So, hi everyone. Thanks for joining. This is implementers call number 3 for EIP 1559 and now also other proposals. Oh, we have more people kind of slowly rolling in. Yeah, so the goal of today as pretty agenda was mainly to try and analyze the different proposals that have been put forward. So there was the original EIP 1559, then Dan Finley from MetaMask put together a sort of counter or composable proposal for it called escalator fees. And then Mika Zoltu, I hope I'm getting his name right. Also had another proposal around pipes transaction envelopes, which both EPS could use. I think it would be valuable if we can get to a spot where we have, you know, pretty broad alignment on what's the best way to move this forward. Because then we can start answering some other questions around how do we actually test this, what's required, you know, for us to feel confident deploying this on the network. Yeah. Does that generally make sense to everyone? Yes. Cool. Okay, so I mean, I can go through kind of the list of comments that people posted as a sort of conversation starter. But yeah, there are three main things that people, I don't think any of them are on this call, voiced in terms of opinions with regards to if we should bundle or unbundle the proposal. First, there was Mika's comments basically saying that he's strongly against bundling the EPS because they both add value on their own. And so we should just have them separate because of that. So Barnaby put together kind of a pretty long explanation saying that either we have to keep the current transaction model with the escalator rule for the fee. And by current, I assume that he means, I assume he means like what's on mainnet today. And then the second option is you use 1559 and you use the escalator rule to calculate the premium. And then finally, Derbitt, which is kind of a research blockchain analysis blog put together a pretty thorough analysis of the escalator proposal and how it works or doesn't work with 1559. And their kind of takeaway after the analysis was 1559 probably provides most of the value and the escalator can be done outside the protocol. So maybe it makes sense to just start with 1559. So I'm curious to get thoughts from just other folks on this call. Yeah. For the last point, I kind of disagree with that. I think it's better to have the escalator algorithm on the protocol layer, because if you delegate this to a third party, you will have to resize the transaction. So you will have a background service on the wallet, for example, and to resubmit transaction. And I think it's better to avoid this signature process if we can have this in the protocol layer. So does anyone on the call think we should not bundle EIP 1559 with the escalator fees proposal? I'll say a neutral on that. For me, it depends also on if we want to make the type transaction envelope a requirement of them. Because if we don't, it will be hard to let's say implement EIP 1559 alone. And after add the escalator, if we don't have the type transaction envelope, I think it will be better to have the type transaction envelope before implementing both EIP. So that we can even imagine a system where you have some basically three transaction types, EIP 1559 alone, escalator alone, and the combination of both. But I guess it will be maybe bad because the user experience will be different for different types of transaction. But yeah, I will strongly advocate for having the type transaction envelope a requirement for both. Are you saying have the type transfers first and then do 1559 and or before either of them? Basically on the same hard work, but just let's say for example pass the type transaction envelope to EFI and then make this as a requirement for 1559 and escalator. Why are you just joined? Sorry. Why are you saying that they should be on the same hard fork like wouldn't it just make sense to do type transactions as soon as possible? And if the next hard fork, they're both at it great. I mean, it's mainly to avoid changing the user experience from a hard fork to another. Because if we implement first EIP 1559, we will have some break in change and wallet implementations, et cetera, also on user experience. And then if in the next hard fork we decide to add escalator, we will again have some break in change on the user experience. So I think it's pretty bad, but yeah. And that's with without the envelope? In both cases. I mean, we could have a combination of both EIP 1559 and escalator without the type transaction envelope. It will be just harder on the pure implementation side, but we can deal with that. But for the break in change on the user experience, it does not depend on the transaction type envelope in my opinion. And I also just joined who I think would probably have something to say about this if we caught up with the speed. They're talking about bundling these two IP EIP whether that should happen and kind of the pros and cons against escalator being in protocol and not. Yeah, hi. I don't have a strong opinion on whether they should be bundled or not. I think the escalator in general is a good idea. We see that it's being adopted on the client side. And it's also something that uses to manually already. So that's, that's one of the main points of our analysis that we published today that there are some arguments that the protocol should be as lean as possible in the baseline protocol. So we should see if it's being adopted on the client side, then it's very popular than we can internalize it. That would be my approach. Then in that case you accept to have to break in change, because even if it already exists outside the protocol, if we integrate it after under protocol that will be a break in change. Yeah. In my, if I could have everything I'll line up right I just for simplicity of less moving parts, I would prefer for 1559 to go in first and then say maybe in four months. We can even plan this advance and advance and work towards them of having like a four month window between deploying 1559 and then adding that square algorithm. It's just, there's simplicity and having less moving parts when it first starts, because there still is some risk of things going wrong and so having less things that could go wrong all at once seems nice. As far as breaking changes, I think it's valuable enough for the users of the network to like the reason we don't break changes is because of user experience and it and it hurts somewhat. users expectations, but in the case that users want it enough then it makes sense to go forward with them. So you're saying if you ship 1559 as is you change the transaction fee that means every single wallet has to kind of readapt. And then if we then ship escalator, you know, call it for six months later, you have that, that adaptation again right you're asking once more every single wallet or thing that sends a transaction to readapt. I feel like that's like a lot like I feel like that's a lot of added complexity to the entire ecosystem that we can maybe manage better. Either saying, you know, 1559 as is is complicated enough we want to ship that and let's just do the escalator outside the protocol, or if we really want the escalator in protocol. I think it makes more sense as a single, a single eep like a new eep that's like a merge of the two in a way. Because then you'll you have this very complex change but you only have it once right. Yeah. So you're you're saying having 1559 as is and then having the escalator be done outside of the protocol with the option of coming back later and doing it. I don't have a strong opinion, or either either that or use you basically create a new eep that's the escalator with a base fee or 1559 with an escalator tip however you want to frame it. So you just do it all in protocol from day one. As far as for the difference between the escalate the escalator change isn't really that big of a change. If it was just on its own. As far as it's you X and all this. So I, as, especially if we were to say we're rolling out in part in phase one and phase two. So, while people are prepared, and they know that they're that these kind of changes are happening and, and they have to build the UI anyway for both, if we're going to do both. We're going to say hey we're going to do one, and then we're going to use some time to inform to make sure that our decisions are correct on all of these, on all these variables, and, and then deploy the escalator tip. Maybe it turns out that we don't even need that because of whatever ends up working. It isn't like they're saying hey part one, and then we're going to come around and say let's do everything again part two, or like completely separate change. Because if we, yeah, if we do need escalator after it will be confusing for user because the, the fields they were using without will mean another thing so it will be confusing for them, because if we combine them. It is the interpretation of each field is slightly different so I think it can be confusing for user. And if it is in such short period it can be really hard because a lot of the work will be about educating user, I guess. And, and also if 1559 is already designed to be, you know, there is two phases on 1559 so there is already a transition period to make the wallet integration smooth. Yeah. So, and it seems to me that we will add complexity if we say we have an EAP that makes integration smooth with the transition period but four months after we will have again a breaking change without the transition period again so yeah. Changing the minor tip to an escalator I don't think is complex enough to warrant a transition period. It's more about the wallet integration. Yeah, the wallet integration. If it works outside of protocol, like let's say we do 1559 first and then encourage wallets to do the escalator yes have the escalator tip outside of the protocol level. Yeah, I see what you mean we can leverage UX UI but the most difficult part will be about transaction signing because it totally changed how you sign transaction with or without. I mean, if it is outside the protocol, basically, it just simulate the escalator by resigning transaction with different gas prices, but it is not the same that that. The escalator in the protocol you sign the transaction only once so you have to include the more fields in the transaction signing and how you encode the transaction etc. So, yeah, it's this is the main important change week it's true that that we can leverage the UX UI but not the signing. Yeah. One thing I'd be curious to get other people on the calls opinion is in your piece has to you mentioned like this sort of privacy implications of the escalator fee, right because if you if you kind of put a transaction in the transaction pool and then put a higher gas fee like sure somebody might be able to track that but it's not like part of the protocol forever or part of sorry to kind of history forever. Whereas if you have the escalator, basically every transaction signals, you know, this is the least in the max I'm willing to pay, and that's going to be recorded as part of like those fields being added to the transaction. One, like what do people think about the privacy implications