Silvio Micali: Cryptocurrency, Blockchain, Algorand, Bitcoin & Ethereum | Lex Fridman Podcast #168
agi ai ai podcast artificial intelligence artificial intelligence podcast lex ai lex fridman lex jre lex mit lex podcast mit ai silvio micali
Silvio Micali is a computer scientist at MIT, Turing award winner, and founder of Algorand. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Athletic Greens: https://athleticgreens.com/lex and use code LEX to get 1 month of fish oil
- The Information: https://theinformation.com/lex to get 75% off first month
- Four Sigmatic: https://foursigmatic.com/lex and use code LexPod to get up to 60% off
- BetterHelp: https://betterhelp.com/lex to get 10% off

EPISODE LINKS:
Silvio's Twitter: https://twitter.com/silviomicali
Algorand's Twitter: https://twitter.com/Algorand
Algorand's Website: https://www.algorand.com/

PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
Clips playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41

OUTLINE:
0:00 - Introduction
1:59 - Blockchain
4:56 - Cryptocurrency
7:45 - Money
11:59 - Scarcity
13:41 - Scalability, Security, and Decentralization
17:06 - Algorand
33:40 - Bitcoin
36:43 - Ethereum
38:14 - NFTs
41:38 - Decentralization of power
45:46 - Intelligent adaptation
48:28 - Leaders
51:35 - Freedom
54:34 - Privacy
57:18 - Bitcoin maximalism
1:01:04 - Satoshi Nakamoto
1:05:42 - One-way function
1:09:55 - Pseudorandomness 
1:14:38 - Free will
1:16:43 - Will quantum computers break cryptography?
1:21:48 - Interactive proofs
1:28:41 - Mechanism design
1:36:08 - Favorite meal
1:39:21 - Book recommendations
1:46:18 - Advice for young people
1:48:52 - Fear of death
1:51:33 - Meaning of life

SOCIAL:
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LexFridmanPage
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman
- Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman
- Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman
 The following is a conversation with Silvio Michali, a computer scientist at MIT, winner of the Turing Award and one of the leading minds in the fields of cryptography, information security, game theory, and most recently cryptocurrency and the theoretical foundations of a fully decentralized, secure, and scalable blockchain and Algorand, a company of cryptographers, engineers, and mathematicians that he founded in 2017. Quick mention of our sponsors, Athletic Greens Nutrition Drink, the Information In-Depth Tech Journalism website, Four Sigmatic Mushroom Coffee, and BetterHelp Online Therapy. Click the sponsor links to get a discount and to support this podcast. As a side note, let me say that I will be having many conversations this year on the topic of cryptocurrency. I am reading and thinking a lot on this topic. I just recently finished reading The Bitcoin Standard, a book I highly recommend. As always with this podcast, I'm approaching it with an open mind, with compassion, with as little ego as possible, and yes, with love. I hope you go along with me on this journey and don't judge me too harshly on any likely missteps. As usual, I will play devil's advocate. I will on purpose sometimes ask simple, even dumb questions all to try and explore the space of ideas here with as much grace as I can muster. I have no financial interests here. I only have a simple curiosity and a love for knowledge, especially about a set of technologies that may very well transform the fabric of human civilization. If you enjoy this thing, subscribe on YouTube, review it on Apple Podcasts, follow on Spotify, support it on Patreon, or connect with me on Twitter at Lex Friedman. And now here's my conversation with Silvio Macaulay. Let's start with the big and the basic question. What is a blockchain and why is it interesting? Why is it fascinating? Why is it powerful? All right. So a blockchain, think of it, is really a common database distributed. Think about it as a ledger in which everybody can write an entry in a page. You can write, I can write, and everybody can read. And you have a guarantee that everybody has the same copy of the ledger that is in front of you. So whatever you see on page seven, anyone else sees on page seven. So what is extraordinary about this is this common knowledge thing that I think is really a first for humanity. I mean, if you look at communication, like right now, you can communicate very quickly images, thoughts, or photos. But do you have a certainty that whatever you have received has been received by everybody else? Not really. And so this common knowledge and the certainty that everybody can write, nobody has been prevented from writing whatever they want. Nobody can erase, nobody can tear a page of a ledger, nobody can swap page, nobody can change anything. And that is immutable common record is extremely powerful. And there's something fundamental that is decentralized about it. So at least in spirit, to some degree, or against maybe a resistance to centralization. Absolutely. If it is not decentralized, how can it be common knowledge? If only one person or a few people have a ledger, the only way you don't have a ledger, you have to ask, what is on page seven? And how do you know that whatever they tell you is on page seven, they tell the same thing to everybody else. And so this common knowledge is extremely powerful. Just to give you an example, assume that you do an auction. You have worked very hard, you build a building, and now you want to auction off. It makes sense because you want to auction worldwide, better yet you want to tokenize the building and sell it in parcels. Now everybody sees the bids and you know that everybody sees the bids. You and I see the same bids and so does everybody else. So you know that a fair price has reached and you know who owns what and who has spent how much. And if you do it instead of a wise, you know, in a centralized system, I put a bid saying, oh, congratulations, Alex, you won. And your price is $12,570. I don't know. So if instead of this common knowledge is a very powerful tool for humanity. So we return to it from a bunch of different perspectives, including like a technical perspective, but you often talk about blockchain and some of these concepts of decentralization, scalability, security, all those kinds of things. But one of the most maybe impactful, exciting things that leverage the blockchain, this kind of ledger idea of common knowledge is cryptocurrency. So in the financial space. So is there, can you say in the same kind of basic way, what is cryptocurrency in the context of this common knowledge and in the context of the blockchain? Great. Cryptocurrency is a currency that is on such a ledger. So imagine that on the ledger, initially, you know that somehow say you and I are the only owner of each one. Let's give it to ourselves a billion each of whatever this unit. Then I start writing on the ledger. I give a hundred of these units to my sister. I give this much to my aunt. And then now, because it's written on the ledger and everybody can see, my sister can give 57 of these units that she received from me to somebody else. And that is money. And that is money because you can see that somebody who tenders your payment has really the money there. You don't have any more of a doubt when you want to sell an item. If I write you a check, is the check covered? Or do I have the money at the moment of a transaction? You really see because the ledger is always updated. What you see is what I see, the merchant sees. You know that the money. So the most powerful money system there is because it is totally transparent. And so you know that you have been paid and you know that the money is there. You have not to second guess anything else. So the common knowledge applied there is you're basically mimicking the same kind of thing you would get in the physical space, which is if you give a hundred of that thing, whatever, of that cryptocurrency to your sister, the actual transfer is as real as you giving like a basket of apples to your sister. Because so in the case in the physical space, the common knowledge is in the physics of the atoms. And then it's digital space, the common knowledge is in this ledger. And so that transfer holds the same kind of power, but now it's operating in the digital space. Go ahead. Again, I apologize for a set of ridiculous