Original Translation: Wu Says Blockchain
Content Summary:
In this in-depth interview, Bruce, the host of ETHPanda Talk, discusses various possibilities of a digital society 100 years from now with Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin. ETHPanda is a non-profit organization composed of Chinese-speaking builders focused on Ethereum, dedicated to building a public network for Ethereum Chinese-speaking builders. 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 concept of Ethereum nodes on Mars, the future development of cryptography, and funding mechanisms for open-source projects. This article is organized by Wu Says Blockchain and published with authorization from ETHPanda.
Vitalik also shared his interest and support for longevity technology, explaining how his diet and exercise habits help him maintain health. Additionally, the interview delves into the "civil war" in Bitcoin's history and its similarities with the phenomenon of nation-states in the real world.
Vitalik emphasized the limitless potential of future digital societies in areas such as blockchain technology, decentralized collaboration, and AI assistance, encouraging more people to engage in driving technological development and social progress. The interview concluded in a relaxed atmosphere, with Vitalik humorously describing Ethereum as "a more fun game," inspiring everyone to continue paying attention to and supporting the construction of the Ethereum ecosystem.
Listen to the full podcast: Xiaoyuzhou｜YouTube
Here is the complete dialogue from the interview:
Opening Introduction
Bruce: Hello everyone, welcome to ETHPanda Talk, I am Bruce. Today I am very happy to invite Vitalik to discuss a very interesting topic with us—what will the digital society look like 100 years from now? First, please say hello to everyone, Vitalik, and give a brief introduction.
Vitalik: Hello everyone, I am Vitalik, and I am also a holder of Dogecoin. I am glad to chat with you all.
Bruce: The theme we are going to discuss today is "What will the digital society look like 100 years from now?" The inspiration for this topic partly comes from Vitalik's recent talk at EDCON Tokyo, where he discussed the tenth anniversary of Ethereum and the outlook for the next decade. We can see that the next decade may focus more on exploring the application layer, based on the solid foundation laid in the past ten years.
This time, we want to start from the perspective of 100 years later, break through some limitations, imagine the ideal future society, and then look back at the current development direction. We hope this discussion can bring some new inspiration to everyone.
Additionally, 100 years is neither long nor short. Perhaps by then, longevity technology or consciousness uploading will have been realized. At that time, we can schedule another podcast to review today's discussion.
Vitalik: Sure, I hope we are both still alive in 100 years, haha.
Bruce: Yes, yes, yes, let’s hope we are both alive, or we might be continuing this discussion in a virtual consciousness world.
Will there still be ID cards in 100 years? Or will all identities be based on DID? How to protect privacy?
Bruce: When we talk about a digital society, we might think about many aspects, such as social governance, like Network State, DAO, Community, etc. The first question is about identity. Right now, we all have ID cards, passports, driver's licenses, etc. So, will these things still exist in 100 years? Or will everyone use DID (decentralized identity) and be able to create infinite digital avatars? And what about privacy protection? For example, physical documents can be kept in our pockets where others cannot see them, but how do we protect privacy with digital identities?
Vitalik: I think there are two questions here. The first question is where identity data is stored. For example, we currently have physical ID cards and passports, but many people are already thinking about how to transform these physical forms into digital ones, like putting passports or government IDs on mobile phones. This is not just an exploration in the decentralized world; many traditional companies are also considering this issue. So, the first step is the transition between physical and digital identities.
The second question relates to the centralization or decentralization of identity and privacy protection. There are many options here, such as having a system based on zero-knowledge proofs or other cryptographic techniques that follow the principle of minimizing data distribution. Additionally, we can think about whether only government-based IDs can solve the problems from the perspective of the goals of the ID system. The goals of an identity system might include proving that you are a person, not someone controlled by AI or multiple accounts, or proving that you are a trustworthy person.
For example, countries currently decide who can enter based on passports and visas. Some countries have visa-free access to more places, while people from other countries need visas. This method is unfair in some respects because it judges a person's trustworthiness based on their nationality. In the future, we can think about whether there are better ways to prove a person's trustworthiness, rather than just through their nationality. Trustworthiness can be based on a person's interactions, relationships, and experiences throughout their life, rather than just a single piece of information.