there the people think it's like a concern is that something that you can already kind of infer anyway on the network. Yeah, so I see two implications to one is on user balances or user accounts. So, accounts maybe associated with a higher like propensity to to spend or something like that. I'm sorry, forgot my point. I think we already have this thing, maybe less big, but because you cannot know from where they started to to bid but you know the final price so you can have some signals about about how important was the transaction for the user. So it disclose some information. It's less than with the escalator in protocol that, yeah. Yeah, I agree. I just remember the second point. The second point is on whatever if miners can use this information to come up with any new strategies to maybe delay transactions. I know if they know deterministically that a transaction is willing to pay X amount in the future is included now that's information that miners don't have today. But I don't know if there's a way for them to exploit that. I don't know. I certainly wait and hope that nobody else puts your puts their the transaction and I give everyone waited till the end then everyone would have the maximum escalator fee, that maximum fee. So that it's actually kind of a good point of having if it's outside of protocol level then you remove that information from the miners so they're, they don't know. Yeah, I mean you would hope that there's a coordination problem amongst miners where they are like one of them is incentivize to break their kind of cartel formation and just include a transaction once it's profitable instead of delaying and delaying and delaying. Yes. If blocks are generally full though. And most miners are following the strategy of waiting, then once I come along, even if I want to be honest I'm still going to pick the ones that have been been waited on. The strategy might still be dominant even if you have like one honest person that wants to break it, just because breaking it would assume that they would pick up all the most valuable but also pick up the ones that haven't reached the top escalator. But if the blocks are full, they don't necessarily have that option anywhere. So does that suggest that we should think more seriously about how to do it outside the protocol layer. I'm not necessarily suggesting that I'm just suggesting that in the extreme case you might have, you know, the honest player doesn't necessarily break the strategy. Yeah, yeah I was, I'm also wondering more people on the call if that's kind of the direction that this is. My intuition is that it's not a big deal that you that you leaked this information to minus that is just an intuition. I have the same intuition. So then, what are the big deals. There is you can still escalator your if you wanted to not reveal information you can still like put the men and max very tight and then sign a new transaction, rather than dealing with the protocol escalator. You still use the the in protocol escalator strategically, right where you only encoded for the encoded strategy for two blocks or three blocks, and then you write even if you're willing to go higher and more block. Exactly. You strategically don't reveal your true preferences. Yeah, my biggest I think big concern at this point is just, I'm not that confident there's actually the time to do both separately like and that the UX burden is worth it right like I think 1559 like changing the way transactions are formatted is probably the most breaking change you can do on each one, at least because literally everybody who sends a transaction needs to adapt. I would strongly try and avoid doing that twice, especially given that like historically we have like a six to nine month delay between hard forks. That means that say, you know, say best case scenario we ship whatever just 1559 early next year, and there's another six months it means you're still looking like at another year before the escalator goes live on the network. And right when everybody's kind of starting to get comfortable with 1559 you're basically breaking things again. I don't know my intuition is that's like worse than either option of like never shipping escalator in protocol or just you know the extra complexity of bundling them together. And I wish Dan fiddly was on this call because I feel he has the best perspective from that and ask on like, yeah, how much breakage is acceptable. Yeah. Is there problems on from just like transaction inversion perspective of having, because we don't really have that capability built in, or having multiple transaction types. Is there a implementation problems of separating and from that perspective. Well, I guess that what I can see is do you want all your transaction types to burn the base fee, right. And if, if you do, which seems to be like a lot of where the community support for 1559 comes from. But if all your transaction are burning the base fee anyway you're kind of back at this problem, right where they all have this pretty common they all have this common component. And you're kind of messing with like the other parameters. So it seems like I don't know no one here has like a super strong opinion for or against bundling to you. I have a strong opinion for actually for bundling. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Great. Does anyone have like a strong opinion against bundling them together. I would assume that barring more analysis most people on this call would not particularly have a strong feeling unless bundling was going to significantly delay deploying 1559. Because there was additional complexity in implementing this in protocol and getting it tested and getting it released that was going to push everything back say six months, or you know, a single hard fork. I would imagine a lot of people in this call would rather push out 1559, then bundle. But I don't have a good handle on the relative complexity of adding elevator in protocol versus just 1559. For me it's easier to build them than adding them later, especially if we don't have the type transaction envelope. My end assumption was based on the fact we accept to have the type transaction envelopes as a requirement of 1559. Is it also possible to ask a question on 1559 in this call. Oh, okay. So what would be interesting to me is have you ever tried to simulate any 20 million gas blocks as the proposal suggests. We decided to remove the block limit hard riders and let miners decide as it is right now. And there will be a separate to add riders. If we think it will bring value but we decided to separate 1559 from the riders. Oh, and then just in terms of stability, how. Okay, okay, yeah. No, and that was basically the next point on the agenda, but I think the hard part is, we basically want to agree to a spec of like what those blocks look like before we start those simulations. But I think that would be, that would be the next step. Yeah. And maybe regarding the block voting, the gas limit voting, is anyone seriously in favor of that at this point, or would it be in favor of keeping. Of keeping it. I feel like it's a known incentive, incompatibility issue of having minus decide the gas limit. So I'm just surprised that there are. There have been arguments made that we shouldn't bundle those two things together right because like their different proposals in some sense. And I think the opinion as well is like, if, you know, if we want to make the blast gas block gas limit something that's controlled by say hard forks. That's a separate deep, but like 1559 shouldn't introduce that as a sort of side dependency, because it's a pretty critical change. And I would, I would strongly before putting it as protocol layer, not as in minor control. I would read a block gas limit implementer scar. We could do that. It's just it's. Yeah, this that would take I think that would take the discussion would for answering Haas's question I would, I would, there's been some discussion about how to like procedurally manage some of the amount of changes that are happening. That's for moving riders and such, but I think we should seriously consider having the protocol be having to be a protocol level and not something that miners choose. Yeah, this is kind of a, yeah, side, side rabbit hole though. But yeah, I think, I think if we do that they should be a separate. Yeah, yeah, but it should be a separate deep like I think I'm fine with that. I agree that that should be the format. Yeah, I think we should also still execute on that. Okay, got it. So I guess, related to back back to sorry bundling the two EAPS, would it make sense to try and, you know, put together a proof of concept implementation at the bundle. And, you know, see if it's, if it's pretty straightforward start testing with that. Because I feel like if if the main the main concerns are either, you know, it'll slow things down then we can't really know that in advance. If there's a concern about maybe we want that at another level of the protocol, then the client. I just don't think we have the right people on this call to figure that out. But we can at least move forward with kind of the escalator tip, and, and then start doing stuff like modeling, you know, 20 million block sizes, like doing some more kind of formal simulations and whatnot. But at least we have like a single spec to go on. And then if there's any significant problems with that we can kind of go back to 1559 sort of vanilla 1559 if you want. Because otherwise I just think it'll, it'll kind of slow every conversation down to always be discussing, do we do escalator, do we do, do we do the original one. And it won't get us to like, yeah, figuring out can we handle 20 million gas blocks, can wallets actually provide, you know, a good interface for that and whatnot. I agree with that I think Danny is on their on point with that. The biggest concern would be around timeline changes. So if we could just agree that we the ideal version is to have 1559 and escalator trip. The question is how does that move forward. If they happen separately or if they happen at the same time, then we can look at what what actual effect on the timeline would be because if it was if we had to wait an extra three months, three to six months to put the escalator tip in. Then we're then we've pushed 1559 back a bunch. And then how to say this clearly. So if we have a timeline of 1559 could happen sooner if it was without the escalator tip, and then three to six months later we could have the escalator tip separately, versus if we put them both in but then they're both delayed three to four months. Then we're, yeah, that doesn't really solve it. There were were ended up being worse off. Yeah. Yeah, I under the I don't really have an opinion on like timelines and so on but under the condition that 1559 is delayed. I would also oppose bonding them together. If that's the result. I don't think it will be delayed. If we add escalator algorithm, we can start implementing the proof of concept to add escalator. Just to unlock people that will do the simulation, and then we can see if we want to do the tag transaction envelope, but that won't change the simulation