questions, but you mentioned cryptocurrencies and money. What is money? Why do we have money? Do you think about this kind of from this high philosophical level at times of this tool, this idea that we humans have all kind of came up with and seem to be using effectively to do stuff? Money is a social construct, okay, in my opinion. And this has been somehow people always felt that somehow money is a way to allow us to transact, even though we want to different things. So I have two sheep and then you have one cow. And I want the cow, but you are looking for blankets instead. So to have money is really simplifies this. But at the end of it, that's why a bit was invented. And you start with gold, then you start to win the congee, then you start to win the check. But at the end of the day, money is essentially a social construct because you know that what you receive, you can actually spend with somebody else. And so there is a kind of a social pact and social belief that you have. At the end of the day, even a barter requires these beliefs that other people are going to accept the quote unquote currency you offer them. Because if I'm a Mason and you ask me to build a wall in your field, and I did, and you in exchange, you give me a thousand sheep, what am I going to do? Eat them all? No, I have to feed them. And if I don't feed them, they die and my value is zero. So in receiving these livestock, I must believe that somebody else will accept them in return for something else. So my is this social belief, social shared belief system that makes people transact. That's fascinating. I didn't even think about that, that you're actually, you have a deep network of beliefs about how society operates. So the value is assigned even to sheep based on that everyone will continue operating how they were previously operating. Somebody will feed the sheep. I didn't even think about that. That's fascinating. So that directly transfers to the space of money and then to the space of digital money and cryptocurrency. Okay. Does it bother you sort of intellectually when this money that is a social construct is not directly tied to physical goods, like gold, for example? Not at all, because after all, gold has some industrial value. Nobody delights it. It's a metal, it doesn't oxidate. It has some good things about it. But does this industrial value really represent the value to which it now is traded? No. So gold is another way to express our belief. I give you an answer. Gold, you treat it like, oh, somebody else will want this for doing something else. So it is really this notion of this money is a mental construct and is shared, it's a social construct, I believe. And so some people feel that it's physical, so therefore gold exists. But then as you know now, countries, most sophisticated country right now, they print their own money and you believe that they are not going to exaggerate it with inflation. Not everybody believes it. But I'm saying there is at least, they are not going to exaggerate it blatantly. And therefore you receive it because you know that somebody else will accept it, will have a faith in the currency and so on and so forth. But whether it's gold, whether it's livestock, whatever it is, money is really a shared belief. So there is something, you know, and I've been reading more and more about different cryptocurrencies. There is a kind of belief that the scarcity of a particular resource like Bitcoin has a limited amount and it's tied to physical, you know, to proof of work. So it's tied to physical reality in terms of how much you can mine effectively and so on, that that's an important feature of money. Do you think that's an important feature to be a part of whatever the money is? That is certainly a very useful part. So at some point in time, you know, assume that money is something that all of a sudden we say daisies are money, are the currency. Then, you know, I offer you 10 daisies in payment of whatever goods and services you want to provide. But at the end of the day, if you know that you can cultivate it and generate them at will, then perhaps, you know, you should not accept my payment in here is a bouquet of daisies. So you need some kind of scarcity, the inability to create suddenly out of nothing is unimportant. And it's not an intrinsic necessity, but it's much easier to accept once you know that there is a fixed number of units of whatever currency there is. And therefore you can mentally understand I'm getting, you know, this much of a piece of a pie and therefore I consider myself paid. I understand what I'm receiving. You describe the goals of a blockchain, you have a nice presentation on this, as scalability, security and decentralization. And you challenge the blockchain trilemma that claims you can only have two of the three. So let's talk about each. What is scalability in the context of blockchain and cryptocurrency? What does scalability mean? So remember, we said that the blockchain is a ledger and each page receives a, gets transaction and everybody can write in this, in these pages of a ledger. Nobody can be stopped for writing and everybody can read them. Okay. Scalability means how fast can you write? Just imagine that you can write an entry in this special shared ledger once every hour. Well, you know, what are you going to do if you have an O1 transaction per hour, the world doesn't go around. So you need to add to have scalability means here that you can somehow write a lot of transaction and then you can read them and everybody can validate them. And that is the speed and the number of transactions on per second and the fact that they are shared. So you want to have this, this, the speed, not only in writing, but in sharing and inspection for validity. This is scalability. The world is big. The world wants to interact with the people, want to interact with each other. And you better be prepared to have a ledger in which you can write lots and lots and lots of transactions in this special way. Very, very, very quickly. So maybe from a more mathematical perspective, or can we say something about how much scalability is needed for a world that is big? Well, it really depends how many transactions you want. But remember that I think right now you have to go into at least a thousand transactions per second. Even if you look at credit cards, we are going to go from an average of 1600 to peaks of 20,000, 40,000, something like this. But remember, it's not only a question of the transaction per se, but the value is that the transaction is actually being shared and visible to everybody. And the certainty that that is the case. I can print on my own printer way more transactions, but nobody has the time to see or to inspect. That doesn't count. Right? So you want scalability at this common knowledge level. And that is the challenge. I also meant from a perspective of like a complexity analysis. So when you get more and more people involved, doesn't it just scale in some kind of way that... Do you like to see certain kind of properties in order to say something is scalable? Oh, absolutely. I took a little bit implicitly that the people transacting are actually very different. So if there is two people who can do a thousand transactions per second with each other, this is not so interesting. What we really need is to say there are billions of people at any point in time, thousands and thousands of them want to transact with each other and you want to support that. So Algorand, it solves... So that's the company, the team of cryptographers and mathematicians, engineers, so on, that challenged the blockchain trilemma. So let's break it down in terms of achieving scalability. How do we achieve scalability in the space of blockchain, in the space of cryptocurrency? Okay. So scalability, security, remember, and decentralization. Right? So that's what they want. What's the best way to approach? Can we break it down? Let's start with scalability and think about how do we achieve it? Well, to achieve it one at a time is perhaps easy. Even security, if nobody transacts, nobody loses money. So that is secure, but it's not scalable. So let me tell you, I'm a cryptographer, so I try to fight the bad guys. And what you want is that the vessel-ager that we discussed before cannot be tampered with. So