YouTube：

In this interview, Bruce, host of ETHPanda Talk, discusses the future of digital society 100 years from now with Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin. ETHPanda, a non-profit for Chinese-speaking Ethereum builders, covers topics like decentralized identity (DID), the evolution of credit systems, global identity shifts, AI-human collaboration, Ethereum nodes on Mars, cryptography’s future, and open-source funding. The article was compiled by Wu Blockchain with permission from ETHPanda.

Vitalik also shared his interest in longevity technology, explaining how his diet and exercise support his health. The conversation touched on Bitcoin’s “civil war” and its parallels with real-world nationalization.

He emphasized the vast potential of future digital societies in areas like blockchain, decentralized collaboration, and AI, encouraging people to help drive technological and societal progress. The interview ended with Vitalik humorously comparing Ethereum to a “more fun game,” inspiring continued support for the ecosystem.

The audio transcription was generated by GPT, so there may be some errors. Please listen to the full podcast:

YouTube：

Spotify：https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/SqxN9i0QJNb

Full Interview:

Opening and Introduction

Bruce:

Hello, everyone, and welcome to ETHPanda Talk. I’m Bruce, and today, we’re delighted to have Vitalik here to discuss a fascinating topic — the digital society 100 years from now. First, let’s have Vitalik introduce himself.

Vitalik:

Hello, everyone. I’m Vitalik, and I’m also a Dogecoin holder. Happy to be here chatting with you all.

Bruce:

Today’s theme is “What will the digital society look like 100 years from now?” This topic is partly inspired by Vitalik’s recent talk at EDCON Tokyo, where he reflected on Ethereum’s ten-year journey and his outlook for the next decade. We can see that the next ten years will likely focus more on the application layer, building on the solid foundation laid in the past ten years.

This time, we want to take a 100-year perspective, breaking free from some limitations to imagine an ideal future society, then look back at today’s developmental trajectory. Hopefully, this discussion can spark some new inspirations for everyone.

Also, 100 years isn’t too long or too short. By then, longevity technology or consciousness uploading might already be realized. We could have another podcast then to revisit today’s discussion.

Vitalik:

Haha, I hope we’re both still alive in 100 years.

Bruce:

Yes, let’s hope we’ll still be here, or we’ll continue this discussion in the virtual consciousness world.

Will we still have IDs in 100 years? Or will all identities be based on DID? How will privacy be protected?

Bruce:

In a digital society, we often think of governance, like Network States, DAOs, or Communities. The first question is about identity. Will we still have ID cards, passports, and driver’s licenses in 100 years, or will we all use DID (Decentralized Identity) with unlimited digital personas? How will privacy be protected?

Vitalik:

There are two parts to this. First, where identity data is stored. We already see efforts to digitize IDs, like passports on phones. This isn’t just a decentralized world issue — traditional companies are exploring it too.

Second is the centralization vs. decentralization of identity and privacy. There are many options, like systems using zero-knowledge proofs to minimize data sharing. We should also reconsider if government-issued IDs are the only solution. Identity might evolve to prove you’re human or trustworthy, not just based on nationality.

For example, today passports decide who can enter a country, but this system is often unfair. In the future, trustworthiness could be based on a person’s lifetime interactions and relationships, not just one piece of information.

A decentralized approach would create a more complex identity structure — like a network, not a single path. This would make identity more resilient. If one node fails or is attacked, a person can still prove their identity through other means.

How will the credit system work with unlimited digital personas and DID? How should people build their credit?

Bruce:

In the future, people may have multiple digital personas. How will that affect the credit system?

Vitalik:

Credit and identity are closely linked, as both prove trustworthiness. The current credit system is centralized, with certain organizations deciding what data matters, and credit scores are reduced to a single number, like 700, which can mean different things in different contexts.

In decentralized systems, we can reduce issues like political bias, but the complexity increases. While centralized credit scores are simple, decentralized systems could make credit multidimensional. Different data sources could offer different views of a person’s credit, making it more complex but also fairer and more diverse.

Will internationalism become the dominant form of identity in the future? Will it conflict with nationalism?

