Family Theater presents Victor Jory, James Gleason, Jean Cagney, and Francis X Bushman. From Hollywood, the Mutual Network in Cooperation with Family Theater presents Victor Jory, Jean Cagney, and Francis X Bushman in Jewels of the Queen. To introduce the drama, here is your host, James Gleason. Thank you, Tony LaFranco. Family Theater's only purpose is to bring to everyone's attention a practice that must become an important part of our lives. If we are to win peace for ourselves, peace for our families and peace for the world. Family Theater urges you to pray. Pray together as a family. Tonight, Family Theater takes great pleasure in presenting Jewels of the Queen, starring Victor Jory as Christopher Columbus, Jean Cagney as Queen Isabella, and Francis X Bushman as Father Juan Perez. You're notched the days with your knife on the rudder sweep, Rodrigo. How many since we sailed with this lunatic? 67. As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly 67 too many. Could we turn back now, Emilio? I don't know. So far in the main, the winds have favored us. It'd take us twice as long to get back home. Father, we could try if we killed the first mate. Sanchez is tough. That wouldn't be easy. But if we all jumped him at the same time, what could he do? Then we'd have nobody but the captain to deal with. Who's talking about dealing with the captain? What sort of dealing would you have with him? Back to your quarters. We meant no harm, Captain, but we're afraid. We only thought if maybe we could talk with the captain. Well, we only hope that... Did I turn back? I couldn't turn back even if I wanted to. Our food and water would be gone long before we could recross that sea of tangled weeds, but we would be calmed so many days. Yet if we did have enough of everything, I'd never give the order to put about. We're all dead men. You will be if you fail your duties aboard this ship. If the captain please, how much longer must we sail? Men, there's land ahead. Two days, three days, four at the most. Less than a week more of salt, beef, and ships, biscuits, and you can feast on the fruits of a tropic land. And don't forget the Queen's Prize to the first of you who cites this land. Now back to your quarters. Master Sanchez, see that all is made snug for the night. Two days since the lads almost threatened mutiny, Master Sanchez, and still no sight of land. I wonder how much longer we can live. A light? A point of the starry sky. Yes, a light. Yes, Master Sanchez, if the water begins to show dangerously, we'll anchor to the daybreak and then go ashore. You, Manuel Alonso and Vicente, my brave and steadfast lieutenants, you will accompany me. Sancho has the boat ready. Let's go over the side. You first, Manuel Alonso. Now you, Vicente. Now bend your backs, men. What a beautiful land. Tall palms of high sandy beach. And look, Manuel Alonso. Look at those brilliantly colored birds flying about the treetops. Can it be the Indies, Captain? What else can it be? Easy now, men. I can't wait for the boat to touch the shore. Follow me, Manuel Alonso, Vicente. I, Christopher Columbus, native of Genoa, am now subject to their gracious majesties, King Ferdinand and Isabella, his queen, hereby take possession in the name of these monarchs. This land, found by me. It was in the spring of 1491. For seven long years I had followed a phantom, five years in Spain and before that, two years in Portugal. The court was at Santa Fe, ten miles from Granada where King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were preparing for the siege of that last and most wonderful seat of the Moorish Empire in Spain. And again I made the plea for ships and men so many times in the past. Again Isabella forced from the reluctant Ferdinand his consent to have another junta or council of wise men examine my claims that I could reach the riches of the Indies by sailing westward. It was autumn before a decision was reached. A herald of the king entered my chilly quarters in Santa Fe. I am directed by His Majesty to convey to you the findings of the junta, convened for that purpose. Never mind the formalities, man. What are its findings? Six long months and my patience is wearing thin. I am directed by His Majesty to declare to you that your petition is denied. His Majesty adds, however, that he hopes to go into the matter at some time when the present urgency of war shall have been abated. Today I trudged down the long, dusty road that led from Santa Fe. As night overtook me, I saw in the distance the buildings of the monastery of our Lady of Rabida. The prior, father, swan, Perez de Marquina gave me a hearty welcome and asked, Have you come from far, my friend? From Santa Fe, good father. And where are you going? If I may ask so personal a question. Whoever. My son is there with his aunt. You intend to stay at Welver? No. My son and I are going... Well, who knows where we'll be going? France, England, perhaps. It makes no difference. It makes no difference just so long as it's out of Spain. You speak of Spain with bitterness, my friend. Why shouldn't I? I can make Spain the richest kingdom in all Christendom. Instead of land bankrupt from wars with the heathen moors, Spain can be filled with gold, the jewels and spice and treasures of the Indies. And only I can do it. The sun has been overly warm today, my friend, and doubtless you're tired from the exertions of your long journey. You too, father. Think that I'm a madman. No, no, no, my friend. I think only that we should talk about this matter later after you've had something to eat and drink. That will be all to virtue. You may go now. I fear I've dined not wisely, but too well. Our Lady of Rabida welcomes the Wayfarer who is hungry and thirsty. Captain Clubbus, the statement you made when I greeted you has refused to leave my mind. Since that fateful day when the infidels captured Constantinople, the overland route to Cathay and the Indies has been closed to trade. How then would you bring their riches to Spain? Not on camels, good father. On ships. One ship can carry the burden of a thousand camels. You would sail around the tip of Africa to the east? No, no, no, I would sail to the westward. Since the time of Ptolemy, all men of true knowledge have known that the earth is round, the Indies must fly at the opposite shores of the western sea. What of this with their majesties, Ferdinand and Isabella? For five years. Look at me, look at me, Father, my hair is whiter than yours. That's what five years of waiting and hoping has done to me. They showed you no encouragement. Some. The queen, I think, has vision. But the king calls in his councils of so-called wise men, and talking to them is like talking to a herd of goats. They even look like goats' father with their whiskers bobbing profoundly in unison every time one of them states that what I propose can't possibly be done because it's never been done before. You interest me very much, my friend. Unless you object, I should like to learn that Dr. Garcia Hernandez to hear you. The last time I was in Italy, Dr. Hernandez, I had several long discussions with Toscanelli. He figures the circumference of the earth at 18,000 miles. I have a suggestion to make. Let us all three go to Palos and confer with Captain Manuel Alonso Pinzon. If Pinzon were to agree with you, I might be of some slight assistance. What do you think of Captain Columbus's theory, Master Pinzon? I'm inclined to agree with him. In my own voyages to the westward, I've seen many things adrift which couldn't possibly have come from any shores we know. Yes, what, for instance? Well, once off the Azores, we found the body of a dark-skinned stranger floating in the sea bound to a palmetto log. A native of the African coast? I don't think so, good father. It might have been the action of the water, but his skin seemed to have more of a reddish cast. Several other times we've picked up bits of wood that were carved in curious patterns such as I've never seen in Europe or anywhere else as far as that goes. Well, Dr. Gonzalez always thought it was inevitable that other lands must lie around the great body of water to the west. If there's land on one shore, why not on the other? How far would you estimate that other shore to be, Senior Columbus? If Toscanelli's figures are accurate, not more than 700 leagues past the Azores. A possible voyage for a fleet of well-found ships provided they had a leader who would not turn back. Would you go with me, Captain Pizon? This man intrigues me, good father. If the treasures of the Indies should lie to the west... There would be enough for all. Spain would be the richest nation on earth, and we... Well, we would know honour and glory such as few men have known before. Of course, there's always the chance we would simply vanish and never be heard from again. What can we do if the good queen knew the truth? She could never permit this glorious plan to be lost to Spain. Must be brought to her attention again. Her Majesty has had many chances to hear it in the past and has heard it. But she couldn't have appreciated its immensity. All right, that's what I'll do. I was once a confessor, you know, and she'd never let any letter of mine go unread. With all due respect for your skill and plan, good father, I... I can only ask her for an audience with what you and Master Pizon have told me. It may be that I can convince her. Perhaps I can where you, Captain Columbus, have failed. Perhaps I can. Or do not know, but I can try. I have received word from Father Juan Perez de Marquina. Please convey to him my greetings and inform him that I should be glad to receive him as soon as he can come to Santa Fe. But, Father, the Hunter has declared that a westward passage to the Indies is impossible. May I remark that your Majesty is too clear of judgment to be swayed by the dictum of the learned men who, could it be, for selfish reasons of their own, have been unable to place credence in what I'm sure Her Majesty believes? Tell me, Father, who is right? Columbus or our royal consulate? I do not know, Your Majesty. No one knows for certain. But this man, this Columbus has for nothing if he fails. If he wins, think how the names of King Ferdinand and his Queen Isabella will ring through history's pages. The wealth of the east added to the Spanish crown. The decision must be yours, Your Majesty. You alone can add to Spain the fame and fortune that a new and shorter passage to the