If we adopt a more decentralized approach, the structure of identity will become more complex, as a person may be connected to many people, companies, communities, and networks. This will no longer be a single path like a tree, but rather a graph structure. We need to combine these diverse paths to create a more complete and fair identity system.
The advantage of this approach is that it is more efficient, has more data, and can reduce the power of a single node. If a certain node makes a mistake or is attacked, individuals will not lose their identity because of that node's problem; they 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 credit?
Bruce: In the future, everyone may have many different digital avatars, so how will the credit system change?
Vitalik: Human identity and credit are actually very closely related concepts, as both are fundamentally about proving whether a person is trustworthy. The current credit system has several issues. First, it is completely centralized, with certain organizations deciding which data is valuable, thereby affecting your credit score. Second, credit scores usually consist of a single number; for example, someone's credit score is 700, but this score may mean different things for different people or scenarios.
In a centralized system, there may be unrelated factors mixed in with credit, such as political factors or even some unfair standards. In a decentralized system, we can reduce these issues, but complexity will also increase. One reason people like the existing credit scoring system is that it is simple and clear; you only need to look at one number to make a judgment.
However, in a decentralized system, credit may become multidimensional. Different people may have different views on the same person's credit based on different data sources. For example, you might have a credit score of 0.5 in one person's scoring system, but it could be 0.7 in another system. While this increases complexity, we should not fear this complexity, as it can lead to a fairer and more diverse credit assessment system.
Will the mainstream sense of identity in future society be more internationalist? Will it conflict and oppose nationalism, even leading to war?
Bruce: Regarding the issue of identity recognition, many people are now international freelancers, flying around and even living abroad. Do you think that 100 years from now, internationalism will become mainstream? Will people no longer emphasize nationalism or ethnic identity? If nationalism still exists, will it lead to intense conflicts with internationalism?
Vitalik: In the past, people's identities and loyalties were often closely tied to their countries because it was difficult to go to different places and maintain relationships in different locations. Most people might spend their entire lives in one place, such as being born in a rural area, growing up there, and eventually dying there. Becoming an "international person" was very difficult.
But now the situation is different; with the internet, it has become easy to go anywhere, and becoming an "international person" is much simpler than before. However, this does not mean that conflicts between tribes or groups will disappear. Even in the internet age, we still see many new communities in conflict, such as debates between Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and other cryptocurrency communities. These communities have their own beliefs and cultures, similar to new "nations," which we can view as a new form of nationalism.
Even with the internet and globalization, the future world will not completely transform into a single internationalist society. Each person's identity will still intersect with different groups, countries, and cultures. This diversification and intertwining of identities may lead to both conflict and peace.
I believe the future will not be a completely peaceful, monocultural world, but rather a more intersecting and diverse world. Everyone will have different identities, backgrounds, and loyalties, and these intertwined identities may reduce the risk of extreme polarization and war. At the same time, this complexity in society may foster more understanding and communication, thereby avoiding complete opposition and conflict.
How can humans and AI achieve fair and just distribution (not limited to financial distribution, 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 coexist harmoniously, it will inevitably involve distribution issues, and this distribution is not limited to finances but also includes a sense of achievement, meaning, and existence. After all, if AI can do all the work, what can humans do? What are your thoughts on this?
Vitalik: Predicting the future of AI is indeed very difficult. For example, five years ago, we had AlphaGo and AlphaZero, whose AI architectures were very simple with clear goals—to win games. They were like rational actors in economics, with clear objectives and strategies. Now, however, AI, such as language models, does not have a clear goal; they are just making text predictions. Nevertheless, they are much smarter than the AI from five years ago, even though their goals are inconsistent, they still demonstrate higher intelligence.
We do not know what AI will look like in five or even fifty years. I hope we can develop more AI that functions like tools, rather than those that are completely independent and powerful enough to create their own plans. The ideal AI in my vision is a tool that can communicate and collaborate extensively with humans, potentially realized through VR, AR glasses, or brain-computer interfaces. This way, humans can maintain autonomy and a sense of meaning in this future world.