Bruce:

Today, many people are international freelancers. Will internationalism become mainstream in 100 years? Will it clash with nationalism?

Vitalik:

In the past, identities were tied to nations because travel and maintaining distant relationships were hard. Becoming “international” was rare.

Now, with the internet, it’s much easier, but conflicts between groups, like those in the Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana communities, still exist. These new communities are like nations, representing new forms of nationalism.

Even with globalization, we won’t become a single international society. People’s identities will still intersect with different nations and groups, which could bring both conflict and peace. A diverse, intertwined world may reduce polarization and the risk of war while fostering more understanding and communication.

How will humans and AI fairly distribute resources (not just wealth, but also achievement and meaning)?

Bruce:

In the future, humans and AI might work together. How do we ensure fair distribution, not just of wealth, but also of achievement and meaning? If AI can do everything, what’s left for humans?

Vitalik:

It’s hard to predict AI’s future. Five years ago, AlphaGo and AlphaZero were goal-driven, but today’s AIs, like language models, are much smarter without clear goals. We don’t know what AI will be like in 5 or 50 years. Ideally, AI would be a tool that collaborates with humans, helping us retain autonomy and meaning.

However, cooperation between humans and AI may be difficult, and building a powerful AI might be easier. Whether we’ll have one AI or many is also unclear, as AIs could share computing power and form a distributed intelligence system we can’t yet imagine.

Bruce:

This makes me think of The Matrix. Hopefully, AI will be kind to us. But in terms of distribution, I’ve been thinking about Optimism’s Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF). How can we fairly reward contributors?

Vitalik:

Optimism’s challenge is complex — RPGF aims to reward contributors, but measuring contributions accurately is tough. People might optimize behavior to maximize rewards, like manipulating academic citation systems.

Expanding this model to all public goods funding will multiply the complexity. Optimism is testing it on a small scale to see what works, and solving these issues will need experimentation rather than theory alone.

Will a new social system be needed to accommodate collaboration between billions of people and robots?

Bruce:

When billions of people, AI, and robots are collaborating in the future, will we need a new social system? How will it differ from today’s socialism, capitalism, or mixed systems?

Vitalik:

It’s a complex question. Today’s capitalism often doesn’t function as true capitalism. In many industries, competitors can cooperate and bypass competition. This new model can be seen as a “mixed system,” where both companies and governments are more social, and nations compete like markets.

With globalization and technology, people have more choices, and moving between countries is easier than it was 30 years ago. AI might further change these dynamics, but predicting how is very difficult. It’s a deeply complex issue.

What new funding methods will emerge beyond Gitcoin (QF), Protocol Guild, etc.?

Bruce:

Open-source and public goods projects face sustainability challenges. Right now, we have Gitcoin, quadratic funding (QF), Protocol Guild, and Optimism, but will these methods evolve over the next 100 years?

Vitalik:

Public goods funding has two main challenges: the source and fair distribution of funds. Governments have historically funded public goods through taxes, but in the crypto world, digital currencies offer new possibilities. Digital assets like domain names and metaverse items could also provide value, potentially surpassing real-world assets. Future resources, such as space mining, could be owned by DAOs rather than individuals, ensuring long-term public funding.

Another challenge is determining project importance and measuring contributions. Projects like IPFS and Tea.xyz are developing tools to assess value, but this can lead to conflicts of interest, so fair mechanisms are crucial.

Future open-source protocols may require companies to return a portion of profits to the ecosystem, but balancing open-source and private software will be difficult. This will need continuous experimentation and exploration to address these complex issues.

How will ownership of digital public goods or open-source projects be determined in the future?

Bruce:

In a future where most code is open-source and on-chain, will we still need to confirm ownership of digital public goods? If so, how?

Vitalik:

Ownership has two main purposes:

1. Power: Deciding who has control over a project or system.

2. Incentive: Determining who benefits from it.

Unlike physical goods, software is non-rivalrous — it can be copied without reducing the original’s use. So, the traditional idea of ownership in open-source needs rethinking. Anyone can create their own version of open-source code, and others can choose whether to adopt it.

