| 5 Jan 2020 |
 bridge-bot | <gabi>Oh 🤕 windows was always a bit tricky to setup. No updates on solving it, we will prioritize compatibility for next patch of version 7 | 14:52:26 |
| 6 Jan 2020 |
| bridge-bot | <bpierre>Hi @guido.vizoso, happy new year! I’ll review your PR asap! | 10:06:10 |
| bridge-bot | <guido.vizoso>Good morning @bpierre, glad to hear that! I’ll be following closely in case something needs to be modified. Wish you all a good week! | 12:38:33 |
| bridge-bot | <gabi>Is all-dev meet working for someone? | 15:07:22 |
| bridge-bot | <louisgrx>@all All Aragon Devs #39 will be live streamed today at 5pm CEST. Livestream link will be published closer to the call time, but this is a last call for any agenda items (feel free to respond or message me!). | 15:59:10 |
| 14 Jan 2020 |
| bridge-bot | <JayRudduck>fyi this link doesn’t open but downloads instead: https://aragon.one/email-collection.md | 17:21:55 |
| bridge-bot | <mcormier>Thanks for reporting this. Could you point me the page where you found this link? | 17:35:31 |
| bridge-bot | <JayRudduck>main page of the anj token sale | 18:19:15 |
| bridge-bot | <JayRudduck>main page of the anj token “sale” | 18:19:32 |
| 15 Jan 2020 |
| bridge-bot | <light>could something like Interstate be used for scaling Aragon on Ethereum?
https://twitter.com/0xinterstate/status/1217205492298027008 | 20:46:08 |
| 17 Jan 2020 |
| bridge-bot | <sohkai> Looks interesting, and probably if we wanted to deploy Aragon onto it. Not sure how they would do bridging though, which is a core component of Aragon Chain. | 12:51:22 |
| 18 Jan 2020 |
| bridge-bot | <jorge>One of the founders (Andy) reached out to me with a Twitter DM and they are actually testing deploying Aragon to Interstate. I hope the reach back soon with the results :) | 06:16:36 |
| 20 Jan 2020 |
| bridge-bot | <louisgrx>@all All Aragon Devs #40 will be live streamed today at 5pm CEST. Livestream link will be published closer to the call time, but this is a last call for any agenda items (feel free to respond or message me!). | 15:46:03 |
| 22 Jan 2020 |
| bridge-bot | <victor.porton>I spent a few hours trying to read contract past events (with event names CourtCreated and LimitCourtCreated). Please give me a code example. | 06:00:53 |
| bridge-bot | <jorge>https://hack.aragon.org/docs/api-js-ref-api#examples-1 | 08:18:26 |
| bridge-bot | <sem>Guys, any idea on how to programatically distinguish between DAOs that use the old proxies (and are affected by the Istambul fork) and DAOs with modern proxies? The blog article (https://blog.aragon.org/istanbul-hard-fork-impact/) metions to check out if the DAO is older than 2019/09/11, but this doesn’t seem a good metric for me. I’ve seen that checking the contract code on etherscan, the new proxies’s code have a “…Optimized assembly implementation to prevent EIP-1884 from breaking deposits…” comment that can be used to distinguish them. Is there any other way to check out that a DAO use the modern proxies? | 14:36:44 |
| bridge-bot | <sem>I think that the blog post should be updated with an explanation on how to distinguish between old an new DAOs in a reliable way | 14:38:02 |
| bridge-bot | <mcormier>Manually, verifying the contract’s creation date or its code on etherscan is the most reliable way AFAIK. Perhaps a warning message in the frontend for old DAOs would be useful 🤔 Programatically, probably by verifying the contract’s creation transaction block. | 15:02:17 |
| bridge-bot | <mcormier>Manually, verifying the contract’s creation date or its code on etherscan is the most reliable way AFAIK. Perhaps a warning message in the frontend for old DAOs would be useful 🤔 Programatically, probably by verifying the first SetApp event or the contract’s transaction block. | 15:05:32 |
| bridge-bot | <mcormier>Manually, verifying the contract’s creation date or its code on etherscan is the most reliable way AFAIK. Perhaps a warning message in the frontend for old DAOs would be useful 🤔 Programatically, probably by verifying the first SetApp event or the contract’s creation transaction block. | 15:12:28 |
| bridge-bot | <sohkai>The frontend will eventually offer a way to check proxy versions but it’s a bit tucked away in terms of priorities at the moment. | 15:38:56 |
| 23 Jan 2020 |
| bridge-bot | <sohkai>@bingen @evalir Just want to bring this conversation here; how should we integrate the new presale wrapper into anj.aragon.org? Are we able to make assumptions if we don’t know which wrapper we’ll be using yet? | 18:44:29 |
| bridge-bot | <evalir>On the UI side things are very simple: just a few changes are needed. On the ETH calls side things get a bit more complicated as definitely I need more insight on which wrapper we will be using as I’ll need the correct ABI/ | 19:05:04 |
| bridge-bot | <evalir>On the UI side things are very simple: just a few changes are needed. On the ETH calls side things get a bit more complicated as definitely I need more insight on which wrapper we will be using as I’ll need the correct ABI. | 19:05:54 |
| bridge-bot | <evalir>AFAIK it should not change too much, if at all, but what I can do (have done) is leave the implementation ready, so that when the contract’s decided, we can just plug it in and test. | 19:45:28 |
| bridge-bot | <evalir>AFAIK it should not change too much, if at all, but what I can do (have done) is leave the implementation ready, so that when the contract that will be used is deployed, we can just plug it in and test. | 19:45:42 |
| bridge-bot | <evalir>Regarding DAI -> The MCD contract does not have the approveAndCall function which is a bit sad because it makes it cumbersome to implement :( | 20:00:40 |
| bridge-bot | <bingen>There are some PRs pending to be merged, but it should be something like this for DAI and like this for ETH. | 20:10:10 |
| bridge-bot | <bingen>Then there may be more changes to include Phase 2, which is also review pending, although we may delay the deploy of it if needed. | 20:10:44 |
| bridge-bot | <sohkai> Hmm this is a bit bothersome… did you check if USDC implements approveAndCall? | 21:51:22 |