basically. The so for for perhaps maybe for basu, but like, has anyone going to be writing the depth client implementation or the other client implementations for that. I can, there's other. I can ask I am from vulcanize who did the 1559 implementation to see if he can work on the escalator. Yeah, he wouldn't be able to unless we got funding for him to do. Yeah, yeah. So there, there isn't currently someone lined up to do that work on the death client. So that would be something else we need to solve. Okay, yeah, that was, yeah, that was the other part, but I think, you know, frankly, if nobody's going to do the implementation work, there's kind of bigger problems of, you know, whether or not we bundle the tip, because they're still going to be, you know, multiple months of getting this live right. It's going to take more than like a reference implementation on wherever the spec was at six months ago. Yeah, there's a different amount of work to polishing up the current 1559 that actually does things versus refactoring to put an escalator to like that. So that's a significantly different amount of work. Okay. So I guess, Kim, can we decide that the ideal world is that we have both and it's about how do we get them in. Yeah, in the best way. Yeah, I think I would rather go for that. And then we can always trim down. And we can just assume they're both going in and figure out the implementation details, you know, in the broadest general sense. But at least be clear on the spec of like, okay, this is what it should look like. If we, if we say the ideal version is to bundle them, we, we have to decide how we. The ideal version would be to have both, but it's unclear which if they should be bundled or released in series. Okay. So we can decide perhaps today that that is the what we want to work towards. And the next question is, what's the best way to get to to that, whether it's bundled or not bundled. That makes sense. With particular sensitivity to timeline, the effect on the timeline. Okay. By, by bundling these. Are we inducing the ability for more fud by raising the complexity of this change. For example, you know, I know there's some people that are calling for more in depth technical and economic analysis. And if we add escalator and don't as well do this type of analysis. And there's kind of open questions about leaking information and that kind of stuff. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot. A little bit, I would say definitely. Okay. Yeah, I think I think that the challenge though is, you know, Dan's rational for having the, the escalator in the first place is like there's a bunch of problems.  So, so yeah, I, and I guess the big open question is also how, you know, how much of these could we solve outside of protocol and if we could get, you know, 80% of the, the fixes out the protocol and minimize the consensus change maybe that that's a better approach. And that comes back to like agreeing that we want to get to the world where they're both in, but not sure how to best fit them. Yeah. So maybe in terms of, sorry, go ahead. Is there anybody strongly opposed to having that be like the vision that we talked about is having 1559 with the escalator as the ideal case. And maybe one way we can flesh this out in more detail is, I can schedule kind of a call with Dan Finley and Abdel and maybe Ian if he's available, so that we can actually go over, you know, what it would look like to bundle the two EAPS as well as, as well as what could be done outside the protocol with the escalator and what the implementation impact of both those things would be. Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. The next thing on the agenda was basically testing. Nick Johnson was on the call but he dropped off, I think. I know he's been kind of pushing for having like a more rigorous analysis of the 1559 spec. So I think, too, you mentioned, you know, trying to simulate 20 million gas blocks and seeing what the network looks like under those conditions. Barnaby's been working on simulations. So I think it would be valuable to kind of, you know, get people's thoughts here on what we think like good enough, you know, testing scenario for 1559 and the escalator is. Just a kind of more general question on this one.  Just looking now, Robston blocks have like, you know, five to 15 transactions each on average.  If you give me specifics for the question, I can do some SQL queries and get back to you. I mean, that's a bit unfortunate because I feel like the challenge with this mechanism is that, like, all the economic analysis in the world is honestly going to be less useful than like just seeing it run for a while. And, and if people getting getting a feel of how to interact with it. And I guess, we don't have the ability to use to really properly use the test that's an environment for that. I mean, we would but it's just that the gas, the base fee would kind of hover around one way most of the time and then maybe occasionally it'll start spiking up if there's bursts of usage. Yeah, on the last last call, I recall before Thomas from Netermine said we should basically, you know, once we have a spec have a public testnet and try to, you know, just market it pretty, pretty heavily so that people kind of deploy stuff on it in the first few blocks. Because that's kind of what you want you have like a burst of usage, right on the on the network. Well, one way this might be a little bit extreme, but the for Robston is we could temporarily move the gas limit to like 2 million. So you, even if it's low usage. You can go early and there's like even right or the thing you could do is and keep the gas a limited 10 million but keep the target at one or 2 million. Oh yeah, yeah, that's a better way. And how the other challenge with Robston is obviously applications kind of depend on it, and we'd be pulling in a sort of, you know, half ready 1559. What are people's thoughts on that? This may be the wrong call. Maybe I'll court devs a better place for that. But yeah, what are people's thoughts on like breaking Robston Erty versus, you know, using a new testnet, the challenge there being getting people to actually use it. Which one is Reddit using. Yeah, let's not do that one. And I ultimately wouldn't we have to do both like first off with a dedicated test that and then like any hard for goes on Robston before main and anyway though in this case we could do it on Robston like six weeks before instead of three or whatever so that there's more time for it. Yeah. But if we do an artificially low target on the gas limit, it might actually affect the usage there. Yeah, and I can imagine where, like, before we're ready to deploy 1559 and like a proper hard fork, we want to get some network usage data, because like you said it's probably will inform the best way breaks right. So I was thinking of like, you know, we did this ephemeral testnet for Berlin, could we have another one easily for 1559. And then the challenge is how do you get like a lot of usage on it. Is there a way we can just like write transactions, you know, like a sort of bot that sends tons of transactions to it. The, the little bit of complexity as far as looking at it in comparison to YOLO is that part of the equation is looking at how miners react to it. So having to be a mineable testnet like is that a maker break for is is it necessary for the pre testnet to be doing this be mind proof of work. I think it might be just because of the implementation right Adele, like we said 1559 won't like will be like a proof of work thing is that right. No, no, no, it could work with proof of origin at work. Yeah, that's certainly be easier to do. And then a lot of the stuff you're talking about of throwing transactions and stuff is very much possible. So we basically want like a clique testnet. Yeah, probably with more than one validator, just to make sure it actually works on and bigger than one. And we can fake volume on that. Yeah, can we reasonably write scripts to fake volume, you know, and in a meaningful way. That should be able like especially if you have like Genesis accounts with huge amounts of ether right like they can just that what we might not be able to do is, or might be more complicated to do is just like complex smart contract calls so you're not making that but if we just want to feel blocks. I don't see why you couldn't automate that pretty easily. So very the agents activity to kind of induce like them and trust. Yeah, this is what I was going to say Barnaby is working on implementing some agent based simulation. And I don't know the status but he was pretty advanced. Last time I told quit him. So the basic question but why couldn't you simulate 20 million blocks, 20 million gas blocks on Tesla. That that is that should be done separately or that that is that we so the there's two questions to answer one is is the is 20 million blocks safe for the network. Okay, and then the other one is does 1559 actually sort of work as we wanted to in practice. So the one yeah, but I think we're still haven't figured out the best way to test that, but a but it got like a thick net that all it does is just pump out big blocks. And then see how that how that works is something we should talk about. Okay, well, I'm going to have to head off now by the way, but So yeah, and I think yeah in terms of blocks. So there's yeah there's a few things like can the network handle 20 million gas blocks without crashing. And then the other piece is also when to have the transition from regular transaction to 1559 style transactions. You're basically cutting the block. The block limits of like based on the type of transactions. And so would you stop, would you make it impossible for you know large contracts to be deployed. Because the block is like, say 5050 between normal transactions and 1559 transactions. And intuitively I don't think so we can. We can reduce the transition period. And we can even start with directly phase two maybe. I mean, is there any value to test the phase one where both legacy and new transaction are accepted. Yes, because wallets need to upgrade right. Yeah, but for for what we want to test. Oh, for what we want. In production obviously there is value. Yeah, just for what you want to say. Maybe not initially, but and I think on on main net so say you're actually doubling the block gas limit right. So if I wanted to deploy a 10 million gas contract. You would always be able to do it because of the slack right so if it starts and it's like mostly old transactions and some 1559, then you deploy it using an old transaction. And once it tips to more than 50% of 1559 style transactions, then you can deploy your 10 million gas contract using a 1559 size transaction, but you'll just fill up the block right. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to summarize it the testness stuff. We need, it probably makes sense to start with a new test net that we can at least run like a click version of 1559 on and have large blocks and see this, you know, does this actually work and crash before we do anything else. If 1559 alone. Would that be quicker? Yes, because we have already the implementation but it's what we want. Yeah. Maybe have you tried connecting with the gas implementation. Yeah, it works. Yeah, it works. So then we could do that this week. Yeah, exactly. We can set up like a yellow between whatever 1559 yellow. Yeah, we can do that. What we won't be probably able to do within a week is then fill it with like huge transactions and whatnot, but we can just restart the test net. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. And one thing, I guess, maybe not on this call, but yeah, how feasible is it to start an ephemeral test net like I'm not super familiar with how to get team did it, but is this something that you need, you know, Peter from gas to actually like work with you on or is it all open source and we can just do it ourselves. Is it the thing you're talking about? I don't know. It would be puppets and click basically. Yeah. So maybe yeah, like James, Adele me and I am can look into that and getting that up and running. Yeah, does that make sense. Yeah, in the next couple weeks. Yep. And then, yeah, and then once we have that running, I think we'll figure out enough about how, how the ePorks to inform kind of future testing but the other, the other question is, I guess next Johnson's question of like just more formal analysis but if he's not here, maybe we can chat with him offline about that. If we are concerned by delay, to me it is, it is, this is the kind of thing that could delay. Well, it's a different thing, right? Like because it's like you're, you want to make sure the thing is properly tested before you move it to mainnet. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And to do that, you have to have like a final or finalish implementation. Sorry, James, are we gonna say something? Oh no, they must have been the birds. Okay, so the last bit on the agenda was funding. Sorry, I guess, before that there was the type transaction. I feel like we've kind of touched on it in a bunch of different ways, but we didn't discuss it directly. Did anyone have any more comments on that? Can we, can we see if we want to pass it as EFI? In the next old codef maybe. You can, it's not typical that any IP is accepted into EFI the same core dev call that it's brought up. Okay. But it's definitely something that could be. It has been never a problem. It has never been presented. Not, no, I'm not aware of. Okay, okay. And then the, I'm curious from others here is, is making that a requirement for like to have 1559 is to have this kind of transaction thing is that a general consensus we have, or people feel strongly about either direction. I haven't followed it enough to know. Yeah, me either. Abdel, are you familiar enough with it to like, talk about it on all core devs this Friday. The type transaction envelope itself. Yeah. I was also planning to go to the core devs and talk about it if you don't want to. Yeah, feel free to do that. Yeah, that would be great Matt, if you can just bring it up there and I think based on the reaction of, you know, the core devs call we can see we can get a feel for like, how likely or unlikely it is to be kind of a something that will delay 1559. Yes. Okay. Is there a timeline for when you think 1559 is going to be included in a hard work yet. I'm not really familiar with it. I really hope I'm touching what as I say this is I'd like to get it for the next fork after Berlin. Okay. And I don't know when that will be in terms of time but I just think in terms of like road map. It probably makes sense and one it's it feels like it's kind of getting ready to that point and then to, I think a lot of the stateless Ethereum stuff is going to start to become kind of, you know, ready to ship after that. And if 1559 is being developed at the same time as all the stateless stuff is being developed I think they might, you'll have like these two things that might like interact that are both in development and that's, that just means it's really hard to move them forward. So, yeah, anyway, short, I'd like it to be the next upgrade after Berlin, but I'm not sure when that lands. Okay, I'll present 2718 on Friday and we'll get a temperature for it and if things are good then we can talk more about what the actual attack plan is regarding 1559. Sounds good. Anything else on the type transactions. Okay, last item on the agenda was the community funding bit. I know James you mentioned this already on the call. And you mentioned this to me before like the idea of maybe having like a get coin grants or something like that. But yeah, do you want to give a bit of your thoughts on this. Yeah, I've Ian's been doing a great a lot. I did a lot of great work for the get client and continue to maintain it. I think it would be a get coin grant would be a good opportunity to one fund some of these little things that can that we're looking to happen, like a lot of the little stuff, and perhaps have some bounties. And not, it doesn't really need to be a lot of funding, but it would be, it would help move things along quicker if we could, if we could resolve some of these smaller stuff separately. And then it would also be a good opportunity for the community to signal their support of 1559 because like a one die donation is a skin in the game way of saying yes I really want it. And having that that signal I think would help a lot for the core dev side, because they, they spend a lot of time on the protocol level, basically keeping the network alive and that takes a lot of their time and attention and brain cells. So, clear ways for the community to tell the core devs how strongly they feel about something, I think, would be beneficial for their reception on swallowing the complexity of the change. There's an open to other ways but that's just has been my thought about it. Yeah, I like the idea of like the community signal from get coin. Does any, do you know when the next like CLR CLR round is, I believe the current one's still going. Okay, so we could kind of put something together really quick and have it there. And then the obvious challenge also with that is like how do you kind of allocate the funds. Yep. Yeah, the people have thoughts on that. Does anyone other than me have thoughts about that or preferences. The preference that I have that I'm not sure how realistic it is but it's like you ideally don't want people to vote to pay themselves. Right. But given like how small, you know, a number of people there are and, and yeah, it seems like maybe in practice it actually won't work. Well, we could, that could be a requirement that the people who are or who administer the funds are ones to receive any of them. Yeah, I mean, I get like in my case I'm, I'm, my work is funded so I, I don't, I, I could fulfill that. Pegasus to like, I mean, you know, we're all kind of getting paid as part of our day jobs to do this. So we, we don't require any additional kind of funding for it. Yeah, I think if you know the two criteria is like if you're roughly affiliated with 1559 and you don't want to be a recipient of the funds. We just have like a majority vote and we can post in the Discord Slack to see who, the Discord channel to see who, who wants to be that. And basically by, by asking to be on the sort of, you know, voting list, you're, you're renouncing the funds you could potentially get, right. Yeah. Does anyone disagree with that approach. How do we, how do we get the bounty up as soon as possible then and share it to the community. I can talk with Bitcoin. Yeah. You can make the, you can make it today. You can make the, the thing, getting into the CLR is a conversation with Bitcoin grants. Okay, got it. You can deploy the grant outside of CLR, getting included in CLR is a matter of just having conversation with them. Okay. As far as the governance of the funds and things like that, talking with a, as long as we aren't getting a lot and we have transparency about where they're all going. Yeah. I can, I can make, yeah, I can take a stab tomorrow at putting together the Bitcoin grant, share it, you know, share a draft of it in the channel. And we can maybe, and I'll ask today for some people who might want to be like early fund administrators. Yeah, I'm sure we could get, we can get Hudson to do it. I can ask him. Yeah. Yeah. Hudson yourself, some others who are involved in 1559 or have like a lot of domain knowledge. One thing that's been a struggle with finding funding is a lot of, there isn't a lot of people who have a lot of understanding about a lower level understanding about all the things are going on. So it takes a lot of conversations to say, Oh yeah, we do need this little thing because then I'm re explaining over and trying to just has a lot more friction than I anticipated. Yeah, I can imagine. So if I may like, I can think, I can think that cat or just can also help in setting up this thing, this Bitcoin CLR thing and as far as I know, as long as it is under the CLR like I believe for this time, July, so we are eligible if we apply before that we are getting CLR and yeah, we would be happy to coordinate funding. We did it previously for proper so we can do it for this and distribution should be completely your, I mean the grips decision. So yeah, we would be happy to help in coordination path. Sure, that sounds good. Yeah, so I'll try to get a V1 of the grant ready tomorrow. I'll share it in the catheters chat and in the in the 1559 chat for people to give feedback and yeah, we can we we can take it from there. The, the other thing I think we should add to it is as 1559 closes, we should donate any extra funds to matching to matching grants system. So there's anything. Yeah, that's over. That it will just go back in. Okay, I like that. Um, okay. Was there anything else that anyone wanted to chat about. Okay, well, thanks a lot everybody. Let's go over like the things to follow up on. Okay, okay.  And some others about implementation. What were, what were the ones. Okay, yeah, so I guess starting from from from the beginning basically on the, there's three things right there's bundling testing and funding. So for how we bundle things, I'll set up a call with Dan Finley, I and Abdel James if you want to be there as well great to see basically how we can bundle them and how much of escalator we can do outside of the protocol. We can come up with a proposal for that. Then, with regards to testing, we, we should set up another call or anyways can have this async but just setting up an ephemeral test net that runs click, which we can start start feeding 20 million blocks for. For IP 2718, Matt, you're going to bring it up on our core dev, we can kind of get a feel for, for, for, for how other people feel about the there. And then for the Gitcoin grant, I'll set one up tomorrow and I'll share it with which folks on this call and in the chat rooms to get feedback on it. Another one is evaluating the time, the timeline effect, the effect on the timeline of if we move forward 1559 first. Yeah, I guess that would, yeah, it goes, it goes, it's a, it could be a separate call or part of the same one, but it's something to follow up on. Yeah. Yeah, I think that makes sense. Anything else. Okay. Well, thanks a lot everybody. Thanks. See you. Thank you.