Standardization is an exception — some systems, like Ethereum, require coordination and compatibility across the ecosystem. This makes consensus-building essential, but more participants can slow the process. For instance, decentralized methods may be slower but have worked for projects like Ethereum.

Incentive mechanisms will vary by project. Some rely on company profits, while others need more complex models, like crypto-based public goods funding. Ownership and incentives will evolve with each project’s needs.

How will scientific research be conducted in the future? Will the organization of people, funding sources, etc., change?

Bruce:

What will future scientific research look like? Will it still depend on PhDs and government funding, or will there be more efficient approaches?

Vitalik:

The Ethereum community already shows a more efficient model for research. In crypto, technologies like zero-knowledge proofs are the result of cross-team, cross-organization collaboration, often involving groups like the Ethereum Foundation and universities. This collaborative approach is now common, with communication happening online via Telegram, Signal, or forums like Ethereum Research Forum.

Conferences also play a key role in fostering collaboration and idea-sharing. At the Ethereum Foundation, we recently hosted a workshop with around 100 researchers to advance Ethereum clients, combining online and offline efforts to boost efficiency.

While this model works well in crypto, other fields, like history or biology, face more challenges. Biology, for example, requires expensive labs, and traditional fields may resist the transparency seen in crypto.

In the next 10 to 20 years, cross-organization and cross-national collaboration will increase, but the pace of change will vary by field.

Will there be Ethereum nodes on Mars? How will interstellar communication delays be solved? How will censorship resistance be ensured across the stars?

Bruce:

You mentioned Mars earlier, which brings up an interesting question: In the future, could we deploy Ethereum nodes on Mars? If so, how would we solve the communication delays between planets? And how would interstellar censorship resistance be achieved?

Vitalik:

This is a very interesting question. On Earth, the speed of light is so fast that the time it takes for signals to travel between the farthest points on Earth is negligible. Even between the farthest points, the delay is just a few hundred milliseconds. In modern internet terms, a delay of 200 milliseconds is generally acceptable.

However, between Earth and Mars, the situation is different. The distance between Mars and Earth ranges from 50 million to 70 million kilometers at its closest, and up to 400 million kilometers at its farthest. This means that it takes between several minutes and 20 minutes for signals to travel at the speed of light, which poses a huge challenge for systems like blockchain.

Current Ethereum and Bitcoin architectures can’t handle such significant delays. For example, if you generate a block on Mars and send it to Earth, by the time it arrives, miners on Earth may have already generated several new blocks. This would make it difficult for Mars blocks to be accepted, or they might not even compete at all. From an economic and efficiency perspective, running interplanetary blockchain nodes under the current architecture is unfeasible.

One possible solution is to run a standalone Layer 2 solution on Mars, specifically designed for such an environment. This Layer 2 network could quickly confirm transactions on Mars and then batch-sync with Ethereum’s mainnet on Earth at appropriate times. This would greatly reduce the need for real-time communication and allow Mars and Earth to have their own network rhythms.

As for censorship resistance on an interstellar scale, that’s an even more complex issue. To achieve true interstellar censorship resistance, we may need multiple decentralized networks connected across different planets and space stations, preventing any single entity from completely controlling a particular network region. Of course, this also means we’ll need to develop entirely new protocols to adapt to this interstellar environment.

While running Ethereum nodes on Mars and achieving interstellar censorship resistance present huge technical challenges, through new architectural designs, such as Layer 2 solutions for Mars, it might gradually become achievable in the future.

What cryptographic algorithms does the cypherpunk movement still lack for the future digital society? Will something new, like PGP, SSL, or cryptocurrencies, emerge? What role will ZK play?

Bruce:

We’ve touched on societal mechanisms and open-source projects. Now, I want to talk about the cypherpunk movement. This movement has had a profound impact on today’s cryptographic technology. Things like PGP, SSL, and cryptocurrencies are key achievements. From the perspective of 100 years from now, are there any cryptographic algorithms we haven’t yet achieved that might become new technologies in the future? And what role will ZK (zero-knowledge proofs) play in all this?

