Original text compilation: Wu talks about blockchain
Summary of content:
In this Depth interview, Bruce, the host of ETHPanda Talk, discussed various possibilities of the digital society 100 years later with Vitalik Buterin, the founder of Ethereum. ETHPanda is a non-profit organization composed of Chinese-speaking builders who follow Ethereum, dedicated to building a public network for Chinese-speaking builders of Ethereum. The interview covers a wide range of future topics, including the future of decentralized identity (DID), the evolution of credit systems, changes in global identity recognition, the division of labor between AI and humans, the idea of Ethereum Nodes on Mars, the future development of encryption technology, and the funding mechanism of Open Source projects. This article is compiled by Wu Shuo Blockchain and authorized by ETHPanda for publication.
Vitalik also shared his follow and support for longevity technology, explaining how his dietary and exercise habits help him stay healthy. In addition, the interview delved into the ‘civil war’ in BTC history and its similarities to the phenomenon of nationalization in the real world.
Vitalik emphasized the unlimited potential of blockchain technology, decentralization collaboration, AI assistance, and other aspects for the future digital society, encouraging more people to get involved and jointly promote technological development and social progress. The interview ended in a relaxed atmosphere, and Vitalik humorously described Ethereum as a ‘more fun game’, motivating everyone to continue to follow and support the development of the Ethereum ecosystem.
Listen to the full podcast: Xiaoyuzhou | YouTube
The following is the complete dialogue of the interview:
Opening Introduction
Bruce: Hello everyone, welcome to ETHPanda Talk, I’m Bruce. Today, I am very happy to invite Vitalik to discuss with us a very interesting topic - what will the digital society look like in the next 100 years. First, please let Vitalik say hello and make a brief introduction.
Vitalik: Hello everyone, I’m Vitalik, and I’m also a holder of DOGE. I’m very happy to chat with everyone.
Bruce: Today we are going to talk about the theme “What will the digital society look like in 100 years”. In fact, the inspiration for this topic partly comes from Vitalik’s sharing at EDCON Tokyo some time ago, talking about the tenth anniversary of Ethereum and the outlook for the next ten years. We can see that the next ten years may be more focused on exploring the application layer based on the solid foundation laid down in the past decade.
This time we want to start from the perspective of 100 years later, break some limitations, imagine the ideal future society, and then look back at the current development direction. Hope this discussion can bring some new inspiration to everyone.
In addition, 100 years is neither long nor short. Perhaps by then, longevity technology or consciousness uploading has been achieved. By then, we can schedule another podcast to review today’s discussion.
Vitalik: Okay, I hope both of us will still be alive in 100 years, haha.
Bruce: Yes, yes, I hope we can all stay alive, or we are already continuing this discussion in the virtual world of consciousness.
Will there still be ID cards after one hundred years? Or will all identities be based on DID? How to protect privacy?
Bruce: When we talk about the digital society, we may consider many aspects, such as social governance, like Network State, DAO, Community, and so on. The first question is about identity. Now we all have identity cards, passports, driver’s licenses, and so on. So, will these things still exist 100 years from now? Or will everyone use DID (Decentralized Identity) and be able to create infinite digital avatars? Another issue is privacy protection. For example, physical documents can be hidden in our pockets and not visible to others. How can we protect privacy with digital identity?
Vitalik: I think there are two issues here. The first issue is where identity data is stored. For example, we currently have physical identity cards and passports, but many people are already thinking about how to transform these physical documents into digital ones, such as putting passports or government IDs on phones. This is not just an exploration in the Decentralization world, many traditional companies are also pondering this issue. So, the first issue is the conversion between physical and digital identity.
The second question is related to the centralization or Decentralization of identity and privacy protection. There are many options here, such as having a system based on Zero-Knowledge Proof or other cryptographic technologies, following the principle of minimal data distribution. In addition, we can also start from the goal of the ID system and consider whether only government-based IDs can solve the problem. The goal of the identity system may include proving that you are a human, not a person controlled by AI or multiple accounts, or proving that you are a trustworthy person.