Indies must inevitably bring. You alone, my daughter, can return this glorious land of ours to God. I can make no promise but this, Father. I will see Columbus again. If the money can be found, he shall have the ships and men he needs. I have a message for Captain Christopher Columbus. I am Captain Columbus. Thank you. Come at once to Santa Fe, my friend. The wise and virtuous Isabella has heard me and believed. She summons you to court. Consult with her about your plan. Once the grace of God be upon you and may the prayers of our Lady of Rebeda accompany you upon your way. But even after the intercession of Father Juan Perez with the Queen, my task was not an easy one. I was certain my dream was great and so perhaps were my demands of Ferdinand and Isabella. The Count of Talaferra, a favorite of the court because of his honesty, which was unimpeachable rather than his brains which were hardly more than ordinary, was asked by the Queen to interview me. The principal point that I can see that remains to be settled is an agreement upon what payment will be yours in the event of your success. I have already... I know. And I must confess that your demands, Captain Columbus, seem, shall I say, exorbitant. That too, I may add, is the opinion of their Majesties. I'm sorry, Your Excellency, but I can't ask less than I'm asking. Their Majesties risk a few ships. My risk will be... well, my life if I fail. Very dramatic, shall I say, Captain Columbus, but hardly practical. Their Majesties feel that the questions of rewards and honours would come more properly after your success when you would find their Majesties. Not, I assure you, ungrateful. Their Majesties feel that it is hardly respectful to the Crown for you to insist so strongly upon, shall I say, a monument when there is no assurance that you will ever return to claim these rewards. Then why do we quibble? I'm not asking for anything more than what I'll need unless I'm successful. Your Excellency, if I'm wrong, if I fail to return to Spain, I promise you I'll never claim a single title nor ask for any reward. If I'm right, well, the little I ask is a mere pittance. You can be sure of that. I'm sorry. I've made up my mind. Then let me tell you very frankly, Captain Columbus, that you'll never have the opportunity to succeed. Or even to try. What did he say?  I would never have thought it. He seemed so sincere, so... May I suggest, Your Majesty, that he is not of Spanish birth. It was not until he had failed in Portugal that he came to Spain to attempt to, I ask your pardon for the expression, and vagal Your Majesty's into further depleting the Treasury, which has suffered so severely, but justly may I add, by the wars which still continue. Talavera, is the Treasury actually as low as His Majesty my husband would have me believe? Your Majesty, it contains no money at all. Then... then you may inform Columbus that our negotiations are at an end. Welcome, Captain Columbus. Welcome, my friend, to La Rabida. You're on your way to Palos, perhaps, to confer with Master Pinzon about your expedition, huh? I've come to La Rabida to thank you for all your help, Good Father. And to say goodbye. There isn't going to be any expedition. What? Her Majesty has exercised a woman's privilege and changed her mind again.  I think the latter, my friend. Tell me what happened. I didn't listen to my demands. I refused. He hinted of Her Majesty's displeasure. What happened after that, I don't know, but I suspect that he tickled her royal ear with two words I have heard most frequently at court during the past six years. No money. Oh, what a shame, my friend. Well, I shall order my mule to be ready at daybreak. For what purpose, Good Father? Why, to return to Santa Fe. I know little of the gentler sex, my friend, but I shall test the maxim you expressed a few moments ago that the privilege of a woman is to change her mind. You are most welcome, Good Father Juan Perez. Has everything been done for your comfort? I thank you, Your Majesty. Nothing has been left undone for my physical comfort, but my mind is sad. It is sad for my friend, for the most visionary man in all of Europe, for Christopher Columbus. Please, Good Father, the subject is distasteful. Was it distasteful when we spoke about him first? No. Then why should it be distasteful now? Give me leave to speak freely. Your Majesty knows I've always held her best interests at heart. I am listening. A grievous wrong has been done to a great man. A far more grievous wrong has been done to Spain. Is it not true that His Excellency the Count of Tullivera has made you believe that Christopher Columbus has no right to the honours and the rewards for which he has asked? When Tullivera tried to reason with him, he refused to budge an inch. And why should he, Your Majesty? If he is successful, no reward on earth can be equal to what it deserves. Think what it would mean. Remember for a moment, my daughter, the wretches of the earth. Then think of the treasures of heaven. Think of the millions of lost souls and the Indies to whom we have never been able to bring the word of God and the message of Jesus Christ, His Son. Yet if this man is right, men of God with the thousands will leap at the chance to bring that true faith to these unblessed unfortunates. When you face Almighty God, my daughter, as we all someday must, will you boast that you feasted while others starved? That Jesus Christ, our Saviour, was your comfort in life, your salvation in death, why do you deny that comfort and salvation to others? No, my daughter, I know you far too well. I fear you have been wrongly advised. Your own belief was better. I did believe in Him, Father. I do believe in Him. If no other way can be found, I myself will pledge my jewels. And I thank you, Good Father, for helping me to find myself. The docks of palace were crowded with people that sunny morning of Friday, August the 3rd, 1492. In the bay three pitiful ships were anchored. The flagship of Santa Maria carried a crew of only 52 men. Each of the others was so tiny that it had quarters for only 18 men. Captain of the Nenia was another member of the Pinzahn family, Vincente Yanez. And as the small boats plied their way back and forth from ship to shore, ferrying the last of the supplies and the crew, each boatload of men was greeted by the throng. Take a look at that tall lad. You'll never see him again. We'll never see any of them again. They'll be food for the fishes. When they reach the end of the world, they'll all fall off the edge. My sister's son is with them. Pedro, come back here.  What I can't figure is how Master Pinzahn got mixed up in this. He's always had plenty of good sense. He's not the kind of man to take a chance with the ships and men for nothing. I heard. I just heard, of course. This Columbus has the evil eye. Well, I wouldn't doubt it a bit. Well, that's what I heard. And the man that told me says that anybody Columbus looks at has got to do anything he tells him to. Well, he wants his brave man. As the last boat prepared to put out from shore, Father Juan Perez stood beside me and he smiled his benediction as he said, Neil, my son, you are called of God to do a great thing. The prayers of our Lady of Larabita will go up for you every morning and every sunset, and you cannot fail. For it is in my eyes that the light that never dies is in your eyes. Go, my son. Go with God. Christopher Columbus, native of Genoa, and now subject to their gracious majesties, King Ferdinand and Isabella, his queen, do hereby take possession in the name of those monarchs. This land, found by me and these gentlemen of my company on the morning of Friday the 12th of October in the year of grace 1,492. Let us kneel, my friends and companions, and return fitting thanks to him who alone could have led us thither. This is James Gleason again. Right from the start, the theme of family theater has been this. The family that prays together stays together. We have just heard while still in the season of Columbus Day that the discoverer of our continent was a praying man. From this script and from history, we know that the spiritual motive in both the discovery and settlement of our country was a big one. In fact, spiritual milestones mark every important step, the pilgrims, missions of California, Washington Praying at Valley Forge, and Declaration of Independence. But what is a country if it isn't a big group of families, or a family if it isn't the basic unit of society at large? Or to put it in another way, what is this brotherhood of man if it doesn't grow out of the fatherhood of God? Certainly in these times, threatening times for all of us, we are overlooking something. We are overlooking our biggest source of strength and mental comfort if we forget our good old American tradition of prayer. We know for sure that the family that prays together stays together. Isn't it fair to assume that if we multiply that by every family, none of us will get too far apart? And then, as a mighty federation of God-fearing families, we will also know for sure and please God from happy experience that the nation that prays together stays together.  From Hollywood, family theater has brought you jewels of the queen, starring Victor Jore, Jean Cagney, and Francis X Bushman. James Gleason was your host. Others in our cast were Norman Field, Stan Waxman, Tudor Owen, Louise Arthur, Jack Raymond, Guy Hamilton, and Baden Powell. The script was written by Jack Mitchell with music composed and conducted by Harry Zimmerman and was directed for Family Theater by Joseph F. Mansfield. This series of Family Theater broadcasts is made possible by the thousands of you who feel the need for this type of program, by the mutual network which responds to this need, and by the hundreds of stars of state screen and radio who give so unselfishly of their time and talent to appear on our Family Theater stage.  This is Tony LaFranco expressing the wish of Family Theater that the blessing of God may be upon you and your home and inviting you to join us next week at this time when Family Theater will present Loretta Young, Richard Widmark, and Jean Cagney in Talk About the Weather. Mr. Thomas F. O'Neill, Chairman of the Board of the Mutual Network, will be our guest. Join us, won't you? Family Theater is broadcast throughout the world and originates in the Hollywood studios of the world's largest network. This is the Mutual Broadcasting System.