you must think of it as a special link that nobody can erase. Okay. Then it has to be everybody should be able to read and not to alter the pages or the content of the pages. That's okay. But you know what? That is actually easy cryptographically. Easy cryptographically means you can use tools invented 50 years ago, which in cryptographic time is prehistory. Okay. We are cavemen working around and solve their problem in cryptography land. But there is really a fundamental problem, which is really almost a social, seems a political problem, is to say who the hell chooses or publishes the next page on the ledger. I mean, that is really the challenge. This ledger, you can always add a page because more and more transactions are to be written on there. And somebody has to assemble this transaction, put them on a page and add the next page. Who is the somebody who chooses the page and adds it on? Who can be trusted to do it? Exactly. Assume it is me for what I'm being, not that I want to volunteer for the job, but then I would have more power than any absolute monarch in history because I would have the tremendous power to say these are the transactions that the entire world should see. And whatever I don't write, this transaction will never see the light of day. I mean, no one had any such power in history. So it's very important to do that. And that is the quintessential problem in a blockchain. And people have thought about it to say it's not me, it's not you. But for instance, in proof of work, what people say is they say, okay, it's not me, it's not you. You know what it is? We make a very difficult, we invent a cryptographic puzzle, very hard to solve. The first one to solve it has the right to add one page to the ledger on behalf of everybody else. That now seems okay because sometimes I solve a puzzle before you do, sometimes you solve it before I do, or before somebody else solves it, it's okay. And presumably the effort you put in is somehow correlated with how much trust you should be given to add to the ledger. Yeah, so somehow you want to make sure that you need to work because you want to prevent, you want to make sure that you get one solution every 10 minutes, say, like in particular example of Bitcoin. So that is very rare, but two pages are added at the same time. Because if I solve a puzzle at the same time you do, it could happen that if it happens once or twice, we can survive it. But if it happens, every other page is a double page, then which of the two is the real page, it becomes a problem. So that's why in Bitcoin, it is important to have a substantial amount of work so that no many, how many people try on Earth to solve a puzzle, you have one solution out of how many people are trying every 10 minutes. So that you have, you distance these pages and you have the time to propagate through the network a solution and the page attached to it. And therefore there is one page at a time that is added. And they say, well, why don't we do it? We have a solution. Well, first of all, a page every 10 minutes is not fast enough. So it's a question of scalability. And second of all, to ensure that no matter how many people try, you get one page every 10 minutes, one solution to the riddle every 10 minutes. This means that the riddle becomes very, very hard. And to have a chance to solve it within 10 minutes, you must have such an expensive apparatus in terms of specialized computers, not one, not two, but thousands and thousands of them. And they produce tons of heat. Okay. These dissipate heat like maniac. And then you have to refrigerate them too. And so then, now you have air conditioning galore to add to the thing. It becomes so expensive that fewer and fewer and fewer people can actually compete in order to add to the page. And the problem becomes so crucial that in Bitcoin, depending on which day of the week you look at it, you are going to have two or three mining pools are really the ones capable of controlling the chain. So you're saying that's almost like least centralization. Right. It started being decentralized, but the expenses became higher and higher and higher. When the cost becomes higher and higher, fewer and fewer people can afford them. And then it becomes de facto centralized. And a different type of approach is instead, for instance, a delegated proof of stake, which is also very easy to explain. Essentially boils down to say, well, look at these 21 people say, okay. Don't they look honest? Yes, they do. In fact, I believe that they're going to remain honest for the foreseeable future. So why don't we do ourselves a favor? Let's entrust them to add the page on behalf of all of us to the ledger. Okay. Okay. But now we are going to say, is this centralized or decentralized? Well, 21 is better than one. I have to say it's very little. So if you look at when people rebelled to centralized power, I don't know, the French revolutions, okay, there was a monarch and the nobles. Were there 21 nobles? No, there were thousands of them, but there were millions and millions of disempowered citizens. So one is centralized, 21 is also centralized. So that's delegated proof of stake. It's kind of like representative democracy, I guess. Yes, which is good. It's working great, right? It's working great. Well, it's better than the single monarch, right? There's problems. There are problems. Yeah. And so we were looking for a different, when thinking about Algorand, for a different approach. And so we have an approach in that, it's really, really decentralized because essentially it works as follows. You have a bunch of tokens, right? These are the tokens that have equal power and you have to say 10 billions of tokens distributed to the entire world. And the owners, each token has a chance to add the ledger, equal probability like everybody else. In fact, actually, if you want, here is how it works. So think about by some magic cryptographic process, which is not magic, it's mathematics, but think of it as magic. Assume that you select a thousand tokens, and so sometimes a random, okay? And you have a guarantee that they're randomly selected. And then the owners of these 1000 tokens somehow agree on the next page, they all sign it, and that's the next page. Okay? So it is clear that nobody has the power, but you know, once in a while, one of your tokens is selected and you are in charge of this committee to select the next page. But this goes around very quickly. So, and if you look at this, the question really is that it's not really centralized. And because for agreeing on the same page, it is important that the 1000 tokens that you're randomly selected are in honest hands, the majority of them. So which, if the majority of the tokens are in honest hands, that is essentially true. Because if the majority of the tokens are in honest hands, if you select, say 90% of the people are, 90% of the tokens are in honest hands. So can you randomly select a thousand? In this thousand, you find the 501 tokens in bad hands. Very, very improbable. So basically, when a large fraction of people are honest, then you can use randomness as a powerful tool to get decentralization. So what does honesty mean? And now we're into the social side of things, which is, how do we know that the large fraction of people or participating parties are honest? That is an excellent question. So by the way, first of all, we should realize that the same thing is for every other system. When you look at proof of work, you rely that the majority of the mining power is in honest hands. When you look at the delegated proof of stake, you rely that the majority of these 21 people are honest. What is the difference? The difference is that in these other systems, you should say the whole economy is secure if the majority of this small piece of the economy are honest. And that is a big question. But instead, in our approach, we say, the whole economy is secure if the majority of the economy is honest. In other words, who can subvert Algorand? It's not a majority of a small group, but it is a majority of the token holders had to conspire with each other in order to sink the very economy for which they own the majority of. That I think it is a bit harder to... Like a self-destructive majority, essentially. And you're also making me realize that basically