an argument to be made that we kind of want to encourage trustless architectures. So making it more explicit, right? But yeah, maybe that's true.  I mean, what you're suggesting adds an extra cost for everyone. No, but that's not right, right? Because it's my contracts that just trust that could start code. Like they don't want to be put in future proof to just hard code the value and then just upgrade that to my contract. For the others that adds that cost. But if they return it, then they can simply use the return value and feed that to their zero noise proof verification. No, but you still need from the outside someone to basically say, we expected the modulus to be this. No. Can you check whether? Well, we do currently have like assertions that each point provided to the pre-compile like fits in the modulus. So either way. Yes, that's a different thing. That's independent. No, I'm contradicting what Ansgar says. No, you do not need some external oracle telling you this modulus. Like it's simply, yes, you do need it for the proof, but the contract would only get a proof would, well, I mean a proof for the pre-compile is in order to prove for the rollup state update. And they would feed that modulus into the witness, sorry, not the witness, the public inputs for the rollup update. And so if you get it from the contract, then no, you never need to pass it in from the outside. The stator does not need to get into the, go to the call data. Okay, yeah, then I. So yes, what I'm suggesting is a real efficiency improvement. I mean, maybe Tanya, I don't know what the other costs are, they are very likely to be much larger, but anyway. So I guess for, say we went with that, is it worth it for somebody to draft the PR to the EIP about like basically what it would look like in the EIP and like the how also L2s would use it. And then we can discuss like the PR async and make a decision in the next week or two, if we want to merge it, but it seems like clearly this is at least worth considering. And I think if we had a specific PR against the EIP, we can share it like not just what optimism but with the other L2 teams and just get feedback on that before we merge it. Yes, let's do that. Yeah. Dan Crab, the end scarred is either of you have the bandwidth to like do that. End scar has a thumbs up. Nice. That was just for the idea, but I... Oh. I can't. Well, I'm not so sure. I'm tuned in very much to give a lot of motivation. So I can do the actual spec change, but on the motivation side, I'm not super tuned in. Dan Crab, can you help with that? Yes, sure. Okay. Okay, sweet. So Dan Crab and End Scar and then yeah, we can just put it in front of the different L2 teams, get some feedback on it. And if it's a small change, then we can include it in the next couple of weeks. Sweet. Okay, next one, Terrence had an update on the sync specs. So basically the idea I believe we discussed in DevCon was we couple blobs and blocks for kind of gossip and quote unquote, recent sync, but then we decoupled them for historical sync. Yeah, I see there's some conversations on the PR. I think at DevCon everyone was pretty much on the same page here. Any other thoughts, comments on this? Well, so the one thing with that I was still curious about is whether we're still planning to sign the blob sidecar. I think that was a little up in the air. Like if we're gonna gossip them together, then RPC, we don't necessarily need to do the signature verification. And if the blocks have references to blobs inside them, then the signature of the block wouldn't theory be enough maybe. Proto? So I did discuss this change with Danny and others.com. It's indeed, we can do it either way. We don't need the signature. It's mostly a performance thing where verifying the signature might be cheaper than verifying the commitments. And so if we don't want to allow spammers to like give us lots of different data, maybe it's better to have a signature to check first before then verifying the commitments. But I want to like hear some numbers from people that benchmark this type of thing. Otherwise I'd rather just simplify the protocol and remove the signature. And how should we benchmark this exactly? I think someone here working on libraries might already have numbers on, like just a cost comparison of verifying the commitments that come with a blob sidecar, versus just verifying a single BLS signature. I think it's strongly in favor of the BLS signature there. I'm just not sure if it's significant enough like to be a kind of dose factor, or if you want it one way or the other. Good. And I guess, yeah, we want to keep this PR open until we have that. Okay, and yeah, I see you basically have a comment, Fred, about that in the PR. And Terence was saying he doesn't think we need the signature for the sidecars, right? Right, we can verify the sidecar, matches the beacon block itself just by verifying the commitments. Yeah. The commitment verification cost is the main concern. On the execution client side, I think we got comfortable with doing that signature verification, or the commitment