Let's start. Claudia, it's you and you're most welcome here on stage again because you did on the show 2017 you did a writing workshop for Nerds, didn't you? Here today? Yeah, there you are. Yes, here I am.  It's novels, I would call that krimis, or is that not? Crime novels, yes. Crime novels, yeah, crime novels, which are probably mostly fiction, but you also wrote a non-fiction book on how to be saved on the internet. So you're really involved in both fiction and in fact. So for today, I think it's an international saying, truth is stranger than fiction. We have the same in Dutch, and I tend to turn that around. Fiction is stranger than truth. So no, what is it? Truth is stranger than fiction. Nah, I was going for the other one, not the truth is stranger than fiction. And currently is. Yeah, but I was going actually for the other saying. How was it? It's too good to be true. And now it's too true to be good. Yeah, it's too true to be good. So we live in a very strange world. So what can a storyteller writer do about that, especially in the sense of science fiction and dystopian nonsense that we're going to have here, starting now. Claudia, all yours. Thank you. Hello. Yes. Thank you for the lovely introduction. My name is Claudia or Jinx. And yeah, I'm an author. I'm a podcast host. I do stuff with data security. And I'm a former project manager in web development for several years. So I know a bit of the technical stuff. And yeah, the big question we have today is what's an author actually doing? This is what most nerdy people ask themselves. Actually, I'm asking that myself too, most of the time. And as my lovely Harold, whose name I've just forgotten, Eric. Hi, Eric. As Eric just said, the big question is how do we write stories today when the outside is getting so strange? It's already like a dystopia that what we're living in, how can we create novels? How can we create movies? How can we create stories that still get people's attention that can be loved by people when the reality world is already kind of a dystopian story? The thing is, we will be doing a bit of storytelling ourselves here today. So you are going to develop a story together with me. I will tell you how. And the other thing is, the other lovely Harold, who's not called Eric. What was your name again? Milton. Thank you. Milton is going around with a microphone. And you are encouraged and I beg you to help me or help us all to create a story together. Okay? So you're prepared to interact with the story we're creating here. But a bit of things first. Why do we tell stories? Any idea? Teaching? To convey meaningful points? Yes. Any other ideas? To share concepts? To share concepts? Entertainment? Yes. Yes. Love different lives in a book or a movie or a theater piece or whatever. Yes. And we're doing that for forever. So we've, as humans, humans have always told stories from the very beginning. And there are those signings on walls that are basically stories too. How did our tribe get the mammoth? And so on. So those are very early stories that have been told throughout the times.  And stories are one of those concepts we as human beings have. Today, telling stories today is a quite interesting thing because we do not only mirror what's happening in society in our books and movies and so on, but we contribute to the overall discussion. We change what's happening in society. We bring up the concepts and the ideas. One of you said that earlier, bringing up concepts and ideas into the overall discussion of our society. And we decide in books which topics are relevant.  So if we reach 30 people, then we have 30 people who get our ideas in their heads. And we're really close to people with our texts and our books and our stories in the hands of our readers. And if we reach 300 people and 300 people go out and talk about those topics, then we've reached at least 300, 600 and so on people. And even more if we're getting more attention our books are being sold more and so on. The thing is it's not only relevant for us as authors, but it's relevant for like everyone. So what are the topics of our society today? Ideas? Crime? Health? Global threats? Yes, of course. IT security? To mention? Nah, not that important, yeah. Disciples, yeah. AI? It's a topic, yes. Other ideas over there probably, maybe? Question is why didn't we as a society did not remember as a whole that there was a flu pandemic in 1921 and everyone was wearing masks? Why? Any idea? Yeah. No one wrote a good story. No one wrote a good story, right? Or a story at all. Actually I don't know any story about the flu pandemic as a novel or such. I know there's one or two non-fiction books on it, but we as a society forgot about it. We just forgot it. It's just 100 years old and we just forgot it. How could that happen? Because the discussion wasn't there in society. It wasn't a topic. It's what happens right now with the publishing industry. Publishers say no, no, we don't take books on the pandemic. Nobody wants to read that. It's so awful out there. Nobody wants to read books with people wearing masks. We don't want that. And this is a thing of relevance. This is a thing where we have to take responsibility as authors, as publishers to contribute to the discussion, that this doesn't happen again, that the whole society or the whole world of several societies just don't forget about it anymore. This is what happens if topics are not discussed and are not taken into culture and pop culture. Well, how do we tell stories? Any idea? Tiktok. Yes, very short stories, yeah, but in a visual format. Visual and audible, yes. Any other ideas? Twitter. Videos on YouTube, yes. We tell jokes, yes. Books, yes, of course. Magazines, papers, but they're all mediums. They're all media somehow, but how do we tell stories? Yeah. Back again, that's one side. There's a Christian redemption. Maybe you want to take the microphone if you say more than two or three words that can easily repeat. Hello. Yes, there's a type of model that's there and back again, like Tolkien wrote, where you go out, have an adventure and return to a safe nest. And then there's the one Hollywood likes, which is the Christian redemption story.  Yes, and that's what we're doing today. There is a person called, what was his first name? Joseph, Joseph Campbell. In the 1940s, he did research and wrote papers and a book about it. It's called The Hero's Journey. Who's heard of The Hero's Journey? About a third of the people here. Okay. It's just what you said, and we're coming to that in a bit. The first thing he found out is that humans all over the world are telling stories quite similarly, not exactly the same, but quite similarly. And they're using a very similar structure all over the world. You have a hero and she goes out in the world. And then she lives there and things happen and she reacts to them. And then she's growing on what she's, yeah, what she's living and on what she's experiencing. And then at some point, she has to fight a battle. And then she comes back. But where she comes back to, she has changed. And her old, ordinary world where she started out from, it's a different world suddenly for her. And this is what we're experiencing right now. This outside has changed for us. We all have grown on the stories we've lived through over the last two or three years. And suddenly, our ordinary world isn't that ordinary anymore. Or are we still in our story world? Good question getting there. The thing is, if we as authors and storytellers tell our stories and work with the topics we have today, as I said before, it's our responsibility to contribute to our culture, to contribute to our discussion. It's not that important that everything we tell, if it's about probably IT security, that everything is technically correct in the smallest detail, but it has to be plausible. Because what we're writing, I said before, we're reaching people out there. We're contributing to the discussion. We're reaching also political decision makers. And suddenly, political decision makers think and actually believe it's really easy to do a hack back. And it's really a good idea to do that. Because everyone in this room is skilled enough to just hack, let's say, Sweden or China or the US. Because this is something you can just do by being a hacker or a nerd. Because people write stories like that. No, it's not that important that this looks like it's done in a minute. It's not important that it looks like, oh, if you just pull out that screen cable, the internet connection is gone. It doesn't matter. Nobody's looking at that exactly. People look. People understand stories on a real basic level. We understand stories not here. We're understanding stories somewhere much, much deeper in our lizard brain. And this is where those fuzzy ideas like, oh, this is totally easy to do hack bikes on whatever, the US. This is totally easy to do that. They understand it on this basic level. And we just can't have that. So this is a bag I'm giving out in the world to all fellow writers. Please don't do that. Please write plausible stories. They don't have to be exact. They just have to be plausible or realistic tiny bit. Okay. What do we need to tell stories? Anyone? Idea? What do we need to tell a story? Social cohesion, yeah? Maybe into the micro. To learn from things that happened before. So to remember stuff that happened so we can become better. Yes. One or two steps ahead of me. No problem. No, I'm thinking about things like we need some characters doing stuff for a start. Probably we need something like a location or several locations. And then we need stuff that happens. Three basic ingredients that we need for a story. And then if authors get to their work, they're, yeah, the two far ends of how to write a story. Any idea? Same session. Yeah. So perspective is a thing. Yes. But I'm at the author point currently. So how can we write a story as an author, as a writer? The two far ends. One far end are the plotters. People who plot their story. And the other side, the other far end are the so-called panzers or discovery writers. People sitting on the bottom of their pants and discovering or living their story while they're writing it. So they don't sit and make the most of the work in the beginning. But they're doing most of the work while writing and afterwards in rewriting and editing. Those are the two far ends. And everyone, you too, me too, is somewhere in the middle or at some point on that scale between plotter and panzer or discovery writer. The thing is what we're doing today. We're plotting. Actually, over the years, I realized I really love plotting. But it can be too much. And this is a decision based on which project I'm working on. By the way, the project I'm currently working on is a sci-fi dystopia that started here at Shah five years ago. So not the story world, but the idea of the book started here after that creative writing workshop. Yeah. The beauty of plotting can look like that. Yeah. That's my pin board that I used at home. This is how I'm actually working currently with lots of small cards, writing my ideas on them and putting them in a matrix. I'm doing that like that only for a few years now. But that all started at university when I came across that book. It must have been 1999 or 2000. One of the earlier semesters when I was studying English literature, there's a much newer version today. So there was like a 25 years special edition of it. And Christopher Fogler, he took what that Joseph Campbell found out. And in the 1980s, he put that in a structure that Hollywood authors could work with. So he translated the work of Campbell into something really handy for Hollywood authors. In the last 25 years, there have been lots of people working with story structure. And I had a look at it and compared some of them. And they all have still basically the same structure, the same same matrix, but with some differences between. So how does story structure work? Okay. Generally, we're talking about the story structure today, not so much about single characters and so on. And what I'm talking about will have contents from Joseph Campbell, the hero with a thousand faces. From Christopher Fogler, the writer's journey, Blake Snyder and Jessica Brody, save the cut. Oricke Dietmann and Jorenka Jogh with a new version of the hero's journey as taught at the Roman school in Germany, which is not yet included, but already somewhere in my mind is Gail Carriga, the heroine's journey. So all what I'm talking about today, this will be at the end again. So these are terms that are from four different hero's journey concepts. Okay, let's start fresh. Let's take the picture by the ways by Mats Berg. Just to have said that, we're here. I hope you can see that a bit. So we have our board clean for today. I hope you can read that. Is it okay for you? Good. What the first thing we know of our story. We're working in a three act structure that's beginning, middle and thingy. But the middle act, act two is cut in half. So we have act one, act two A, act two B and act three. This is our story structure for today. There, by the way, many more story structures like a story, arc, a story most that what are as total as with his three act structure and so on. So don't get nervous if you want to read into those things that things could sound differently. Okay, what we first know of our story structure is, at the end of each of those acts, we have a turn into the next act or the next half act. So we have a break into act two. We have a midpoint in the middle. We have a break into act three and we have the end, the final image, which is from Blake Snyder. So if you think in the movie, we have that final image where we're working towards. What are we starting with? Well, oops, with the opening image. It was a bit too fast. But okay, we have our opening image, our ordinary world where we start at. What's our ordinary world? If we say we're doing a story today, what's our ordinary world now? That's right. So here at hacker camp at MCH, our ordinary out there is quite different from mainstream society. That's probably true. Okay, let's think of So the setting here would be, it was a lovely sunny day at a hacker's camp somewhere in Netherlands. Okay, it was a sunny day at a hacker's camp, lovely hacker's camp in the Netherlands. Okay, who's our hero? Pardon? Yes, our Harold Eric