However, this path may not necessarily succeed. Perhaps it will be more challenging to have humans and AI collaborate, while creating a very powerful AI might be easier. We cannot determine the answer; the future AI architecture may be something beyond human imagination.
Another question is whether we will have many AIs or just one AI. This is also difficult to predict. The communication bandwidth between humans is limited, but there may not be such limitations between AIs; they might share computing power across different processors, forming a distributed intelligence system that we can hardly imagine.
Bruce: After hearing what you said, I’m a bit worried that the future might be like "The Matrix," and I hope AI will treat us humans a bit better. However, regarding the issue of distribution, I recently thought of an example. For instance, in the collaboration and distribution of open-source projects, especially after the introduction of Optimism's Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF), how should we fairly distribute rewards to contributors?
Vitalik: The problem that Optimism wants to solve is very complex. The goal of RPGF is to reward those who contribute to projects, but measuring each person's contribution is very difficult. Even if everyone is honest, determining who contributed the most is not easy. And once people understand how this mechanism works, they might start optimizing their behavior to maximize personal gains, similar to how some in academia manipulate evaluation systems by citing each other's papers.
If we extend this model to the funding of all public goods, the problem could 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 solving these issues requires more experimentation rather than theoretical deductions. We can only make adjustments and improvements through practical experiments and observing the results.
Will new social systems be needed when billions of people and robots collaborate in the future? Will there be new changes compared to current socialism, capitalism, or hybrid systems?
Bruce: This topic has inspired me a lot. The last question regarding social systems is: we all know that a small group of people can collaborate using tools like Notion or community rules. But when billions of people, including AI and robots, collaborate together in a digital future, will a new social system be necessary? Will this system differ from our current socialism, capitalism, or hybrid systems?
Vitalik: This is a very complex question. In fact, I believe that current capitalism is not true capitalism in many cases. According to the principles of capitalism, there should be competition among products, and good products should stand out while poor products and companies should be eliminated. However, the concept of competition has changed. If companies want to bypass competition, they can actually do so.
For example, I remember in 2016 at a conference in Hong Kong, 90% of Bitcoin miners sat together discussing how to collaborate. This shows that in many industries, competitors can easily cooperate and bypass competition. Many phenomena are not driven by economic forces but are more determined by communication and social interactions among people. We may have entered a new model that can be called a "hybrid system."
This hybrid system appears not only at the corporate and business level but also at the government level. In the past, companies were capitalist, while governments leaned towards socialism. Now, companies have become more socially oriented, and there is more competition among governments. With globalization and technological development, people's choices have become more abundant. Thirty years ago, if you wanted to move to another country, the cost was very high; now, you just need to take a 12-hour flight, open your computer, and your life can remain largely unchanged. This has led to competition among countries similar to that in markets.
The arrival of AI may further change this situation, but it is currently difficult to predict how. This is undoubtedly a very complex issue.
What new funding methods will emerge in the future besides Gitcoin (QF) and Protocol Guild? Will there be entirely new open-source protocols? How can we achieve automation and eliminate the gap with commercial companies?
Bruce: We have talked about the digital society and the future, and it seems that many things will be based on open-source or public goods. However, its sustainability, especially how to fund these projects in the long term, may be a big issue. It’s not just a matter of funding; it also involves the sustainability of collaboration. Now we have Gitcoin and quadratic funding mechanisms (QF), as well as projects like Protocol Guild and Optimism. Will we still use these methods 100 years from now, or will there be some entirely new ideas and approaches?
Vitalik: Funding for public goods has always faced two core issues: one is the source of funding, and the other is how to fairly distribute the funds. Traditionally, funding for public goods is usually supported by the government through taxation, which has a lot of funds to allocate to projects they consider public goods. In the cryptocurrency world, the issuance of digital currencies provides new possibilities for funding public goods.