For example, currently countries determine who can enter based on passports and visas. Some countries have more visa-free access, while others require visas. This approach is unfair in some ways because it judges a person’s trustworthiness based on their nationality. In the future, we can consider whether there are better ways to demonstrate a person’s trustworthiness, rather than solely relying on their nationality. Trustworthiness can be based on a person’s interactions, relationships, and experiences throughout their lifetime, rather than just a single piece of information.
If we adopt a more decentralized approach, the structure of identity will become more complex because a person may have connections with many people, companies, communities, and networks. This will no longer be a single path like a tree, but a graph structure. We need to combine these diverse paths to create a more complete and fair identity system.
The advantage of this method is higher efficiency and more data, which can reduce the power of a single Node. If a Node fails or is attacked, an individual will not lose their identity because of this Node’s problem, but can still prove themselves through other means.
Based on infinite digital avatars and DID, how will the future credit system operate? How should people build their own credit?
Bruce: In the future, everyone may have many different digital avatars. What changes will happen to the credit system?
Vitalik: The concept of human identity and credit is actually very close, because both are fundamentally about proving whether a person is trustworthy. The current credit system has several problems. First, it is completely centralized, with certain organizations determining which data is valuable, thereby affecting your credit score. Second, credit scores usually consist of a single number, such as someone’s credit score being 700, and this score may have different meanings for different people or scenarios.
In a centralized system, things unrelated to credit, such as political factors or even unfair standards, may be mixed in. In a Decentralization system, we can reduce these problems, but complexity will also increase. One of the reasons why people like the existing credit scoring system is that it is simple and straightforward - you just need to look at a number to make a judgment.
However, in the system of Decentralization, credit may become more diversified. Different people may have different views on the credit of the same person based on different data sources. For example, your credit score may be 0.5 in one person’s rating system, but it may be 0.7 in another system. Although this increases complexity, we should not be afraid of these complexities, because they can bring about a more fair and diverse credit evaluation system.
In the future, will the mainstream sense of identity be more internationalism? Will it conflict with and even lead to war with nationalism?
Bruce: Regarding the issue of identity, many people are now international freelancers, flying around and even living abroad. Do you think that in 100 years, internationalism will become mainstream? Will people no longer emphasize nationality or nationalism? If nationalism still exists, will it conflict intensely with internationalism?
Vitalik: In the past, people’s identities and loyalty were often closely related to their countries, because it was difficult to go to different places and maintain relationships in different places. Most people may only stay in one place for their entire lives, such as being born in a rural area, growing up in a rural area, and eventually ending their lives in a rural area. It is very difficult to become an “international person”.
But now the situation is different, with the Internet, it’s much easier to go anywhere and become an “international person” than it used to be. However, this does not mean that conflicts between tribes or groups will disappear. Even in the Internet age, we still see many new conflicts between communities, such as the debates between the BTC, Ethereum, Solana, and other cryptocurrency communities. These communities have their own beliefs and cultures, similar to new “nations,” and we can consider them as new nationalism.
Even with the Internet and globalization, the world of the future will not become a single internationalist society. Everyone’s identity will still intersect with different groups, countries, and cultures. This diversity and intersection of identities may bring both conflict and peace.
I believe that the future will not be a completely peaceful and homogeneous world, but a more interconnected and diverse world. Everyone will have different identities, backgrounds, and loyalties, and these intertwined identities may reduce extreme polarization and the risk of war. At the same time, this complexity of society may promote more understanding and communication, thus avoiding complete opposition and conflict.
How can humans and AI achieve fair and equitable distribution (not limited to the distribution of funds, but also including a sense of achievement, meaning, and existence)?
