WuBlockchain x Vitalik, Part 1: Ethereum's China Story, Russia-Ukraine War, and BCH's Big Block Concept

Dec 03, 2024

This podcast is the first part of an interview by WuBlockchain founder Colin Wu with Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin. The discussion covers the following topics: reminiscing about Ethereum’s connection with China, emphasizing Wanxiang’s “lifesaving” support and his memories of BiHu; analyzing why BCH’s big block concept did not succeed; exploring the cultural differences between Ethereum and Bitcoin; explaining why Ethereum is recognized as the “world computer”; why blockchain is uniquely trustworthy; and how the Russia-Ukraine war profoundly changed Vitalik personally.

It should be noted that Vitalik conducted the interview in non-native Chinese, so some expressions might not be entirely accurate. We ask for readers’ understanding. The transcript was generated using GPT, so there might be some errors. Please listen to the full podcast for details:

YouTube:

Spotify: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/7qfkmlvhrl8/episodes/EP-44--Vitalik-e2rp4vr

Reminiscing About China: Wanxiang Might Have Saved Ethereum and Vivid Memories of BiHu

Colin:

The first question is about your experiences in China. In 2014–2015, can you recall those experiences? You interacted with many key figures in China’s crypto space, like Wanxiang and Shen Bo, who remain some of Ethereum’s most steadfast supporters in China. It’s also said that quite a few people, some now very well-known, turned you down back then. Could you share those experiences?

Vitalik:

My first visit to China was in 2014, and I stayed for three weeks. I went to Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Shenzhen, meeting many teams in China, including numerous exchanges, miners, and projects. I remember visiting Huobi and OKCoin and seeing how large those companies already were, with more employees than Coinbase or Kraken.

I discovered that China had a highly developed ecosystem, with many large companies working on things that no one abroad was doing. I also noticed that Chinese miners were already prevalent back then. By 2014, applications were still sparse, but by 2015, I had extensive interactions with teams like Wanxiang and Shen Bo in Shanghai. I stayed there for about two months, and they were working on some fascinating applications.

One company was digitizing assets, fractionalizing them into tokens, where each token might represent 1/1000 or 1/10,000 of an asset. This allowed diverse participants to invest in expensive assets.

By 2017, there were some major projects in China. I vividly recall BiHu being one of them. They had developed a unique solution using digital currency to support creators and generate income for content creators. What struck me was their focus on creating a usable application rather than just a demo, and they already had many users.

In 2014, I primarily saw miners. By 2015, I saw more practical applications. I found many fascinating people in this community, while global attention toward this ecosystem was relatively limited. I believe 2015 was a particularly critical period for the Ethereum community.

After Ethereum’s mainnet launched in 2015, the foundation was almost out of funds. Our cash reserves were nearly depleted, and even Bitcoin was running out, so we had to sell ETH to support developers. Wanxiang purchased 410,000 ETH at $1.20 each, totaling $500,000 to support our foundation. This was crucial for the foundation and might have saved it, while it turned out to be a fantastic investment for Wanxiang.

Colin:

Yes, BiHu was indeed a significant supporter of Ethereum. Its founder was highly influential in China back then. It’s a pity that BiHu later shut down. But decentralized social media has only started gaining traction in recent years.

Vitalik:

Regulatory issues exist in China, but I’ve observed similar challenges abroad. Many innovative projects started in 2015–2016, yet their growth remained limited even by 2020. A significant reason was transaction fees. For these projects to thrive and become mainstream, they needed sufficient TPS (transactions per second). A successful application might require 100–1,000 TPS, but our chain could only support 4–5 TPS back then.

As a result, many applications were competing to have their transactions on-chain, driving transaction costs extremely high. In this environment, only DeFi could survive.

You can imagine if you were a regular social media user discovering an exciting new decentralized platform, but every post or action costs $1, $5, or even $15. That’s entirely unsustainable. However, financial applications could bear such costs. This was unfortunate as many decentralized social and other projects didn’t survive during the DeFi Summer.

But now, we have many L2 solutions that significantly reduce transaction fees. A lot of attention is on L2 developments. I’m excited about the potential for decentralized social and other projects to thrive in the future.

Colin:

Maybe you could talk to BiHu’s founder and see if they can restart BiHu — it might be a good time.

Vitalik:

Sure, that’s possible.