Vitalik:

The most important new technology of this era will definitely be based on ZK. We’re already seeing that ZK offers many new possibilities. It allows you to prove many things without revealing all the information. Ten years ago, people didn’t have this concept. Back then, the discussion was usually polarized: either you reveal all your information to prove your identity (at the expense of privacy), or you stay anonymous (but lose credibility). With ZK, we can now enjoy the best of both worlds.

In the Ethereum community, we’ve already started applying this technology, like in the Zuzalu group. I think ZK has a wide range of applications.

Additionally, other technologies like MPC (multi-party computation) and FHE (fully homomorphic encryption) have been around for 30 years, but their efficiency has finally reached a level where they can be practically applied. Their use cases differ from ZK but are equally fascinating. Another promising technology is obfuscation.

Obfuscation means you can encrypt a program, and the encrypted program can still run — inputs and outputs remain the same, but the internal logic is completely hidden. This is a very powerful technology. For example, I could create a program that contains my private key, but you wouldn’t be able to extract my private key from the encrypted program. With obfuscation, many cryptographic problems can be solved.

The only problem that obfuscation can’t solve is preventing the program from being copied. To address this issue, we might need to turn to quantum technology. Justin Drake is very fond of a technology called one-time signatures, where once you sign something, you can’t sign anything else again. This is particularly useful in blockchain consensus mechanisms because it completely prevents double-spending attacks.

We can’t achieve this with existing classical technology because data can always be copied. But if we introduce quantum technology, data won’t be clonable. There’s a famous theory behind this — the no-cloning theorem, which states that quantum data can’t be perfectly copied.

If we have both obfuscation and quantum technology, there will be many new possibilities. These technologies might not be mainstream in the next 10 years, but in 100 years, they could very well become reality.

Bruce:

ZK is quite popular lately. Many of my friends are interested and even starting to learn it, but many find it very difficult. Do you have any recommendations for learning ZK or resources to share?

Vitalik:

If you really want to deeply understand ZK technology, the best way is to try writing a ZK algorithm yourself. Write both the prover and verifier from scratch. Through this process, you’ll understand the key points behind the technology, like why things are done a certain way, how to prove and verify, etc.

Over the past ten years, I’ve written a lot about ZK. My thinking is that if only a few people understand ZK, then it’s not truly decentralized because people have to trust those few individuals. So, it’s crucial that more people understand this technology and why it’s trustworthy.

Of course, not everyone needs to understand all the details of ZK, just like most developers today don’t fully understand the inner workings of cryptographic algorithms. They just need to know the inputs, outputs, and what the algorithm can and cannot do. I believe most people will eventually come to understand ZK in a similar way.

Mental Health: How to avoid burnout and self-doubt when pursuing long-term idealistic goals? Have you experienced this, and how do you cope with it?

Bruce:

I think mental health is very important when pushing forward long-term idealistic projects. For example, developers like Peter sometimes experience burnout, questioning whether their contributions are really valuable. I’ve had similar moments, especially when I see people getting rich overnight from meme coins. I start to doubt whether what I’m sticking to is worth it. Vitalik, have you ever felt this way, and how do you deal with it?

Vitalik:

Yes, I’ve had similar feelings. Emotional ups and downs are inevitable, especially when you’re committed to a long-term idealistic project like Ethereum. One of the most effective ways for me to overcome this is to participate in offline events. Face-to-face interactions help me reconnect with the community’s strength and positive impact.

When you look at Crypto Twitter or other social media, you can often be overwhelmed by negative voices. Many people say things like, “Ethereum has no real use, its biggest application is gambling,” or suggest that we should admit we’ve just created the “best casino.” Hearing such things can indeed be tiring and frustrating.

But whenever I attend conferences or meet with people actually involved in the Ethereum ecosystem, I realize that many people still hold very positive visions and are working hard to make them a reality. This effort and hope don’t always show up online, so face-to-face interaction is especially important.

Humans have millions of years of history with face-to-face communication, and our psychology isn’t fully adapted to a completely online life. Maybe in 20 or 30 years, the metaverse will solve these problems, but we’re not there yet. So, I think offline interaction is crucial for mental health.

Physical Health: What’s your diet like? Do you exercise? Any health advice for developers?

