This interview primarily discusses the following issues: recalling the story of Ethereum's connection with China, emphasizing Wanxiang's 'life-saving' support and memories of CoinHu; discussing the reasons for the failure of BCH's large block; the cultural differences between Ethereum and Bitcoin; why recognizing Ethereum as a world computer is a concept; why blockchain is the only thing worth trusting; and how the Russo-Ukrainian war has greatly changed Vitalik himself.
Author and source: Wu Says Blockchain
This episode's podcast features Colin Wu, founder of Wu Says, in conversation with Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, primarily discussing the following issues: recalling the story of Ethereum's connection with China, emphasizing Wanxiang's 'life-saving' support and memories of CoinHu; discussing the reasons for the failure of BCH's large block; the cultural differences between Ethereum and Bitcoin; why recognizing Ethereum as a world computer is a concept; why blockchain is the only thing worth trusting; and how the Russo-Ukrainian war has greatly changed Vitalik himself.
It should be noted that Vitalik was interviewed in Chinese, which is not his native language, so some expressions may not be entirely accurate; readers are asked to understand and be tolerant.
Recalling China: Wanxiang may have saved Ethereum’s life; profound memories of CoinHu.
Colin: The first question is about your experience coming to China. From 2014 to 2015, can you recall that experience? At that time, you interacted with many people in the Chinese cryptocurrency space, such as Wanxiang and Shen Bo, who are still among the most supportive teams of Ethereum in China. I heard that many people rejected you back then, including some who are very famous now. Can you share your experiences from that time?
Vitalik: I first came to China in 2014, I stayed for three weeks, and visited Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Shenzhen, meeting many Chinese teams, many exchanges, many miners, and some projects. I remember visiting Huobi and OKCOIN, and seeing that these companies were already very large, with more employees than exchanges like Coinbase and Kraken.
I found that China has a very developed ecosystem with many large companies, while no one was doing these things abroad. I also discovered that there were already many miners in China at that time; in 2014, there were not many applications, but by 2015, I had many contacts with teams like Wanxiang and Shen Bo. I spent almost two months in Shanghai, where they were working on some very interesting applications.
One company was digitizing part of the assets, putting part of the assets into a coin, each coin possibly representing 1/1000 or 1/10000 of that asset. This way, different people could participate in investing in some very expensive assets.
In 2017, there were some large projects in China, and I remember CoinHu was one of them. At that time, they had already developed very interesting solutions to support creators with digital currencies, bringing revenue to content creators. What impressed me was that they were not just doing a demo but were creating a practical application that everyone could use and already had many users.
In 2014, I saw miners, and by 2015, I saw more practical applications. I felt that there were many particularly interesting people in this community, and relatively little attention was paid to this community abroad. So I believe 2015 was a particularly important period for the Ethereum community.
After the Ethereum main chain was launched in 2015, the foundation had almost no funds. Our cash was almost depleted, and we were running out of Bitcoin, so we needed to sell Ether to support developers. Wanxiang bought 410,000 Ether at a price of $1.2, totaling $500,000 to support our foundation. This was very important for the foundation and possibly saved it, and for Wanxiang, it was also a very good investment.
Colin: Yes, CoinHu is indeed an important supporter of Ethereum, and its founder was very influential in China at that time. Unfortunately, CoinHu later shut down. But these two years, decentralized social media has only started to become relatively popular.
Vitalik: There are some regulatory situations in China, but I find similar issues abroad as well. Many interesting projects started in 2015 and 2016, but by 2020, their development remained limited. A large part of the reason is the issue of transaction fees. If these projects want to truly develop and become mainstream applications, they need the necessary TPS. A successful application might require 100 to 1,000 TPS, but our chain could only support 4 to 5 TPS at that time.
Many applications are competing, all wanting to place their transactions on the chain, causing transaction fees to become extremely expensive. In this situation, it seems that only DeFi can survive.
You can imagine that if you are an ordinary social media user and discover a novel social media application, but you have to pay $1, $5, or even $15 for every post or action, then this is completely unfeasible. But for financial applications, this does not pose a problem. So I feel it is unfortunate that many decentralized social and other projects did not survive during the DeFi Summer.
