This interview mainly discussed 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 large blocks; the cultural differences between Ethereum and Bitcoin; why recognizing Ethereum as a world computer is meaningful; why blockchain is the only thing worth trusting; how the Russia-Ukraine war has had a significant impact on Vitalik himself.
Article author, source: Wu Talk Blockchain
This episode of the podcast features a conversation between Colin Wu, the founder of Wu Talk, and Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum. It mainly 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 large blocks; the cultural differences between Ethereum and Bitcoin; why recognizing Ethereum as a world computer is meaningful; why blockchain is the only thing worth trusting; how the Russia-Ukraine war has had a significant impact on Vitalik himself.
It should be noted that Vitalik was interviewed in Chinese, which is not his native language, and some expressions may not be entirely accurate; we appreciate the reader's understanding and tolerance.
Recall China: Wanxiang may have saved Ethereum's life, a deep memory of CoinHu.
Colin: The first question is about your experience in China. In 2014-2015, can you recall that experience? At that time, you interacted with many people in the Chinese crypto circle, such as Wanxiang and Shen Bo, who are still one of the most supportive teams of Ethereum in China. I heard that many people rejected you at that time, including some who are now very famous. Can you share your experiences from that time?
Vitalik: I first came to China in 2014 and stayed for three weeks, visiting Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Shenzhen, meeting many Chinese teams, many exchanges, and many miners, as well as some projects. I remember I visited Huobi and OKCOIN, seeing that these companies were already very large, with more employees than exchanges like Coinbase and Kraken.
I found that China has a highly developed ecosystem with many large companies, whereas no one is doing these things abroad. I also discovered that at that time, there were already many miners in China. In 2014, there were not many applications, but by 2015, I had a lot of interaction with teams like Wanxiang and Shen Bo. I spent almost two months in Shanghai, and they were working on some very interesting applications.
One of the companies worked on the digitization of partial assets, putting part of the assets into a coin, where each coin might represent 1/1000 or 1/10000 of that asset. This way, different people can participate in investing in some very expensive assets.
In 2017, there were some very large projects in China, and I remember CoinHu was one of them. At that time, they had already come up with very interesting solutions to support creators with digital currency, bringing revenue to content creators. What impressed me was that they were not just doing a demo but were creating a real, usable application that already had many users.
In 2014, I saw miners, but by 2015, I saw more practical applications. I felt that there were many particularly interesting people in this community, while the attention from abroad was relatively lacking. Therefore, I believe that 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 nearly exhausted, and even Bitcoin was running low, so we needed to sell Ether to support the developers. Wanxiang purchased 410,000 Ether at a price of $1.20, spending a total of $500,000 to support our foundation. This event was very important for the foundation and may have 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 the time. Unfortunately, CoinHu later shut down. But in the past two years, decentralized social media has only started to become popular.
Vitalik: There are some regulatory situations in China, but I found that there are similar issues abroad. Many interesting projects started in 2015 and 2016, but by 2020, their development was still restricted. A significant part of the reason is the issue of transaction fees. If these projects want to truly develop and become mainstream applications, they must have the necessary TPS. A successful application might require 100 to 1,000 TPS, but our chain at that time could only support 4 to 5 TPS.
Many applications are competing to put their transactions on the chain, so transaction fees have become very expensive. In this case, it seems that only DeFi can survive.
You can imagine, if you are an ordinary social media user and discover a novel social media application, but you have to pay $1, $5, or sometimes even $15 for every post or any action you take, then this is completely unfeasible. But for financial applications, this is not a problem. So I think it's a pity that many decentralized social and other projects did not survive during the DeFi Summer.
However, now we have many L2 solutions that have significantly lowered transaction costs. Many people are currently paying more attention to topics related to L2. I look forward to seeing decentralized social media and many other projects 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: Well, sure.
Recalling BCH: the ideals of large blocks are correct, but the execution capability is insufficient.
Colin: The next question I want to discuss with you is that I remember you were quite supportive of large blocks in the debate over Bitcoin's block size. BCH was born in 2017, which brought this dispute to its peak. You have recently written articles mentioning that you have had many new thoughts on this issue, believing that the failure of large blocks may be due to insufficient technical and execution capabilities, as well as the emergence of fraudsters like Craig Wright. Can you recall your interactions with Wu Jihan, Roger, and others at that time? What new perspectives do you have on this matter now?