Bruce:

As for physical health, especially for developers, we all know that staying healthy is crucial. What’s your diet like? Do you exercise? Any health advice for developers?

Vitalik:

For me, physical health is indeed very important, especially given my unique lifestyle. I often have to travel to different places, almost moving every week, so it’s hard to maintain a fixed fitness or diet routine. Health influencers often talk about having great gyms and fixed meal plans, but for me, such arrangements are almost impossible.

Nonetheless, I still try to keep up with exercise, especially simple activities like walking and running. These exercises don’t require any equipment and can be done anywhere. For example, after arriving in Georgia, I ran 21 kilometers in circles in the backyard. I think running is a very convenient way to exercise — it not only exercises the body but also allows you to listen to audiobooks or podcasts while running, making great use of time.

As for diet, I try to stick to simple principles: eat more vegetables, eat more fish, and avoid excessive sugar intake. This approach helps me maintain a healthy diet no matter where I am.

Bruce:

You’ve mentioned longevity, and I know you’re very interested in this field. Why are you so focused on longevity? Does it have to do with your vision of future technology, like uploading consciousness to the network?

Vitalik:

My interest in longevity can be traced back to when I first read Aubrey de Grey’s Ending Aging at the age of 13. I really resonate with his vision of extending life. Life itself is good, so naturally, living longer is a better thing. Aubrey’s book explains in detail how we can scientifically extend life, especially the more extreme forms of life extension — not just increasing life expectancy by 5 years, but by 50 years or even more.

Many people have misconceptions about life extension, thinking it means becoming older and weaker, but that’s not the case. Aubrey’s approach is about preventing the problems of aging from happening in the first place, rather than treating them after they occur. This way, the extended time isn’t just extra years of life, but extra years of health. The additional years will be closer to our current life state, rather than the frailty people imagine at age 90.

When Ether’s price first surged, 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. As Ether’s price rose further, I donated more and more, and now I’m one of the donors to the longevity field.

Can you recommend a book?

Bruce:

We’re coming to the end of the interview. Vitalik, can you recommend a book, either one you’ve read recently or one you think is particularly good?

Vitalik:

I recently read two interesting books. I wrote a book review on my blog about two books on Bitcoin history. One is The Blocksize War by Jonathan Bier, which supports the small-block viewpoint, and the other is Hijacking Bitcoin by Roger Ver and Steve Patterson, which supports the big-block viewpoint. They both discuss the recent Bitcoin block size war from different perspectives, and I find both books quite interesting.

People really like to read history books. There’s a joke online that many people are obsessed with two topics: World War II and the Roman Empire. I find that understanding history is fascinating because you can think about which things were caused by specific events and the culture or technology of the time, and which are driven by human nature. This helps unravel some problems 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 internet’s development was relatively slow — most of the time, it was just a “game.” However, Bitcoin’s emergence is the first truly valuable thing, entirely native to the internet, and it attracted many people to participate. You can think of this phenomenon as the rise of a digital nation.

Within digital nations, there are also internal conflicts and civil wars, leading to divisions. For example, today, some famous “Bitcoin maximalists” have started praising Solana. I think they’re doing this because they want to ally with a rising platform like Solana to counter Ethereum’s ecosystem. This reminds me of World War II when Germany and Japan allied against common enemies.

I think studying these phenomena is fascinating — not only the history of the real world but also the evolution of the digital world. You’ll find that some patterns and ideas are exactly the same. That’s why I think it’s so interesting to learn about internet history.

Closing Remarks: Looking forward to exploring and building the future together

Bruce:

This concludes our formal interview. Once again, thank you, Vitalik, for taking the time to share so many deep and thoughtful ideas with us. Thank you, Vitalik!

Vitalik:

Thank you!

Bruce:

I have a few lighter questions — do you still play World of Warcraft?

Vitalik:

Haha, during COVID, I tried playing on a private server. It was quite fun, but later, I realized that Ethereum itself is a much more fun game.

Bruce:

Haha, got it.

Vitalik:

I hope everyone continues to support ETHPanda Talk and participate in the development of Ethereum! Thank you all!

Bruce:

Thank you!

Follow us
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain
Telegram: https://t.me/wublockchainenglish