is crawling out of his tent. So this would be our first image and Eric is our hero, obviously. Harold called Harold. Okay? Okay, what we also have is who is, what we also have in stories, meeting a mentor, a mentor who's going through the story for some parts together with the hero. Let's think Gandalf. Yeah. Okay, a speaker, yes. Who he's always looked up to and he's really looking forward to seeing her talk. Okay, so Harold is very looking forward to see a talk of a speaker he's always wanted to see. Okay, you're the speaker then. Okay, and what we also have as a concept in basically every story and what we need to tell a story are antagonists. What, who is our hero against? Up. So it can be a person. It can be a group of persons. It can be nature or it can be something like climate change. It can be politicals who, politicians who don't want to change anything about a system because it's cool to drive porches. Something like the police. Okay. I know the the Dutch police went to see the Greenpeace people after they gave their talk. So how about Eric doesn't know he's opposed to the police, but he's not the best of hackers. He's not the most popular of hackers. And then he discovers the person sitting or sort of next door is actually from the police here to investigate. Oh dear, getting there in a minute. Getting there. Okay, getting there. We can do that. By the way, in the 1980s, who's as old as me, probably remember in the 1980s, lots of stories, lots of TV series and so on we saw had corrupt police in them. And at some point, not so many years later, like everyone, were thinking the police in the US are always corrupt. Some people nodding. Yeah. This is what I meant by our responsibility as writers because we shape our society. We shape the beliefs of people. Like every policeman or police woman is corrupt, at least when they're living in the US. That has to be like that. They changed it. Currently, the police can do everything in shorter time than it needs to log in into a system. This is what people think today. And this is what politicians think today. Not only you or me or the neighbor or our grandmother or anyone, also political decision makers think that way because culture is like that. And this is what culture tells you. Everything is so easy and just takes a minute or less. Okay, so we have our opening image. Harold is crawling out of his tent at the hacker camp. We have the mentor, the speaker who's giving a talk. And we have antagonists. Probably we've seen them when we think in movie. Yeah, probably we've seen a police car somewhere out at the fence while we have a view over the camp or at the entrance. Okay, let's go on. We have a call to adventure. Something happens. What could that be? It was your idea with the police. So how does Harold actually get to know that the police is out there and is after that speaker? Any ideas? Probably the microphone to Harold Eric or Harold Harold. Well, that's easy because as somebody already mentioned, he is sleeping in a tent next to the police person. So he probably overheard it in a night somewhere. Okay, he overheard at night and then undercover policeman is in a tent next to Harold. Okay, yes. Are we painting ourselves into a corner a bit where we're putting the speaker in both the mentor situation and the damsel in distress situation, which makes it difficult for her to mentor Harold? Yes and no. Because you have characters in a book and they can actually change roles. So if we're thinking about, okay, this is a beginner story and we're the first is our first story ever short story 10 pages. And we have people changing their roles like on twice on every page that can be difficult that I don't mean difficult roles wise. I mean practical. If the police is coming to take her away, she's not here to mentor Harold depends for like 10 minutes. She can be for 10 minutes. She can do that. Can you please talk in the microphone? Harold will grow to see that he's really the hero and can do just as much as the person he thought was his mentor. So that's that will work out fine for us. We're getting there a bit later. So let's talk about act three when we're at act three. Okay, so we've got our call, whoops, call to adventure. And now we've got a longer time with its so called debate. Okay, shall I tell anyone? Shall I tell people? Should I alarm the speaker? Should I go to the auger? Should I the note burn down the tent? Should I did I hear it correctly? Did I make a mistake when I overheard what was being said yesterday night? Or probably what's my risk in telling, right? So there's a whole part of the story that's, yeah, undecided. What shall I do?  And suddenly it dawns on him. Damn, I really heard that. So and now what's he doing now? Hmm. Yeah, first day of refusal. Okay, no, I don't want to have anything to do with that. It's too risky. Nah, comma, I'm not the real, real best guy to do that. I can't do anything. Why should I go to the police or why should I go to the auger or whatever? Yeah, because team cohesion, yes. The hero in a story is always the character that changes the most throughout the whole story. Who learns the most throughout the whole story. So at some point, because there was some author at the beginning who said, you, Harold, you are the hero. Come on. Yeah, at some point, he's crossing the threshold. This he has to go out. He's exiting his tent. And now, yes. So we could say he goes to before he crosses the threshold, he goes to the talk and the speaker that he's admired for so long announces that she's up to something that's sort of in the borderlands between good and bad. So now he has to think, oh, which one of them am I? And he talks to a person who's like the chat person that we always have in the American movies. Oh, he's good enough. He can do something. And then later that night, that guy's just out drunk and he sees police mobbing. And that's the threshold issue. Getting there, getting there. Because we're getting into act two. Or act two A, actually. So this is the second part of the first half towards the midpoint. But when crossing the threshold, so actually getting into the story, going out, starting the travel. And the midpoint. This is what they call the promise of the premise. This is where all the trailer material comes from. So this is the fun and games part, also for the writer themselves, to live through everything we've got. Real hacking. Real police. Probably police harassing someone. Probably other people coming into the whole action. People following each other, yes, with e-scooters or on motorized tents. Yes. Yes. That's where it's happening. So, pardon? A low speed chase. Yes. Yes. People watching the fire show and the Tesla coils and all that. That would be happening in that fun and games part. Except for those things that we actually need for the story probably a bit later than we can put it in the story later. But the real fun part and showing everything we've got in our toolbox, this is act two A, towards the midpoint. And then, oh yes, and we have, of course, a B story. What's the B story? Idea? Yes, the less important storyline or the second storyline like probably a love, story. So Harold could find a new boyfriend or a new life partner of which definition at all. Who's a police officer? Right. So act two A often starts in movies at least with the B story. Whoopsie. Yeah. And then the midpoint happens. The midpoint is always mostly either a wrong victory or a wrong defeat. When we're saying, okay, we're talking about this should be a dystopia, then the midpoint would be a wrong victory because everything looks good. And afterwards, everything just goes down. If we're saying, okay, Harold may have a happy ending and may have a great story and the story is supposed to go out the positive way, then the midpoint would be a wrong defeat. Oh no. They actually arrested her. Oh dear. What now? Let's look into act two B. The bad guys close in. Long time of act two B. So now it starts getting really, really down. So what could happen there? We need an interrogation scene. Yes. And because this is a hacker camp, someone was hacking into the police office faster than it takes to log into Windows 10. And then half of the camp can hear what's actually being said in the interrogation, probably. Yes. In the silent disco with the green lights. Oh yes. In the silent lounge. When you're sitting there without. They don't have sound. Good one. Yeah. With the green hat that doesn't have any sound. Sounds good. Yes. And then there's the point. All is lost. Oh no. They actually put her in the cell. Hmm. And it starts raining at the camp. Yes. Yes. The lightning hits the abacus stage. Out of marty. Also in movies you mostly in most movies you have at that point the so called whiff of death. So you see something bad either there's a real death or you see a dead plant or something or whatever. So in the movies next time you see a movie and you see something bad, you're probably at the all of lost point. Just think about it. Okay. Then Dark Knight of the Soul. It's a bit similar to the refusal of the call debate stuff. So oh no. Everything is lost. What can we do? We need someone who can break them out. Probably luck picking people. This is the this is the part that was called ordeal at Foglar and Kemper. So it's a real real hard for Harold at that point. Okay. What to do? Are we getting into break into act three? They're told a bit differently in the U.S. that's taught as a aha moment or for comedies. That could be a aha moment. So I can handle it that way and it could be better than. Or in the German tradition or it's taught in Germany, it's an asset test and a failure of the hero. So Harold goes to the luck picking people, gets his team, they're going to the place, they're trying to get her out and now they end up themselves themselves. Oh no, our failure. And we're sliding into the so-called finale in the Blake Snyder version. It's the whole act three is only called finale. Okay, great. What does it mean? We don't know. At Kemper and Foglar they have the more mythical approach with reward and the road back and the resurrection of the hero and the return with the Alex here to his home village. Not quite that, but what we learned from it, what he said earlier, we have a circle being closed in act three. So the hero comes back to his home world. So what we are thinking about now is how do we get Harold out of prison and all the rest and the speaker and back to Hacker Camp. Probably the microphone over to Eric. But I don't use that because that's differently. Maybe because the the B story, the boyfriend from the B story helps. Maybe the boyfriend from the B story helps. This is a good one. Okay, let's have a look at another thing. A catastrophe happens. So we're sitting in jail. Everyone is sitting in jail probably except that boyfriend because he's not a skilled lock picker and was sent to get Marty. Oh, and this is the police officer, right? Hmm. So we have the other police officer, not a skilled lock picker, but he can get inside information. We've got the maturing of the hero, Reifung in German. So he learns, okay, I can actually do stuff. I can be as good as the speaker herself. I can get us out of here. And then we've got things that he's, yeah, initiating. Yes, please. Just a thought going the other direction, make him discover that his boyfriend is actually the bad guy here. We can do that too. Rest should never have happened, etc. And this is certainly a learning moment for him, a maturing moment. It is. But how can we get him out then? If, well, fraud vitiates everything in law. So the whole arrest should never have happened when that turns out.  Hmm. Okay. So we need a character. So when we're saying, okay, we started out like that, don't we? At that point, yes, please. Yeah, I was more thinking that maybe the boyfriend had been sort of opposed to sort of, Oh, no, I can't do anything. There may not be a police officer, but an IT person working for the police. And now they use that to crash the system or something. But if we go with the thing with the boyfriend being the reason for it, then he can break out. Oh, but I know that this boyfriend like so and so. So I can use that as his passport and I saw password and I saw something. So can I have my phone call and he uses the phone call to access the police terminal and something. Oh, yes, he knows the name of his dog. This is really good. And the other thing is I'm still missing the dragons since we've got two dragons on site. I think we should somehow get that fire making dragon to the police station. Come on, for the for the whole climax thing. We just need it for for a bit. Just for the for the visual effects. While police was on site, because they were so evil, they also called the fire department for the dragons. But it turns out the firemen or one of the firemen is sort of in the same LGBT community as the hero. So therefore he says, Oh, these dragons are fine. But I can use this to go to the police station and I don't know use my hose to get them out. Oh, no, he has a he's a fireman. He has a ladder. Great. Okay, we're getting out of that. Good. And then the whole end is okay, we're wrapping up whatever we still have open. And of course, we're going to the final image as we think in movie, we're going to the final image, our changed hero probably has got some marks from the handcuffs or whatever, not the furry ones. Yeah, close to the close to the MCH Benzies. And his new normal. And then we arrive at a new normal back at the hacker camp. And suddenly we see the world through Harold's eyes in a new light, probably more blinky with more Tesla coils, and probably even with another boyfriend, the fireman. Yes. And happily that is the moment that Harold gets his own moment of fame on the stage. And of course that's on clairvoyant stage because abacus was hit by lightning. Thank you very much. Claudia, thanks a million. This was great. This was this was a huge, I would say it was a lovely waste of time, but it sounds better. You know what I mean? Yes. And this is what we actually do as authors that we write the stuff that brings all of us through times like pandemic, through times of war, by everyone having Netflix or books and so on TV series. And that's the work of authors. Thanks to all the lovely colleagues out there. All co-authors. Thank you as well. Thank you.


