Vitalik Milady #9286

288 posts

Vitalik Milady #9286 banner
Vitalik Milady #9286

Vitalik Milady #9286

@milady9286

Welcome to 2026! $Milady is back. CA: 0xA1D5F09AeC852a14a9DdE9aBb8ED62357378e99a

Ethereum Katılım Nisan 2024
15 Takip Edilen1.5K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Vitalik Milady #9286
Vitalik Milady #9286@milady9286·
$Milady @VitalikButerin OG | 🔥 ETH chads assemble One years and 1 months old contract Built for the community, by the community, Milady represents raw power, dominance, and true ETH culture CA: 0xA1D5F09AeC852a14a9DdE9aBb8ED62357378e99a
Vitalik Milady #9286 tweet media
English
1
1
9
1.1K
Vitalik Milady #9286
Vitalik Milady #9286@milady9286·
$Milady is back 0xA1D5F09AeC852a14a9DdE9aBb8ED62357378e99a
Vitalik Milady #9286 tweet media
Magyar
0
0
4
261
Vitalik Milady #9286 retweetledi
Milady Memes
Milady Memes@milady_memes·
Milady
Milady Memes tweet media
English
9
10
80
1.8K
Vitalik Milady #9286 retweetledi
Milady Memes
Milady Memes@milady_memes·
Milady
Milady Memes tweet media
English
0
3
20
480
Vitalik Milady #9286 retweetledi
Milady Memes
Milady Memes@milady_memes·
Milady
Milady Memes tweet media
English
5
7
77
1.4K
marc
marc@heymarcopolox·
There is a specific kind of pressure that comes with building on Ethereum that nobody tells you about. It’s the constant, logical whisper that says: Just centralize it. We look at our competitors. The ones with 100x our resources. They aren't smarter than us, but they are faster. They ship in a week what takes us a month because they don't care about permissionless access or censorship resistance. They build corposlop polished, closed source stacks designed to lock users in. Their retention isn't based on love, it's based on the fact that their users have no exit. In our internal meetings, the math is always right there. If we went centralized, we’d have the same features. We’d have the same speed. We’d have the proprietary APIs that make us defensible to investors. But we don't do it. We stay the course on the hard road: open source, verifiable, and built for the walkaway test. We are intentionally building a product that allows you to leave us. In the traditional startup world, that's considered a suicide mission. Why spend 10x the resources to build a door that stays unlocked? People ask why we sacrifice so much growth just to stay "pure." I give them the standard answers about long-term sustainability and user sovereignty. If you don't build the technical layer of autonomy now, you’re just contributing to the next monopoly. But honestly? There’s a part of it I can’t explain. It’s just a feeling in the gut. A weird, stubborn refusal to build another cage. It’s the belief that tech should be a tool for cooperation, not a weapon for domination. You can call it Ethereum values, but for us, it’s just the only way we can look at the code and actually feel proud of it. We’re at a massive resource disadvantage. We’re fighting giants with a fraction of the budget. But we’re building something that actually belongs to the people who use it. And that’s the only win that actually matters.
vitalik.eth@VitalikButerin

In these five years, the Ethereum Foundation is entering a period of mild austerity, in order to be able to simultaneously meet two goals: 1. Deliver on an aggressive roadmap that ensures Ethereum's status as a performant and scalable world computer that does not compromise on robustness, sustainability and decentralization. 2. Ensures the Ethereum Foundation's own ability to sustain into the long term, and protect Ethereum's core mission and goals, including both the core blockchain layer as well as users' ability to access and use the chain with self-sovereignty, security and privacy. To this end, my own share of the austerity is that I am personally taking on responsibilities that might in another time have been "special projects" of the EF. Specifically, we are seeking the existence of an open-source, secure and verifiable full stack of software and hardware that can protect both our personal lives and our public environments ( see vitalik.eth.limo/general/2025/0… ). This includes applications such as finance, communication and governance, blockchains, operating systems, secure hardware, biotech (including both personal and public health), and more. If you have seen the Vensa announcement (seeking to make open silicon a commercially viable reality at least for security-critical applications), the ucritter.com including recent versions with built in ZK + FHE + differential-privacy features, the air quality work, my donations to encrypted messaging apps, my own enthusiasm and use for privacy-preserving, walkaway-test-friendly and local-first software (including operating systems), then you know the general spirit of what I am planning to support. For this reason I have just withdrawn 16,384 ETH, which will be deployed toward these goals over the next few years. I am also exploring secure decentralized staking options that will allow even more capital from staking rewards to be put toward these goals in the long term. Ethereum itself is an indispensable part of the "full-stack openness and verifiability" vision. The Ethereum Foundation will continue with a steadfast focus on developing Ethereum, with that goal in mind. "Ethereum everywhere" is nice, but the primary priority is "Ethereum for people who need it". Not corposlop, but self-sovereignty, and the baseline infrastructure that enables cooperation without domination. In a world where many people's default mindset is that we need to race to become a big strong bully, because otherwise the existing big strong bullies will eat you first, this is the needed alternative. It will involve much more than technology to succeed, but the technical layer is something which is in our control to make happen. The tools to ensure your, and your community's, autonomy and safety, as a basic right that belongs to everyone. Open not in a bullshit "open means everyone has the right to buy it from us and use our API for $200/month" way, but actually open, and secure and verifiable so that you know that your technology is working for you.