Bruce: In the future, we may see humans and AI working together. If we want to achieve harmony and coexistence, it will inevitably involve the issue of allocation, which includes not only funds but also a sense of achievement, a sense of meaning, and a sense of existence. After all, if AI can complete all the work, what can humans do? What do you think about this?
Vitalik: It is indeed very difficult to predict the future of AI. For example, 5 years ago, we had AlphaGo and AlphaZero, whose AI architecture was very simple and their goal was clear - to win the game. They were like rational actors in economics, with clear goals and strategies. However, the current AI, such as language models, does not have a clear goal; they are only making text predictions. Nevertheless, they are much smarter than AI from five years ago, despite their inconsistent goals, they still demonstrate higher intelligence.
We don’t know what AI will look like in 5 or even 50 years. I hope we can develop more AI that functions like tools, rather than AI that is completely independent and powerful enough to make its own plans. My ideal AI is a tool that can communicate and collaborate extensively with humans. In the future, this interaction may be achieved through VR, AR glasses, or brain-computer interfaces. This way, humans can maintain autonomy and a sense of purpose in this future world.
However, this path may not necessarily be successful. Perhaps it will be difficult for humans to cooperate with AI, while creating a very powerful AI may be easier. We cannot determine the answer, and the future AI architecture may be unimaginable for humans.
Another question is, will we have many AIs or just one AI? This is also hard to predict. The communication bandwidth between humans is limited, but there may not be such a limitation between AIs. They may share computing power among different processors, forming a distributed intelligent system that is beyond our imagination.
Bruce: After listening to what you said, I am a bit worried that the future will be like ‘Hacker Empire,’ hoping that AI will be kinder to us humans. However, regarding the issue of distribution, I recently thought of an example. For example, the collaboration allocation problem in Open Source projects, especially after the introduction of Optimism’s Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF), how should we fairly distribute it to contributors?
**Vitalik：**Optimism wants to solve a very complex problem. The goal of RPGF is to reward those who contribute to the project, but it is very difficult to measure the size of each person’s contribution. Even if everyone is very honest, it is not easy to determine who has the greatest contribution. And when everyone understands how this mechanism works, it is possible to start optimizing their behavior to maximize their personal benefits, just like some people in the academic community will manipulate the evaluation system by citing each other’s papers.
If we extend this pattern to the funding of all public goods, the problem may become hundreds or thousands of times more complex. Optimism is currently experimenting on a small scale to see where it succeeds and where it fails, which is very important. I believe that solving these problems requires more experimentation rather than theoretical deduction. We can only make adjustments and improvements by observing the results through practical experiments.
In the future, when billions of people collaborate with robots, will a new social system be needed? Will there be new changes compared to current socialism, capitalism, and mixed systems?
Bruce: This topic has given me a lot of inspiration. The last question regarding the social system is: we all know that a small group of people can collaborate through tools like Notion or group rules. But when billions of people, including AI and robots, collaborate together in the digital future, is there a need for a new social system? Will this system bring new changes compared to our current socialism, capitalism, or mixed economy?
Vitalik: This is a very complicated question. In fact, I think that capitalism is not really capitalism in many cases now. According to the principles of capitalism, there should be competition between products, good products should stand out, and poor products and companies should be eliminated. But the concept of this competition has changed. If companies want to bypass competition, they can actually do it.
For example, I remember at a conference in Hong Kong in 2016, 90% of BTCMiners sat together, discussing how to cooperate. This indicates that in many industries, competitors can actually cooperate easily, bypassing competition. Many phenomena are not driven by economic forces, but more by communication and social interaction among people. We may have entered a new mode, which can be called a “hybrid system.”
This hybrid system not only exists at the corporate and enterprise level, but also at the government level. In the past, companies were capitalistic while governments leaned towards socialism. However, now companies have become more socially oriented and competition between governments has increased. With globalization and technological development, people have more choices. 30 years ago, if you wanted to move to another country, it was very costly; but now, you can just take a 12-hour flight, turn on your computer, and your life can basically remain the same. This has made countries compete with each other like markets.