So we are recording to the cloud. Thanks everyone for coming to the fifth 1559 implementers call. Just shared the agenda in the chat. Basically, there were a couple of things I wanted to cover today. First, just to get kind of a status update on both the implementers and researchers side. So I think Abdel and Barnabay can help cover that. We had the merge transaction pool PR to talk about what I've got decided async. So that's already merged in. And the 200 things I guess I'd like to get people's thoughts here on are the survey I just shared last night, which gave a lot of I guess projects concerns about 1559. I'm mostly interested in like the stuff that relates to implementers around JSONRPCs and op codes and whatnot. And if people have suggestions of how we can plan to just include that to make it easier for projects to test. And then there was this other document like the main net readiness checklist to just kind of walk through what are the things we'd like to see from 1559 before it gets ready to bring back the all core devs for main net considerations. I know last time we had talked about moving to like a proof of work test net. So I'm curious to get everyone's thoughts on that and what the best next step is from where we are right now. Yeah, so maybe we can start with updates. Abdel, do you want to just give a kind of overview? Like I think it's been like a month since the last call. So what you and the other implementers have been working on? Yeah, so we have been working on implementing the latest changes from the specification. So the computation of the base feed has been changed and we updated the implementation accordingly. We already deployed the test net from scratch and we were able to sync also with an determined client which is great. And now I'm finalizing the remaining changes, the removal of the transition period and also the use of a single transaction pool. So that will be available, I hope tomorrow and I will restart the fresh test net with a version aligned with the latest specification. We are also aligned with about the gas price behavior. So Mika submitted a PR and I approved it and it has been merged. So we decided that the gas price of code should return the effective price the user will pay. Actually, this is the minimum between FICAP and minor bribe plus the base feed. And yeah, this is it. And yeah, I was able to spam the network and reach almost the maximum block elasticity. So I was able to target 38 million gas blocks. And yeah, everything was fine. So this is pretty cool. That's it. That's great. Do you know, you mentioned like you're working on the latest changes of the spec. Do you know where the go implementation and the nevermind implementation are at which regards to that? I think like client is on the call so maybe he can give an update about NetAmind but I know that get people. So Vulcanize is still investigating the consensus issue. So I'm giving them some help using the transaction sender tool to try to reproduce the consensus issue. Okay. And yeah, do you know about NetAmind? Yeah, I said that I think that there is someone... I don't think so. Like time for NetAmind. Oh, sorry. Okay. Sorry. So yeah, NetAmind, so they are also aligned on the basic computation. And I saw in the chat that he already removed the transition period. So that should be fine when I will deploy business nodes. We should be able to sync again. Great. I know someone kind of jumped in to say something. While you were talking. No? Okay. Cool. Barnaby, do you wanna give a quick update on the R&D side? Sure. Yeah, thanks, Tim. So recently I've published a notebook on strategic users. That was the latest, let's say, public release. The idea behind it was to kind of look at this ID that, well, 1559 is useless because anyways, users will keep competing on the tip. And I think what the notebook really shows is that you can have this sort of strategic behavior but it doesn't last very long when the network is not subject to white, let's say, shifts in demand, which is most of the time. So yeah, that was published. Maybe I can drop a link in the chat after. That would be great. We've been working with Fred, who's on the call, looking at the transition period out of the legacy transactions and into 1559. So trying to model it, trying to simulate it and even trying to look at an ID that was floated around the Discord channel to have some kind of tax on legacy transaction where the tax is increasing over time, which is kind of like the, let's say the stick to the carrot of making users shift out of using the legacy transaction and into 1559. So we intend to model it. Then another notebook on the floating escalator or the combination between 1559 and escalator. So trying to understand a bit better like what it looks like. I know that the escalator hasn't been like really talked about for some time and I feel the consensus is more like, okay, we should just go ahead with 1559 and not really bother with the escalator. But anyways, I think it's still interesting in terms of like research, even as let's say an extension to this strategic behavior notebook. So yeah, that's under review and it should be published also fairly soon. And the last one that I've been working on and that I think is quite nice. So when the, let's say strategic user tackles this ID that 1559 is just going to degenerate into like a first price auction. The learning users, I'm trying to tackle the ID that 1559 is a UX improvement. So this is, I think is not really understood really well by users or by whoever is looking at 1559. Like what do we mean by UX improvement exactly? And so what this learning agent notebook is trying to show is that over time agents learn to either take the price that 1559 is giving them. So basically the base fee or leave not even enter the queue. And in that sense it's a UX improvement because over time you're learning to just become like a price taker. So the market is just, okay, it's a hundred way to get in now, take it or leave it. And that's it most of the time. So, and so you see over time with these learning users that after a while, like they understand that, okay, I should probably just either take it or leave it. And you can really see then like this idea of UX improvement dynamically, let's say appearing just from the interactions of the users. So I think it's quite interesting. And then related to that, I think it's something I've discussed maybe in the Discord channel but looking at wallet defaults. So this idea that most of the time you're a price taker but sometimes the base fee is shifting very rapidly. So you have like Uniswap launching their token or something. And then you might not want to be a price taker anymore. Like then you might want to revert back to this strategic behavior which I look at in the first notebook. And in that case, probably you also want your wallet to kind of shift from this price taker or at this price quarter mode to a mode where it gives you more flexibility to say, no, I really want this transaction to go in quickly. So I'm willing to pay a much higher premium. So when should that be? Like when should you switch from one mode to the other? And what should the defaults be in the wallet? So most likely defaults would look like what you currently have in MetaMask. Like fast, medium, slow, something like this. But how should we set these parameters? Yeah, that's kind of where I'm at at the moment. Yeah. That's great. Yeah, that's a lot. I had a couple of questions. I guess the first one around like the transition period, do you think like that still makes sense if we've like removed it from the EAP with Mika as recent PR? I should have specified that the transition period we're looking at is Mika as PR. So I'm not looking at the previous model of the trend. Yeah, yeah. And I'm looking at Mika as where you cast the legacy transactions into the 1559. Okay, okay. Yeah. Okay. Got it. Cool. Yeah, anyone have thoughts, comments, questions? Okay, in that case, yeah, I guess I can share my screen real quick. So Kooja, myself and a couple other folks from Catherters spent the past few weeks reaching out to a bunch of projects to get their thoughts on 1559. So there was a lot of feedback we shared a report detailing most of it. I'm not sure most of it is relevant for this call, but the bit around implementation really is. And so I was curious to get people's thoughts about how we can address kind of, how we could address the things that people mentioned would help them prioritize 1559 support. So we asked projects, you know, what would make your life as easy as possible to support this? And obviously the first thing that came up or the thing that came up the most often was having a public test net, but especially having one that's suitable for like end user applications to use. So that has JSON-RPC support for 1559. And it was also mentioned that it would be great if this was kind of standardized across clients so that there's not like any major differences between how it would be to, and sorry, go ahead. Yeah, I would suggest something about that. Instead of implementing the RPCN points in each client, I would suggest that we implement only one microservice dedicated to that that will take 1559 transaction parameters and we'll create and sign the transaction and submit them to Ethereum client. Unless we think we will have it in production on mainnet, but I'm not sure. I think we can leverage that and avoid that every client implemented. So that would work for sending but would it also work for reading transactions? Cause I think that was one of the other concerns that came out, like just being able to query the transactions and whatnot on the network. I see what you mean. Yeah, like how do you expose them right now in the Block Explorer? Basically, oh yeah, maybe we can update the front end actually and implement the decoding logic. Actually, yeah, that would be easier actually to display 1559 transaction parameters directly in the Explorer. Yeah, but I guess what I'm wondering is, how does the Explorer get the data from Basu right now? Like, how does it query it? Oh, I don't remember the exact endpoint, but yeah. Because there is such a, I feel like if there's something already in Basu that at least the Block Explorer we have used, maybe that's a good first starting point for something we can like standardize across clients and just make it a bit more explicit. So it might be worth looking into that. Okay, yeah, I will do that. Sorry, yeah, just taking a quick note. Yeah, and then obviously the other thing people mentioned was like having it be part of a network upgrade. I'm not sure we're quite there yet. And then this might be interesting for you, Barnabay, but the incentive, like a couple of projects mentioned, like if there was any incentive with regards to gas prices specifically to use 1559, they would prioritize it. I think Mika's PR kind of gets us half of the way there at least, right? Where if you can keep using legacy transactions, you'll just pay a higher tip to the miners. So I guess the converse of that is like, if you use 1559, you'll pay a lower price. Yeah, I think that's maybe sufficient to start. But I'm curious if other people have thoughts about that. Do we understand from that that like the project is incentivized to implement 1559 so that its users get to expand that? Yeah, okay. Yeah, yeah, and that was like, I guess the common theme for the projects who are most willing to implement 1559 as soon as possible are projects who really cared about like their user's gas price experience. So I think that, yeah, having their end, the end users of someone like Argent or Gitcoin be able to pay a lower gas price was a good motivation for them. Okay, yeah, yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, not incentives to pay them to implement. No, no, no, no, yeah, it's like the net, yeah, the transaction isn't. All right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and the other thing, so the other thing that was mentioned is like having, obviously like the basic libraries, so ethers.js and when three.js support this as soon as possible would help because a lot of projects basically just rely on that. So the ethers.js maintainer said it should be pretty easy for him to add support for it. The other thing that