English
31
35
392
53K
vitalik.eth
vitalik.eth@VitalikButerin·
The scaling hierarchy in blockchains: Computation > data > state Computation is easier to scale than data. You can parallelize it, require the block builder to provide all kinds of "hints" for it, or just replace arbitrary amounts of it with a proof of it. Data is in the middle. If an availability guarantee on data is required, then that guarantee is required, no way around it. But you _can_ split it up and erasure code it, a la PeerDAS. You can do graceful degradation for it: if a node only has 1/10 the data capacity of the other nodes, it can always produce blocks 1/10 the size. State is the hardest. To guarantee the ability to verify even one transaction, you need the full state. If you replace the state with a tree and keep the root, you need the full state to be able to update that root. There _are_ ways to split it up, but they involve architecture changes, they are fundamentally not general-purpose. Hence, if you can replace state with data (without introducing new forms of centralization), by default you should seriously consider it. And if you can replace data with computation (without introducing new forms of centralization), by default you should seriously consider it.
English
442
267
1.7K
184.3K
vitalik.eth
vitalik.eth@VitalikButerin·
I no longer agree with this previous tweet of mine - since 2017, I have become a much more willing connoisseur of mountains. It's worth explaining why. x.com/VitalikButerin… First, the original context. That tweet was in a debate with Ian Grigg, who argued that blockchains should track the order of transactions, but not the state (eg. user balances, smart contract code and storage): > The messages are logged, but the state (e.g., UTXO) is implied, which means it is constructed by the computer internally, and then (can be) thrown away. I was heavily against this philosophy, because it would imply that users have no way to get the state other than either (i) running a node that processed every transaction in all of history, or (ii) trusting someone else. In blockchains that commit to the state in the block header (like Ethereum), you can simply prove any value in the state with a Merkle branch. This is conditional on the honest majority assumption: if >= 50% of the consensus participants are honest, then the chain with the most PoW (or PoS) support will be valid, and so the state root will be correct. Trusting an honest majority is far better than trusting a single RPC provider. Not trusting at all (by personally verifying every transaction in the chain) is theoretically ideal, but it's a computation load infeasible for regular users, unless we take the (even worse) tradeoff of keeping blockchain capacity so low that most people cannot even use the chain. Now, what has changed since then? The biggest thing is of course ZK-SNARKs. We now have a technology that lets you verify the correctness of the chain, without literally re-executing every transaction. WE INVENTED THE THING THAT GETS YOU THE BENEFITS WITHOUT THE COSTS! This is like if someone from the future teleported back into US healthcare debates in 2008, and demonstrated a clearly working pill that anyone could make for $15 that cured all diseases. Like, yes, if we have that pill, we should get the government fully out of healthcare, let people make the pill and sell it at Walgreens, and healthcare becomes super affordable so everyone is happy. ZK-SNARKs are literally like that but for the block size war. (With two asterisks for block building centralization and data bandwidth, but that's a separate topic) With better technology, we should raise our expectations, and revisit tradeoffs that we made grudgingly in a previous era. But also, I have actually changed my mind on some of the underlying issues. In 2017, I was thinking about blockchains in terms of academic assumptions - what is okay to rely on honest majority for, when we are ok with 1-of-N trust assumption, etc. If a construction gave better properties under known-acceptable assumptions, I would eagerly embrace it. On a raw subconscious level, I don't think I was sufficiently appreciative of the fact that _in the real world, lots of things break_. Sometimes the p2p network goes down. Sometimes the p2p network has 20x the latency you expected - anyone who has played WoW can attest to long spans of time when the latency spiked up from its usual ~200ms to 1000-5000ms. Sometimes a third party service you've been relying on for years shuts down, and there isn't a good alternative. If the alternative is that you personally go through a github repo and figure out how to PERSONALLY RUN A SERVER, lots of people will give up and never figure it out and end up permanently losing access to their money. Sometimes mining or staking gets concentrated to the point where 51% attacks are very easy to imagine, and you almost have to game-theoretically analyze consensus security as though 75% of miners or stakers are controlled by one single agent. Sometimes, as we saw with tornado cash, intermediaries all start censoring some application, and your *only* option becomes to directly use the chain. If we are making a self-sovereign blockchain to last through the ages, THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE CONUNDRUMS CANNOT ALWAYS BE "CALL THE DEVS". If it is, the devs themselves become the point of centralization - they become DEVS in the ancient Roman sense, where the letter V was used to represent the U sound. The Mountain Man's cabin is not meant as the replacement lifestyle for everyone. It is meant as the safe place to retreat to when things go wrong. It is also meant as the universal BATNA ("Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement") - the alternative option that improves your well-being not just in the case when you end up needing it, but also because knowledge of it existing motivates third parties to give you better terms. This is like how Bittorrent existing is an important check on the power of music and video streaming platforms, driving them to offer customers better terms. We do not need to start living every day in the Mountain Man's cabin. But part of maintaining the infinite garden of Ethereum is certainly keeping the cabin well-maintained.
vitalik.eth@VitalikButerin

@iang_fc The idea of average users personally validating the entire history of the system is a weird mountain man fantasy. There, I said it.