verification. It was something like three to four milliseconds per commitment verification. Is there any reason why we'd expect it to be different on the consensus side? I just think you repeat the question. Oh, I was just saying on the execution layer, we got comfortable from a DOS perspective doing the KDG commitment verification. I'm just wondering whether there's anything different about this on the consensus side that would make us get to a different answer in terms of instituting the BLS signature as a workaround. Basically, so for execution, we're one with the approach just announcing transaction hashes. So the client has the, I guess the client is free to pull them whenever. And if it becomes like a DOS issue, they can start disconnecting peers. In consensus, we don't have this luxury because we couple the sidecar with the beacon block. And if we think the beacon block is valid and the proposer is valid and whoever's sending them are valid, then we would always, like in the worst case, always attempt to verify the sidecar. So we don't get to choose or at least we're not as flexible as execution to choose to whether or not to verify sidecars or not. I mean, it's still attributable to the pair if the sidecar that comes with the beacon block cannot be matched against the beacon block. So it's probably fine to remove the signature and just rely on the commitment check. Yeah. Okay. Can someone just comment on the PR after this call so Terence knows like of this discussion and can probably make the changes on it? I think the PR already removed it. So we just continue with PR SS. Okay. Anything else? We wanted to change or discuss on a PR specifically. Okay. Yeah. Well, I did have like a comment on the PR and how exactly we want I wanna say how exactly we want to sort of like gossip those the couple blocks and sidecars. Like what are we doing with the old topic? Is it gonna be deprecated from now on or is it still gonna be used? It wasn't quite clear to me how we go forward from that this. I left a comment on the PR. So I'll discuss that as well. I don't think we should keep the old topic around with only the blocks or only the big blocks. We should just have one topic. Little old reasons to couple dilemmas for consistency by creating more topics we might create or we keep the case case that we wanted to get rid of. Yeah. That makes sense to me. Well, I had another question. I'm not sure if there is a comment about this on the PR but since we're gonna couple blocks and gossip then are we thinking of like more tightly coupling the blocks and blobs in like the execution engine beacon node API? Because like obviously you don't need both to broadcast anything. With the engine API, there's an expectation that the engine always has the blobs that match the block that is being produced. So even if there's an inconsistency it should be trivial to get the blobs where some appeared to bear, you might have an entirely different mesh of bear as per gossip topic. So you don't have this guarantee that the data is there. We could call them but we don't really have to. And for now, I think it's nice to just stay compatible with the existing API instead of introducing a new version of the methods. Yeah. Anything else on this PR? Okay. And then Terence had another one basically proposing 18 days to keep the blobs based on some conversations we had at DEF CON like it seemed like two weeks was the upper bound everyone felt comfortable with. I suspect 18 days maps. Yeah. It maps to a neat number of epochs. Yeah. Does anyone have a strong opinion about this or disagree? At the very least does anyone think it should be longer? I know some people were arguing for it even shorter but I think I haven't heard anyone argue that it should be longer. So if not, I think we can probably just merge this change and if we want to make it even shorter we can do that in the future change. Okay. I will take silence as a yes. So all of Terence, no. And then the last, oh, sorry, yeah. Sorry, yeah. I was just generally wondering about like what's like why 18 days I guess? Like is it supposed to just encapsulate like the longest fraud-proof periods we might imagine or is it supposed to like set, like it'd be like a precursor to how long you need to retain data and full sharding for like customers or something like that or like is it supposed to be longer than the weeks of activity period or? Right. As I understand it, it's the longest fault-proof and say you were like not online you had to like sink a new node from scratch and you wanted to participate or retrieve some data. Two weeks felt like that. And then the other thing was as well, say there was a weird consensus issue that happened on mainnet. And for some reason to resolve this consensus issue we wanted to have blobs still live on the peer-to-peer network. Two weeks is the period where we generally think we can solve pretty much any issue on Ethereum. So it gives us like some room there. Yeah. All right. Cool, thanks. Yeah, but it's a very, yeah, it's a very soft metric. There's not like a hard