However, now we have many L2 solutions, and their transaction fees have decreased significantly. Many people are now paying more attention to discussions about L2. I am very optimistic, including decentralized social media and many other projects, that they can become active in the future.
Colin: Maybe you can talk to the founder of CoinHu and see if you can get him to restart CoinHu; now is a good time.
Vitalik: Sure, that’s fine.
Recalling BCH: The ideals of large blocks are more correct, but execution capability is insufficient.
Colin: The next question I want to discuss with you is that I remember you were relatively supportive of large blocks during the Bitcoin block size debate. BCH was born in 2017, bringing this dispute to a climax. You recently wrote an article mentioning that you have gained many new insights on this issue, believing the reasons for the failure of large blocks may be due to insufficient technical capability and execution, as well as the emergence of scammers like Craig Wright. Can you recall your interactions with Wu Jihan, Roger, and others at that time? What are your new thoughts on this matter now?
Vitalik: Regarding this issue, it is indeed interesting. Unfortunately, my Chinese wasn't good enough at that time, so I didn’t have the opportunity to deeply understand Wu Jihan and other supporters of large blocks. I did not have the chance to truly understand their personalities, why they supported large blocks, and what their vision of Bitcoin was.
Roger Ver is relatively straightforward; he is not the kind of 'scholar' who reads many books or writes articles. He is a more practical person, who understands that the value of Bitcoin lies in its existence as a new currency. If a currency is to be used for payments, it needs enough block space to support a large number of transactions. Therefore, his viewpoint is relatively simple and direct.
On the other hand, some people who lean towards 'academic' thinking often contemplate longer-term issues and explore matters that others are unwilling to consider. These capable thinkers sometimes bring very important ideas to the world. Without them, we might make bigger mistakes.
But they sometimes get caught up in their own world and lack sufficient contact with external realities. This is similar to how some people criticize us Ethereum core developers, asking how many smart contracts you have participated in and how many DApps you have written. Similar situations occur in many fields, especially in areas like blockchain and politics.
These capable thinkers, if they do not have enough contact with the real world, often have very 'internally consistent' views but overlook some things that are crucial to people.
In the debates over small and large blocks from 2015 to 2016, the Chinese community sometimes mentioned these issues. Large block supporters often emphasized that they cared more about users and focused on the real world, while small block supporters were more concerned with technical details, being more developers and researchers. Thus, this caused conflicts.
In the article I wrote later, I mentioned that my current conclusion is that the ideals of large blocks are more correct, but the execution capability of large block supporters is indeed insufficient. Many large block supporters made many mistakes when writing code, which is also why the community eventually began to support small blocks.
But later we found that small block supporters also made significant mistakes. For instance, they at the time said Bitcoin should be L1, serving as digital gold, while L2 could be the payment layer. The L2 they mentioned refers to the Lightning Network. The Lightning Network is a very interesting concept, and I personally appreciate this idea.
However, the actual implementation of the Lightning Network has many problems, is relatively unstable, and its implementation is also quite centralized. Roger Ver's book describes these issues as well.
So from an academic perspective, the concept of large blocks is very beautiful, but there are many problems in the real world.
Supporters of small blocks have not truly focused on the importance of payments and applications. They believe that others care about payment issues while their task is to provide a technical solution to meet those needs. But they have not put enough effort into thinking about whether this solution can truly be implemented.
So now the development of the Lightning Network is relatively slow; although there have been some recent advancements, most people in the Bitcoin community are still focused on Bitcoin's price, thinking more about when Bitcoin can reach the goal of $1 million. Their biggest hero is Michael Saylor because his company has bought a large amount of Bitcoin.
Therefore, I am not optimistic about the technological development of the Bitcoin community now.
The price logic of Bitcoin and other currencies is much more complex; in fact, no one knows where the price of digital currencies actually comes from. This might be the biggest problem in our industry and an important issue in modern markets.
The cultural differences between Bitcoin and Ethereum: the wealthy and the developers?