Three things God always does to a narcissist. It may look like the narcissist is doing better without you. You're suffering and no one is there to support you. While the narcissist is manipulating all of their unsuspecting enablers and flying monkeys and if you are a believer in God this may be very confusing. You may be wondering how this is even possible. You may be wondering how God could allow the narcissist to treat you this way and how God could just let them get away with it. When in actuality God is not letting them get away with it. God is doing something to the narcissist because as we know narcissism is very dangerous behavior and God has warned us against these behaviors in every religion where people are only concerned with their own wants and needs and they never consider other people because they're too preoccupied with promoting and admiring themselves. So here are three things God always does to a narcissist. One, God will give the narcissist free will. God has given all of us free will. We all have the power to act and make decisions independent of any outside influence and the narcissist has chosen to use their free will to be concerned predominantly with their own personal profit or pleasure which will only become the source of their distress and discomfort because God has advised us to have a modest or low view of our importance and to hold other people as being more important than ourselves which is not interesting to the narcissist but this is why they're always miserable because one of the most beneficial things we can do for ourselves is to give up our own interests or wishes in order to help other people and to advance a cause. As long as you love God and you love other people you will experience a life filled with joy because giving connects you to God while constantly receiving is what causes us to disconnect. So the narcissist will never experience true happiness or joy because that comes from engaging in a helpful activity that assists other people while the narcissist is only concerned with manipulating other people to serve themselves which is why they can never be satisfied because they have a void that can never be filled so they end up taking more and more and giving less and less which only amplifies their own misery. Two, God will let the narcissist betray you and other people. God will let the narcissist break their promises and be disloyal to you and disappoint your hopes and expectations until they end up burning their bridges where they have destroyed all possible ways of going back to previous situations so now they're forced to continue with a particular course of action where they will experience sadness because they've done harmful things to people who trusted them and often to the very people who cared for them and were helping them so even though they may not be alone they are lonely they've outstayed their welcome with good people like ourselves because we know that even if we gave them another chance they would just do the same thing all over again. They would manipulate and exploit us so we're not going to put ourselves in that same possession to be used which means that the narcissist will just end up with other fake people people who are just like themselves people who can't do anything for them all they can do is assist them in manipulating other people and into displaying this illusion because they cause differences and disagreements they produce conflict and tension they created obstacles and hindered our progress so now all we can do is avoid them because we know that they're self-seeking and self-serving they're acting for their own advantage they're serving their own interests in disregard of the truth while using charm and the insincer praise at the expense of those who may be naive. Three God's will expose the narcissist when narcissists do what they do they are mocking God as though God does not have any power to correct them when really God has just given them time to express regret and a brawl because eventually they will be punished God will expose them to you through their behaviors as a warning for you to not follow in their path so that you will think of other people before yourself and then you can live a life filled with joy thank you for watching if you found this video helpful please give it a thumbs up share your thoughts in the comment section hit the subscribe button to receive the notifications if you would like to support the channel you can donate at paypal.me.sajnark survivor you can book a one-on-one with me on my website it's narksa5 at the code UK thank you for watching and I'll talk to you soon


Hello, my name is Megan and I'm a librarian at the University of Alabama. This video will demonstrate how to use the Browse feature on JSTOR, a database of scholarly resources for the social sciences, humanities, and modern languages. From the JSTOR homepage, select Browse. Browse defaults to Browse by Subject, but you can also browse by title or publisher. Both titles and publishers are alphabetized, not grouped by discipline. Browse by Publisher is very useful if you want to know all journals published, for example, by Oxford University Press. Browse by Title encourages serendipitous finding of journal titles. On the Browse by Subject page, the JSTOR disciplines are organized by an overarching subject area, such as area studies and social sciences. Resources within area studies cover more than one discipline. Some of the disciplines will offer books, however, not all of the disciplines offer book results in the university libraries does not subscribe to all of JSTOR's books. So you might have to enter a library loan, or ILLIAD, a book result. Within a discipline, or an area study, you can view all of the journals in a specific discipline. There is no information about the journal in the subject browse, except for its title and date range. You can run a basic keyword search from within the discipline page. These results are the same as a search result from the advanced search page. Reading a journal from the discipline page brings you to JSTOR's archive, where you can view the entire archive of the journal from the first volume printed to the most recent issue in the archive. The title history is also included within the archive, and it allows you to quickly look at the articles published under previous titles without having to leave the archive. This is important for journals such as the Slavic and East European Journal, which is on its fourth title. Within the archive, there is a JSTOR cork, which is that you can't search within the journal from the archive. If you want to search within the journal, you will have to go back to the advanced search or know when the article was published. You can copy the title of the journal and paste it into the journal title limiter within the advanced search page and search for an article in that journal. You can also get to the archive by selecting the hyperlinked journal title in a record. That's all for now. Thank you for watching. For further questions, you can call us, text us, or visit ask.lib.ua.edu to ask a librarian.


So, let's see your first test, and what for to be confident, if you want to be more confident about your data at the assertions, you can use your assertions by sending negative numbers to give it a try. Decimum points, and run the pitch given again, then it will show you that you ran two tests, but much more assertions. So, I'm going to show you a unit test for the subtract method, but if you go to the technique, you can come up with this example code. You can go a little bit about the configuration testing, because if you learn about the WordPress plugin, you probably think that, hey, I don't write only simple calculator classes, even with your WordPress plugins and metadata costs, change some options inside the options table, use some other classes. So, in that case, if you want to test integration with WordPress, it's very simple to unit this. The unit tests are isolated to your code. It doesn't run anything else, or if your code is being integrated with some others, it is. But then, you write some similar code for testing, but those tests are called integration tests. Let's say this code. Let's say we add one more class called POSCAP data, and it has a constructor. Then this constructor expects the calculator instance, the instance of the class we just created, and it has an update method. Update method receives POSCAP and two numbers, and those two numbers, it will add those two numbers using the calculator's add method. So, you are passing those two numbers as an argument, you see, and it adds this value as a metadata to that POSCAP ID, as unit tests, the plugin demo, and data key, for that key, it adds this to the POSCAP ID. So, how are you testing? As I mentioned, very similar. I'm creating another, and this class I have is it updates the POSCAP data. As I said, it's not starting with tests. I did start the name with test-perfects, but for integration tests, it's better to give a very descriptive, expected functionality. It's like a choice you can decide. POSCAP data class, but you don't have to remember it's expecting an instance of calculator. So, we're creating a new calculator and testing it to POSCAP data's constructor. Now, look at this code. This factory POSCAP ID. This is one of the benefits of using this WP unit test case. WP unit test case provides you with these activities. So, you can use it to create, on the client, generate new POSCAP and use it inside your test. Once your test passes, it destroys, once your test suite runs, the wordless test students see it automatically destroys everything and it creates a lot of information. So, it creates a new POSCAP ID and now you have a POSCAP ID. Now you can run that POSCAP data update method, send that POSCAP ID and send some numbers to it. So, we expect that this code will add these two numbers and update the POSCAP data, right? So, we can assert it. We can write an assertion to it. Here, I'm reading the POSCAP data now. I'm not checking the result of the function. It's not returning anything. I'm checking what it did, if it did the job I expected it to do. So, I'm reading the POSCAP data using the POSCAP ID and the method key and then I'm asserting that it's out here. I'm reading it from the database. So, if you're a test, write the file, open a database connection and do something more to network on some VPI calls, then those tests are almost ready to do. Testing or writing tests can be a bit hard to get started, but it's like physical exercise. So, it's hard to get started with modeling or so. First, it may seem pointless why you need to do this, but in the long term, you will see the benefit. You will see the benefit as soon as you do very, like, a little bit significant change in your code, a little bit significant refactor on your code. You will see the benefit. You will see how it will be easy to refactor your code, change the function names, class names, move them over to other colors, etc. You will immediately see the benefit. I will give you some links to learn more about this. You can open the link to this presentation after this call. You can go to these links to learn more about this stuff. You can go to the sample code I used for this presentation, I want to integrate that code with Travis CI. You can see how these tests are being automatically ran in the continuous integration environment. As soon as I push some change, Travis CI logs these unit tests using different versions of PHP and shows me the result. So, there is a link on the reply app too. You can go and see it. You can go to code pages of, like, web norm, WordPress plugins, like JPEG, Yoast, or AMP, for your community, others that you know. You can take a look to the pool bar plugin template that can be used for scaffolding. There is an alternative to WPCRIs template. That's another template that XWP developed. Learn more about PHP and assertions. There are a lot of other assertions. You can learn more about walking objects, stop methods, dependency injection. These are more advanced topics that will be very useful. You will be able to do those things organically when you are testing, because it's not always possible to test some stuff. Sometimes you have to create more objects of some other classes. With the team, what is your hardest part on getting other people to actually do a unit test for a function they write? So, we do the code reviews. They should start the practice of doing code reviews. Probably no one has used GIMPAR, or GIMPAR. It allows you to read Google requests or virtual requests to your code. It's just the developer creates a branch from the name branch. It does everything that he wants, but he cannot merge the message. He cannot merge the language. We disable access to the name branch, but we can create a full merge. We are asking the senior developer or other team members to see the style of what he changes and merge it with the merge button. Before clicking the merge button, and if there are issues, I can comment right away and ask them to change it and send it to the next. So, you just have it as an internal policy that no one can merge unless they are doing a unit test. Another thing you can do is creating automated coverages. It's a bit hard to do in WordPress budget, but still you can do it. So, coverage reports shows how many percent of your code is being covered by tests. It shows how much of your code was executed when you ran the unit test. So, you can automate that and see that no one did it. You just identify what you were expecting. You identify what you were expecting, then you choose an assertion. For example, if you are expecting that you get an array, as a return value, you get an array, then you assert that the return value is a array. If you are expecting that the array contains five items, then you run the count function and assert that the result is equal. If you are expecting that one of the items will be, let's say, number one, then you can assert that this array contains... You should run on your local first, but you have to run it on the server still because everyone wishes to code and the CI server wants to... And also, when you run the code locally, when you run off the small team on your machine, you may choose to run it using only one version of WordPress, but the CI tools, you cannot figure it out. If you go to the GitHub platform, you will see it. It prints a new one. The command that I mentioned prints a new one, but there is a command for creating a test suite for the existing code. It goes to the documentation, and it's a similar command, but it has a test suite that's over between a configuration file and your existing code. And you can write a test first, see if it fails, and then write a code. It takes the payload. So you can write a test, create an instance of a class that doesn't exist, and try to run the method of that instance that doesn't exist. And it fails. Then you start creating a class. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.