Vitalik: Regarding this issue, it's indeed interesting. Unfortunately, my Chinese wasn't good enough at that time, so I didn't have the opportunity to delve into understanding Wu Jihan and other supporters of large blocks. I didn't have the chance to truly understand their personalities, why they supported large blocks, and what their vision for Bitcoin was.
Roger Ver is relatively simpler; he is not the kind of 'scholar type' who reads a lot of books or writes articles. He is a more practical person, knowing 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 perspective is relatively simple and direct.
On the other hand, some people who lean more towards the 'academic type' often think about longer-term issues, exploring matters that others are unwilling to consider. These strong thinkers can sometimes bring very important ideas to the world; without them, we might make much larger mistakes.
But they sometimes get caught up in their own world, lacking sufficient exposure to external realities. This is similar to how some people criticize our Ethereum core developers, asking how many smart contracts you have participated in, how many DApps you have written. Similar situations can occur in many fields, especially in 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 matters that are crucial to people.
In the debates about small blocks 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 paid more attention to technical details, being more developers and researchers. This created a conflict.
In the article I wrote later, I mentioned that my current conclusion is that the ideals of large blocks are indeed correct, but the execution capability of large block supporters is indeed insufficient. Many large block supporters made many mistakes while writing code, which is also why the community eventually started to support small blocks.
But later we found that supporters of small blocks also made significant mistakes. For example, they argued that Bitcoin should be L1, as digital gold, while L2 could serve as the payment layer. The L2 they referred to is 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 issues, is relatively unstable, and its implementation is also relatively centralized. Roger Ver’s book describes these issues.
So from an academic perspective, the concept of large blocks is very beautiful, but in the real world, there are many problems.
Supporters of small blocks have not genuinely focused on the importance of payments and applications. They believe that others care about payment issues, and their task is to provide a technical solution to meet those needs. However, they have not put in enough effort to think about whether this solution can truly be realized.
So now the development of the Lightning Network is relatively slow; although there has been some progress recently, most people in the Bitcoin community are still focused on the price of Bitcoin, thinking more about when Bitcoin can reach the goal of one million dollars. Their greatest hero is Michael Saylor because his company has purchased a large amount of Bitcoin.
Therefore, I am not optimistic about the technological development of the Bitcoin community.
The price logic of Bitcoin and other currencies is much more complex; in fact, no one knows exactly where the price of digital currency comes from. This may be the biggest problem in our industry and an important issue in modern markets.
The cultural differences between Bitcoin and Ethereum: tycoons and developers?
Colin: You recently posted some interesting content that I shared the other day, and many people found it intriguing, which is that you used GPT to generate representations of Bitcoin and Ethereum people. The Bitcoin side is portrayed as a wealthy tycoon, while the Ethereum side is depicted as a developer. It seems that the most important thing for Bitcoin holders is to make their coins more and more valuable, becoming wealthier themselves.
But many supporters of Ethereum seem not to care much about money, making many donations, perhaps more focused on the hope of establishing better public goods. Is this also a cultural difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum?
Vitalik: This is indeed an interesting topic. In fact, from 2011 to 2013, the Bitcoin community was very diverse. I remember in 2011, when I entered the Bitcoin community, there was a section on the Bitcoin forum called 'Politics and Society,' which I particularly liked. There were some libertarians and socialists there who debated each other, discussing how to handle healthcare issues and whether the government should intervene in the healthcare sector, among other very interesting issues. People had very different views on these matters.
When everyone debates these topics, it is very civil. If you know about the debates on Twitter now, you will find that this kind of civil debate is almost impossible. But in that forum, everyone could express their views very civilly, even though my views may completely differ from yours. At that time, if you wanted to reply to a post, it might involve writing an article of about 300 words, and you needed to seriously articulate your views rather than just making simple comments. This culture is very special.
The early community culture of Bitcoin actually had a lot of focus on public goods, the future of humanity's technology and ideas. However, by 2014, the Bitcoin community began to split.
Why did it split? The reason is obvious. Before 2014, Bitcoin had almost no competitors. If you were interested in digital currencies, your only choice was Bitcoin. But by 2014, the debate over large blocks and small blocks first arose; secondly, Ethereum emerged 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 way of thinking and the early Ethereum mentality chose Ethereum. If you prefer the Bitcoin community, you will naturally stay in the Bitcoin community.