Colin: You recently posted some quite interesting content, which I retweeted the other day. Many people found it fascinating, which was you generated characters for Bitcoin and Ethereum using GPT. On the Bitcoin side, there is a wealthy person, while on the Ethereum side, there is a developer. It seems that the most important thing for Bitcoin holders is to make their coins more valuable and become wealthier.
But many Ethereum supporters seem not to care much about money; they have made many donations and may be more focused on hoping to establish better public goods. Is this also a cultural difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum?
Vitalik: This is indeed an interesting topic. Actually, from 2011 to 2013, the Bitcoin community was very diverse. I remember in 2011 when I entered the Bitcoin community, I found a section on the Bitcoin forum called 'Politics and Society,' which I particularly liked. There were some libertarians and socialists debating and discussing how to handle healthcare issues, whether the government should intervene in the healthcare industry, and other very interesting questions. Everyone had very different views on these issues.
Everyone debates these topics very civilly. If you know the current debates on Twitter, you will find that this kind of civil debate is almost impossible. But in that forum, everyone could express their views civilly, even though my views might completely differ from yours. Back then, if you wanted to reply to a post, you might have to write an article of about 300 words, needing to carefully articulate your point rather than just make a simple comment. This culture is very special.
The early community culture of Bitcoin actually focused a lot on public goods, human future technologies, and ideas. However, by 2014, the Bitcoin community began to split.
Why did this division occur? The reason is obvious. Before 2014, Bitcoin had almost no competitors. If you were interested in digital currency, Bitcoin was your only choice. But by 2014, the debate over large blocks and small blocks first emerged; secondly, Ethereum appeared as the first currency that could compete with Bitcoin. To this day, Ethereum remains the only currency that can truly compete with Bitcoin.
So some who prefer my early Ethereum thinking chose Ethereum. If you prefer the Bitcoin community, you will naturally stay in the Bitcoin community.
By 2017, everyone had to make a choice: to support small block Bitcoin or large block Bitcoin. But in fact, as early as 2015, everyone had already made their choice. So now, we can roughly see at least two, or even three blockchain cultures existing. Currently, there are many other projects, such as BNB, Solana, TRON, each with its unique characteristics and cultural differences from Bitcoin and Ethereum. The current situation is somewhat akin to the cultural differences between different countries, much like the enormous cultural gaps that existed between different nations before the internet.
I prefer the term and concept of 'world computer'.
Colin: If, as you said, the diversity of Bitcoin has diminished, and people now may only see it as digital gold, then how would you describe Ethereum? Would you tell everyone you wish Ethereum to be a network nation, or a decentralized world computer as often said? What kind of existence do you hope it to be?
Vitalik: I actually prefer the term and concept of 'world computer' because for me, it represents many things. I hope Ethereum is not just a chain but an ecosystem that can support various applications.
This reminds me of an interesting point in the early Ethereum culture: when I started working on Ethereum, I thought of it as Bitcoin plus smart contracts. Before that, I was part of the Bitcoin community and participated in some other projects, trying to add functionalities to the blockchain. I had the idea: why add functionality? Why not add a programming language that allows everyone to use it to write various functionalities? So when I started working on Ethereum, my original intention was Bitcoin plus smart contracts. However, our core developer Gavin Wood had no interest in Bitcoin at all before joining Ethereum. He found Bitcoin very boring. His understanding of Ethereum was more direct; he wanted a combination of open-source technology and shared storage. I can explain this concept in more detail.
We can review the history of software; initially, all our applications were open-source and free, allowing everyone to download freely, run on their computers, and view or modify the source code at any time.
However, entering the 1950s, some large companies began to participate in this field, like Microsoft launching the Windows operating system, and they no longer made their source code public, claiming ownership rights over their code, which could not be copied at will. This phenomenon dissatisfied many people because all software prior to this had allowed users to completely own and modify it, just like owning a car; you could modify any part and repair any damaged sections. But when the computer field became controlled by large companies, many people could no longer freely control the applications and software they purchased, even though the software belonged to them, it did not fully belong to them. This prompted the rise of a free software movement.