Digital currencies are not the only example; we now have other forms of digital assets, such as domain names. A domain like "privatejet.com" once sold for more than a real private jet. In the future, the metaverse and other digital assets may further expand this trend. For example, certain props or items in the virtual world may be priced higher than high-value items in the real world. Furthermore, in the next 50 years, we may establish cities in space or on Mars, or engage in mining activities in the asteroid belt. At that time, we may need to rethink property rights in space, and I hope that the initial owners of these resources will not be individuals or nations, but decentralized organizations (DAOs), which can help avoid resource depletion while providing ongoing 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 projects. Some platforms are already exploring this issue, such as Juan Benet from IPFS and projects like Tea.xyz, which are developing contribution graphs to assess the value of contributors. However, this process can easily lead to conflicts of interest, and designing a fair mechanism is crucial.
As for open-source protocols, existing protocols like MIT and GPL mainly focus on code distribution but lack commercial incentives. I believe new protocols may emerge in the future that mandate or encourage 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 that open-source software might revert to privatization. Zcash's Business Source License is an example, but this approach faced some opposition during its implementation, and adjustments and improvements may be needed in the future.
In summary, future funding mechanisms and open-source protocols will require more experimentation and exploration to address these complex issues.
How will ownership of digital public goods or open-source projects be determined in the future? How can we judge the ownership of a piece of code? Or is it still necessary to confirm?
Bruce: This question makes me think about a future world where code is open-source and much 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 confirm it?
Vitalik: To answer this question, we first need to understand the goals of the concept of "ownership." Generally speaking, 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 allocation of benefits. If something belongs to you, you can sell it or rent it to others for profit.
However, software and other ownable resources have a significant distinction: software is "non-rivalrous," meaning it can be copied infinitely without affecting the original usage rights. If you own a copy of software and I copy it for you, that 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 ownership of open-source software, we must take a step back and rethink from the goals of the concept of ownership. Regarding the power issue, in the field of open-source software, this issue is not very clear because anyone can create their own version based on 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 requires compatibility and continuous improvement of standards. This requires a consensus mechanism or some form of coordination, which has already begun to be discussed in decentralized ecosystems like Ethereum. For example, the standardization of Layer 2, account abstraction, etc., are becoming increasingly complex as the number of participating entities grows, making it no longer as small-scale and easy to reach consensus as before.
When we establish standards, we face a trade-off: if we allow more people to participate in the standard-setting process, the entire process may become slower. Moxie Marlinspike (the founder of Signal) once mentioned that he did not want Signal to become a federated system, partly because he wanted to iterate faster and add new features. However, I think he underestimates the feasibility of decentralized approaches. Ethereum is a good example; despite having multiple clients, everyone can still reach consensus on issues like hard forks, but if the system becomes too complex, this may become more difficult.
As for the incentive mechanism, I do not believe there will be a one-size-fits-all solution to all problems. Different projects have different needs. Some software may rely on a particular company to receive most of the benefits, and that company can choose to support the project. However, in more complex cases, more diverse funding models are needed, such as the open-source licenses we discussed, or cryptocurrency-based public goods funding mechanisms (like Retro Funding).
In general, the confirmation of ownership and incentive mechanisms in the future will vary depending on the specific circumstances of the project, and we need to continuously adjust and optimize based on these needs.
How will research be conducted in the future? Will there be any changes in personnel organization, funding acquisition, etc.?
Bruce: How will research be conducted in the future? Will it still require a PhD, relying on government and school funding as it does now? Or will there be new, more efficient ways?
Vitalik: In fact, I believe the Ethereum community has already demonstrated a new and more efficient way of conducting research and collaboration. For example, in research within the crypto field, many new technologies, such as zero-knowledge proofs (ZK Proofs) and cryptographic algorithms, are products of cross-team and cross-organization collaboration. A project may be completed by researchers from the Ethereum Foundation, the Aztec team, and certain universities. This collaborative approach is now very common.
Moreover, research results are often built on the work of predecessors. For instance, StarkWare may have developed a technology, and other teams continue to innovate based on that. Current collaboration is no longer limited to physical offices; cross-national and cross-organizational communication can occur through various online channels, such as Telegram, Signal groups, or forums like the Ethereum Research Forum.
