Vitalik's Outlook on Ethereum's Future

In Vitalik's conversation with the Chinese community, he not only expressed his views on the decentralization of blockchain, but also expressed his outlook on the future of Ethereum.

- "ETH is a digital asset suitable for the world's applications (including finance, and others, such as ENS, etc.). ETH does not need every transaction to be placed on L1, but it needs to have enough throughput so that anyone who wants to use L1 can use L1 at least occasionally. So these two directions are also compatible here: the characteristics that help Ethereum become a better world computer are also the characteristics that make ETH a better digital currency."

This view verifies my understanding of Ethereum all along. For Ethereum to become a platform that supports the future on-chain world, it must take the route of a layered architecture. L1 only handles some transactions, and more transactions are processed in the extension layer below.

I once made an analogy between Ethereum and the various second-layer extensions around Ethereum:

Ethereum is like the Supreme Court in this ecosystem, and the second-layer extensions around it are like branches in various regions.

The Supreme Court cannot and should not handle all cases. It should only handle cases involving major issues such as the state system and political system.

Its key characteristics are fairness, justice and openness.

Neighborhood disputes and fights in daily life can be handled by local small courts. Even if those small courts occasionally handle those civil disputes unfairly and unfairly, it will not affect the system and values ​​of a country as a whole. Even if this happens, the parties can still appeal and submit the case to the higher-level judgment agency.

The characteristics required of such local small courts are efficiency, cheapness and convenience.

The core characteristics of these two types of courts are completely different.

The same is true for the Ethereum ecosystem. It needs to be decentralized and censorship-resistant to ensure as much neutrality and security as possible.

It is not impossible to handle everything on the Ethereum main chain, but doing so will inevitably affect efficiency and increase costs. In the long run, this is very uneconomical and cannot support an ecosystem.

In the future, as the Ethereum ecosystem develops, I imagine that its development path will most likely expand from the second layer to the third layer, and from the third layer to the fourth layer...

This is essentially similar to a country's judicial system and hierarchical system.

Recently, there is a particularly loud voice in the community, which suggests sacrificing decentralization to expand the Ethereum main chain in order to pursue TPS. This is obviously influenced by another type of "blockchain".

That kind of "blockchain" wants to be the global Nasdaq and exchanges, but that kind of "blockchain" cannot support a future on-chain world.

The two blockchains are worlds apart in terms of values ​​and core visions.

- "Decentralization" does not mean "doing nothing". The philosophy of subtraction of the Ethereum Foundation does not mean "reducing the foundation to 0", but a way to maintain ecological balance. If there is an imbalance in the ecology in one place (for example, part of the ecology is too centralized, or there is an important public good that others do not do), we can help counterbalance. After that problem is solved, the Foundation can withdraw from that area. If an imbalance occurs in a new area, we can move resources there, and so on. ”

For a long time, many people have such doubts about "decentralization":

Since it is "decentralized", what are the teams and leaders for?

I have repeatedly shared my views on this question in my articles before, but I think Vitalik's explanation is more appropriate. "Decentralization" does not mean "doing nothing", nor does it mean not having teams and leaders.

Decentralization is to ensure that the operation of the blockchain can still operate normally without relying on any organization or individual. The role of the team and the leader is to be responsible for the development and progress of the blockchain system itself, so that it can absorb the latest scientific and technological achievements and better adapt to new environments and new scenarios.

This passage reminds me of a good metaphor in Buddhism:

"The Vajra is angry and the Bodhisattva is lowering his eyebrows"

"Without using thunderbolts, how can we see the heart of Bodhisattva" When we talk about Buddhism, we immediately think of great compassion and saving people from suffering. This is a warm and kind feeling. Therefore, many people cannot associate "Vajra's angry eyes" and "thunderbolt methods" with Buddhism. Without "Vajra's angry eyes", how can it fight against evil demons? Without "thunderbolt methods", how can we awaken those who are stubborn and rebellious? The same is true for the leadership team and leaders of blockchain, who play a very important role in the development of blockchain. It's just that in actual operations, they should use force where it should be used and not use force where it shouldn't be used, try to achieve balance and avoid conflicts of interest as much as possible. In general, I agree with many of the views and development directions that Vitalik talked about in this interview, which also made me put down some of my previous worries and doubts. Reference link: style="text-align: left;">https://www.theblockbeats.info/news/56951