requirement, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, but yeah, I think we can all agree 18 days as an upper bound, we can change the spec of that. And yeah, go from there. And in the storage requirement, like Prism said at one meg targets, this would be 137 gigs. It's extremely likely that we have a target that's like well below that. So less than 100 gigs, I would say. Sweet. Okay, so those are all the actual spec changes for 4.44, oh, sorry. Just going back up one on the coupling beacon box and bobs, is there like an action item there? Just don't wanna follow up with Terrence just to like give him a nudge that we discussed and decided on it. Yeah, that was what I was planning to do. Okay, yeah, I'll let him know. And then I'll send him this recording as well. So he can have the context of the conversation. I think he's probably the best person to just move those PRs forward. Yeah. Sweet, okay, so the next one, basically this one's like a bit tricky where the idea of like how do we rebase 4.44 on Capella? Tim, do we miss the, do we wanna talk about the cryptography? Oh, sorry, yes, actually yes, I didn't miss that one, yeah, yeah, you're right. The, okay, yeah, this is George's PR about the cryptography API. Yeah, sorry. So I saw, yeah, there were some reviews on that one. I think Roberto, you added it to the agenda and you had some questions, you're seeing now the PR. So yeah, do you wanna take him in this to walk us through where they're at? Yeah, I don't know if I had any particular opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure it was, everyone was aware of it, it was non-contentious. It looks fairly straightforward to me. Dan Cradd, I see you were part of the reviews a few days ago. Sure, sorry, what's the question? I guess anything outstanding on this, the PR by George about the cryptography API update in the Fiat Chimere logic? So I believe it, well, okay, so it is ready. There's one very small question on whether we need domain separators and Dimitri will still look into that, but the change for that will be trivial and actually they are already placeholder variables for that, so it would simply assigning value to these placeholders. And even if libraries don't implement them as they are, which is a change is still trivial. So I think we should merge that PR and then maybe, yeah, like Dimitri will still tell us whether he thinks we should add those. Okay, sweet. And I guess, all right, and I guess, yeah, Kev was also having a look, so opinion Kev, making sure, I don't think Kev is here, right? Yeah, no, so, opinion Kev, oh yeah, he, oh, you are, sorry, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, I agree with Dan Cradd, it's just the domain separators that are the main problem. And I guess, do we expect to like have an update on that in the next few days, or is it something we're gonna need more time to determine? I don't know about the next few days. I'd have to ask Dan Cradd about Dimitri's availability. Yeah. But yeah, it's not a blocker to the actual PR. And it's only a blocker if we want test vectors, fix test vectors. Right, and I guess, yeah, and the reason I'm asking is just like, if there's client teams that are looking into implementing it, should they just basically look at this PR or assume it to be part of the spec effectively? And it seems like we're saying yes. Yeah, exactly, but there are CKZG and a few libraries around that sort of just implement it and client teams just need to look at the public-facing API, which won't change. Okay, okay, that's it, okay, perfect. So, okay, so for the client teams' perspectives, it's abstracted by the library and then the work to implement this would be in CKZG, basically. Right. Oh, sweet. Anything else on this PR? Is there a person who's gonna own merging that? Yeah, but by the way, as of now, I don't think all that logic is in GoKGZ. I think a lot of it is in the clients. We're moving pieces of it over little by little, but it's not quite there yet.  I just haven't pushed the PR yet. I pushed one to Prism in Fees branch, but not to yours yet. Proto, sorry, Roberto, do you wanna go and then Proto? Okay, I mean, I'll have to take a look at that PR. I haven't seen it yet, but that's great. Proto, yeah. I do think GoKZG has the necessary methods that are nicely grouped together as here. We merged the PR that upstreams the effectivates polynomial in effectivation form. So I think we're complete now. Maybe I'm missing another method. I'll take a look. Okay, if we're missing anything, I'll let you know. There was an actual issue that I opened up yesterday that I think GoKZG needs to basically check that, remove the check that field elements are canonical. If I think the issue is 3057, so I think that's the only thing. Yeah. Is there any particular reason why we need to remove validation? Yeah, so if I remember correctly, Murphy said that when a blob is canonical, it's not up to the cryptography to decide whether a blob should be canonical. It's up to the person that's encoding the data. Specifically, the data is out of range. If the bias has a value that is not fit in a field element, shouldn't it just be in front? Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. The data is allowed to be out of range. It's whatever the output of the encoding that should be basically fit in the field element. And Kev's point was that there are cases where you could have different data mapping, mapped to the same encoding. Well, I guess it all depends on the coding. In that scenario, I would argue that the coding is valid and useless, any correct. But the point was the cryptography shouldn't be able to verify that the data was encoded correctly because that's all up to the user. We can still have the field element checks to make sure that it fits within the modules, but the data itself, it's not something we can check because it's already encoded, if that makes sense. So I would say that if the user wants specific data to be valid with respect to the crypto functions, then they can just apply the modulus or cut off the bytes that are the bits out of bounds. It's like, there are many ways to map like data to some point in a specific integer range. I'm not sure if we should create the expectation that people can just encode data, however they like outside of this range and then still compute commitments over it. Was that, did that make sense, Kev? I'll just make sure that we're in the same area. Yeah, I understood it as Proto was agreeing with what I was saying, but you agreed as well, so I'm a bit unsure, but we can take it offline. I can post the link to the issue as well here. Okay, anything else on the PR? Okay, I think that was it for all the proper spec changes. We have this draft PR by Mofi about rebasing 4.44 on Capella. And I guess the background here is that the current DevNet's kind of implement 4.44 over Bellatrix. And I think the sort of rough consensus we had reached was that it makes more sense to have this rebase on top of Capella instead. And, but then that means it might be tricky to do some of the testing while Capella is not fully implemented in all of the clients. So yeah, Mofi, do you wanna take a minute and walk through like what your PR proposes? Yeah, it really doesn't propose much anymore. The original draft basically rebased 4.44 on Capella, but added introduced a feature flag to disable Capella specific state transitions. Based on feedback in the PR, I think we shouldn't try to enshrine such flags in the spec. So the latest revision basically removes that. It's simply a rebase on Capella, but there is a section at the bottom of the spec for testing that outlines the necessary functions we wanna stub out for EIP 4.44 specific testing. That way, we retain the Capella containers and concepts, but no withdrawals or withdrawal interaction actually happens when testing EIP 4.44. Got it. And so that basically means that Capella is a sort of like no-up fork that happens and the clients run through it, but then yeah, they don't have to have the withdrawals implemented in order to test the 4.44 changes. Is that right? Yeah. Okay. I'm still not sure if, I guess it depends on like client teams implementation and how their code bases are structured. I'm not 100% sure if this would be feasible depending on how like client teams implement those functions that I've outlined to be stubbed. Right. Also, this doesn't solve the issue of, yeah, I don't know. I guess we'll find out during testing. Yeah. So I guess, yeah. There's a couple of client team contributors on the call here. I think if you all can review this PR, that would be great. And I think we should definitely bring it up on the CL call next week as well, so that it gets the attention of like all the different client teams there if it hasn't in the meantime. Yeah. I'm from White House. I would generally say that like we really support this because having like the consensus objects in the YIP 4844 fork look like what they're actually gonna look like will like on net reduce a lot of work for us because otherwise if we have like a 4844 without with drills like fork, I guess in a just Capella fork without 4844. And then like this new set of consensus types that might be the most like accurate in the future. This sort of equates to us having to support three different forks. So if like, if we know what drills are gonna be included, then this change, yeah, reduces work for us by like eliminating a fork essentially. Yeah. Okay. I think for Techie we're not opinionated. We do all of our development on main behind feature flags. So we don't have fork issues. So either way is fine on that. Sweet. And then Dan, you said, yeah, you've managed to implement it this way on RoadStar and Terrence is aware of this because he's commented on a PR. So maybe what's the other client? Yeah, just maybe getting in this to have a look at this would be good. And then, yeah, it seems like if Nimbus doesn't have like a strong objection to this, we could probably move forward. Sweet. Anything else on this? And I guess, yeah, the assumption here is like any interop testing and whatnot we would do moving forward would likely be, you know, using