Conference culture is also an important part of contemporary research, especially in the Ethereum community. Although some people criticize this culture, its benefits are evident. Conferences provide opportunities for cross-national, remote teams to communicate face-to-face and share ideas. Even if most of the time is spent collaborating online, everyone meets a few times a year at conferences to quickly synchronize progress.
Moreover, this conference culture allows everyone to think beyond their own companies and view the entire Ethereum community as their team, which fosters collaboration and innovation between companies.
At the Ethereum Foundation, we recently organized a protocol development workshop, inviting about 100 researchers and developers to collectively advance the progress of Ethereum clients. This kind of collective collaboration, combining online and offline efforts, greatly enhances the efficiency of research.
However, this model may not be suitable for all fields. For example, in the field of history, while this collaborative approach is feasible, the academic community is relatively conservative and may take longer to adapt to this new model. In fields like biology, the situation is even more complex. First, biological research requires a lot of laboratory resources, and these labs are not simple desk and chair setups but rather very expensive and complex scientific laboratories. Second, the incentive mechanism is also an issue. In the crypto field, transparency is essential, but in some traditional fields, research results are often not made public, and changing this practice is not easy.
Different fields have different challenges. While decentralized and open-source approaches may develop faster in some areas, in others, they may encounter more resistance and complex incentive issues.
I believe that in the next 10 to 20 years, cross-company, cross-organization, and even cross-national research collaboration will be much more prevalent than it is now. However, the pace of transformation will vary across different fields, with some adapting to these changes faster than others.
Will there be Ethereum nodes built on Mars? How will interstellar communication delays be resolved? How can we achieve interstellar anti-censorship?
Bruce: Speaking of Mars, I thought of an interesting question: in the future, can we deploy Ethereum nodes on Mars? If so, how do we solve the interstellar communication delays? Additionally, how can we achieve anti-censorship on an interstellar scale?
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 delay is only a few hundred milliseconds. In modern internet usage, a delay of under 200 milliseconds is generally acceptable.
But the situation is different between Earth and Mars. The distance between Mars and Earth is about 50 million to 70 million kilometers at its closest, and can reach up to 400 million kilometers at its farthest. This means that light-speed signal transmission takes several minutes to 20 minutes, which poses a huge challenge for a system like blockchain.
The current Ethereum and Bitcoin architectures cannot directly handle such significant delays. For example, if you generate a block on Mars and transmit it to Earth, miners on Earth may have already generated several new blocks. This would make it difficult for the Martian block to be accepted, and it might not even be able to compete at all. Therefore, from an economic and efficiency standpoint, running interstellar blockchain nodes under the current architecture is not feasible.
However, a potential solution to this problem might be to run an independent Layer 2 solution on Mars, specifically designed for environments like Mars. This Layer 2 network could quickly confirm transactions on Mars and then batch sync with the Ethereum mainnet on Earth at appropriate times. This would greatly reduce reliance on real-time communication and allow Mars and Earth to have their own network rhythms.
As for interstellar anti-censorship, this issue is even more complex. To achieve true interstellar anti-censorship, we may need multiple decentralized networks interconnected across different planets and space stations, preventing any single entity from completely controlling a network area. Of course, this also means we need to develop entirely new protocols to adapt to this interstellar environment.
While deploying Ethereum nodes on Mars and achieving interstellar anti-censorship face significant technical challenges, new architectural designs, such as a Layer 2 solution for Mars, may gradually make this possible in the future.
What cryptographic algorithms are still lacking for the digital society of the future? Will new things similar to PGP, SSL, and cryptocurrencies emerge? What role will ZK play in this?
Bruce: We just talked about some social mechanisms and open-source issues, and now I want to discuss the cypherpunk movement. The cypherpunk movement has had a profound impact on today's cryptographic technologies, with important outcomes like PGP, SSL, and cryptocurrencies. If we look back from the perspective of 100 years in the future, are there any cryptographic algorithms that we have not yet realized but may become new technologies in the future? What role will ZK (zero-knowledge proofs) play in this process?