The arrival of AI may further change this situation, but it is currently difficult to predict how it will change. This is undoubtedly a very complex issue.
In addition to Gitcoin (QF), Protocol Guild, etc., are there any new funding methods in the future? Will there be a brand new Open Source protocol? To achieve automation and eliminate the gap with commercial companies?
Bruce: We talked about the digital society and the future, it seems that many things will be based on Open Source or public goods. The sustainability of it, especially how to fund these projects in the long term, may be a big issue. It’s not just a matter of funding, but also involves the sustainability of collaboration. Now we have Gitcoin and quadratic funding mechanisms (QF) for projects like Protocol Guild and Optimism. Will we still use these methods 100 years from now? Or will there be some brand new ideas and approaches?
Vitalik: Public goods funding has always faced two core issues: the source of funds and how to fairly distribute funds. Traditionally, public goods funding is usually supported by the government through taxation, and the government has a lot of funds to allocate to projects they consider public goods. In the world of Cryptocurrency, the issuance of assets like Digital Money provides new possibilities for funding public goods.
Digital Money is not the only example, we now have other forms of digital asset, such as domain names. Domain names like “privatejet.com” have been sold for more than the price of a real private jet. In the future, Metaverse and other digital assets may further expand this trend. For example, in the virtual world, certain props or items may be priced higher than high-value items in the real world. For example, in the next 50 years, we may build cities in space or on Mars, or engage in mining activities in the asteroid belt. By then, we may need to rethink property rights in space, and I hope that the initial owners of these resources are no longer individuals or countries, but Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), to avoid overconsumption of resources and provide sustainable funding support for public goods.
Another challenge is how to determine which projects are most important and how to measure each person’s contribution to the project. There are already some platforms exploring this issue, such as Juan Benet of FIL and projects like Tea.xyz, who are developing Contribution Graphs to assess the value of contributors. However, this process can easily generate conflicts of interest, so designing a fair mechanism is crucial.
As for the Open Source protocol, existing protocols such as MIT and GPL mainly follow the distribution of code, but lack commercial incentives. I think in the future, new protocols may emerge, forcing or encouraging commercial companies to give back a portion of their profits to the Open Source ecosystem. However, this path is not simple, as we need to balance the relationship between Open Source and proprietary software, while avoiding concerns about the re-privatization of Open Source software. Zcash’s Business Source License is an example, but this approach has encountered some opposition in its implementation, and may need to be adjusted and improved in the future.
In conclusion, future funding mechanisms and Open Source protocols will require more experimentation and exploration to address these complex issues.
How does the future world determine the ownership of digital public goods or Open Source projects? How to determine the ownership of a piece of code? Or is it necessary to confirm?
Bruce: This question makes me think of the future world, where the code is all Open Source, and much of the content is on-chain. Do we still need to confirm the ownership of these digital commons or Open Source projects? If so, how do we do it?
**Vitalik：**To answer this question, first we need to understand the goal of the concept of “ownership”. Generally, ownership has two core objectives:
-
Power confirmation: Ownership determines who has the right to make changes to a system or project. For example, who has the right to modify or control the code.
-
Incentive mechanism: Ownership also determines the vesting of income. If something belongs to you, you can sell it or rent it to others to generate income.
However, software and other available resources have a significant difference - software is “non-rivalrous”, which means that software can be copied infinitely without affecting the original usage right. If you own a copy of the software, and I make a copy for you, then the copy still belongs to you and does not diminish my rights. This is different from physical resources or other limited digital resources.
Therefore, when we discuss the ownership of Open Source software, we must take a step back and rethink from the perspective of the goal of ownership concept. Regarding the issue of power, in the field of Open Source software, this issue is not very obvious, because anyone can create their own version based on the Open Source code, and others can choose to accept or reject it.