every system that we have in the world today assumes that the majority of participants is honest. Yes. The only difference is the majority of whom. And in some cases, the majority of a club. And in our case, it's the majority of the whole system. The whole system. Okay. So that's fact. So through that kind of random sampling, you can achieve decentralization. You can achieve... So the scalability, I understand. And then the security that you're referring to, basically the security comes from the fact that the sample selected would likely include honest people. So it's very difficult to... So by the way, the security, as you mentioned, that you're referring to is basically security against dishonesty, right? Or manipulation or whatever. Yes. Yes. So essentially, when what you're going to do is to be following and say, well, Silvio, I understood what you're saying, but somebody has to randomly select the tokens when I believe you. So then who does this random selection? That's a good point. And in our grant, we do something a little bit unorthodox. Essentially is the token, choose themselves at random. And you say, if you think about it, that seems to be a terrible idea. Because if you want to say, choose yourself at random and whoever chooses themselves is a thousand people committee, you choose the page for the rest of us. And because if I'm a bad person, I'm going to select myself over and over again, because I want to be part of the committee every single time, but not so fast. So what do we do in our grant? What does it mean that I select myself? Each one of us in the privacy of our own computer, actually a laptop, what you do is that you execute your own individual lottery. And think about that you pull a lever of a slot machine. You can only pull the lever once, not until you win, not enough times until you win. And when you pull the lever, case one, either you win in such a case, you have a winning ticket or you lose, you don't get any winning ticket. So if you don't have a winning ticket, you can say anything you want about the next page in the ledger. Nobody pays attention. But if you have a winning ticket, people say, oh, wow, this is one of the 1000 winning tickets, we better pay attention to what he or she says. And that's how it works. And the lottery is a cryptographic lottery, which means that even if I am an entire nation, extremely powerful with incredible computing powers, I don't have the ability to improve even minimally my probability of one of my talking winning the lottery. And that's how it happens. So everybody pulls the lever. The 1000 random winners say, oh, here is my winning ticket. And here is my opinion up or down about the block. These are the ones that count. And if you think about it, why this is distributed, because there is the case of Algon, there is 10 billion tokens, and you selected a 1000 of them more distributed than this, you cannot get. And then why is this scalable? Because what do you have to do? Okay, you have to do the lottery. How long the lottery takes? It takes actually one microsecond. Whether you have one token or two tokens or a billion tokens is always one microsecond of computation, which is very fast. We don't hit the planet with a microsecond of computation. And finally, why is this secure? Because even if I were a very evil and very, very powerful individual, I'm so powerful that I can corrupt anybody I want instantaneously in the world. Who would I want to corrupt? The people in the committee so that I can choose the page of the ledger. But I do have a problem. I do not know whom I should corrupt. Should I corrupt this lady in Shanghai, this other guy in Paris? Because I don't know, the winners are random, so I don't know whom I should corrupt. But once the winner come forward and say, here is my winning ticket, and you propagate your winning ticket across the network, together with your opinion about the block, now I know who they are. For sure, I can corrupt all 1000 of them given to my incredible powers. But so what? Whatever they said, they already said, and their winning tickets and their opinions are very propagated across the network. And I do not have the power, no more than the US government, or any government has the power to put back in the bottle a message, very propagated by WikiLeaks. So everything you just described is kind of, is fascinating, a set of ideas. And, you know, you know, online, I've been reading quite a bit, and people are really excited about a set of ideas. Nevertheless, it is not the dominating technology today. So Bitcoin, in terms of cryptocurrency, is the most popular cryptocurrency, and then Ethereum, and so on. So it's useful to kind of comment, we already talked about proof of work a little bit. But what, in your sense, does Bitcoin get right? And where is it lacking? Okay, so the first thing that Bitcoin got right is to understand that there was the need of a cryptocurrency. And that, in my opinion, they deserve all the success, because they say the time is ripe for this idea. Because very often, it's not enough to be right here to be right at the right time. And somebody got it right there. So hard to offer to Bitcoin for that. And so what they got right is that it is hard to subvert and change the ledger to cancel a transaction. It's not impossible, but it is very hard. What they did not get right is somehow that is a great story of value, currency-wise. But money is not only a question that you store it and you put under the mattress. Money wants to be transacted. And the transaction in Bitcoins are very little. So if you want to store value, everybody needs to store value. Might as well use Bitcoin. I mean, it's the plan, but if you don't look at it for a moment, at least it's a great store of value. And everybody needs a store of value. But most of the time, we want to transact. We want to interact. We don't put the money under the mattress, right? So we want to transact. And that, they didn't get it right. That is too slow to transact. Too few transactions. Just the scalability. The scalability issue. Is it possible to build stuff on top of Bitcoin that fixes the scalability? I mean, this is the thing. You look at, there's a bunch of technologies that kind of hit the right need at the right time and they have flaws, but we kind of build infrastructures on top of them over time to fix it as opposed to getting it right from the beginning. Or is it difficult to do? Well, that is difficult to do. So you're talking to somebody that when I decided to throw my heart in the arena and I decided, first of all, as I said before, I much admire my predecessors. I mean, they got it right, a lot of things. And I really admire for that. But I had a choice to make. Either I patch something that has holes all over the place or I start from scratch. I decided to start from scratch because sometimes it's a better way. So what about Ethereum, which looks at proof of stake and a lot of different innovative ideas that kind of improve or seek to improve on some of the flaws of Bitcoin? Ethereum had another great idea. So they figured out that money and payments are important as they are. They are only the first level, the first stepping stone. The next level are smart contracts. And they were at the vision to say, the people will need smart contracts, which allow me and you to somehow to transact securely without being shopper owned by a trusted third party, by a mediator. By the way, because mediators are hard to find. And in fact, maybe even impossible to find. If you live in Thailand and I live in New Zealand, maybe we don't have a common person that we know and trust. And even if we find them, guess what? They want to be paid. So much so that 6% of the world GDP goes into financial friction, which is essentially third party. So the headed right of the world needed that. But again, the scalability is not there. And the system of smart contracts in Ethereum is slow and expensive. And I believe is not enough to satisfy the appetite and the need that we have for smart contracts. Well, what do you make of just as a small sort of aside in human history, perhaps it's a big one, is NFT the non-fungible tokens? Do you find those interesting technically or is it more interesting on the social side of things? Well, both. I think NFTs are