God is good and he has got a good and blessed day for you. Thank you so much for joining us. Welcome to Hope Today. I'm Tom, I'm here with Sydney and Amanda. I know God's got a blessing for you because we've got a great story coming up. That's right. We have Inez Franklin who wrote Uncharted. I don't know if in your life everything has been as planned. But if not, this is a great book for you and I'm excited, Sid, for her to bring this to life to us. She's very transparent with her life and just how the Bible literally set her free. I mean, I love hearing people's stories and their testimonies and I just think about when you hear that word Uncharted, you know, I think a lot of times in our lives and in our world, we think about everything as like, A to Z and it's very linearly linear, but I know that God has not called us to live linear lives. It's very like this and up and down in valleys. And you know, one time I even heard Tom and Amanda that somebody said, I think sometimes we wish the things were always on the mountaintop, but it's so important in our lives that we have the ups and downs like a heartbeat because when you go up on the mountaintop and down in the valleys, it just means that we are breathing, that we are living, that we are growing, that we are experiencing God in new ways.  You know, I always remember, I was reading an old time guy, Charles Finney, the great revivalist and he talked about why do we need revival because it would be great if we started here and we just went straight up, no problems like this, but life isn't like that. We have this and we do this and we need to re-get ourselves back in close relationship with God. So it's gonna be an exciting time of hearing about that. I just have to hear about Mother's Day. Was Mother's Day great? I mean, it was great at my house, you know, with Jean and Susan there and my grandkids, it was a great time. How about- It was very good. So I actually shared at New Life Church in East McKeesport Friday night. And then I was at Berean Fellowship on Sunday. You know, just really, I think in both of these, one, the title was You Are Mine and I Am Yours. The other one was, you know, Mother's, Our First Daughters. In order to truly be the mother that we're called to be in the kingdom of God, we must first be the daughter of God and sit at his feet and receive from him. So it was a great weekend. I got to see all my family. My airman sent me a picture. I was like, oh, he sent me flowers. It's just, yeah, the kids are all growing and they all got me something wonderful. Just their thought. I'm like, ah, they've grown into nice people. Well, I'm so happy you had like such a wonderful mother.  We were outside. I have a nice, like my front porch and we were repotting. Well, she was, we were like buying flowers and doing all different things. My mom was doing a lot of repotting because I was like killing some of the flowers. Like the little flower had to like pop up. I was like, oh no. I just went to home depot and like my hibiscus flower like plop, flopped off. Oh yeah, my mom, I just want to say I love you mom.  So we say thank you to all the mothers that are out there and all that you do for the kingdom of God because it is so important in this season. We need moms. We need spiritual mothers. We need people to pour into us no matter what generation we are. You know, it's interesting on Saturday that I was riding to the store or somewhere. I can't remember where I was going. I'm, you know, I'm being spiritual and listening to a preacher on the radio and I just, I don't know. I wasn't getting into it, you know? And I changed the channel and Michael Jackson smooth criminal comes on. And I'm like, I love you. If you watch the show, you know, I like rock and pop music. So I'm like jamming to Michael Jackson here. Soon as it's over, you come on. It was a, it was a secular stage but you come on with a commercial for hope today. And I was like, Sidney's on and right after Michael Jackson. How awesome is this? So I'm glad you enjoyed, maybe you enjoyed hope today because of Sidney's commercial that you were jamming with me with Michael Jackson right before that. But anyway, all with the show. Well, I just have to say, I do love my mom and my mother-in-law and I am thankful for those moms. And Sidney said, maybe you didn't have a great relationship with your biological mom but you have a spiritual mom. Be grateful for them and be that spiritual mom to someone else. Well, it's no secret that life can be full of struggles. That along with our desire for control can all complicate the abundant life that God wants for us. Inez Franklin is our next guest and she's dealt with her own fair share of struggles. She knows hope and healing can be found for those who are still finding their way. Her debut book is called Uncharted, Navigating Your Unique Journey of Faith. She joins us now to share how we can surrender and give complete control to our perfectly loving Heavenly Father. Inez, welcome to hope today. Thank you so much. I am so thrilled to be with you today. We're so thankful and I just have to tell you I want to say thank you for just your transparency in your book and your personal testimony but I know I believe you're new to our viewing audience so if you could just give us a little bit of Inez's history. Well, first of all, I am tuning in from California so hello everyone. It is so good to be here with you today. I have such a messy story with God and it's actually a beautiful story and I want to encourage anyone listening today, watching today that we have a God that walks with us in the ups and downs on the journey of faith and no matter what happens. And so that's part of the story that I want to share with the world and I'm so grateful to be with you today to do so. Amen. So when you grew up, talk to us how that looked like and how did you meet Jesus? Well, I met God when I was seven. I will lead that my grandmother, she took me to church and she put me in a catechism class where they teach you everything about God and the first time I heard about God I was absolutely fascinated. I wanted to know more about him and I asked a question if nothing was there before God created it, where was he standing? Which I thought was a really good question but she had a hard time figuring out how to answer to that I don't think she was at her best on that day and she sent me to the back of the church to pray for forgiveness for my lack of faith. And that's how my journey of faith started at seven years old. I had this sort of crisis of, well, is it not okay to ask God questions? Is does that mean that anytime I don't have a good faith I'm out and really from that point forth for many, many years I didn't know God. I didn't want to ask questions about God and it wasn't until on my almost 40 year old birthday that I met Jesus.  Oh, by then I knew that God existed. I knew that God was with me and yet I felt so distant from him and I felt like he was just out there somewhere and I couldn't ask anything. And so I just did my life on my own and at the time I got to close to my 40s I had made a mess. I had been a divorce twice. At the time I was in the middle of an affair that we had decided to get married but we were dealing with a lot of problems. I had already made some really poor decisions of myself, my own body, I had two abortions at a young age and I was at my rock, rock bottom. It just so happened that the man I was dating said to me, let's go to church. And so we walked into a church, actually we walked to many churches. Every Sunday we went to a different church trying to find a church that perhaps would have us. And what happened is every time we would walk out because we felt like the minute they know our story we're done, they're gonna kick us out. The minute God is aware of us being there we're gonna be kicked out. And so we kept walking out, but then on October 20th, 2002, I remember that day like it was yesterday at 10, 15 a.m. We walked into this church and the pastor was teaching on John chapter four about a woman who met Jesus at a well. He actually went out of his way to meet her at noon of the day where normally women did not come to get their water and by herself where normally she would have been with a group of women to do so. He goes out of his way and in a very gentle way begins a conversation with a question. And as they get further into their conversation she reveals or he reveals actually her story and that's that she had been married multiple times. And at the time was living with a man who was not her husband. And that was me, that was me. And I felt like, okay, all right, maybe I can stick around in this church. And I actually believe that I had spent 40 years of my life doing things my way. And now that I was at a church and that I knew I started to know Jesus, I started to eat the Bible for the first time, I thought, okay, now my other half of my life is gonna be smooth and linear and up into the right. And there'll be no struggles. And I was wrong, even though I was walking with God I experienced so many ups and downs on this journey of faith. It took me seven years to recover from the deep shame of my past to really embrace the grace of Jesus in my heart. I could have it in my head, but in my heart, that was a different story that took a lot of time. I felt that I couldn't be used by God. I felt that I was damaged goods. And as God continues to reveal himself to me as we walked day by day, what is amazing is now 20 years later through a lots of ups and downs and twists and turns, I am a Bible teacher. I get to share God's word and God's messages with people. I get to be that teacher, that receives the questions from the students. And really my heart is to let people know that the journey may not be as linear as we expect, that life is so full of uncertainties, things may be going really well.  