The biggest exception is the standardization issue. In some cases, the entire ecosystem needs continuous improvement in compatibility and standards. This requires a Consensus Mechanism or some form of coordination, and this has already begun to appear in decentralized ecosystems such as Ethereum. For example, the standardization issue of Layer 2, account abstraction (Account Abstraction), etc., are becoming more and more complex as more entities are involved, no longer as small-scale and easy to agree as before.
When we are formulating standards, we are faced with a trade-off: if we involve more people in the formulation of standards, the whole process may become slower. Moxie Marlinspike (founder of Signal) once mentioned that he did not want Signal to become a federal system, in part because he wanted to iterate more quickly and add new features. However, I think he underestimated the feasibility of the Decentralization approach. Ethereum is a good example, despite having multiple clients, people can still reach consensus on issues such as hard forks, but if the system becomes too complex, this may become more difficult.
As for the incentive mechanism, I don’t think there will be a universal method to solve all problems. Different projects have different needs. Some software may rely on a company to gain the majority of the revenue, and this company can choose to support the project. However, in more complex cases, more diversified funding models are needed, such as the Open Source license and cryptocurrency-based public goods funding mechanisms (such as Retro Funding) that we discussed.
Overall, the future ownership confirmation and incentive mechanisms will vary depending on the specific circumstances of the project, and we need to continuously adjust and optimize based on these requirements.
How is future scientific research conducted? Will there be any changes in personnel organization and funding acquisition?
Bruce: What will future scientific research be like? Will it still require a doctoral degree and rely on government and school funding as it does now? Or will there be new, more efficient ways?
Vitalik: In fact, I believe that the Ethereum community has demonstrated a new and more efficient way of scientific research and collaboration. For example, in the encryption field of research, many new technologies, such as Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZK Proofs) and cryptographic Algorithm, are collaborative efforts across teams and organizations. A project may be jointly completed by researchers from the Ethereum Foundation, Aztec team, and researchers from certain universities. This collaborative approach is now very common.
In addition, research results are usually built on the basis of the work of predecessors. For example, StarkWare may have developed a technology, and other teams continue to innovate on this basis. The current cooperation is no longer limited to physical offices, and cross-border, cross-organizational communication can be conducted through various online channels, such as Telegram, Signal groups, or forums like the Ethereum Research Forum.
Conference Culture is also an important part of scientific research today, especially in the Ethereum community. Despite some criticism of this culture, its benefits are obvious. Conferences provide opportunities for multinational and remote teams to communicate face-to-face, share ideas, and quickly synchronize progress, even though most of the time is spent on online collaboration, meeting a few times a year.
More importantly, this meeting culture allows everyone to not only limit themselves to their own companies, but to consider the entire Ethereum community as their team, promoting cooperation and innovation between companies.
At the ETH Foundation, we recently organized a protocol development workshop, inviting about 100 researchers and developers to jointly promote the progress of the ETH client. Such collective collaboration, combining online and offline, greatly improves the efficiency of scientific research.
However, this model may not necessarily be suitable for all fields. For example, in the field of history, although this collaborative approach is feasible, the academic community is relatively conservative and may need more time to adapt to this new model. In fields such as biology, the situation can be more complicated. Firstly, biological research requires a large amount of laboratory resources, which are not simple desk and chair facilities like the ones we use, but rather very expensive and complex scientific laboratories. Secondly, incentive mechanisms are also a problem. In the field of encryption, openness and transparency are necessary, but in some traditional fields, research results are often not made public, and it is not easy to change this practice.
Different fields have different challenges. Although the methods of Decentralization and Open Source may develop faster in some fields, in other fields, there may be more resistance and complex incentive issues.
I believe that in the next 10 to 20 years, there will be much more cross-company, cross-organizational, and even cross-national scientific research cooperation than there is now. However, the pace of transformation in different fields may vary, and some fields may adapt to this change more quickly than others.
Will Ethereum Nodes be built on Mars? How to solve interstellar communication latency? How to achieve interstellar censorship resistance?