actually great, right? So you are an artist to create a song or it could be a piece of art. It has many unique representation of a piece where there is an artifact of something dreamed up by you and as unique representation, but now you can trade. And the important part is that now you have not only the NFTs themselves, but their ability to trade them quickly, fast, securely, knowing who owns which rights. And that gives a totally new opportunity for content creators to be remunerated for whatever they do. So, but ultimately you still have to have that scalability, security and decentralization to make it work for bigger and bigger applications. Correct. Yeah. I still wonder what kind of applications are yet to be enabled by it, because so much. The interesting thing about NFTs, if you look outside of art, is just like money, you can start playing with different social constructs. You can start playing with ideas. You can start playing with even like investing. Somebody was talking about almost creating an economy out of like creative people or influencers. Like if you start a YouTube channel or something like that, you can invest in that person and you can start trading their creations and then almost like create a market out of people's ideas, out of people's creations, out of the people themselves that generate those creations. And there's a lot of interesting possibilities of what you can do with that. I mean, it seems ridiculous, but you're basically creating a hierarchy of value, maybe artificial in the digital world and are trading that. But in so doing are inspiring people to create. So maybe as a sort of our economy gets better and better and better where actual work in the physical space becomes less and less in terms of its importance, maybe we'll completely be operating in a digital space where these kinds of economies have more and more power. And then you have to have this kind of blockchains to the scalability, security and decentralization. And decentralization is of course the tricky one because people in power start to get nervous. Absolutely. Once in power, you're always nervous that you'll be supplanted by somebody else. That is your job. So you can relation to that. That is your job. So you can relation to the job, the top job, and now everybody wants it. Well, what is your sense about our time and the future hope about the decentralization of power? Do you think that's something that we can actually achieve? Given that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And it's so wonderful to be absolutely powerful. Well, good question. So there are, so first of all, I believe that by the way, there is a complex questions, Lex, and like all the rest of your questions. I'm so very sorry. It's okay. I am enjoying it. So, but so there are two things. First of all, power has been centralized for a variety of reasons. When you want to get it, it's easier for somebody, even a single person to grab power. But there is also some kind of a technology, lack of it, that justified having in power. Because in a way, in a society in which even communication, nevermind blockchain, which is common knowledge, but even simple unilateral communication is hard, it is much easier to say, you do as I say, because the alternative is. So there is a little bit of a technology barrier. But I think of it, and now to get to this common knowledge, that is a totally different story. Now we have finally the technology for doing this. So that is one part. But I really believe that by having a distributed system, not only you don't have a way, you have to actually much more stable and durable system. Because not only for corruption, but even for things that go astray and you give it a long enough time by strange version of Murphy's law, whatever goes wrong, goes wrong. And so, and if the power is diffused, you actually are much more stable. If you look at any living complex, living being is distributed. I mean, I don't have somebody is a, okay, tell Sylvia now it's time to eat. You have millions of cells in your body. You have billions of bacteria. Exactly. Help me in the guts of the thing. You know, we are in a soup of it somehow keeps us alive. So it's strange enough, however, when we design systems, we design them centralized. We ourselves are distributed beings. And when we plan to say, okay, I want to create an architecture, how about I make a pyramid, I put this on the top and the power flows down. And so again, it's a little bit perhaps of a technology problem, but now the technology is there. So that is a big challenge to rethink how we want to organize power in very large system and distribute a system in my opinion, a much more resilient. Let's put this way. There was a wine of my Italian compatriots, right? I know Machiavelli who looked at the time, there was a big, there was a bunch of a small state, a democratic Republic of Florence, of Venice, and the other thing. And there was the Ottoman Empire, but at the time was an empire and a Southern was very centralized. And he made the political observation that goes roughly to say whenever you have such a centralized thing, it's very hard to overtake that the former government is centralized. But if you get it, it's so easy to keep the population. While instead these other things are much more resilient. When the power is distributed, it's going to be lasting for much a longer time. And ultimately maybe the human spirit wants that kind of resilience, wants that kind of distribution. It's just that we didn't have technology throughout history. Machiavelli didn't have the computer, the internet. That is certainly part of the reason. Yes. You've written an interesting blog post. If we take a step out of the realm of bits and into the realm of governance, you wrote a blog post about making Algorand governance decentralized. Can you explain what that means? The philosophy behind that? How you decentralized basically all aspects of this kind of system? Well, the philosophy and how, let's start with the philosophy. So I really believe that nothing fixed lasts very long. And so I really believe that life is about intelligent adaptation. Things change and we have to be nimble and adjust to change. And when I see a lot of a crypto project, actually very proud to say it's fixed in stone. Right? Code is law, law is code. I very far of a code that will never change. You go, wow. When I'm saying this is a recipe to me of disaster, not immediately, but soon. Just imagine you take an ocean liner and you want to go, I don't know, from Lisbon to New York and you set a course, iceberg, no iceberg, tempest, no tempest. It doesn't matter. That is not the way. You need a till, you need to correct, you need to adjust. And so by the way, we would design Algorand with the idea that the code was evolving as the needs. And of course, a waiver is a system in which, every time there is an adjustment, you must have essentially a vote that right now is orchestrated. 90% of the stake, they say, okay, we are ready. We agree on the next version and we pick up this version. So we are able to evolve without losing too many components left and right. But I think without evolving, any system essentially become asphytic and is going to shrivel and die sooner or later. And so that is needed. And what do you want to do on the blockchain? You have a perfect platform in which you can log your wishes, your votes, your things, so that you have a guarantee that whatever vote you express is actually seen by everybody else. So everybody sees really the outcome, call it a referendum or a change. And VETA is, in my opinion, a system that wants to live long as to adapt. There's an interesting question about leaders. I've talked to Vitalik Buterin, I'll probably talk to him again soon. He's one of the leaders, maybe one of the faces of the Ethereum project. And it's interesting, you have Satoshi Nakamoto, who's the face of Bitcoin, I guess, but he's faceless. He, she, they. It does seem like in our, whatever it is, maybe it's 20th century, maybe it's Machiavellian thinking, but we seek leaders. Leaders have value. Linus Torvald, the leader of Linux, open source development, a lot. I mean, there's no, it's not, it's not that the leadership is sort of dogmatic, but it's inspiring. And it's also powerful in that through leaders, we