By the late 1990s, open-source software had become an important topic; today, many software applications are open source, for example, the operating system I am currently using to converse with you is a completely open-source example. Nowadays, open-source software plays an important role in our lives.
However, before the 2000s, most applications were standalone applications, where users used software individually, similar to Microsoft Word or single-player games. After 2000, many collaborative applications emerged, such as Google Docs, which differed from Microsoft Word in that Google Docs allows multiple users to edit files simultaneously. Gaming also changed significantly, with large-scale multiplayer online games (MMORPGs) like World of Warcraft enabling players to interact in a virtual world.
This change raises a question: if many people use an application together, then that application needs shared storage. For example, in collaboratively edited documents, where is the storage location of the files? In social networks, where is the information of users stored? These questions can usually only be solved through centralized servers. The biggest issue with centralized servers is that users cannot fully control their digital lives.
For example, the file format of Microsoft Word is proprietary, making it difficult to edit these files with other software. And if all important information and operations are on a centralized server, it would lead to an even worse situation. A centralized company can change the rules, raise prices, or even shut down services at any time. This is similar to some startups relying on Facebook or Twitter's API; if any of these applications succeed, Facebook or Twitter can easily compete by modifying the API, quickly taking over the business of other companies.
Gavin Wood thought about these issues. He believes that creating a decentralized shared storage system might solve these problems and could become the second version of free and open-source software. He finds this a fascinating topic, and I also think it's meaningful because blockchain is not just a financial tool; it can also play a huge role in the software field. Now, applications like decentralized social media and decentralized document editing have started to emerge, such as DDocs (a decentralized Google Docs).
This idea is very appealing, but some people would say, is Ethereum a digital nation? I think this concept is a bit exaggerated because the services provided by a nation are much more than what Ethereum can offer. Ethereum is just a collection of digital programs, while a normal nation addresses broader issues, including security, education, healthcare, and various public goods. If Ethereum starts to intervene in all these areas, it will no longer be neutral, which might reduce people's willingness to participate in the Ethereum ecosystem.
The only thing worth trusting is the blockchain.
Colin: I would like to discuss another political-related topic with you. Last year, the U.S. approved Ethereum's ETF, which was quite surprising to everyone because Trump had not yet taken office. What do you think about this issue? From your perspective, would you deliberately keep some distance from countries like China and the United States? Because you have also expressed that you believe blockchain and cryptocurrencies are best utilized in places where centralized power is not as strong. Has the Russo-Ukrainian war greatly impacted many of your thoughts? It seems that you have been very actively involved since this incident occurred.
Vitalik: First, I think blockchain belongs to the whole world. A very important advantage of blockchain is that it can solve trust issues. If you look at other industries, such as AI, there may only be a few centers—Silicon Valley, London, or Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shenzhen in China. But blockchain is very decentralized. For example, in the U.S., some applications are concentrated in New York and Silicon Valley; there are also very important centers in Berlin; in Asia, places like Singapore and China also have many applications. Therefore, the greatest advantage of blockchain is that it can play a role in areas where trust issues are particularly severe.
Argentina is a very interesting example. The biggest problem Argentina faces is inflation, with an average annual inflation rate of 30%. They have become accustomed to living in such an economic environment for a long time and have completely lost confidence in fiat currency. Recently, some people in Argentina deposited dollars in local banks, only for the government to suddenly announce that all dollars in banks would be forcibly converted to fiat currency, and the value of those fiat currencies changed by 2 to 3 times on the same day.
This situation made everyone lose complete trust in banks. Argentina also faces problems with integrating into the international financial system. While the financial systems of the United States, China, and Europe are very developed, Argentina, like many African countries, has relatively few opportunities to access the global financial system. In these border areas, blockchain might play the most significant role because it addresses the trust issue. This is a trust issue, especially the trust issue between nations.
Ten years ago, fifteen years ago, most people in the world were using American services. At that time, no one paid much attention to these issues because the U.S. emphasizes free speech and openness, and behaviors on platforms were relatively tolerant, and accounts would not be easily shut down.