was mentioned is, yeah, just having like a clear upcode definition. So a lot of projects, smart contracts rely on transaction.gasprice. I think we need to understand what are the implications of changing that. So right now, from what I understand, the change that was made would only affect 1559 style transactions, which shouldn't break anything that exists. But I don't know if there's some weird kind of, I don't know, second order effects for contract developers that the API changes what it returns based on the type of transaction. I don't know if anyone has thoughts on that. I believe we're pretty safe on that front. The way we ended up setting gas price for 1559 transactions makes it, so it's basically still the same thing. So it means this is the gas price that the user paid. The one caveat is previously, for legacy transactions, the gas price a user paid and the gas price a minor received are the same. And 1559, the gas price a user paid and the gas price a minor received are different. And so previously, the gas price opcode could have been used to identify how much a minor received for the transaction, theoretically. And also used to identify how much the user paid for the transaction. With 1559, it only represents how much the user paid for the transaction now. I don't know of any applications that care about how much the minor got paid. There are many that care about how much the user paid. And so that's why I went with that. Is that worth adding to like the security consideration section of the EAP? I feel like- The backwards compatibility section. Yes, send me a message after this and I can go ahead. Okay, I'll write a note for that. Yeah, I feel like somebody might look at that and find something with it. But that makes sense. And I guess the other thing we discussed in the past is like the base fee opcode. That's not part of the EPF, right? It is not. And there is a push- No, there's a push currently from the core devs for various reasons to actually get rid of gas inspectability in general from the EVM. And so that would probably hurt our chances of inclusion if we're adding things that make it so people can inspect gas stuff. Okay, and I guess so right now the only way to get the opcode is to get the block header, right? Yeah, so you could prove it on chain. So you could get the transaction proof and then prove it based on the block hash if you really wanted to. But that can only be done afterwards. So that'd be the next block that you could do that. Yeah, and I think that kind of relates to the next point is people would like to see kind of an API that takes, you know, that tells you what the base fee will be for this block. So you take the previous block, you calculate how full it was, and therefore you estimate what the next block's base fee will be. I'm not sure this falls like within the skills of people in this group, but something like that, the sort of ETH gas station-like API that just does that map for them is something people mentioned that would make it easier for them to add support for 1559. I don't think that'd be particularly difficult. Yeah, yeah. And as I said, I want that from the clients. No, no, no.  A place they can go on the internet. And yeah, this call is recorded and will be uploaded to YouTube. So maybe somebody picks this up. ETH gas station, if you're listening. Yeah, that was brought up. And then, yeah, obviously, the rest was kind of pretty standard, but just having good documentation, like we just mentioned, I think around the upcos and explaining what the changes in behaviors are, communicating changes to the EAP and whatnot and having channels for support. And I think with the Discord there, it's been kind of a decent place so far. If the volume grows, we can maybe move this to some other place for support specifically. But yeah, that was kind of the list of what would help various projects kind of implement the EAP. One thing that was nice in this survey as well is there was like a pretty, yeah, there was like a pretty smooth distribution of like when projects would like start, would want to start working on the EAP. So I feel like as this develops, we'll probably get more and more users who are slowly kind of tripling in and are interested. So it's nice to just start with kind of a smaller batch of people who are like very interested in this and want to see it done ASAP and then slowly reach out to the more projects. Yeah, so that's basically what I had on that. And then the last thing I wanted to bring up was just this kind of mainnet readiness checklist. So I think a lot of people in the community had been asking for a date for 1559 because that's obviously impossible to give to people. The other approach is to give them a list of things to do and try to obviously update it as we learn new information and we make progress on it. So in short, obviously we'd need all clients to have an implementation. Right now, Gath, Basu and Nethermine are working on it. Nethermine, I believe, is still hiring someone as well to do this. So if you're watching this and you're interested, you can click the link and apply for the job. Open Ethereum and TurboGats are fine with joining the implementation later. I've talked with them and I think they don't have as much interest in implementing every incremental version of the EAP but once it's actually done and settled, it shouldn't be a major challenge for them to implement it, especially with the recent changes to the transaction pool and whatnot, that makes it a bit simpler for clients to implement. In terms of like the open issues, I think the biggest one, we discussed this on the last All Core Devs but it's the denial of service risk on mainnet. This is something I don't think EIP 1559 can address head-on and there's a couple of efforts that are being done to address this. So there's EIP 2929. Geth is working on Snapshot Sync. Basu is working on another flat database approach that makes these denial of service attacks less likely. TurboGet from the start is optimized to deal with that as well. And so I don't think, again, 1559 can like directly address that. When I asked about changing the block slack limit, people didn't seem to think that would make big enough of a difference. So going from 1.5 to X instead of 2X didn't seem like it would make 1559 much more likely to be adopted sooner but it's really more about having like client level, basically databases that store the state in a flat format instead of a try and everything that goes around that. I don't think it should have a major impact in terms of timelines if given that there's still work left on 1559 that it won't be in the Berlin upgrade. I think it should probably land in the upgrade after that. And that also gives time to clients to work on that. And then the next step, the transaction pool management, this is basically Moot due to Mika's PR. So I'll update that. The transaction encoding decoding was the other big question. And I know, Abdel, you've mentioned in the past that EIP 2718 would make this easier. I'm not sure what actually is the status on 2718. It seems like it's kind of in limbo for Berlin. I don't know if anyone has kind of a better view on it than me. It's in limbo for Berlin. I almost certainly will go in with or prior to 1559. I don't see really any reasonable path where it doesn't go in. There's enough things depending on it that it's gonna go in either Berlin or right immediately after. Okay. And does it make sense to, I guess, keep doing what we're doing for now? And once it's accepted, we adapt 1559 to support it? I don't think so. If it were me, I would just switch everything over to 2718 so we don't have to deal with it later. I think the odds of 2718 not going in are so low that we should just move forward with it personally, but I'm not an employer, so. We could do something like if we don't want to delay security audits and all that stuff, validation of the economic model, we can deploy public test net with actual implementation because the type transaction envelope, we don't change any of those results. And on the integration test net, we could start implementing it. Maybe we can do this. So have like two versions of it once. So once we have like a more public test net, then we get to that? Yeah. I think, yeah, maybe that makes sense. And it also gives us a couple of weeks to see what happens on the Core Dev side. And if it gets accepted in the next Core Devs call, which is next week, I believe, then it'll be a bit clearer where things are at. Okay. And then the last thing was the transition period. This is also kind of, I guess your PR Mika means that there's no more transaction period at all, correct? It's just we convert legacy transactions to 1559 and we allow that forever. Or we interpret them, sorry, as 1569 and we allow that forever. Yeah, where forever means TBD. Yeah, yeah. We have no currently built mechanism for getting rid of them, at least on 1559, but some future EIP probably will, maybe. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Cool, that makes sense. I think there is another thing that came out from the Discord channel as replaced by Fee. Oh, yeah. I don't know if we want to talk about that now. So I thought, I think Mika has some ideas about how to deal with that, adding some transaction parameters. Can you explain that quickly? You shouldn't, Mike. So there's a few options. The, I think I lost track, so Barnaby may know more, but the one, I think the first question is we need to establish exactly what everybody expects from replaced by Fee protection. So if you just do replace by Fee naively and you just say, hey, as long as the fee is higher, then you can replace it. You can replace a transaction with one out of ETH, so one way gas price increase. And it's effectively a NOAAB, but it will force the whole network to propagate your transaction again. So this is the data source attack vector where you can just bump the transaction by insignificant amounts forever and just keep hammering the network and the network will continue to accept your transactions. So we want to avoid that. The problem is that with one five out of nine, if you bump just the minor bribe, there's no guarantee that the whole minor bribe are taken because you couldn't be hitting the fee cap. And in fact, it is most likely that if your transaction is pending for more than a block, you are blocked by the fee cap, not by your minor bribe. And so if you're just bumping the minor bribe, then we end up with the same situation where someone can just keep bumping my minor bribe and not actually change their transaction at all. They're not paying any more. And so there's some concerns about denial of service attack vector. The, if you just bump the fee cap, similarly, if your transaction is not pending because you're blocked, then that also does nothing. Like you pay the base fee and if the base fee is below your fee cap, you can bump that to 40 million and you're still gonna pay the base fee. And so bumping that doesn't actually change anything. So the last option is, well, what if we bump both? And bumping both I think does work in most scenarios. I think there's some very edgy cases where it's possible to not have your actual fee change when you bump both, but arguably we don't care that much about those edge cases because they're not really strong denial of service vectors. And as long as we have a minimum increase, then it also doesn't matter too much. The last option is to just say that nodes will not propagate any transaction whose base fee is, sorry, whose fee cap, maybe fee cap plus minor bribe, not sure, which probably just fee cap is less than the current base fee. This is a novel idea that we think we probably need to spend a little more time thinking about, but in theory, if we did this, then all transactions that were being propagated shouldn't be able to be included in a block almost immediately. Like the only reason they can't be included in a block is potentially because they're minor bribes too. What this does tell us though, that we also need to talk about is if the minor bribe is zero, let's say, we currently don't have a mechanism for pushing that out of the pending pool. It is possible to set a minor bribe that is below a minor bribe that every binder is accepting, but have a fee cap that