And we think, well, did God leave me, did I go the wrong way? And we might feel very disoriented, but God is always, always, always with us. And my anchor passage for this is through round me 31, verse 8, where it says that the Lord will never leave us for forsakas and he goes ahead of us. And so that's sort of a piece that we can have and a certainty we can have on the journey of faith. And I just wanna blast that out in the world to anyone who's listening. God is with you right now. Your journey could be messy right now and yet God is there with you, walking with you. Jesus is walking with you and he is trustworthy. I just love your story. It's like a modern day epistle. We're reading and learning and, you know, I really believe that there are a lot of people that, you know, they've made those wrong turns and recovering from that is very hard. And what, you know, I know it's not a three-step thing that people can do, but what is something that you would say begin to implement this into your life daily? What is that change that you had happen in your own life that brought such great revelation for you? Well, first I had to admit that I was a control freak. Any control freaks in the room, I wonder. And that I wanted to, even though I had left my old life or I was trying to leave my old life, I was trying to control my journey of faith as well. I wanted to control what was gonna happen and how God was gonna work. I wasn't doing that in my mind, but I was definitely doing it in my heart and in the way I was living out. So I had to put down my formulas, you know, these things that we sometimes think, well, if I do this and God's gonna do this and it's gonna happen exactly this way, I had to put those things down. And so one of my formulas was actually a negative formula which said, because of my past, I cannot be used by God and therefore I'm just gonna show up at church and just hope that I don't make any more mistakes. You know, there was a sense of defeatedness, maybe that's a word, but you know, I was defeated in my heart and I had to put down even that formula because the story of that woman at the well is that this was the most unlikely person for Jesus to reveal that he was the Messiah. Just a chapter before it was Nicodemus, a religious leader. Now that's the guy that you talk to as far as here's the Messiah coming in that people have been waiting for, but he speaks to a woman with a messy story, a lone, a Samaritan, an outsider, God's formulas are not like our formulas and we need to put ours down and it's not about a formula but about a relationship with God. And the other thing I had to do is I had to let go of a map that said, okay, my journey is gonna have this kind of experience and realizing that it's been a very windy up and down, God called me to write 18 years ago and I thought, great, I'll write a book in a year. No, it took me 18 years and it's been a really messy journey along the way and I'm finding that's what's happened in scripture. Look at the story of Joseph, you know, even Paul, he was transformed and then it was years before he actually started speaking the good news. So every story in the Bible is quite messy and interesting and we should embrace that. So part of what I had to do is embrace the present with God and look at it as an adventure instead of trying to control the future. Linus, let's explore that whole thing a little further. What do you say to someone who, they feel like their doubt is too great, their sin has been too bad or even now they're struggling, they're up and down and feeling great on Sunday and wondering if they're saved on Wednesday. I mean, what do you say to encourage someone to keep going, to keep seeking after God? Well, I totally get that and so many of us feel distant from God. We don't hear his voice. We struggle to hear his voice and what I would say to you is focus on the presence of God in your life. So in my practice of maintaining this sort of adventurous sense of my faith is I practice the presence of God. I imagine him sitting right with me like even right now and him just being willing to sit in my messiness and what you'll notice with his presence is with it comes healing and peace and grace.  And the more I reflected upon that incredible gift that helped me stay on the journey of faith no matter what, a little bit of faith is enough to keep you on the journey of faith. And of course, I believe the importance of being in community with other people who will speak truth to us when we don't believe it or when we're struggling, someone else can encourage us. So having a community of faithful believers who will speak into our lives is so, so important. One word that I kept coming to in the chapters when I was reading is this humble or humility. Talk to us about how important it is to walk in that manner. Yes, I, obedience is to me and humility go hand in hand. And there's actually a blessing in humility and a blessing in obedience. In my book, I use this term, active surrender. We've heard about surrender. Well, we give everything to God and we say, okay, I'll just put my hands up and I believe and trust you God. However, active surrender is saying, okay God, I'm gonna give this to you, but I'm also gonna move towards whatever it is that you calling me to. So humility to say, God, you know better than I do, I'm gonna have a heavenly mindset, not an earthly mindset and then obedience to acting into what God calls us to do. I felt so broken that I could not accept the grace of Jesus for years. But then I realized actually it was a sense of pride because it was hard for me to accept how broken I was. And I was judging others too. If I judge myself, I was judging others by the same frame. So if I felt broken, I couldn't be used, I meant other people were broken and they couldn't be used. But again, that's not how God works. And when I became more humble and understood, you know what, I am a sinner and I need God's grace. And therefore I need to trust him with what he's calling me to do instead of just doing things my way. Then in that act of obedience, I learned to be more graceful towards myself and towards others. And I found that a lot of times some of my formulas were more prideful than I realized. And yeah, humility is a gift and obedience is a blessing. And so I can't recommend that enough. Amen. Well, I know you're speaking to all of us because we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and I loved it in your life that you literally, by reading God's word is what set you free. It's a beautiful thing. And I believe that people are identifying with you and I just wanna give you this opportunity to pray over our viewing audience, over us, because this is really important, what you have discovered through God's word and the freedom you've received. Yes. Father, we thank you so much for Jesus, for his life, his death, his resurrection, his humility to make himself nothing, a servant, God, to willingly go to the cross to pay for our sins. That was a very costly, costly gift that you've given us, God. And we wanna receive that gift, Lord, fully into our hearts that it would move us, Lord, to a deeper joy and a deeper connection with you, Lord. So would you help us, God? Today, just become even more aware of your deep presence with us through Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, God. Thank you for your word, life-giving God, sharp enough to penetrate our deepest struggle, our deepest sorrow, our deepest questions and doubts on.  And so today I pray that you would encourage every listener, every watcher today to seek your word and to listen and to read and to receive and to taste and see your goodness. You are kind to us and we are so, so grateful. I pray this in Jesus' name, amen. Amen. Thank you so much, Inez, for sharing with us this uncharted discovery that God has showed you and we have been blessed. Thank you. It's been a blessing to be with you as well. God bless you. We'll stay with us because when we return in 60 seconds, we're going to take a look at a scripture that talks about faith and how we can use it to grow and thrive in our walk with God. We'll be right back. Cornerstone television exists to spread the good news through Bible-based programs and a fully staffed prayer line. Through CTVN, lies are saved. Hearts, minds and bodies are healed and Jesus is lifted high. We can't do this work without you. Would you consider sending a gift this month to keep the gospel moving forward with power? When you give, we'll send you listen, love, repeat, which presents scriptural examples of those who lived alert, including Jesus, who noticed those who least expected to be seen. Gives creative ideas for showing love to friends and family, suggests practical ways to reach out to the lonely, marginalized outcast, helps you comfort the grieving and so much more. Ask for your copy of Listen, Love, Repeat when you give today. Call<PHONE_NUMBER> or go to ctvn.org slash donate. Thank you for your generosity. Hope happens here. We're so glad that you're joining us and this is a moment where we love to just take a deeper dive into our conversation and just bring out the things that we were discussing in our conversation with Inez and something that she said that really I know just stuck with our spirits and maybe your spirit as well. When she started talking about the woman at the well and we know there's no coincidence in the spirit. Actually, my church's whole month, we're talking about that very story that comes from John 4 that many of us are very familiar with. And we just wanna encourage you today because when we look at the Samaritan woman and she was outside and she was, there was shame and there was embarrassment and she shouldn't even be with a Jew because Jesus was a Jew. That we just think about when she was saying like pulling from that well, but Jesus said, there's a greater well that you can drink from that you will never go thirsty. And maybe today that you can really connect with Inez's story. Maybe you have fallen into some traps. Maybe you have had an affair. There's a bit of adultery. You've gone the wrong way. You've made stumbling blocks. You've fallen down in different places that you never thought that you would be. But you know what's so great is that I love, is that in the world that there's a lot of wells that we can drink from. Wells of addiction, wells of pride, whatever that well may be. But then here comes Jesus along and he's coming to you today. And I truly believe if you're watching from your living room, your bedroom, wherever you're watching from, Pittsburgh, Alabama, Florida, and beyond, that Jesus today is saying, I am the well that you can drink from and you will never grow thirsty again. Think about that. If you go out in the world and there's all these different things and we've all tasted and we drink of those things, it doesn't satisfy the deep need