Reflections on BCH: The Ideal of Big Blocks Was Right, but Execution Fell Short

Colin:

My next question is about your stance during the Bitcoin block size debate. I recall you were relatively supportive of bigger blocks at the time. In 2017, BCH emerged, bringing this dispute to its peak. You’ve recently written about this topic, reflecting on how the failure of big blocks might have stemmed from a lack of technical and execution capabilities, as well as figures like Craig Wright appearing as frauds. Could you share your experiences with Wu Jihan, Roger Ver, and others during that time? What are your current thoughts on the matter?

Vitalik:

This is indeed an interesting topic. Unfortunately, my Chinese wasn’t strong enough back then to deeply understand Wu Jihan and other miners who supported big blocks. I didn’t have the chance to truly grasp their personalities, why they supported big blocks, or their vision for Bitcoin.

Roger Ver was relatively straightforward. He wasn’t the “scholarly” type who read extensively or wrote articles. He was more practical, seeing Bitcoin’s value in its use as a new currency. If a currency is to be used for payments, it must have sufficient block space to handle a large volume of transactions. His perspective was simple and direct.

In contrast, more “academic” individuals often think about longer-term issues and explore topics that others might avoid. These thoughtful individuals can introduce critical ideas to the world; without them, we might make greater mistakes.

However, they can sometimes become isolated in their intellectual worlds, lacking enough engagement with real-world realities. It’s similar to criticisms directed at Ethereum’s core developers: how many smart contracts or DApps have they created themselves? Such disconnects are common in blockchain, politics, and other fields.

From 2015 to 2016, debates over block size occasionally touched on these issues in the Chinese community. Big block supporters often emphasized their focus on users and real-world practicality, whereas small block proponents paid more attention to technical details, being largely developers and researchers. This caused tension.

In my later writings, I concluded that while the ideals of big blocks were more correct, the execution capabilities of their proponents were lacking. Many big block supporters made significant errors in coding, which contributed to the community’s eventual preference for small blocks.

That said, small block supporters also made significant mistakes. For example, they argued Bitcoin should be Layer 1 as digital gold, while Layer 2 could handle payments — primarily referencing the Lightning Network. The Lightning Network is a fascinating concept, and I personally appreciate it.

However, its real-world implementation has faced many challenges, including instability and centralization. Roger Ver’s writings also highlight these issues.

From an academic perspective, the big block vision was elegant, but real-world execution posed significant challenges.

Small block supporters failed to adequately address the importance of payments and applications. They assumed their role was to provide a technical solution to meet these needs, but they didn’t invest enough thought into whether their proposed solution was feasible.

Now, Lightning Network development has been slow. While there have been recent advancements, most of the Bitcoin community remains fixated on Bitcoin’s price, wondering when it will hit $1 million. Their biggest hero is Michael Saylor, whose company has bought substantial amounts of Bitcoin.

Thus, I’m not optimistic about the Bitcoin community’s technical development.

The price dynamics of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are complex; in reality, no one knows where digital asset prices truly come from. This may be the most significant issue in our industry and a crucial question for modern markets.

Bitcoin vs. Ethereum Cultures: Wealth vs. Development

Colin:

You recently shared a fascinating post, which I also forwarded, about a GPT-generated comparison of Bitcoiners and Ethereans. It portrayed Bitcoiners as wealthy tycoons and Ethereans as developers. It seems Bitcoin holders prioritize making their coins more valuable and becoming richer, while many Ethereum supporters appear less concerned about money, focusing on donations and building better public goods. Would you say this reflects a cultural difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum?

Vitalik:

That’s a compelling topic. Interestingly, between 2011 and 2013, Bitcoin’s community was highly diverse. I recall joining the Bitcoin community in 2011 and discovering a forum section called “Politics and Society.” I particularly enjoyed it. There were libertarians, socialists, and others debating how to handle issues like healthcare and whether governments should intervene. The discussions were deeply engaging, with vastly different perspectives.

The debates were civil. Compared to today’s Twitter discourse, which is often chaotic, those forums allowed for thoughtful exchanges. Replying to a post meant writing a 300-word essay articulating your views rather than firing off a quick comment. It was a unique culture.

In Bitcoin’s early days, there was significant focus on public goods, the future of humanity, and technological ideas. However, by 2014, the community began to fragment.

Why? The reasons are clear. Before 2014, Bitcoin had no competition. If you were interested in digital currencies, Bitcoin was your only choice. By 2014, two major shifts occurred: the big block vs. small block debate, and the emergence of Ethereum as the first viable competitor to Bitcoin. Even today, Ethereum remains the only true competitor to Bitcoin.