propagate the vision. Like the vision of the project is more stable. Maybe not the details, but the vision. And so do you think there's value to, because we're, there's a tension between decentralization and leadership, like in visionaries. What do you make of that tension? Okay. So I really believe that that's another good question. I think that, I really believe in the power of emotions. I think the emotional, the creative impulse of everybody else. And therefore it's very easy for a leader to be a physical person, a real being. And that interprets our emotions. And by the way, this emotion has to resonate. And what is good is that the more intimate our emotions are, the more universal they are, paradoxically. The more personal, the more everybody else somehow magically agrees and feels a bit of the same. And so, and it's very important to have a leader in the initial phase that generates out of nothing, out of nothing something that is important leadership. But then the true test of leadership is to disappear after you led the community. So in my opinion, the quintessential leader in my, according to my vision is George Washington. He served for one term, he served for another term. And then all of a sudden he retired and became a private citizen. And 200 and change years later, we still are with some defects, but we have done a lot of things right. And we have been able to evolve. That to me is success in leadership. While instead you contrast our experiment with a lot of our experiment. I've done so much so well that I want another four years. And why should I be only a four and I have another eight? Why should it be another eight? Give me 16 and we'll fix all your problems. And then is the type in my opinion of failed leadership. Leadership ought to be really lead, ignite and disappear. And if you don't disappear, the system is going to die with you. And it's not a good idea for everybody else. Is there, so we've been talking a little bit about cryptocurrency, but is there spaces where this kind of blockchain ideas that you're describing, which I find fascinating. Do you think they can revolutionize some other aspects of our world? That's not just money. A lot of things are going to be revolutionized. Is independent of finance. So by the way, I really believe that finance is an incredible form of freedom. I mean, if I'm free to do everything I want, but I don't have the means to do anything, that's a bad idea. So I really think the financial freedom is very, very important. But you know, but just to say that, you know, against, you know, censorship, you write something on the chain and now nobody can take it out. That is a very important way to express, you know, our view. And then the transparency that you give because everybody can see what's happening on the blockchain. So transparency is not money, but I believe that transparency actually is a very important ingredient also of finance. Let's put it this way, as much as I'm enthusiastic about blockchain and decentralized finance, and we have actually our expression, we're creating this future five, as much as we want to do, we must agree that the first guarantee of financial growth and prosperity are really the legal system, the courts, because we may not think about them and say, oh, the courts are a kind of a bunch of boring lawyers, but without them, I'm saying there is no certainty, there is no notion of equality, there is no notion that you can resolve your disputes. Think that's what drives the commerce and things. And so what I really believe that the blockchain actually makes a lot of this trust essentially automatic by making it impossible to cheat in very way. You don't even need to go to court if nobody can change the ledger. So essentially it's a way of, you cannot solve an illegal system that uses a blockchain, but what I'm saying, a big chunk of it can actually be guaranteed and there is no reason why technology should be antagonistic to legal scholarship. It could be actually coexisting and one should start to doing the interest things that the technology alone cannot do, and then you go from there. But I think that essentially blockchain can affect all kinds of our behavior. Yes. In some sense, the required transparency ensures honesty, prevents corruption. So there's a lot of system that could use that and the legal system is one of them. There's a little bit of attention that I wonder if you can speak to where this kind of transparency, there's a tension with privacy. Is it possible to achieve privacy if wanted on a blockchain? Do you have ideas about different technologies that can do that? People have been playing with different ideas. So absolutely. The answer is yes. And by the way, I'm a cryptographer. Right. So I really believe in privacy and I have devoted a big chunk of my life to guarantee privacy even when it seems almost impossible to have it. And it is possible to have it also in the blockchain too. However, I believe in timing as well. And I believe that the people have the right to understand their system they live in. And right now, people can understand the blockchain to be something that cannot be altered and is transparent. And that is good enough. And right now, any way to add, and there is a pseudo privacy for the fact that who knows if this public key belongs to me or to you, right? And when I want to change my money from one public key, I split it to other public keys, going to figure out which one is Sylvia, all of them are Sylvia, only one of Sylvia. Who knows? So you get some vanilla privacy, not the one I could talk. And I think it's good enough because, and it's important for now, that we absorb this stage. Because the next stage, we must understand the privacy tool rather than taking on faith. When the public starts saying, I believe in the scientists and whatever they say, I swear by them and therefore they tell me it's private, it's private, and nobody understands it very well, we need a much more educated about the tools we are using. And so I look forward to deploying more and more privacy on the blockchain. But we are not, I will not rush to it until the people understand and are behind whatever we have right now. So you build privacy on top of the power of the blockchain, you have to first understand the power of the blockchain. Yes. So Algorand is like one of the most exciting, technically at least from my perspective, technologies, ideas in this whole space. What's the future of Algorand look like? Is it possible for it to dominate the world? Let's put it this way. I certainly working very hard with a great team to give the best blockchain that one can demand and enjoy. And that said, I really believe that there is going to be, it's not a winner takes them all. So it's going to be going to be a few blockchains and each one is going to have its own brand and it's going to be great at something. And sometimes it's scalability, sometimes it's your views, sometimes it's a thing. And it's important to have a dialogue between these things. And I'm sure, and I'm working very hard to make sure that Algorand is one of them, but I don't believe that it's even desirable to have a winner takes all because we need to express different things. But the important thing is going to have enough interoperability with various systems so that you can transfer your assets where you have the best tool to service them, whatever your needs are at the time. So there's an idea, I don't know, they call themselves Bitcoin maximalists, which is essentially the bet that the philosophy that Bitcoin will eat the world. So you're talking about it's good to have variety. Their claim is it's good to have the best technology dominate the medium of exchange, the medium of store value, the money, the digital currency space. What's your sense of the positives and the negatives of that? So I feel people are smart and it's going to be very hard for anybody and Bitcoin to win. And because people want more and more things. There is an Italian saying that goes as, translates well, I think, it goes, the appetite grows while eating. Okay. I think you understand what he means. So I say, I'm not hungry. Okay, food. Let me try this and that. So we want more and more and more. And when you find something like Bitcoin, which I already had very good