"I started writing Ethereum code in December when I had only £500 left, and my rent was exactly £500 a month. At that time, I had already founded two startups, but neither had made much progress. I even considered getting a job at a bank. And it was at this moment that he gave me £1,000 a month to continue working on Ethereum. I wanted to see if this white paper could really be realized, so I started writing code. A few months later, I became a co-founder of Ethereum."

Gavin Wood, co-founder of Ethereum, creator of Polkadot, and a proponent of the Web3 vision. In a three-hour interview last week, he revealed the mysteries of the future of blockchain technology. PolkaWorld will release this in several parts, and this article is the first part!

Before we officially begin, let's take a look at some exciting viewpoints and dialogues!

You created the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and founded Polkadot. In your opinion, what is Ethereum's greatest achievement so far? — Ethereum is the project that has created the most millionaires in history.

So, how does a great idea come about? — A good idea is one where you can clearly see the path to realization.

What is your true opinion on meme coins? — Pure nonsense (bullshit).

What is Polkadot's greatest achievement? — Achieving a secure sharded blockchain.

What is Polkadot's biggest challenge right now? — Its sharding design.

Your childhood doesn't seem to have been easy; can you talk more about it? — I grew up with my single mother, and her husband was very violent. I clearly remember that period, filled with feelings of abandonment. This makes me appreciate having a safe environment now even more.

People often say "being too ahead of your time equals being wrong." As an inventor, you always foresee trends early. Have you experienced misunderstandings or setbacks because you were "too ahead"? — Did Howard Marks really say that?

Please continue reading and enjoy the wonderful content brought by Gavin!

Starting with Small Talk

Kevin: Thank you very much for accepting this interview, Gavin. Are you drinking Japanese whiskey now?

Gavin: Yes, Yamazaki 12 years.

Kevin: I heard you like whiskey and Japanese culture.

Gavin: Yes! Cheers! Kampai!

Kevin: Is "Kampai" Japanese? I thought it was a Chinese expression.

Gavin: "Kampai" is Japanese for cheers.

Kevin: Do you speak Japanese?

Gavin: No, but I know a few basic phrases to get by.

Kevin: Do you live in Japan?

Gavin: I currently have a house in Japan.

Kevin: Why?

Gavin: Just because I like the culture here. It might not be suitable to live here all year round, but Japanese culture is really unique, and living here is very interesting.

Kevin: What do you like about Japanese culture?

Gavin: Actually, it is very different from other parts of Asia. The service is really great, and every detail is carefully considered, which is very obvious. It's completely different from the UK.

Kevin: How do you view the UK?

Gavin: You know, I grew up here; I am British. So for me, it's a kind of… not particularly eager to spend all my time here, but I have a house in Cambridge, and I enjoy living here. I also really like certain elements of British culture.

Kevin: Like what?

Gavin: For example, British Indian curry is fantastic. I love traditional pubs, ale, and cheese. Also, pies are always delicious. And fish and chips, Sunday roasts, are also very good. The UK is one of the countries that values etiquette the most in the world, which I appreciate.

Kevin: Yes, but for someone like me, if you're not a local Brit, especially if English is not your first language, like I come from Switzerland, it can sometimes be hard to understand what the British really mean, especially their sense of humor, right? British humor is really hard to understand and very unique.

Gavin: Yes, I think humor is a great way of communication. You often find that jokes contain a lot of meaning. In some places, humor has become part of communication, allowing people to express meaning slightly indirectly or find common ground that everyone can relate to, rather than stating things bluntly. It's a very natural way of communicating.

Kevin: Someone told me that Japan is also like this. I heard that people from Osaka (or maybe Kyoto, but definitely not Tokyo) are more laid-back and have a better sense of humor.

Gavin: Yes, the feeling is very different when you grow up in Tokyo and then go to those places. In Tokyo, the communication style is usually more formal, while in Osaka, people naturally enjoy joking, and humor becomes part of their communication. When one person is used to communicating with humor and another is not, the difference becomes very apparent.

Kevin: Do you think humor is more related to culture or to a person's intelligence? For example, understanding humor?

Gavin: I think humor largely relies on shared cognitive points, shared perceptions, and a common understanding of the world. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily correlate directly with intelligence. But to some extent, intelligence can indeed serve as a tool to create humor and establish resonance between the two parties in a conversation.