Those who resonated more with early Ethereum’s vision naturally gravitated toward Ethereum. Conversely, those who aligned more with Bitcoin’s community stayed there.

By 2017, people had to choose between small block Bitcoin and big block Bitcoin. Yet, many had already made their choices by 2015. Today, we see at least two, if not three, distinct blockchain cultures. Additionally, projects like BNB, Solana, and TRON each have unique characteristics and cultures distinct from Bitcoin and Ethereum. It’s akin to the cultural differences between nations, reminiscent of the pre-internet era when countries had vastly distinct cultures.

Preferring the Term and Concept of a “World Computer”

Colin:

If Bitcoin has become less diverse and is now primarily seen as digital gold, how would you describe Ethereum? Would you position it as a network state, or as the often-cited decentralized world computer? What do you hope Ethereum will represent?

Vitalik:

I actually like the term and concept of a “world computer” because, to me, it represents so much. I envision Ethereum not just as a blockchain but as an ecosystem capable of supporting a wide range of applications.

This reminds me of an interesting aspect of 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 other projects, experimenting with adding features to blockchains. I wondered, why not add programmability? Why not create a programming language that allows people to build whatever functions they want? That was my initial vision for Ethereum — Bitcoin with smart contracts. However, our core developer Gavin Wood had a different perspective. Before joining Ethereum, he wasn’t interested in Bitcoin at all, finding it boring. Gavin saw Ethereum as a combination of open-source technology and shared storage.

To elaborate, let’s revisit software history. Initially, all applications were open-source and freely accessible. Users could download software, run it on their computers, view the source code, and modify it to suit their needs.

By the 1950s, large companies like Microsoft entered the scene, launching operating systems like Windows and closing off their source code under copyright. This shift upset many, as users could no longer fully control or modify their software, akin to owning a car you can’t repair. This dynamic led to the rise of the free software movement.

By the late 1990s, open-source software became a significant topic, and today, much of our software is open-source — for example, the operating system I’m using for this conversation. Open-source software now plays a critical role in our lives.

However, before the 2000s, most applications were standalone programs, like Microsoft Word or single-player games. Post-2000, collaborative applications like Google Docs emerged, enabling multiple users to edit documents simultaneously. Similarly, gaming evolved with MMORPGs like World of Warcraft, allowing interaction in virtual worlds.

This shift raised the question: where is shared data stored? For collaborative documents, social networks, or online games, storage is typically centralized on servers. The issue is that centralized servers limit users’ control over their digital lives.

For instance, proprietary file formats like those of Microsoft Word make editing difficult in other software. Centralized servers exacerbate this issue, as companies can change terms, increase prices, or shut down services arbitrarily. Startups relying on Facebook or Twitter APIs often face such risks.

Gavin Wood considered these challenges and envisioned a decentralized shared storage system to address them, potentially forming a second generation of free open-source software. This concept resonated with me as well. Blockchain, beyond being a financial tool, can revolutionize the software landscape. Today, decentralized applications like DDocs, a decentralized version of Google Docs, are emerging.

The idea of a “world computer” is compelling. However, some propose Ethereum as a “digital nation.” I think this analogy is overblown because nations offer services far beyond Ethereum’s scope, such as security, education, and healthcare. If Ethereum were to venture into these areas, it might lose its neutrality, discouraging broad participation in the ecosystem.

Blockchain Is the Only True Trust Mechanism

Colin:

I’d like to discuss a political topic. Last year, the U.S. approved an Ethereum ETF, which surprised many, given Trump was not yet in office. How do you view this? Do you deliberately distance yourself from centralized powers like the U.S. and China? You’ve expressed that blockchain and crypto function best where centralized power is weaker. Has the Russia-Ukraine war influenced your perspective, as you’ve been quite active regarding it?

Vitalik:

First, I believe blockchain belongs to the world. One of its greatest strengths is its ability to solve trust issues. Unlike other industries like AI, which are dominated by hubs like Silicon Valley, London, or cities in China, blockchain is highly decentralized. In the U.S., applications are distributed across places like New York and Silicon Valley; Berlin is another major hub; and Asia, including Singapore and China, also hosts many blockchain initiatives. Blockchain’s decentralization makes it uniquely effective in regions where trust is a critical issue.

Take Argentina, for example. Its biggest challenge is inflation, with annual rates averaging 30%. People have grown accustomed to living in such conditions, having lost faith in fiat currency. Recently, when Argentinians deposited dollars in local banks, the government announced that these dollars would be forcibly converted to fiat, whose value fluctuated 2–3 times in a single day.