what is inside. But through Jesus and through him and him alone, because he is the way, the truth, and the life, because he is the living water. When you encounter him, when you meet him, when you stand there face to face with him, and you say, this is who I am and I've done all these things, he's like, come my son, come my daughter and drink from this well. And I will give you whatever is of living water that should flow out of your belly. So today, if that's you and you've drank from different wells that you're not proud of, give us a call at our prayer line at<PHONE_NUMBER> because we wanna connect with you, we wanna pray with you, because we know that Jesus is the only one that can truly satisfy us and truly pull us out of the depths of the world system and into the kingdom where there is life, where there is love, where there is healing, where there is deliverance and there is transformation, you are called to be redeemed. He paid the ultimate price for you. It doesn't matter how far you strayed, remember that. That Jesus paid the ultimate price for you and because when you receive him, you can drink of his living water today. You know, I love that. And I felt the same thing, Sidney, as we were talking to Ainez, the whole story of the woman at the well, it just speaks so much of Jesus met her right where she was. He didn't say you had to get cleaned up, but he didn't dodge her sin either. He didn't like gloss over the fact that she had sinned. But then he told her all that she had done and she went and told everybody else and said, he told, come and meet the man who told me everything I've ever done. I don't know if that's exactly what we would say, but then she says, this is not the Christ, is it? Well, it was the Christ and she recognized it before all the religious people did. She recognized it before the ones that should have been looking for Jesus and looking for the Christ knew. She knew because she saw his love. She saw the truth. He is the truth. She saw the truth of God and the love and he was drawing her in with that. Amanda, God's drawing people in today. He is. And you know, I can't help but get so excited over this story because in verse 39 of John 4, it says, and many of the Samaritans of that city believed in him because of the word of the woman who testified. Who?    You know, this is a program of hope, but the hope isn't just for us to keep. It is for us to give away. God desires to use you.  Like, well, I've got this that happened. Yes. And just like the woman at the well, Jesus blots out, what does it mean? Nothing but the blood of Jesus can make us white as snow. It's for real. It's for real. He blots out the stains that we created. Jesus is amazing and he loves you so much and he desires to use you as his mouthpiece. It's amazing. Thank you, God. So what are, what are you drinking today? What are you drinking? What are you drinking from the well that never runs dry? Because every other well does. Every other thing we think that is gonna satisfy us is gonna make us happy. They all run dry. Everyone, whether they're good or bad, they run dry, but Jesus never, ever runs dry. And he's calling to you today. Don't put him up. Release yourself. Surrender to Christ today. On tomorrow's Hope Today, discover how to break free from dry religion and immerse yourself in the saturating presence of God. Revivalist and evangelist Jesse Green offers a prophetic forecast of the coming flood of the Holy Spirit that includes a life-changing movement of God. Don't miss tomorrow's Hope Today. Cornerstone Television wishes to thank all our faithful viewers, whose consistent prayers and financial support have made this program possible.


Everyone, welcome to my wiki feed. Yes, I know. You're thinking, Ethan, what are you doing? Why are you going on your own wiki feed page? Well, I'll tell you. Me and Sean, Jacksepticeye, have a podcast called Brain Leak, which if you haven't been listening to it, what are you doing? But we did an episode called The Toposode where we had our grippers out on full display for the entire episode. We wanted to break the stigma around feetsie weetsies. And so we did what others thought was impossible. Many people didn't like it. Through this, I was obviously reminded of my wiki feed. Wiki feed is an interesting website where it's just pictures of people's feet. And you can write them. And somehow I have a 5.43 out of five. Not really sure how that works. What does Sean have? 5.3. Get? Anyway, I have 138 photos on here, apparently. 207 out of five star ratings. 37 one star ratings. It's pretty, it's pretty. Anyway, I'm not here to look at my feet. I know what they look like. And you can go on here and have yourself a ball, if you so please. What I am here for is something that I discovered the other day. There's a comment section on wiki feed, which is real interesting. So today we are going to be going through my wiki feed comments. Let's get into it. Christopher. Someone should remove these gnarly pigs, the eggnog with dirt in his toes. Otherwise, the rest of the pictures are really gorgeous. Some of the first ones. Yeah, I guess I had some dirt in there. Whoops. So, nothing, there's people talking to each other. Feet got 86. Who's the person in your profile picture? Responding to this, it's me. You have gorgeous feet. Chris Tofer says foot slave 82.  Your feet are so hot, even your tops. Anyone know where this from? Karate feet are my kink. What does that mean? Toe jobs, 69. Feet of the year. Guys. 2024. I want to be on wiki feed, feet of the year. Felix is on there. Oh, wow, Ian's on there. Bobby Lee is on here. Stephen Colbert is on wiki feed. Guys, how am I not on this list? Get me to the top of wiki feed, feet of the year, 2024. Oh wait, this is 2021. Did they stop doing it? Where have you been for the last two years? We need to bring back wiki, feet, feet of the year. Gift shop, hold on. Oh no.  I have to, I have to buy this. I have to. Here we go. I've ordered two of these. One of these will be for Sean and it will be the best Christmas of his life.  Like, have y'all seen them soles and toes? Jesus, can we please just put him much higher with other kings where he deserves to be? Hold on though. If they're saying 5.42, isn't like the best ever? 5.55, 5.55. 5.42 is 5.55, the highest you can get. Extremely popular. This guy's only got 4.18.  There's only 12 photos. I have 138 photos and 5.42. What are you talking about? Extremely popular. I agree with Toe Job 69. I think that I should be ranked much higher and on Wikipedia for the year. So hot. Thanks to ToeSuck93 for the uploads. TBH, I feel like he must like knowing who we are into his feet. Look how he keeps flaunting them. This is great. He does and makes fun of it. This photo. It is heinous.  How the hell? Because I have perfect feet. I knew I liked his feet, but damn, what a pick. He's got meaty yet still cute boy feet. Kudos to whoever got these great shots. Me, I set up a tripod. Ethan and Mark, from what I've read, foot fetishes the result of the neurons that identifies feet and toes being extremely close to the neurons that identifies genitals to the point that they get blended together.  Ignog and Ethan's feet cranking these toes. Hashtag backflip, dude. Why is backpack kid? Well, now we have to go and check out Sean's. You have to check out the Brain Link podcast. What are you doing? Go listen to every episode. Come on, baby. Let us top Joe Rogan again. Joe Rogan would never show his feet like we did the cat word. This is the best thing to ever exist. I wonder if we share wiki feet fans. Christmas definitely came early. I really love that Sean turned out to be cool with his feet. If he keeps this up, he may surpass Ludwig. Ludwig's God status? Hold on. 5.91. This is a call. A call to all of you. I need to surpass Ludwig's wiki feet score. I think that I've been talking about my wiki feet way longer than Ludwig has. And I did the top of so. Sean and I did the top of so. Which you should go and listen to. I think that all of you need to go make accounts on wiki feet. You need to give both Sean and I endless five-star reviews. Do your duty to your YouTuber. Okay? Sean has some of the hottest feet. Foot slave! I have a thing for leg hair cut offline from. Leg to foot. Like this thing? Happy birthday!  Sean's feet is on the top left. The socked ones are everyone's. Ah, they're. Wow. Hmm. The toe spread. Love this pic so much. Jack looks hot and flip flops. Anyone know the context of the picture? The context of the picture? I don't know. I don't know. What's the picture? When the photo is just a dude wearing flip flops. It's really funny. Happy St. Patrick's Day to his feet. How often do you hear feet stands posting about his feet on random holidays? His pictures from his girlfriend's Instagram stories. Maybe she thought that no one likes souls. Yes, seriously. Jokes on her. I prefer souls over toes if I have to pick. Why is this the scariest, most intimidating, de-smiley face that I've ever seen in my life? Let her think it's all about the toes. If everyone knew how perverted we actually were, no one would wear sandals. Letting the people that continue to wear them most likely really like the attention. Hmm. I just love it. Let her think it's about the toes.  Don't really like the shape of his big toe. Hmm. You mean the great toe. We talked about that on the podcast. Go listen to it. What's Mark working with as far as a rating? 5.38. Got him. This person made their pro aperture. Mark's foot. This person. Karate feet. Oh, my work.   Anyway, friends, I am going to end this one here. Make sure to rate Sean and I's feet really high up there so we can be on the feet of the year. This is me and Sean right up here on the final for wiki feet for the year 2024. Man, would that make us happy if you haven't already make sure to go check out brain leak. It's been such a fun podcast to do with Sean. We've got a lot more planned.  So make sure you check us out on wherever you listen to your podcast. New episode every single Wednesday and then on the YouTube as well. If you want to subscribe on there, not only do we have video versions of every episode, but we also have like standalone videos as well. Every once in a while where we go and do different things. So any who I will see you guys later. Keep leaking laughing and loving and I'll see you in the next video or on the podcast. Goodbye.