is higher than the base fee fee cap. Should that transaction be allowed to propagate? And if so, how do we define what the minimum minor bribe is for a transaction to propagate? Do we do it like we do currently, where we just say every node in the network has a propagation variable where they say if we were willing to propagate any transaction that has a minor bribe, this or higher. That's probably the simplest solution. And we just hope those are generally set in line with miners. These are all the things to think about and discuss. I'm currently favoring that last option where we say the nodes will not propagate any transaction that has a base fee lower than the current block's base fee, sorry, a fee cap lower than the current block's base fee, plus a minor bribe set per node at startup. So each node can define what their minimum minor bribe is and they'll propagate everything else. So we don't propagate those transactions on the P2P layer, but we do accept them on the RPC endpoint if the price is below base fee. Yeah, that would be my assumption. So that way your local node will always accept your transactions from you. You're talking directly to your own node is gonna accept everything. Just like it does right now. I believe. Okay, it's not the case in basic implementation. So I reject this section, but yeah, I will update the implementation. Okay. So I think, I believe the other clients, at least Open Ethereum and Gath and I'm pretty sure another line, if you were talking directly to the RPC, it will accept anything because it treats you as kind of a privileged user when it comes to what it accepts. And so it will accept it. And I think they all actually have a separate pending pool sort of where transactions are protected from being ejected from the pending pool on that node if the node receded over RPC, not over the P2P. There are some rules. There is a minimum gas price and also a minimum bump percentage. But yeah, if the transaction comply with those rules, it will be accepted. And this is what we do for legacy transaction, but we implemented a different behavior for the 1559 transaction. But okay, I see what you mean. So like I said, that's my current preference is that we go with the, we basically just don't propagate anything. There's kind of minor bribe that node things is too low or a fee cap that node things too low. And then we can basically, I think we can allow basically almost any strategy for fee bumping, for replaced by fee because the things that are being propagated are all things that should really probably be mined next block. Like it is very likely that the thing that's being propagated is gonna be mined very soon. Because the base fee is high enough and the minor bribe is high enough. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Do other people have thoughts on strategies there? Wait, you could still increase your fee cap indefinitely even if it's above the base fee, right? Like I agree that with this idea that you drop transactions where fee cap is lower than base fee. But how does that prevent, how does that alone prevent me sending a thousand transactions with just a little bump in the fee cap every time? Like you still need the bribe and fee cap? Yeah. So I think we still do need a minimum percentage just like we have currently on the network which is I think 12.5% for a guess in an open Ethereum I think. But I think it matters less whether that's a fee cap bump or a base fee bump. Maybe. Or a bribe. Or both. Sorry bribe bump or fee cap bump. Or both of them. Like if we're kicking out transactions that aren't likely to be mined soon and we have something that the user has to keep increasing. I guess that does have to be minor bribe, doesn't it? Because if it's base fee then they can spam. Yeah, you still need. Yeah, okay. It's fine to have like the base fee greater lower than your fee cap but I think you're still doing some kind of bump. Yeah, we'll set the end. So the minor. Okay, so the minor bribe has to be bumped by some percentage. Say we can keep it the same 12.5% if it's easy. And then the fee cap can stay the same but if fee cap of a transaction is lower than the last block's base fee then don't propagate it over the network. That sounds good. So I suspect as soon as we tell this to the Ethereum client developers, they're gonna tell us that they're gonna grumble about the DevT2P layer currently isn't synced with blocks for lack of better term. Like they, because of rollbacks and whatnot the DevT2P layer doesn't really know what the current state of the network is. And so client implementers historically have been very pretty low to create a dependency there where the P2P layer needs to understand what the state of the network is because you can get out of sync. Like two clients can not agree on the current state of the network. So client A will say, hey, I've got a new transaction. It's got a base fee that matches or is higher than, sorry, it's got a fee cap that is higher than the base fee. The node you're sending it to however sees a different view of the network. And so they say, no it doesn't. You're lying to me and you're now a bad peer. And so we have the problem now where how do we tell whether a peer is bad or a peer is just on, have a different view of the network. And so I think for that reason historically P2P layer has not, it's correlated with blocks at all. Like they try really hard to not care about what the current state of the network is. Yeah, that feels like it would make things much more complicated if we needed to add the dependent, like if we needed to change kind of the statefulness of the FPP protocol. But I mean, there are higher layer. You can do that in the transaction pool or something like that. You can flag the transaction as not eligible for inclusion in the P2P network. And you, yeah. I think it's manageable. Okay, yeah, I think, yeah. An artist in Bezu, I don't know, get in us, but yeah. Yeah, I guess, yeah, what I'm saying is I would push for, similarly to how Mika, you mentioned, you know, like the adding the base fee opcode kind of goes against the current of the Cordev's with regards to gas observability. I would try to keep things somewhat like philosophically compatible with the FPP. But if we can do that verification just at the client level before we propagate it, I think that makes sense. I think it works as long as we don't, it's not a condition for flagging a peer as bad. Like I believe the clients all have mechanisms for flagging peers as bad peers and eventually disconnect from them. We would need to make this a condition where you say, thank you for the transaction. I still trust you, but I reject your transaction. And I don't know if we have that concept at the moment anywhere else.  I don't know if one of the client does my note better. I don't know if we have anything that's kind of like wish you washy like that right now. This is bad that we don't have get people on the call. We should have some next time. Yeah, we can follow up offline with them and with other client devs to see what they think. But clearly the whole, I guess, replaced by fee is kind of a big open question. We still need to figure out. Okay, okay. I want to point out as well that either way it's going to be, there's going to be some amount of complexity. Like even if you don't want to do a statefulness when you manage your transaction queue and when you want to check, like if you don't have a rule, for instance, that says refuse any transaction where the fee cap is not high enough, you still need to look at your transaction queue and update the order based on where the base fee is and how that might change the actual tip that you receive as a miner. So at some point in time, I think you do need to take into account the fact that base fee is moving and that the transactions, the validity is depending on that as well. But we can do that at the client level, right? Like we don't need to do that over the P. And also you can manage the delta between, because you know that the base fee can go up or down up to one on eight. So you can have an idea about how many blocks it would take to, in best case, catch up with the transaction price and you can evict or reject transactions that are really far from the base fee. Yeah, I guess you can have like many different strategies as a client. Yeah. But so the FP2P is not considered part of the client. I understand that. Okay, okay. Yeah, that's what I was using, thanks. So it is part of the client, but it's a different spec. It's not a- It's a, yeah, different protocol, yeah. Yeah, whereas the transaction pool is kind of left to, there's no rules about what clients have to do with it. Each client can do whatever they want and they don't need to agree with each other about how they handle it. Okay. Even though like in practice, most of the behavior ends up being the same, at least we don't have to write a spec for it that says this is how the transaction pool works. So this is what makes it easier to do it there than in the FP2P. Okay, yeah, that's fine. Okay, cool. So I'll add that and try to summarize this conversation here in the open issues. Other couple of things that were just on the list of the testing in general, I think we haven't spent much time on. I know Adele, you mentioned like, we should maybe start thinking about like reference tests and whatnot. I'm not sure if the EAP is like stable enough for that yet or yeah, what are your thoughts on that? I think for example, the basic computation is stable enough to start some kind of reference test because otherwise each client team will implement. Yeah, we will not leverage the work and that would be good to have this kind of test to ensure that and it will also help other teams when they will want to implement the spec, let's say when trouble get and open it around to implement the EAP that will help them also. So yeah. Yeah, I think we can probably start slowly writing, adding some and like you mentioned, I think on the parts that are finalized. Yeah. And then, yeah, so we kind of discussed this already. So with the community testing basically, the JSON RPC, Abdel, you said in the chat, I think that right now the block explorers using get transaction by hash, so that already supports 15.59? No. So how, sorry, so I guess I don't understand, how does the block explorer get the transaction information? Currently, the block explorer only display the legacy transaction. So for example, you have a zero gas price for... Okay, got it. So we need the... Yeah, we need to update this endpoint to add the minor bribe and probably even the base fee that will be... So the base fee is in the block header though, right? Yeah, yeah, but we have the block hash as the response of this endpoint so we can query to retrieve the block header. And I think there what would probably be best is to just come up with a spec that both we vulcanize and that they might agree on before we implement it. Because again, that came up, like I know with a lot of like the tracing APIs and whatnot, clients have very different behaviors. And as part of the 15.59 conversations that came up, like it would be great if the behavior here was pretty, was the same. So I think, yeah, it might make sense to just see it. If it's, if no one has like super strong divergent opinions, we should just come up with a spec and do that. So currently for legacy transaction, we exactly have the same output. So yeah, we can still do the same for the two new parameters just aligned on the names and we can just take the names from the spec. So it will be this. Okay, cool. So just so I understand that the ideas is get transaction by hash will still work as normal. It's just it will also include 15.59 transactions and they will have a couple of different fields. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And yeah, I guess, yeah, let's just ask other clients before we commit to that, but that seems reasonable to me. And would that also ETH block with the true flag for full block? So one that returns all transactions. I think it's get blocked by hash. I believe this is the one. But that also do it? Yes. Okay. I believe there's only two that return transactions. Is that correct? Yeah, I believe so. Yeah. Okay. Do we have plans at the moment to introduce or support 15.59 transactions for ETH send transaction? So this is what I talked about earlier. So my opinion on that, if this is only for testnet, I would suggest that we implement a common service for that and we just deploy it in the same infrastructure as the testnet. So that client, a client implementer, not client but wallet providers and people can start playing with that without waiting for MetaMask or Web 3.js to add the new field. And for, yeah, I guess if you want to use that on mainnet, you will have to implement a new endpoint to submit a 15.59 transaction unless you use an external signer, but yeah. Would it make sense to have ETH send transaction just support either 15.59 or like six transactions? Yes, that would be best. You make some fields optional and yeah. It would probably be good Tim to have, make sure someone's tasked to actually writing the specs for those three. It'll be three new EIPs. Oh, so the changes to the JSON RPC have to be separate EIPs? Yeah, well, they should, I mean, don't have to do anything of course. Ideally, yes, they would be, there'd be an EIP for each of them that specifies the changes that are being made to the JSON RPC and then from there clients can implement it and wallets providers can implement it and MetaMask can implement it if you're implementing it at the adiata. I thought they were out of scope, the EIPs, no? There are some, oh, okay, they are not core EIPs, okay, okay. Yeah, okay. Yeah, they're not core EIPs, they'd be interface EIPs. Yeah, yeah, okay, okay, yeah. Okay, so we basically need one EIP per JSON RPC call, right? Yeah, and I think there's, I believe there's three of them that we need, get transaction by hash. Yeah, yeah.  There might maybe get blocked by number as well. Yeah, because you want to add the base here as well. Yeah, get blocked by hash and get blocked by number as well because you need to add the base here header for if you change 59 blocks, yeah. And how about each send raw transaction? Does that have to change as well? No, that would not have changed because you're just sending a byte array. It's already signed. Okay. Input out, put out the same. There are signs, ignore it. Okay, so there's four of them and we need an EEP for each of those. Ideally, people in the past have done one monolithic one as an editor. I recommend separate, they go through smoother. Okay, so unless somebody on the call right now wants to commit to it, I can follow up on that. I guess, yeah, I'm just a bit cautious because Abdel is a person and he is here to throw it on him, but I can, yeah. I mean, I can take some, yeah, as it would be his occasion to start my first EIP, so yeah. Okay, I mean, sure, if you want to do it, yeah. Okay, great, so Abdel, we'll have you write those EIPs. Okay, nice. Cool. Okay, so yeah, I think this covers JSON IPC, public test net, we already kind of, I think it's dependent on having this JSON IPC a bit more fleshed out and the other bit, I guess in terms of test net is, I'm curious right now, we have the POA network. It seems like there's some small changes to make to the spec before, you know, everybody's kind of all sinking and happy there. Is it worth starting to discuss a proof of work network now or do we still need like a couple of weeks before that because of the changes and of, I know get is still having like the consensus issue on the POA network. It's Nethermine already done. Yeah, I think Nethermine and us are sinking. Maybe like with some recent changes to the EIP, there's some small tweaks to do, but I suspect like in the next week, yeah, so that the mind at least should be, should be on the same network and up and running. I don't know if Nethermine supports mining. Not yet. At all or 1559 mining? No, not 1559. Okay, so I think that's something we probably want. At least like having more than one client support mining before we launch a proof of work test net so we can actually try to mine blocks in two different clients and make sure that they all come out the same and work. Yeah, and in parallel, maybe we can start because we were thinking also about launching a single client test net. So that could be a single client proof of work test net and that will be the candidate to add other clients next, for example, the one to validate the economic model. And do you think we could do that with Beisu already? Is there anything we need to change with Beisu to do that? No, that should be fine. Yeah, we could do that. Okay, so maybe it makes sense. Yeah, to just start off a small Beisu proof of work test net to make sure at least everything works and we can produce blocks and we can run your transaction generation script on it. And in the meantime, we'll see over the next couple of weeks how other clients get ready and what the extent of their mining support is. Cool, and then, yeah, just worth mentioning, I guess. Nethermind was using 1559 as part, as I believe, like a private network or a network they're working on with one of their clients. So I think they might have some data to share on that in the next few weeks or months. And then Falkoine and Seedle both have 1559. The Falkoine devs have joined our Slack, or Discord, sorry. So yeah, if people have questions for them about how the network has gone, they're there and they can answer those. And I guess, yeah, in terms of R&D, the biggest thing that also came out in the survey with the community is kind of the lack of a proper, not like even economic analysis of the EAP, but kind of just like a proper description of the mechanism that people, because a lot of people's concerns when they were opposed to the EAP was there's not even like something to critique, right? There's just like this EAP which specifies the behavior, but it doesn't kind of express the intuition behind it and whatnot. I'm not sure who could help with that, but to me that feels like something that would be valuable, having a sort of, I'm not, I don't have background in economics, so I don't know how this stuff is usually done, the sort of like econ spec version of the EAP that kind of explains why this will actually be better. I know that Tim Rothgarden is working on a comparison of 1559 versus our current model. So I'm not sure how much of it will be covered by that, but I don't know if anyone here has thoughts about how that can be done or like, yeah, ways just those concerns about not having something that specifies the economic properties of the mechanisms that can be shared broadly. Yeah. I mean, I can say that just like the paper where Vitalik introduces 1559 has some motivation and some modeling. And I think it's been a bit overlooked by people who say there's been no economic analysis. That's where it comes from first. Then the EAP was written, which arguably has less, let's say, economic or at least micro-economic like motivation for it. And then Tim Rothgarden, I think is, yeah, his angle is really much to say, well, what do we bring like by having EAP 1559? Like how does it change? Why is it better than the current model that we have? And how do we even quantify what better means, right? So, yeah, I do expect that his report will be very enlightening in terms of framing it. But as I said before in the discord, I don't expect it will be like, yes, we should do it or no, we shouldn't. It's really more like, what is even like the correct way to think about this? Like what are the metrics we care about? What do we mean when we say, so UX improvement and these sorts of things? Yeah. Yeah, and I think that's good actually. I don't think people are looking for like a justification as much as a description. And I think it's probably easiest to describe by contrasting with what we have today. Do you have a link to the Vitalik's paper? If you can send it in the chat, I'll add it to that list there. Yeah. Cool. And then the last bit, I guess Barnaby, I can link some of your notebooks here, but in terms of simulations, you mentioned you obviously kind of all the stuff you're working on right now. Is there anything you still think like is missing after that? Is there like other big areas you'd want us to have simulations on that? Yeah, you think we haven't addressed yet or have had the bandwidth to start working on? Right. So I mean, there's a few things I discussed at the very beginning of the call. Yeah, which is more what I'm working on. So one big chunk that I left out, but almost by design is this idea of minor collusion. Yeah. It's something that we do plan to simulate or at least try to get like a broader understanding of what the behavior is. The reason I'm not focusing on this at the moment is because I do think the analysis by team will be at least useful like starting points. Okay. I mean, it's kind of trivial to define something where it fails or it succeeds automatically, but I think it's not going to bring much to the discussion. So yeah. The thought from that, yeah, I think I should probably help you feel that TBA because it looks like there's nothing, but yeah, I can send you something. Okay, that's great. Yeah, and I'll add all the stuff you mentioned at the beginning of the call as well. So we'll have at least some meat there. And then the last bit was the community outreach. This is still out of date. We published a report yesterday. One of the big things that we mentioned in the report is there was a very small number of exchanges and wallets that answered. So I think if we do more outreach, I'd personally like to focus on those two groups. Yeah, so to just get more wallets perspectives, I feel like exchanges are probably less affected by this and they tend to be pretty reluctant to share data publicly. So I'm not sure how realistic that goal is, but I think on the wallet side, we can definitely reach out to a few more folks and get their perspective on it. So we'll keep on doing that. And the catheters will probably have an updated version of the report. I don't want to give a date, but like in a few weeks to a month or something. Yeah, once we've talked to a bit more people on that end. And that's all I had on the agenda. I don't know, is there anything else people feel we should discuss? Okay, well, in that case, yeah, thanks a lot everybody. This was really good. We'll have full notes for the report and for the meeting and I'll share a summary on Twitter in the next hour or so. Cool. Thank you guys. Thanks everybody.


Hello children. Guten Morgen. Today it is again German time and we are going to revise all the greetings which we have done earlier in our lessons. So we will start with hello. So how you will say hello in German? You are going to say hallo. Hello. And for goodbye, see here you can see a sad smiley. So you will say choose. Choose. And for yes, you will say ja. Ja. Nine. For no, we will say nine. Nine. So green thumb is like yes. Ja. And red one is nine. Ja. Nine. Guten Morgen. Guten Morgen. In the morning what we will say? Guten Morgen. Guten Tag. Guten Tag. So in the afternoon, we will say Guten Tag. Guten Abend. Guten Abend. So in the evening, when it is starting to getting dark, so you will say Guten Abend. Guten Nacht. Guten Nacht. Schlaf Schoen. So when you will sleep, you will say Guten Nacht and Schlaf Schoen. Schlaf Schoen. So if you want to ask someone how are you, you will say we gates. We gates. And if you want to reply to this question, you will say good. And if you want to say like very good, you will say zehrgut. Zehrgut. If you want to thank someone, you will say danker. Danker. Or you can also say danker schoen. Danker schoen. Or if you want to welcome someone, so you will say bitter. Bitter. Or you can also say bitter schoen. Bitter schoen. Okay, so that is all for today. Danker schoen. Tschüss.


How to make a complaint about the Scottish Parliament How to contact public information Contact public information if you want to make a complaint about the Scottish Parliament Public information staff can also help you if you have any questions You can send an email to info at parliament.scot You can ask a question or make your complaint in a BSL video If you do that we will arrange for a translation and pay for this You can call on 0800 092 75 00 You can call in BSL through contactscotland-bsl contactscotland-bsl.org You can also write to us at this address More information about complaints is available in English at parliament.scot