But in the last decade, things have changed, especially after the Snowden incident in 2013 and the issue of account closures for political reasons in 2020. Nowadays, there is no decentralized platform that is trusted globally, perhaps the only thing that can achieve this is blockchain. Because blockchain is the foundation of trust, ensuring that platforms do not arbitrarily shut down accounts, steal user funds, or leak personal information.
Therefore, in today’s volatile world, I think blockchain and related technologies have great advantages. I have spent a lot of time in border areas in recent years, such as Argentina, Thailand, Montenegro, and Turkey, because I believe that blockchain should be something internationalized. We should not let it become an increasingly centralized technology. So I have had an idea recently: if a blockchain is theoretically decentralized and free, but most teams are concentrated in one place with the same values, then when the next crisis occurs, they might make mistakes and ultimately lose global trust. So I am quite concerned about this.
The Russo-Ukrainian war completely changed me. Returning to Russia could mean facing imprisonment.
Vitalik: The outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian war really surprised me. When it first happened a month later, I saw information saying that Russian troops were near Ukraine, beginning to mobilize troops and tanks. I never expected such a significant event to occur. I thought Russia was only concerned about some issues, such as NATO's expansion; they just wanted to express that they are strong, deserve respect, and do not want others to do things they dislike. But I did not expect them to completely invade a country or, if they were to invade, to do so gradually as in 2014.
But by early February, when I communicated with some Russians, they also felt that nothing significant would happen. Until February 24, I remember I was in Denver, and I watched the news that evening; at that time, everyone basically knew that a major conflict would occur. When this actually happened, my thoughts changed significantly, and I didn't know how to express it.
I can first explain what happened. Around 6 PM on February 23, all my activities for that day had ended, and I was sitting in my hotel room communicating with my father. We knew that Russia might make some big moves. Around 7 PM, my dad sent me a message saying that Russian rockets had begun to strike buildings in Eastern Ukraine. At that moment, I knew that significant events were starting to unfold.
After that, I didn’t sleep for three or four hours. Normally, I would return to the hotel to rest, but that night I hardly slept until midnight, constantly checking for updates. Then I sent my first tweet, expressing my complete opposition to this matter, and updated information almost every minute, completely stunned.
The next morning, I was shocked again. Why? Because the official Twitter account of Ukraine published an Ethereum address. My first reaction was, how could a national government directly publish a transaction address on Twitter? I suspected that Russian hackers had hacked into Ukraine's Twitter account and published an address controlled by Russia.
So I warned everyone on Twitter to be cautious, as this might be a hacking incident, and advised not to trade casually. Meanwhile, I started contacting some people I knew, especially those connected to large cities, to confirm the authenticity of this address.
Later, through a person close to the U.S. government and a Ukrainian team, I confirmed that this address was genuine and that everyone could donate. I published a second tweet clarifying my previous mistake.
An hour later, my family sent me a message saying, 'You know, by making this decision, you might not be able to return to Russia in the future.'
At that moment, I realized that I was not just a witness to this war; I had become deeply involved. Now returning to my birth country could mean facing enormous risks, even a sentence of 10 to 15 years.
At that time, I felt that I was no longer a child.
I am facing a major historical event, and I have now clearly chosen a side, not just regarding my attitude towards the war but also whom I support and oppose. This has brought huge changes to my personal life. I began to not know how to think.
At first, I donated some money to Ukraine, but a month later, I saw the news and learned that Russian forces had occupied a city, and innocent Ukrainians were killed, possibly 500 to 1,000 people. That situation made me very angry.
So I decided to donate again; this time I donated $5 million. This decision made me more determined in my stance, and my feelings were almost the same as on February 24.
War is common in history, but in our personal lives, such large-scale wars are completely abnormal. This is our first time facing such a severe conflict. So in this situation, although I was initially confused and didn’t know what to do, I knew that at such a moment, those who needed help should be helped. If good people do nothing, bad people will prevail. So I tried my best to help Ukraine in any way I could.