English
489
331
2.3K
405.4K
Vitalik Milady #9286
Vitalik Milady #9286@milady9286·
$Milady 0xA1D5F09AeC852a14a9DdE9aBb8ED62357378e99a
Vitalik Milady #9286 tweet media
vitalik.eth@VitalikButerin

I no longer agree with this previous tweet of mine - since 2017, I have become a much more willing connoisseur of mountains. It's worth explaining why. x.com/VitalikButerin… First, the original context. That tweet was in a debate with Ian Grigg, who argued that blockchains should track the order of transactions, but not the state (eg. user balances, smart contract code and storage): > The messages are logged, but the state (e.g., UTXO) is implied, which means it is constructed by the computer internally, and then (can be) thrown away. I was heavily against this philosophy, because it would imply that users have no way to get the state other than either (i) running a node that processed every transaction in all of history, or (ii) trusting someone else. In blockchains that commit to the state in the block header (like Ethereum), you can simply prove any value in the state with a Merkle branch. This is conditional on the honest majority assumption: if >= 50% of the consensus participants are honest, then the chain with the most PoW (or PoS) support will be valid, and so the state root will be correct. Trusting an honest majority is far better than trusting a single RPC provider. Not trusting at all (by personally verifying every transaction in the chain) is theoretically ideal, but it's a computation load infeasible for regular users, unless we take the (even worse) tradeoff of keeping blockchain capacity so low that most people cannot even use the chain. Now, what has changed since then? The biggest thing is of course ZK-SNARKs. We now have a technology that lets you verify the correctness of the chain, without literally re-executing every transaction. WE INVENTED THE THING THAT GETS YOU THE BENEFITS WITHOUT THE COSTS! This is like if someone from the future teleported back into US healthcare debates in 2008, and demonstrated a clearly working pill that anyone could make for $15 that cured all diseases. Like, yes, if we have that pill, we should get the government fully out of healthcare, let people make the pill and sell it at Walgreens, and healthcare becomes super affordable so everyone is happy. ZK-SNARKs are literally like that but for the block size war. (With two asterisks for block building centralization and data bandwidth, but that's a separate topic) With better technology, we should raise our expectations, and revisit tradeoffs that we made grudgingly in a previous era. But also, I have actually changed my mind on some of the underlying issues. In 2017, I was thinking about blockchains in terms of academic assumptions - what is okay to rely on honest majority for, when we are ok with 1-of-N trust assumption, etc. If a construction gave better properties under known-acceptable assumptions, I would eagerly embrace it. On a raw subconscious level, I don't think I was sufficiently appreciative of the fact that _in the real world, lots of things break_. Sometimes the p2p network goes down. Sometimes the p2p network has 20x the latency you expected - anyone who has played WoW can attest to long spans of time when the latency spiked up from its usual ~200ms to 1000-5000ms. Sometimes a third party service you've been relying on for years shuts down, and there isn't a good alternative. If the alternative is that you personally go through a github repo and figure out how to PERSONALLY RUN A SERVER, lots of people will give up and never figure it out and end up permanently losing access to their money. Sometimes mining or staking gets concentrated to the point where 51% attacks are very easy to imagine, and you almost have to game-theoretically analyze consensus security as though 75% of miners or stakers are controlled by one single agent. Sometimes, as we saw with tornado cash, intermediaries all start censoring some application, and your *only* option becomes to directly use the chain. If we are making a self-sovereign blockchain to last through the ages, THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE CONUNDRUMS CANNOT ALWAYS BE "CALL THE DEVS". If it is, the devs themselves become the point of centralization - they become DEVS in the ancient Roman sense, where the letter V was used to represent the U sound. The Mountain Man's cabin is not meant as the replacement lifestyle for everyone. It is meant as the safe place to retreat to when things go wrong. It is also meant as the universal BATNA ("Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement") - the alternative option that improves your well-being not just in the case when you end up needing it, but also because knowledge of it existing motivates third parties to give you better terms. This is like how Bittorrent existing is an important check on the power of music and video streaming platforms, driving them to offer customers better terms. We do not need to start living every day in the Mountain Man's cabin. But part of maintaining the infinite garden of Ethereum is certainly keeping the cabin well-maintained.

Magyar
0
0
4
445