Bruce: Just now, I mentioned Mars and thought of an interesting question: Can we deploy an Ethereum Node on Mars in the future? If so, how do we solve the cross-interstellar communication latency? Also, how can we achieve censorship resistance within the interstellar scope?
Vitalik: This is a very interesting question. On Earth, the speed of light is very fast, and the signal transmission time between the two ends of the Earth can be negligible. Even between the farthest points on Earth, the signal latency is only a few hundred milliseconds. In modern internet, latency within 200 milliseconds is generally acceptable.
But between Earth and Mars, the situation is different. The distance between Mars and Earth is about 50 to 70 million kilometers at the closest, and can reach up to 400 million kilometers at the farthest. This means that it takes several minutes to 20 minutes for the signal to be transmitted at the speed of light, which is a huge challenge for systems like blockchain.
The current Ethereum (ETH) architecture and Bitcoin (BTC) architecture cannot directly cope with such a significant latency. For example, if you generate a Block on Mars and transmit it to Earth, the Miner on Earth may have already generated several new Blocks. This will make it difficult for the Mars Block to be accepted and may even be unable to compete. Therefore, from an economic and efficiency perspective, it is not feasible to operate interstellar blockchain nodes under the current architecture.
However, one possible solution to this problem may be to run an independent Layer 2 solution on Mars, specifically designed for environments like Mars. This Layer 2 network can quickly confirm transactions on Mars and then batch synchronize with the ETH mainnet on Earth at the appropriate time. This would greatly reduce the reliance on real-time communication and allow Mars and Earth to have their own network rhythms respectively.
As for anti-censorship in the interstellar realm, this issue is even more complex. If we want to achieve true interstellar anti-censorship, it may require multiple networks of Decentralization to connect with each other between different planets and space stations, avoiding any single entity from fully controlling a network area. Of course, this also means that we need to develop a brand new protocol to adapt to this interstellar environment.
Although ETH Block Node on Mars and Interstellar Anti-Censorship face significant technical challenges, through new architectural designs such as Mars Layer 2 solutions, gradual implementation may be possible in the future.
What encryption algorithm is missing for the future digital society’s Cypherpunk? Will there be new things similar to PGP, SSL, Cryptocurrency, etc.? What role will ZK play in it?
Bruce: We just talked about some social mechanisms and Open Source issues. Now I want to talk about Cypherpunks. The Cypherpunk movement has had a profound impact on today’s encryption technologies, with important achievements such as PGP, SSL, and Cryptocurrency. Looking back from a perspective of 100 years in the future, are there any Encryption Algorithms that we have not yet realized today but may become new technologies in the future? And what role will ZK (Zero-Knowledge Proof) play in this process?
Vitalik: The new technologies of this era must be based on ZK. We can now see that ZK has brought us many new possibilities. You can prove many things at the same time without disclosing all the information. Ten years ago, people didn’t have this concept, and the discussion usually revolved around two extremes: either you provide all the information to prove your identity (but sacrifice privacy), or you remain anonymous (but credibility decreases). With ZK, we can now enjoy the advantages of both.
The Ethereum community has also begun some applications in this area, such as in the Zuzalu group, we have started to use a little bit of this technology. I think the application scenarios of ZK are very diverse.
In addition, there are some other technologies, such as MPC (multi-party computation) and FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption), which have been around for 30 years, but now their efficiency has finally improved to the point where they can be practically applied. Their application scenarios are different from ZK, but equally interesting. Another technology that I think is very promising is Obfuscation.
Obfuscation refers to the ability to encrypt a program, and the encrypted program can run with the same inputs and outputs, but the internal logic of the program is completely invisible. This is a very powerful technique. For example, I can create a program that contains my Private Key, but you cannot obtain my Private Key through the encrypted program. Obfuscation can solve many other cryptographic problems.