things to say, but it does something very well, but it's a static, I mean, store value. Yes, I think it's a great, like the rest, it would be a sad world if the world in which we are so anchoring down, so on the defensive that we want to store value and hide it under the mattress. I long for a world in which is open. We all want to transact and interact with each other. And therefore, when you want to store value, one, perhaps the one chain, you want to have transact, maybe is another. I'm not saying that, you know, one chain cannot be stored of value or other thing, but I really believe that I believe in the ingenuity of people and in the innovation that is intrinsic to the human nature. We want always different things. So how can it be something invented, whatever it is, the decades ago is going to fulfill the needs of our future generations. I'm not going to fulfill my needs, let alone my kids or their kids. I use the, we are going to have a different world. And we are going to have a different world and things will evolve. So you believe, yeah. So you believe that life, intelligent life is ultimately about adaptability and evolving. So static loses in the end. Let me ask the, well, first the ridiculous question. Do you have any clue who Satoshi Nakamoto is? Is that even an interesting question? Well, your questions are very interesting. So, and I think, so I would say, first of all, it's not me. Okay. And I can prove it because, you know, if I were Satoshi Nakamoto, I would have not found an algorithm which takes totally different principles to approach to the system. But the other thing, who is Satoshi Nakamoto? You know, what the right answer is, is not him or she, her or them. Satoshi Nakamoto is Bitcoin. Because to me, is such a coherent proof of work that at the end, the creator and the creation identify themselves. So he says, okay, I understand Michelangelo. Okay. He did the Sistine Chapel. Fine. He did the St. Peter's dome. Fine. He did the most of the Pietra statue. Fine. But besides this, who was Michelangelo? That's the wrong question. It's his own work. That is Michelangelo. So I think that when you look at the Bitcoin is a piece of work that as it defects, yes, like anything human, but it was captivated the imaginations of millions of people as subverted the status quo. And I'm saying, you know, whoever this person or people are, he's living in this piece of work. It is Bitcoin. That's my idea. The idea of the work is bigger. We forget that sometimes. It's something about our biology once likes to see a face and attach a face to the idea when really the idea is the thing we love. The idea is the thing that impact ideas, the thing that ultimately we, you know, Steve Jobs or somebody like that will associate with the Mac or the iPhone with just everything he did at Apple. Apple, actually the company is Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs, the man is, is, is a pales in comparison to the creation. Correct. And the sense of aesthetics that has brought to the daily lives and very often aesthetic wins in the long, in the long, in the long game. And these are very elegant design product. And when you say, oh, elegance, a very few people care about it. Apparently millions and millions and millions and millions of people do because we are attacked by beauty. And these are beautifully designed products. And, and, and, you know, and they've in addition to ever the technological aspect of the other thing. And I think, yes, that is, uh, yeah, as the Stasiewski said, beauty will save the world. So I'm, I'm with you on that one. Right. It currently seems like cryptocurrency, all these different technologies are, um, gathering a lot of excitement, not just in our discourse, but in their like scale of financial impact. A lot of companies are starting to invest in Bitcoin. Do you think that, uh, the main method of store value and exchange of value, basically money will soon or at some point in the century will become cryptocurrency? Yes. So mind you, as I said, that the notion of cryptocurrency, like any other fundamental human notion has to evolve, but yes. So I think that, uh, he has a lot of momentum behind it. Um, it's not only static as of this programmable money as a, I think smart contracts, it allows a peer to peer interaction among people who don't even know each other. Right. And they don't even very far. I cannot even trust each other just because of it. They never they never saw each other. So I think it's so powerful that, uh, uh, is going to do this said again, a particular cryptocurrency should develop and cryptocurrency, they will all develop, but the answer is yes, we are going to, uh, towards a much more, uh, unless we have a society, a sudden crisis for different reasons, which nobody hopes. There's always an asteroid, there's always something, uh, nuclear war and all the existential crisis that we kind of think about, including artificial intelligence. Uh, okay. It's funny. You mentioned that, um, Michelangelo and Steve jobs, you know, set of ideas represents the person's work. So we talked about Algorand, which is a super interesting set of technologies, but you know, he did also win the touring award. You have a bunch of, you have a bunch of ideas that are, you know, seminal ideas. So can we talk about cryptography for a little bit? What is the most beautiful idea in cryptography or computer science or mathematics in general? Asking somebody who has explored the depths of all. Well, there are a few contenders and, uh, either your work or, uh, or other work. Let's leave my work aside. And, uh, and, uh, so, but the one, uh, powerful idea and is, uh, both an old idea in some sense and a very, very modern one. And, uh, in my opinion is this idea of a one way function. So a function that easy to evaluate. So given X, you can compute F of X easily, but given F of X is very hard to go back to X. Okay. Think like breaking a glass, easy, reconstruct the glass harder. Frying an egg, easy, fried egg to go back to the original egg, hard. If you want to be extreme killings, a living being, unfortunately easy, the other way around, very hard. And so the fact that the notion of, of a function, which you have a recipe that is in front of your eyes to transform an X into F of X. And then from F of X, even though you see the recipe to transform it, you cannot go back to X that in my opinion is one of the most elegant and momentous notions that there are. And there is a computational notion because of the difficulties in a computational sense. And it's a mathematical notion because you were talking about function. And, uh, it's so fruitful because that is actually the foundation of all the cryptography. And, uh, let me tell you, it's an old notion because very often in any mythology that we think of the most powerful gods or goddesses are the ones of X and the opposite of X, the gods of love and death. And when you take opposite, they don't just, you know, erase one another, you create something way more powerful. And they, this one way function is extremely powerful because essentially becomes something that is easy for the good guys and bad for the, but hard for the bad guys. So for instance, in pseudo random number generation, the easy part of the function corresponds. You want to generate beats very quickly and hard is predicting what the next bit is. It doesn't look the same. One is X F of X going from X to X. What does it do predicting beats by a magic of reductions and mathematical, um, um, um, apparatus, this simple function morphs itself into pseudo random generation. This simple function morphs itself in digital signature scheme in which digitally signing should be easy and forging should be hard. Again, a digital signature is not going from X to F of X, but the magic and the richness of this notion is met that it is so powerful with morphs in all kinds of incredible constructs. And, uh, in both these two opposites coexist, the easy and the hard. And in my opinion, it is a very, very elegant notion. So that simple notion ties together cryptography. Like you said, pseudo random number generation, you have work on pseudo random functions. What are those? What, uh, what's the difference in those and the generators, pseudo random number generators. Okay. Let's, uh, let's go back to pseudo random