this format of like a stub Capella, which is different than what we've used for the DevNets historically. Okay. Okay, next up, yes. One thing I just wanted to check it on. So for the KGG libraries, we obviously we have CKGG, there's bindings being developed and go. Are we, is anyone aware of like a client team that for whatever reason can't use any of the libraries that are being developed or that needs, you know, specific bindings or something that like does not exist for them yet? I don't think Rust bindings exist yet, but I know there's a couple of people interested in working on them. Okay. So Rust bindings for KGG library. Likewise, I think open name. Oh, sorry. I was saying, I think the same situation for NIM. Right. So NIM and Rust both need bindings for the KGG library. And there's a question for Nethermine. Oh, okay. So there's progress as well on a .NET, but it's not there yet. Okay. So we have .NET in progress, Rust and NIM missing, but then every other client team is fine. Yeah. On the .NET side, we just need to update according to the new PR, which includes simplification of the API and we will integrate like that. We do not use old API version. We want to use the new one. Sweet. Anything else on the KGG libraries? And I guess, yeah, we can figure out offline for the Rust and NIM bus implementation how to best get those done, unless someone has wants to volunteer for them here. Oh, and it seems there is a Rust library in progress. Yeah. Okay. I guess next thing I want to cover, like there's a bunch of different client teams here. I'm curious to hear just generally where teams are at with their implementation and if they have any blockers or things that, you know, they think everyone else should be aware of. Yeah. I guess I'll go from the order I see on the video. Dan, I see you've started like a load star for requests. That's right. Yeah, it's all going fine in load star. There's a bit of a question about how we're going to use CKZG. We need to generate TypeScript bindings, but I'll figure that out when I get there. And basically up to the networking. So I've all the types and params and config in there. Hopefully that I can get the networking and then the blob verification done this week. Okay, just going through the list. Ben, any updates from the take-who-side? Yeah, we've barely started on this yet. In the next couple of weeks, we'll get off the ground, but yep, it shouldn't be a huge lift, I think. Mofi. Not much work since the DevNet, which is still based on Bellatrix structs. Actually, Terrence has a branch on EIP 4044, and I think we'd want to start moving development to his branch, because it contains like the latest Capella structures, and basically it's more in sync with the present upstream. Nice. Sean? Yeah, so since DevCon, we've mostly been focusing on essentially Mofi's PR to Bellatrix 4844 on Capella. And then Pawan's also been working on unifying the gossip topics. And I think we're pretty far along, so we're hoping to join the next test net with like the Bellatrix structs as well. That's better for us. Cool. Jerry? No, we didn't start working on it yet. I'm assuming after today's planning, we'll start. Sounds good. So just, oh, we didn't hear you. You came off mute, but we didn't hear anything. Sorry, sorry. So yeah, I was mostly working on guiding advice to work on that KZG library. So I would say we probably will not start much on the client side until we have a bit more work done on the KZG library. I think so we'll join a bit later. Got it. Alexei? Yeah, we have work in progress. It's quite important for us to have some milestone. I mean, what should be on DevNet 3 like that and we will align to that and the idea is to join this network and provide some functionality, but I'm not aware of what certain peers will be included. What do you want, guys, to see there like that? Yeah, I think, yeah, I was gonna sort of finish up with the third DevNet. I feel like next week, we should probably spend most of the call on that. Like this week, there's I think a bunch of open issues that we need to clean up and get merged into specs. And then I think next week's call, we should be able to say like, hey, this is basically the scope for the next DevNet. Does that make sense? I suspect every team has at least one week of work to get at least like the basic full implementation and rebase on KITALA. Oh, okay, this rebase is a bit disturbing for me just because it's new for me because we have withdrawals implemented like part of Shanghai for as far as I remember and probably if we will rebase, it will cause some issues for us, maybe. I need to check. Yeah, so I think if teams should definitely look at like rebasing all the 4-4-4 stuff on top of Shanghai or Capella. And then, you know, all the PRs we kind of discussed today but then I think next week will be in a spot where we have like, we're able to more crisply define these are the sets of things we want to hit. If that makes sense. Great, yeah. Sweet. Roberto? Yeah, I've just started looking into Erdogan. I'm gonna be working on that through the next