The only problem that cannot be solved by obfuscation is preventing the program from being copied. To solve this problem, we can use quantum technology. Justin Drake is very fond of a technology called One-Time Signatures, which can only sign once and cannot sign other data again. This is very useful in the Consensus Mechanism of blockchain because it can completely prevent Double Spend Attack.
Through existing classical technologies, we cannot achieve this because data can always be copied. But if quantum technology is introduced, data cannot be copied. There is a very famous theory behind this - the No-cloning Theorem, which states that quantum data cannot be completely copied.
If we have obfuscation and quantum technology, there will be many possibilities in the future. Perhaps these technologies will still be difficult to popularize within ten years, but it is very likely to become a reality after 100 years.
Bruce: ZK is also very popular recently, and many fren are very interested in it, even starting to learn, but many people find it very difficult to learn. Is there any good way of learning or resources to recommend?
Vitalik: If you really want to dive deep into ZK technology, the best way is to try writing a ZK Algorithm yourself. From scratch, create your own Prover and Verifier, validators, and through this process you will understand the key points behind the technology, such as why you need to do it this way, how to prove and verify, etc.
I have written many articles about ZK in the past ten years. My idea is that if only a few people understand ZK technology, then it is not truly decentralized because everyone has to trust those few people. So it is very important for more people to understand this technology and why it is trustworthy.
Of course, not everyone needs to understand all the details of ZK, just like most developers today don’t fully understand the internal mechanism of Encryption Algorithm. They only know the input and output of Algorithm, as well as what it can and cannot do. I believe most people will eventually understand ZK in a similar way.
Mental Health: How to Avoid EMO and Self-Doubt in the Process of Long-Term Idealistic Construction? Do you have similar situations? How to overcome them?
Bruce: I think mental health is very important when working on long-term idealistic projects. For example, developers like Peter sometimes have emotional breakdowns and doubt the value of their contributions. I have had similar moments myself, especially when I see people getting rich overnight because of meme coins. I doubt whether what I have been persisting in is worth it. Vitalik, have you ever experienced this? How did you deal with it?
**Vitalik：**Yes, I have had similar feelings too. This kind of emotional Fluctuation is bound to happen, especially when you are dedicated to an idealistic project like ETH for a long time. One of the most effective ways for me to overcome it is to participate in offline communication activities. Face-to-face interaction allows me to rediscover the power and positive influence of the community.
When you look at Crypto Twitter or other social media, you’re often drowned out by negative voices. Many people say, ‘Ether has no practical use, the biggest application is gambling,’ or suggest that we admit that we’ve just made ‘the best casino.’ Hearing these things can indeed be exhausting and frustrating.
However, whenever I attend meetings or communicate with people who are truly involved in the Ethereum ecosystem, I realize that there are still many people who hold very positive visions and are working hard to practice them. On the Internet, these efforts and hopes are not always visible, so face-to-face communication is particularly important.
We humans have a history of face-to-face communication for millions of years, but our psychology is not fully prepared for a completely online life. Maybe in 20 or 30 years, the metaverse will solve these problems, but we haven’t reached that level yet. Therefore, I think offline interaction is very important for mental health.
Physical health: What are your eating habits? Do you exercise? Any suggestions for the health of programmers?
**Bruce：**Regarding physical health, especially for programmers, we all know that it is very important. What are your usual dietary habits? Do you exercise? Do you have any health advice for programmers?
Vitalik: For me, physical health is indeed very important, especially because of my unique lifestyle. I often need to go to different places and move almost every week, so it’s difficult for me to maintain a regular fitness or diet routine. Those who prioritize their health often mention having a good gym and a fixed meal plan every day, but such arrangements are almost impossible for me.
However, I still try to exercise as much as possible, especially simple exercises like walking and running. These exercises don’t require any equipment and can be done anywhere. For example, after I arrived in Georgia, I ran 21 kilometers in the backyard. I find running to be a very convenient way to exercise, as it not only helps keep my body active, but also allows me to listen to audiobooks or podcasts while running, making good use of my time.