Vitalik: New technologies in this era will definitely be based on ZK. We can already see that ZK brings us many new possibilities. You can prove many things simultaneously without exposing all the information. Ten years ago, this concept was not yet prevalent; discussions typically revolved around two extremes: either you provide all the information to prove your identity (sacrificing privacy), or you remain anonymous (but lose credibility). With ZK, we can now enjoy the benefits of both.
The Ethereum community has also started some applications in this area; for example, in the Zuzalu group, we have begun to use this technology in small ways. I believe there are many application scenarios for ZK.
Additionally, there are other technologies, such as MPC (multi-party computation) and FHE (fully homomorphic encryption), which have existed for 30 years but have only recently reached a level of efficiency that allows for practical application. Their application scenarios differ from ZK but are equally interesting. Another technology I find promising is Obfuscation.
Obfuscation refers to the ability to encrypt a program such that the encrypted program can run, producing the same input and output, but the internal logic of the program is completely invisible. This is a very powerful technology. For example, I can create a program that contains my private key, but you cannot extract my private key from this 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 address this issue, we can leverage quantum technology. Justin Drake is very fond of a technique called One-Time Signatures, where you can only sign once, and after that, you cannot sign other data. This is very useful in blockchain consensus mechanisms because it completely eliminates double-spending attacks.
With existing classical technologies, we cannot achieve this because data can always be copied. But if we introduce quantum technology, data cannot be copied. There is a well-known theory behind this—the No-cloning Theorem, which states that quantum data cannot be completely copied.
If we have Obfuscation and quantum technology, then there will be many possibilities in the future. Perhaps these technologies will be difficult to popularize within the next ten years, but 100 years from now, they are very likely to become a reality.
Bruce: ZK has been very popular recently, and many friends are interested in it and even starting to learn, but many find it very difficult. Do you have any good learning methods or resources to recommend?
Vitalik: If you really want to delve into ZK technology, the best way is to try writing a ZK algorithm yourself. By building a Prover and a Verifier from scratch, you will understand the key points behind the technology, such as why it is done this way, how to prove and verify, etc.
I have written many articles about ZK over the past decade, and my thought is that if only a few people understand ZK technology, then it is not truly decentralized, because everyone must trust those few individuals. Therefore, 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 as most developers today do not fully understand the internal mechanisms of cryptographic algorithms. They just know the inputs and outputs of the algorithms, as well as what they can and cannot do. I believe most people will eventually come to understand ZK in a similar way.
Mental Health: How to avoid EMO and self-doubt while pursuing long-term idealistic projects? Have you experienced similar situations? How did you overcome them?
Bruce: I think mental health is very important when pushing forward idealistic projects in the long term. For example, developers like Peter sometimes experience emotional breakdowns, doubting whether their contributions are truly valuable. I have had similar moments, especially when I see someone getting rich overnight from a meme coin, and I start to question whether what I am sticking to is worth it. Vitalik, have you ever felt this way? How do you cope with it?
Vitalik: Yes, I have had similar feelings. These emotional fluctuations are bound to happen, especially when you are long-term committed to an idealistic project like Ethereum. For me, one of the most effective ways to cope is to participate in offline communication events. Face-to-face interactions help me reconnect with the strength and positive influence of the community.
When you look at Crypto Twitter or other social media, you often get drowned out by negative voices. Many people say, "Ethereum has no real use; its biggest application is gambling," or suggest that we admit we are just creating "the best casino." Hearing this can indeed be exhausting and frustrating.
However, whenever I attend conferences or interact with people who are genuinely involved in the Ethereum ecosystem, I realize that many still hold very positive visions and are actively working to realize those visions. This effort and hope do not always manifest online, so face-to-face communication is particularly important.
Humans have a history of face-to-face communication spanning millions of years, and our psychology is not prepared for a fully online life. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years, the metaverse will address these issues, but we are not at that level yet. Therefore, I believe offline interactions are crucial for mental health.
Physical Health: What are your dietary habits? Do you exercise? What health advice do you have for programmers?