week. Nice. I haven't made a lot of progress yet though. Nice. And I think Marius, you're the other one. Sorry, I didn't hear you. Oh, sorry, I think Marius is the only other person working on a client implementation now. Oh, are you still here? Marius, connecting to audio. Yes. Hello. We're working on a bunch of other stuff at the moment. So we don't really have a stable withdrawal branch that we could rebase on top. I'm kind of, today I started looking into the Go bindings for CKZG. That's going okay. There's a bunch of issues with it right now. But yeah, so regarding withdrawals, as I said, we don't have the normal withdrawal functionality in the code yet. We have a branch, but I'm not sure how far along that one is, so. Got it. Anyone else working on a client implementation that I missed? Okay, we have about a minute to go, but I wanted to make sure we also covered this. One of the big things we're working on for testing is this idea of having a large blocks that we send full of call data on the network and see how the network handles those as a way to gauge our blobs viable from a peer-to-peer perspective. Dan, do you want to take a minute or two and talk through where things are at there and what are the next steps? Yeah. Sorry, for the big block experiment? Yes. Yeah, so we're just trying to figure out the logistics of actually how we would submit, how do we actually fill up these blocks with two megabytes of data? So I think we've found there's some issues with memorable propagation if you try to submit a really large transaction. I'm thinking maybe try MEV Boost, but the issue is that that's extra integration work and not all validators run MEV Boost. So I think the latest suggestion was from Tim to try to submit to validators directly. So I don't know exactly how we would do that, but yeah, just literally figuring out how to actually make sure we get our transactions are the ones that are get picked and trying to get as close to the full two megabyte block limit as possible consistently through in a row. Right. And then, yeah, Maristus might be a good question for you. So get limits, how big the transactions can be gossiped in the transaction pool? Yes. So I don't know if we actually... Yeah, Matt's confirmed this morning. I think it's 128K. Yeah, we can patch that. Is there a way? The definition? Yes. No, so if we want to do this on mainnet, so we want to submit big blocks on mainnet, yeah.  With call data, yeah. Yeah, no. We can submit big blocks on our local network, but we cannot do this on mainnet. Like, this safety feature is there for a reason and like, removing it would be... Yeah, I'm not saying we should remove it from yet, but I guess, yeah, and we can take this offline, but basically, Starkware did it a few years ago. How did they do it would be the question that I have. Well, they need to control, you need to control the block producers. Right. Okay. But, okay, so that's the way. It's like, basically, send them through either flashbots or through like some staking pool or something like that. I mean, you're saying one block producer, right? Well, it depends how, you know... How many you want to do that. Sure, sure, I see. So wait, so, okay, so what is the gas block limit? It's like 128K and we would like... Gas does not produce blocks larger than 128K. Transactions.  Yeah, why not do that? It doesn't guarantee they all get included in the same block, right? Well, I don't guarantee that, but if you bid a bit more for gas, then it should be, yeah. Yeah, that might be the... That might be the simplest way. Yeah, as it are, and then we can probably wrap up. Right, I just wanted to say that, given that we haven't yet had any post-merge load testing in general, I think we should be careful, maybe not immediately start with some megabyte loads, but kind of slowly ramp up to this. So just in case we notice that, you know, even at 500K, the network's already struggling. Right, yes. There should be a moment to stop. So I think there's a big... Well, I mean, I don't see much of a scenario where like this would cause permanent damage to the network. Well, it might just in case, just because attackers could just watch this and be like, oh, it's easy to actually bring down the Ethereum network, you know? And it does cause permanent damage because it increases the history. And as long as we've... Look, we're talking about a few megabytes. We're not going to add gigabytes to the history. No, this is not a valid argument. So I don't... I think it's not... I mean, yeah, you could flag that up to someone, sure.  I don't know. Anyway, we need to be resistant to that attack. So I don't think we have to be that careful. I'm pretty sure. Well, but I mean, even temporary network instability, you know? Like, I think we all kind of have pretty high reliability standards for Mainnet. And so I don't know. I just... I personally would be much more comfortable if it was like a multi-step... If it takes the one megabyte blocks to bring it down, then we're already not satisfying that standard, in my opinion. So... Yeah, I think at the very least, we can just use vanilla geth like the transaction process.  