As for diet, I try to keep it simple: eat more vegetables, eat more fish, and try to avoid consuming too much sugar. This approach helps me maintain healthy eating habits in different environments.
Bruce: You mentioned the topic of longevity, and I know you are very interested in this field. Why are you so interested in following longevity? Is it related to the future technologies you imagine, such as consciousness uploading to the network?
Vitalik: My interest in longevity can be traced back to when I was 13 and first read Aubrey de Grey’s book ‘Ending Aging’. I resonate with his vision of extending life as life itself is beautiful, and living for a few more years is naturally a good thing. Aubrey’s book explains in detail how we can extend life through science, especially those extreme longevity methods—not just adding 5 years to life, but adding 50 years or even more.
There are many misconceptions about longevity, with many people believing that extending life means becoming older and weaker. But that’s not the case. Aubrey’s approach is to prevent problems caused by aging rather than waiting until they occur to treat them. In this way, the extended time is not only an extension of lifespan but also an extension of healthy time. This means that the quality of life we extend will be closer to our current state rather than the weak and frail image people imagine at age 90.
When the price of Ether first pumps, I began to think about how to use this wealth to do something truly meaningful, instead of buying a big house or a private jet. So, I started donating to Aubrey’s organization, and as the price of Ether continued to pump, I donated more and more. Now I am considered a sponsor in the longevity field.
Please recommend a book to Vitalik
Bruce: We’re almost done with the questions for today’s interview. Vitalik, can you recommend a recent or a book that you think is good for everyone?
Vitalik: I recently read two interesting books. I wrote a book review on my blog about two books on the history of BTC. One of them is Jonathan Bier’s “The Blocksize War,” supporting the small Block viewpoint, and the other is Roger Ver and Steve Patterson’s “Hijacking Bitcoin,” supporting the large Block viewpoint. They each discussed their views on the recent BTC Block size internal war from their own perspectives, and I think both of these books are quite interesting.
Many people actually like to read books on history. Now there is a joke on the Internet that many people are particularly fond of studying two topics: one is the Second World War, and the other is the Roman Empire. I find the interesting thing about understanding history is that you can think about what is caused by specific events and the cultural, technological factors of the time, and what is due to human nature. This helps us unravel some issues and think about how people would behave in completely different circumstances.
The past 30 years of Internet history are also worth following. Especially between 1990 and 2010, the development of the Internet was relatively slow and most of the time it was just a ‘game’. However, the emergence of Bitcoin was the first truly valuable and completely native thing to the Internet in the history of the Internet, and it attracted many people to participate. You can liken this phenomenon to the rise of a digital nation.
And there will also be internal conflicts and civil wars within digital nations, eventually leading to division. For example, now in the BTC community, some prominent ‘Bitcoin cult’ figures have begun to praise Solana. I think they may be doing this because they want to unite with emerging platforms like Solana to counter the ecosystem of Ethereum. This reminds me of the alliance between Germany and Japan during World War II, which was formed out of the consideration of common resistance against the enemy.
I think it’s very interesting to study these phenomena, not only the history of the real world, but also the evolution of the digital world. You will find that some patterns and ideas are exactly the same. That’s why I think it’s interesting to understand the history of the Internet.
Epilogue: Looking forward to exploring and building together in the future
**Bruce：**The formal interview ends here today. Thanks again to Vitalik for taking the time to accept our interview and share so many profound thoughts. Thank you, Vitalik!
Vitalik： Thank you!
Bruce: I have some easy questions, such as whether you still play “World of Warcraft” now?
**Vitalik：**Haha, during the epidemic, I tried playing on a private server and found it quite fun. But later I realized that Ethereum itself is a more fun game.
Bruce: Haha, okay.
Vitalik: I hope everyone can support ETHPanda Talk more and participate in the construction of Ethereum! Thank you all!
Bruce: Thank you.