Bruce: Regarding physical health, especially for programmers, we all know that maintaining good health 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 given my unique lifestyle. I often need to travel to different places and am almost moving every week, making it difficult for me to maintain a fixed fitness or dietary routine. Those health influencers often mention having great gyms and fixed meal plans, but for me, such arrangements are nearly impossible.
Nevertheless, I still try to stay active, especially with simple exercises like walking and running. These activities require no equipment and can be done anywhere. For example, after arriving in Georgia, I ran a 21-kilometer loop in the backyard. I find running to be a very convenient form of exercise; not only does it keep me fit, but I can also listen to audiobooks or podcasts while running, making good use of my time.
As for my diet, I try to keep it simple: eat more vegetables, eat more fish, and avoid excessive sugar intake. This approach allows me to 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 focused on longevity? Is it related to your imagined future technologies, such as consciousness uploading to the network?
Vitalik: My interest in longevity dates back to when I first read Aubrey de Grey's book "Ending Aging" at the age of 13. I resonate with his vision of extending life; life itself is beautiful, and living a few more years is naturally a better thing. Aubrey's book explains in detail how we can extend lifespan through science, especially those extreme methods of longevity—not just adding 5 years to life, but adding 50 years or even more.
Many people misunderstand longevity, thinking that extending life means becoming older and weaker, but that is not the case. Aubrey's approach is about proactive prevention, avoiding the problems that come with aging, rather than waiting to treat issues after they arise. In this way, the extended time is not just an increase in lifespan but also an increase in healthy time. Thus, the quality of the extended life will be much closer to our current living state, rather than the frailty people imagine at 90 years old.
When the price of Ether first rose, I began to think about how to use this wealth to do something truly meaningful, rather than buying a big house or a private jet. So, I started donating to Aubrey's organization, and as the price of Ether continued to rise, I donated more and more. Now, I consider myself a patron in the field of longevity.
Please recommend a book, Vitalik
Bruce: We are nearing the end of our main interview questions today. Vitalik, could you recommend a recent book or one that you think is particularly good for everyone?
Vitalik: I recently read two interesting books. I did a book review on my blog about two books on the history of Bitcoin. One is "The Blocksize War" by Jonathan Bier, which supports the small block perspective, and the other is "Hijacking Bitcoin" by Roger Ver and Steve Patterson, which supports the large block perspective. They each discuss their views on the recent Bitcoin block size civil war from their own angles, and I find both books quite interesting.
People actually enjoy reading history books. There’s a joke on the internet that many people particularly like to study two topics: World War II and the Roman Empire. I find that the interesting part of understanding history is that you can think about which aspects are due to specific events and cultural or technological factors of the time, and which are driven by human nature. This helps us unravel some questions and consider how people would act in completely different circumstances.
The past 30 years of internet history are also worth paying attention to. Especially between 1990 and 2010, the development of the internet was relatively slow, and for most of the time, it was just a "game." However, the emergence of Bitcoin was the first truly valuable thing that was completely native to the internet, attracting many people to participate. You could liken this phenomenon to the rise of a digital nation.
Within this digital nation, there will also be internal conflicts and civil wars, ultimately leading to fragmentation. For example, now some famous figures from the Bitcoin community, known as the "Bitcoin cult," have started praising Solana. I think they might be doing this because they want to unite with emerging platforms like Solana to counter the Ethereum ecosystem. This reminds me of the alliance between Germany and Japan during World War II, which was formed out of a common enemy consideration.
I find studying these phenomena very interesting, 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 completely the same. This is also why I think understanding internet history is fascinating.
Epilogue: Looking forward to continuing exploration and construction together in the future
Bruce: The formal interview today comes to an end. Thank you again, Vitalik, for taking the time to accept our interview and share so many profound thoughts. Thank you, Vitalik!
Vitalik: Thank you!
Bruce: I have a few light-hearted questions, like do you still play World of Warcraft?
Vitalik: Haha, during the pandemic, I tried playing on a private server, and it was quite fun. But then I realized that Ethereum itself is actually a more enjoyable game.
Bruce: Haha, good.
Vitalik: I hope everyone can support ETHPanda Talk and participate in the construction of Ethereum together! Thank you, everyone!
Bruce: Thank you.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