From what I understand, I have thought a bit about humor. Humor is usually based on the idea that when you say something or perform an action, the target (the interlocutor) can interpret it in two ways, while other observers may only interpret it in one way. This hidden interpretation is what generates the sense of humor.

It is considered funny because the target realizes they can interpret the statement in two ways and knows that others can only understand it in one way. At the same time, they also know that the speaker is aware of this. Thus, a special, exclusive understanding forms between the two parties in the conversation, which others cannot participate in. This unique sense of resonance is the essence of humor.

Gavin's Childhood

Kevin: Do you like to analyze many things?

Gavin: Of course.

Kevin: Who are you?

Gavin: This is the question the Vorlons ask Delenn in "Babylon 5," and that episode spent an entire episode answering it.

Kevin: So I'll start with that question too.

Gavin: However, I prefer another question: "What do you want?" This is the question the Shadows ask Delenn.

As for "Who am I?" I don't know; I consider myself a bit of a free spirit. I try to avoid labeling myself because usually, the way to define "who you are" is through your relationships with the world around you, people, and institutions. I don't like to answer this question with simple answers because if people hear it, they often over-interpret it, which is not what I really want to express. Broadly speaking, "who a person is" cannot be summarized in one or two sentences. It is something that can only be gradually felt through observing a person's words and actions or through interviews like this.

Kevin: What is your mission?

Gavin: What drives me? I don't know; there are several different factors, and there are some things I want to achieve. For example, happiness; that should be a good goal. Satisfaction, being a good father. And a sense of responsibility — a responsibility for some of the things I am involved in, which is a personal sense of mission. Besides that, there are some childhood dreams, things I know can make me happy and might also make others happy, which tend to lean more towards the arts, music, and similar fields.

Kevin: You mentioned childhood dreams. A few months ago, I discussed this topic with Kia Wong from Alliance DAO on a podcast. They believe that two traits are crucial when looking for star founders in the future of crypto. First, a certain degree of "autistic tendencies" that help people think independently; second, a childhood trauma that gives a person the drive of "I want to prove something to the world." As a very successful founder in the crypto space, do you identify with either of these traits or both?

Gavin: I don't have the qualifications to diagnose whether I have 'autistic tendencies.' However, my childhood was indeed not easy. So, I think I might identify with the 'childhood trauma' aspect.

Kevin: Would you like to talk a bit more about childhood trauma?

Gavin: I grew up in a single-parent family, with only my mother around. This was largely her choice. But she had a violent husband at the time, who was also my father, and this lasted for a while. I don't remember being physically abused, but I have very deep memories of that period, mainly a sense of abandonment. I don't know if this can be considered a type of trauma, nor am I sure what type of trauma it specifically belongs to. But I think it has given me a particularly deep appreciation for a "safe environment."

Kevin: More and more people are trying to understand the relationship between themselves and their childhood. I have discussed this topic a lot with people like Jesse Pollack and Mike Novogratz. Many people seek to understand the origins of their behavioral patterns through some form of therapy. It's not just to explain "oh, that's why I do this," but more for self-improvement, as we all want to become better. Have you done anything similar, like feeling that childhood has helped you in some ways but may not have been good in others, so you hope to learn more about yourself?

Gavin: As you mentioned earlier, I am indeed someone who likes to think and analyze things. So I have not been without deep thoughts about my life experiences during that stage and how those experiences might influence my current way of thinking or interpersonal interactions. But if you ask me whether I have undergone specific psychological therapy, hypnosis, or anything like that? No.

Where Do All Great Ideas Come From?

Kevin: You are a co-founder of Ethereum, created the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and the Solidity programming language, providing tools for developers to build smart contracts on Ethereum. You also founded Polkadot. How did you come up with these great ideas?

Gavin: I don't know. I think the ideas just came out on their own.

Kevin: Interesting. So, you don't need to deliberately do anything; they just come to you?

Gavin: Yes.

Kevin: Do you start with a goal or a plan?

Gavin: No.

Kevin: Or do you wake up one day and suddenly think, "This is what I want to do"?

Gavin: You could say that. Although "I must do this" might be a bit of an exaggeration. But indeed, there was a day when I was thinking about some things, like going for a walk or taking a shower, or maybe just thinking casually, and for some reason, the "puzzle pieces" of these ideas gradually came together.

Essentially, this is not like some people, such as Elon Musk, who might explicitly decide, "I want to go to Mars," and then start working backward to figure out what needs to be done: develop batteries, research rocket science, then develop this and that, set a clear roadmap, whether it's written in their mind or on paper, and then implement them one by one. For me, that approach doesn't quite fit my style.