That's just how it is. Like, continued one megabyte blocks, there are a lot of validators that don't have the bandwidth required for this. And they...  Sorry? What's a lot? Like, 1% or even 5%, it does not impact network quality. Like, let's just be honest, it's not a problem. Fine, they miss some other stations. Who cares? It's nothing. They lose a cent per attestation. Look, it's not a concern. Like, mainnet is not going to go down because of this, just because we've designed it so that 30% can go offline without anything happening. Sure, but if we can minimize however much we take offline... I don't care why we need to start testing this on mainnet. Oh, we don't start... Oh, yeah, we won't start on mainnet. No, for sure. Like, of course, we can do this, we can do this test in like a month on mainnet. I don't care about this. But like, we shouldn't... Yeah, but test nets are not going to tell you anything interesting because everyone runs their test net nodes. Well, you would hope that's the thing. So if this works smoothly on test nets, then you can move the mainnet. But if we break something on a test net, it's much better to have broken it on a test net first. So I think... I feel people are being over cautious here, but yeah. I mean, I think, yeah, we're already over time. My feeling is like just gradually ramping up the size of things we do seems to be like the best way to go. And like, we probably don't have to deal with this, like being bigger than the get mem pool transaction cap for now. Even when we move to mainnet, we can probably do like a first test with something like a bunch of 128K transactions with like a relatively high priority fee and hope that most of them get in the same blocks. Perry, talking about with metrics, we want to track... Does it make sense to just move that to next week as well? Because I think... I don't think that... Well, first we're sort of out of time, but... Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, do you want to take two minutes and maybe talk about that? Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, do you want to take two minutes and maybe talk about it? But I suspect to get a full list we'll probably need the chat, I think. We can do anything then, that's fine. Okay, yeah. So I guess, yeah, let's, in the next week, discuss this in the telegram group about this. If anyone wants to be part of the telegram group talking about this experiment, reach out to me, I'll add you. And then I think next week for this call, if we can have the issues that we talked about mostly resolved, a cleaner spec or target for DevNet 3, and then a sort of set of metrics to target for the dis-experiments, that would be really good. Anything else before we wrap up? Okay, yeah. Thanks, everyone. Appreciate saving on a couple extra minutes and talk to you all soon. Thanks, everyone. Have a great day. All right, thanks, Tim. Bye.


I'm Martha Johnson and I'm an artist. I live in Conifer, Colorado with two handsome men, one of whom is human and the other is a cat. Had a mole that I didn't like, went into the adorable and wonderful Sarah Flick, who works in the Kaiser Dermatology Department. When I said to Sarah, Sarah I don't like this mole and she said, Martha, I don't like this mole either, so she did a biopsy. Two days later, got the phone call from Sarah Indeed saying, yep, you were right, it is melanoma. I hung up the phone, 20 minutes later the phone rang again and it was another person from scheduling saying, we know about your diagnosis, we just want you to know that we are on it. Husband Glenn and I went into meet Dr. Evan Gillespie. Some of the first words that came out of his mouth after we met and greeted were, I think Sarah got it all with a biopsy, and I went wahoo, he said but melanoma is kind of an odd beast and one of our only tools is surgery. So what we have to do now is we'll have to have a little more surgery to remove what they call the margins. Talking to Dr. Gillespie, I felt completely comfortable with him, it felt like it was in really, really good hands. The doc called maybe the following Monday, I was surprised how quickly with more great news that the margins were clear. The surgical team was wonderful and more than seamless and more than efficient and more than skillful, I mean those things are all present and absolutely vital, but the kindness and compassion that I felt start to finish was huge, was huge, real impressive. Great. You know, gold played it.


Some of the most shocking parts about moving in with the Amish people was just like no technology, no cell phones or anything. No family fighting. Growing up, I didn't know families didn't yell at each other. I didn't know any of that. Then I went to the Amish and I'm like, wow, there are actual peaceful marriages. You can ask an Amish kid, have you ever heard your dad yell at your mom? It's like, never, never. My dad was in prison when I was born. My mom was a single mom, peaceful families. I don't think a lot of people have that.