Such experiences destroy trust in banks. Argentina also struggles to integrate into the global financial system, much like many African nations. In these peripheral regions, blockchain can be transformative because it addresses trust issues, particularly in cross-border scenarios.

A decade or two ago, most of the world used U.S.-based services. Few worried then because the U.S. upheld free speech and openness, maintaining leniency in platform governance.

Over the past decade, however, things have shifted — markedly after Snowden’s revelations in 2013 and the politically motivated account closures of 2020. Today, no centralized platform enjoys global trust. Blockchain may be the only technology capable of guaranteeing trust, ensuring platforms don’t arbitrarily shut down accounts, misappropriate user funds, or compromise privacy.

In today’s volatile world, I see immense advantages in blockchain and its associated technologies. I’ve spent considerable time in peripheral regions like Argentina, Thailand, Montenegro, and Turkey because I believe blockchain should be global. It shouldn’t become increasingly centralized.

One concern I have is this: even if a blockchain is theoretically decentralized and free, if most teams are concentrated in one place with the same values, they may make mistakes in future crises, ultimately losing global trust. This is something I pay close attention to.

The Russia-Ukraine War Profoundly Changed Me: Returning to Russia Could Mean a Prison Sentence

Vitalik:

The outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war completely shocked me. About a month before it started, I noticed reports that Russian troops were near Ukraine, mobilizing tanks and other forces. I never imagined something so significant would happen. I thought Russia was merely concerned about issues like NATO expansion, trying to assert its strength and demand respect, without wanting others to act against its preferences. I didn’t expect a full-scale invasion — or if it did happen, I imagined it would unfold gradually, like in 2014.

Even in early February, when I spoke with some Russians, they didn’t think anything major would occur. But by February 24, it was clear that a significant conflict was imminent. I remember being in Denver, checking the news late at night, and realizing the gravity of the situation. When the war truly began, it profoundly altered my perspective, leaving me at a loss for words.

Let me recount what happened. On the evening of February 23, around 6 PM, I had finished my activities for the day and was in my hotel room talking with my father. We already suspected that Russia might make a major move. Around 7 PM, my father sent me a message saying that Russian rockets were targeting buildings in eastern Ukrainian cities. At that moment, I knew something monumental was unfolding.

For the next three to four hours, I couldn’t sleep. Normally, I would have rested after returning to the hotel, but that night I stayed up nearly until midnight, constantly checking updates. I posted my first tweet, expressing my complete opposition to the invasion, and spent every minute monitoring the news, utterly stunned.

The next morning, I woke up and was shocked again. Why? Because the official Twitter account of Ukraine had posted an Ethereum address. My first thought was disbelief — how could a government post a wallet address directly on Twitter? I suspected Russian hackers might have breached Ukraine’s Twitter account and shared an address under their control.

I quickly warned people on Twitter to be cautious, suspecting it might be a hacking attempt, and advised against sending funds. Simultaneously, I reached out to individuals I knew, especially those connected to major cities, to verify the authenticity of the address.

Eventually, I confirmed the address’s legitimacy through a contact close to the U.S. government and a Ukrainian team. I issued a second tweet, clarifying my earlier mistake and affirming the address was valid for donations.

An hour later, my family messaged me, saying, “You realize that by making this decision, you might never be able to return to Russia.”

It was then that I fully grasped the implications — not just witnessing the war but being deeply involved in it. Returning to the country of my birth now carries immense risks, including the possibility of a 10- to 15-year prison sentence.

At that moment, I felt like I was no longer a child.

I was facing a significant historical event, and I had made a definitive choice — not just about my stance on the war but about whom I support and oppose. This brought about profound changes in my personal life, leaving me initially uncertain about how to process it all.

At first, I donated a small sum to Ukraine. But about a month later, I saw reports of a city occupied by Russian forces where innocent Ukrainians were killed — perhaps 500 to 1,000 people. That news filled me with anger.

So I decided to donate again, this time giving $5 million. That decision reinforced my stance, and my feelings were almost identical to those on February 24.

Wars are common in history, but such large-scale conflicts are completely abnormal in our personal lives. This is the first time we’ve faced such a severe crisis. In such moments, though I initially felt lost and unsure of what to do, I knew it was essential to help those in need. If good people do nothing, evil prevails. So, I’ve done my best to support Ukraine in whatever ways I can.

Wu Blockchain

Discussion about this post