My approach leans more towards incremental innovation. This doesn't mean I avoid making any significant changes; rather, I look for combinations of things based on what I already know, what I can see the effects of, and the components I can imagine exist or actually exist, to see if I can derive a result that seems meaningful and useful. And this result, at least in my view, hasn't been well realized before.

Kevin: I read a book by the famous surgeon and author of "Psycho-Cybernetics," Maxwell Maltz. The book is called "Psycho-Cybernetics," and it actually explains some parts of the creative process. He mentioned that most creativity actually comes from the subconscious. He said that when you clearly visualize something in your mind, your inner creative success mechanism takes over and does a better job than you could through conscious effort or willpower. So, for major ideas like the EVM or any other big ideas, how much comes from your conscious thinking? And how much comes from having an idea, setting some goals, and then relaxing to let your subconscious do the work?

Gavin: In my view, an "idea" doesn't mean I can just randomly think of a vision, like "eliminate world hunger," and then I sleep on it, letting my brain or subconscious do the work. Something will happen the next morning; it doesn't work that way, right?

Because if the "idea" you're talking about is a vision or a high-level goal, then it doesn't really qualify as a true "idea." It might be a concept for a movie, but it's not the kind of "idea" in an engineering sense. Therefore, I don't fully agree that the subconscious can provide significant help in this regard.

I believe that ideas must be constrained by practical feasibility.

If you don't have the resources to solve the hunger problem, then focusing on an idea of "eliminating hunger" doesn't make much sense. Of course, you might say, "We can take an incremental approach, do this first, then that." But that feels more like a top-down approach, starting from the end goal and then deducing how to achieve it. I think that approach is more like Elon Musk's style. He has immense wealth; I don't know if he's worth hundreds of billions or over a trillion now, but he can directly say, "Okay, I'm going to build a city there," or "I'm planning to spend $3 billion to eradicate malaria somewhere." Then he uses a very programmatic, rational, and unemotional corporate operation to solve the problem, assessing whether the resources are sufficient to achieve the goal. But as I said, this isn't an "idea"; it's just a "result."

A true "idea" is when you have a path, a way to achieve something. You might not know the exact details, but you know it's positive, potentially useful, and might help the world. You also believe that no one has thought of such an invention, or that no one has tried to combine existing fundamental elements in this way to create something new.

I think that's the real meaning behind what most people refer to when they talk about "inventors having an idea." They are referring to the recombination of basic elements.

Is Being Ahead of Your Time Equivalent to Being Wrong? Has Gavin Been Misunderstood?

Kevin: You're saying that combining these things and believing it will be useful to the world, right? But the problem with that is that for someone like an inventor, people may not understand you at all for a while, or even for a long time, right? I remember Howard Marks saying, "Being too ahead of your time is equivalent to being wrong." As an inventor, how many setbacks have you faced in life because you acted too early or were completely misunderstood by others?

Gavin: Probably quite a few, but I'm not sure. Can I really determine whether others misunderstood my meaning? Is the distinction between them misunderstanding you, ignoring you, or simply being too unintelligent to understand your concept almost impossible, or even forever impossible, clear? I don't know. I suspect there are some, but to some extent, I agree with that viewpoint (that being too ahead of your time is equivalent to being wrong). But did Howard Marks really say that? It doesn't sound like his style.

Kevin: I'll have to confirm that later, haha.

Gavin: But yes, I think if you want to build something that can immediately create value for the world, you must explain it in a way that the world already understands. This is also why most disruptive inventions are often initially used for a very simple, even seemingly childish use case. A classic example is that the internet was initially used to send emails. For instance, "Okay, now you can send messages, and these messages no longer take a day to arrive; they can arrive in minutes—assuming people check their inbox every few minutes."

The internet later had a huge impact on the world, and today, the role of email actually accounts for only a small part of the overall impact of the internet. But at that time, it was necessary because people understood mail, so they could understand that if the speed of information transmission increased by an order of magnitude, or even two or three orders of magnitude, that was clearly an improvement.

So, I would agree on this point: you need to explain your ideas in a way that the market or your target audience can understand.

Of course, the problem is that sometimes building something is much easier than figuring out its specific use.

Kevin: Isn't that the problem for most entrepreneurs? They usually create a product and then look for target users, rather than the other way around. They should ask themselves, "Am I solving a problem for people?" But you could also argue that those who provide solutions to existing problems are actually solving a smaller problem than a completely new invention.