By 2017, everyone needed to make a choice: to support the small-block Bitcoin or the large-block Bitcoin. But in reality, as early as 2015, everyone had already made their choice. So now, we can roughly see at least two, if not three, blockchain cultures existing. Now, there are even more other projects like BNB, Solana, TRON, each with their unique characteristics and different cultures from Bitcoin and Ethereum. The current situation is somewhat akin to the cultural differences between different countries before the internet, which had huge cultural gaps.
I prefer the term and concept of 'world computer.'
Colin: If, as you said, the diversity of Bitcoin has now become less, people may only see it as digital gold. So if you were to describe Ethereum, what would you tell everyone you hope Ethereum is? Is it a network nation, or the decentralized world computer that people often talk about? What kind of existence do you hope it to be?
Vitalik: I actually prefer the term and concept of 'world computer' because to me, it represents many things. I hope Ethereum is not just a chain, but also an ecosystem that can support various applications.
This reminds me of an interesting point from the early Ethereum culture: when I first started with Ethereum, I thought of it as Bitcoin plus smart contracts. Because before that, I was part of the Bitcoin community and participated in other projects, trying to add functionalities to the blockchain. I had an idea: why not add a programming language that allows everyone to write various functionalities? So when I started with Ethereum, my initial 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 actually more straightforward; what he wanted was a combination of open-source technology and shared storage. I can explain this concept in more detail.
We can look back at the history of software. Initially, all our applications were open source and free, allowing everyone to download and run them on their computers, checking and modifying the source code at any time.
But after the 1950s, some large companies began to participate in the field, such as Microsoft launching the Windows operating system and no longer publicly sharing source code, claiming that their code was copyrighted and could not be copied. This phenomenon made many people unhappy because previously, all software in the computing field allowed users to fully own and modify it, just like owning a car where you could modify any part or repair any damage. However, 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 was technically theirs, it did not fully belong to them. This spurred the rise of a free software movement.
By the late 1990s, open-source software became an important topic; many software applications today are open-source, such as the operating system I am using to talk to you now, which is a completely open-source example. Today, open-source software plays an important role in our lives.
However, before the 2000s, most applications were standalone applications used by users individually, similar to Microsoft Word or single-player games. After 2000, many collaborative applications emerged, such as Google Docs, which differs from Microsoft Word in that it allows multiple people to edit files simultaneously. Games also underwent significant changes, with large-scale multiplayer online games (MMORPG) like World of Warcraft enabling players to interact in a virtual world.
This change brings up a question: if many people use an application together, then that application needs shared storage. For example, in a collaborative document, where is the file stored? In social networks, where is the user's information stored? These problems can usually only be solved through centralized servers. The biggest problem with centralized servers is that users cannot fully control their digital lives.
For example, the file format of Microsoft Word is proprietary and difficult to edit with other software. If all important information and operations are on a centralized server, it will lead to an even worse situation. A centralized company can change rules, raise prices, or even shut down services at any time, just like 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 replacing the business of other companies.
Gavin Wood thought about these issues and believed that creating a decentralized shared storage system might solve these problems and could become the second version of free and open-source software. He found this to be an interesting 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, decentralized social networking and decentralized document editing applications have started to emerge, such as DDocs (a decentralized Google Docs).
This idea is very attractive, but some people might say, is Ethereum a digital nation? I think this concept is somewhat exaggerated because the services provided by a nation are far more than what Ethereum can offer. Ethereum is just a collection of digital programs, while normal nations address broader issues, including security, education, healthcare, and various public goods. If Ethereum starts to get involved 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 want to talk to you about a politically related topic. Last year, the US approved Ethereum's ETF, which was actually something that surprised everyone because Trump had not yet taken office at that time. What do you think about this issue? From your perspective, would you deliberately maintain some distance from countries like China and the US? Because you have expressed that you believe blockchain and cryptocurrencies are best utilized in places where centralized powers are not so strong. Did the Russia-Ukraine war have a significant impact on many of your ideas? It seems that you have become very actively involved since this incident happened.
Vitalik: First of all, I believe that blockchain belongs to the 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 instance, in the US, 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 have many applications. Thus, the greatest advantage of blockchain is that it can function in places where trust issues are particularly severe.
Argentina is a very interesting example. The biggest problem Argentina faces is inflation, with an annual average inflation rate of 30%. They have become accustomed to living in such an economic environment for a long time and have completely lost faith in fiat currency. Recently, some people in Argentina deposited dollars into local banks, only to have the government suddenly announce that all dollars in the banks would be forcibly exchanged for local currency, and the value of this currency fluctuated two to three times on the same day.