Gavin: Yes, that's usually the case. And many times, they are limiting themselves. They restrict their wisdom and thinking space because they have already defined a clear scope. For example, they only focus on making a car go faster or consume less fuel. Maybe they could think of making the car fly, but that doesn't matter because their focus is solely on reducing fuel consumption.

So, I agree that if you have predetermined the outcome before you really start to conceive how to achieve your goal, you may only be able to solve smaller problems.

If your perspective is broader and you are a bit more "hands-off" about the specific results you want to achieve, like just trying to find ways to make things more free, efficient, or faster, then you might more quickly find some more revolutionary and substantial solutions.

Kevin: When do you think you have been most misunderstood? You mentioned that this might have happened many times, right?

Gavin: Well, I think it happens quite often when working on JAM. This is the new protocol I'm currently working on. But I think it's normal because it is indeed a complex protocol, and its operation is very different from previous ones. Understanding what makes it different and why it's better isn't always easy. A large part of the problem is that people may not truly understand the limitations of existing methods. This is a significant issue in cutting-edge technology development.

Even practitioners don't always clearly recognize the current state of technology, or that the current cutting edge is not optimal. Only when you analyze deeply and truly understand the existing problems can you more clearly understand why a certain solution might be effective.

Deep Understanding of Knowledge is Key to Major Breakthroughs

Kevin: So how do you start? Because if you follow the classic method, you have a problem and then go solve it. But if your idea is more abstract, how do you get started?

Gavin: If you start with "I have this problem, and I want to find a solution," I think that applies to smaller incremental problems.

For larger problems, you might need to be very lucky to stumble upon a solution. Or you could be like Bill Gates and say, "I'm going to invest my considerable wealth into this problem." But assuming you're not extremely lucky or extremely wealthy, you might just choose to start tackling smaller problems. Because there are many more small problems than large ones, and they are more segmented and detailed, so there are relatively fewer people focusing on them. This means these problems might be easier to solve and easier for you to discover and utilize.

So, I think this "top-down, define the outcome first" approach is more suitable for small problems and not for large problems, unless you have extremely rich resources or a great deal of luck.

That's why I would say you should start from the current state and analyze the existing "components."

When I say "components," I mean very abstract concepts, not just things that can be directly used in a literal sense, like the Rust programming language, an Android phone, or a CPU. It also includes:

• Various fields of mathematics

• Different branches of engineering

• Human perceptions of the world

• Goods and services already sold in the market

• Projects that have already been deployed

• Open-source software

All of these can be seen as "components" that you can leverage when building something. By combining these components, along with some novelty or creativity in knowledge, you can create something useful that might be used to solve one or more problems. I believe this is the essence of creation.

You can easily achieve this at a lower level. For example, I could write a new program that performs some kind of matching and create a trading bot with this program, which might achieve some success soon after. This is solving a relatively small problem.

Academic research typically operates at a higher level of abstraction. Scholars still attempt to solve problems by recombining ideas, adding a bit of intellectual creativity and innovation, but they are trying to address some "larger" issues (even though these problems are not always widely understood and may not seem very important). These issues are not necessarily the big problems that many people focus on, nor are they always practical problems that need to be solved. However, even so, they are still creating more useful human knowledge, which is meaningful in itself.

There are many classic examples, such as some theoretical research from the early 20th century that gave rise to laser theory, which ultimately led to the invention of CDs. Without this theoretical research, CDs could not have been invented. But at the time these studies were completed, no one knew what they would be useful for. For a long time, even for decades, they were almost "useless." Yet when they were finally applied, they sparked a revolution in audio technology.

I am not saying you should lock yourself in an ivory tower and only engage in highly abstract, seemingly purely theoretical work. What I want to express is that there is actually a spectrum between immediately practical things and seemingly purely theoretical things. And I myself probably sit somewhere in the middle of this spectrum.

I try to propose some new understandings in engineering that do not claim to "increase transaction volume by 10% the day after deployment." Instead, I hope that when applied correctly, it could become part of the next generation of systems, leading to a 1000% or even 1,000,000% increase in transaction volume.

Of course, you cannot be completely certain of this, as you are not solely pursuing a specific outcome. Rather, you are pursuing a profound understanding of knowledge. I believe that a better understanding of knowledge can itself lead to great results, and not just one great result, but potentially multiple significant outcomes.

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。