This situation has led everyone to completely lose trust in banks. Argentina also has difficulties in connecting with the international financial system. While the financial systems in the US, China, and Europe are very developed, Argentina, like many African countries, has relatively few opportunities to engage with the global financial system. In these marginal areas, blockchain might play the greatest role as it addresses trust issues. This is a trust issue, especially the trust between nations.
Ten or fifteen years ago, most people in the world used American services. At that time, no one particularly paid attention to these issues because the US emphasized freedom of speech and openness, and behavior on platforms was relatively tolerant, not easily shutting down accounts.
But in the last ten years, the situation has changed, especially after the 2013 Snowden incident and the 2020 account closures for political reasons. 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 this ever-changing world, I believe that blockchain and related technologies have significant advantages. In recent years, I have spent a lot of time in marginal areas, such as Argentina, Thailand, Montenegro, and Turkey, because I believe blockchain should be an international phenomenon. We should not let it become an increasingly centralized technology. So I recently had an idea: if a blockchain is theoretically decentralized and free, but if most teams are concentrated in the same place and share the same values, then during the next crisis, they might make mistakes and ultimately lose global trust. So, I will be more concerned about this issue.
The Russia-Ukraine war completely changed me. Returning to Russia might lead to imprisonment.
Vitalik: The outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war really surprised me. A month after it happened, I saw information saying that the Russian army was near Ukraine, starting to mobilize troops and tanks. I never expected such a major event to occur; I thought Russia was only concerned about issues like NATO expansion, wanting to express that they were powerful and deserving of respect, and did not want others to do things they disliked. But I didn't expect them to completely invade a country, or if an invasion occurred, to happen gradually like in 2014.
But by early February, when I communicated with some Russians, they also felt that nothing major would happen. Until February 24, I remember I was in Denver at the time, and in the evening I watched the news, and by then everyone basically knew that a major conflict would occur. When this actually happened, my thoughts changed significantly, and I had no idea how to express it.
I can first explain what happened. Around 6 PM on February 23, all my activities for the day were over, and I was sitting in my hotel room communicating with my father. We knew that Russia might take some significant actions. After 7 PM, my dad sent me a message saying that Russian rockets had begun to strike buildings in eastern Ukraine. At that moment, I realized that real events were starting to unfold.
Next, I went three or four hours without sleeping. Normally, I would return to the hotel to rest, but that night I hardly slept until midnight, constantly watching the news. Then I posted my first tweet, expressing my complete opposition to this event, updating the information almost every minute, completely shocked and stunned.
The next morning when I woke up, I was shocked once 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 whether Russian hackers had hacked into Ukraine's Twitter account and then published an address controlled by Russia.
So I warned everyone on Twitter to be careful, as this might be a hacker act, and not to trade casually. At the same time, I began to contact some people I knew, especially those connected to big cities, to confirm the authenticity of this address.
Later, I confirmed through a person close to the US government and through a Ukrainian team that this address was real and that everyone could donate. I posted a second tweet to clarify my previous mistake.
An hour later, my family sent me a message saying, 'You know, now that you've made this decision, you might not be able to return to Russia in the future.'
At that moment, I realized that not only was I witnessing this war, but I had already become deeply involved. Now, for me, returning to my country of birth may mean facing immense risks, and I might even face a sentence of 10 to 15 years.
At that time, I felt that I was no longer a child.
I am facing a significant historical event, and I have now clearly chosen a side, not only in terms of my stance on the war but also in terms of who I support and oppose. This has brought a tremendous change to my personal life. I started not knowing how to think.
At first, I donated some money to Ukraine, and a month later, I saw the news and learned that Russia had occupied a city, and innocent Ukrainians were killed, possibly 500 to 1000 people. That situation made me extremely angry.
So I decided to donate again, this time donating $5 million. This decision made me more resolute in my stance; my feelings were almost the same as on February 24.
War is common in history, but in our personal lives, such large-scale warfare is completely abnormal. This is our first time facing such a severe conflict. Therefore, in this situation, even though I was initially a bit lost and didn't know what to do, I knew that at such moments, those who need help should receive it. If good people do nothing, bad ones will prevail. So I did my best to help Ukraine in any way I could.