number generation. Yes. First of all, people think of the pseudo random number generation generates random number. Not true because I don't believe that from nothing you can get, you can, you can get, uh, something. So nothing from nothing, but randomness, you cannot create out of nothing, but what you can do is that you can be expanded. So in other words, if you give me somehow 300 random bits, truly random bits, then I can give you 300,000, 300 million, 300 trillions, 300 quadrillions, as many as you want, random bits. So that even though I tell you the recipe by which I produce these bits, but I don't tell you the initial 300 random numbers, I keep them secret. And you see all the bits I produce so far. If I, if you were to bet, given all the bits produced so far, what is the next bit in my sequence better than 50 50, of course, 50 50, anybody can guess, right? But to be in fair in something, you have to be a bit better than the effort to do this extra bit is so enormous. That is the factor random. So that is a pseudo random generator of these expanders of secret randomness, which it goes extremely fast. Okay. That said, what is the- Expanders of secret randomness beautifully put. Okay. So every time, every time somebody who, if you're a programmer is using a function that's not called pseudo random, it's called random. Usually, you know, these programming languages and it's generating different, uh, that's essentially expanding the secret randomness, but they should in the past, actually most of the library, they used something pre modern cryptography. Unfortunately, they would be better served. They could 300, uh, real seed, random number and, uh, and then expand them properly as we know now. Uh, but that has been a very old idea. In fact, one of the best philosophers have debated, uh, the, uh, whether the world was deterministic or probabilistic. Yes. Very big questions, right? Does God play dice? Exactly. Einstein says it does. It doesn't, but in fact, now we have a language of it. Even at the Albert time was not around, but it was this complexity theory, modern complexity based cryptography. And now we know that in the universe as 300 random beats, whether where is random or probabilistic or deterministic, it doesn't matter because you can expand this initial seed of randomness forever in which all the experiments you can do, all the inferences you could do, all the things you can do there, you are not be able to distinguish them from truly random. So if you are not able to distinguish truly random from this super duper pseudo randomness, are they really different things? So many had to become a really philosophical. So for things to be different, but I don't have in my lifetime in the lifetime of the universe, any method to set them aside. Well, I should be intellectually honest, say, well, pseudo random in this special function is as good as random. Do you think true randomness is possible and what does that mean? So I practically speaking, exactly as you said, if you're being honest, the pseudo randomness approaches true randomness pretty quickly. But is it, maybe this is a philosophical question, is there such a thing as true randomness? Well, the answer is actually maybe, but if it exists, it's most probably expensive to get. And in any case, if I give you one of mine, you'll never tell them apart by any other shape, no matter how much you work on it. So in some sense, if it exists or not, it really is a quote philosophical sense in the colloquial way to say that we cannot somehow pin it down. Do you ever, again, just to stay on philosophical for a bit, for a brief moment, do you ever think about free will and whether that exists? Because ultimately free will sort of is this experience that we have, like we're making choices, even though it appears that, you know, the world is deterministic at the core. I mean, that's against the debate, but if it is in fact deterministic at the lowest possible level, at the physics level, how do you make, if it is deterministic, how do you make sense of the difference between the experience of us feeling like we're making a choice and the whole thing being deterministic? So first of all, let me give you a gut reaction to the question. And the gut reaction is that it is important that we believe that there exists free will. And second of all, almost by weird logic, if we believe it exists, then it does exist. Okay? So it's very important for our social apparatus, for our sense of ourselves, that it exists. And the moment in which we so want to be almost to be conjured up in existence. But again, I really feel that if you look at some point, the space of free will seems to shrink. We realize how more and more, how much of our, say, genetic apparatus dictates who we are, why we prefer certain things than others, right? And why we react to noises of music, we prefer poetry, we may explain even all this. But at the end of the day, whether it exists in a philosophical sense or not, it's like randomness. If you can, if pseudo random is as good as random vis-a-vis lifetime of the universe, our experience, then it doesn't really matter. Yeah. So, you know, we're talking about randomness. I wonder if I can weave in quantum mechanics for a brief moment. There's a, you know, a lot of advancements on the quantum computing side. So leveraging quantum mechanics to perform a new kind of computation. And there's concern of that being a threat to a lot of the basic assumptions that underlie cryptography. What do you think? Do you think quantum computing will challenge a lot of cryptography or will cryptography be able to defend all those kinds of things? Okay, great. So first of all, for the record, and not because I think it matters, but it's important to set the record, there are people who continue to contend that quantum mechanics exist, but it's nothing to do with computing. It's not going to accelerate it, at least in very basic, hard computation. That is a belief that you cannot take it out. I'm a little bit more agnostic about it, but I really believe going back to whatever I said about the one-way function. So one-way function, what is it? That is a cryptography. So does quantum computing challenge the one-way function? Essentially, you can boil it down to does quantum computing follow one-way function? What is one way function? Easy in one direction, hard in the other. Okay, but if quantum computing exists, when you define what it is easy, it's not easy by a classical computer and hard by a classical computer, but easy for a quantum computer, that's a bad idea. But once easy means it should be easy for a quantum and hard for also quantum. Then you can see that yes, it's a challenge, but it's a hope because you can absorb if one computing really realizes and becomes available according to the promises, then you can use them also for the easy part. And once you use it for the easy part, the choices that you have a one-way function, they multiply. So okay, so they particularly are candidates of one-way function. They not be one-way anymore, but quantum one-way function may continue to exist. And so I really believe that for life to be meaningful with one-way function had to exist because just imagine that anything that becomes easy to do. I mean, what kind of life is it? I mean, so you need that. And if something is hard, but it's so hard to generate, you'll never find something which is hard for you. You want that there is abundance, that is easy to produce hard problem. That's my opinion is why life is interesting because hard problem pop up at a really relative speed. So in some sense, I almost think that I do hope they exist. If they don't exist, somehow life is way less interesting than it actually is. Yeah, it does. That's funny. It does seem like the one-way function is fundamental to all of life, which is the emergence of the complexity that we see around us seem to require the one-way function. I don't know if you play with cellular automata, that's just another formulation of a very simple, it's almost a very simple illustration of starting out with simple rules and one way being able to generate incredible amounts of complexity. But then you ask the question, can I reverse that? And it's just surprising how difficult it is to reverse that. It's surprising even in constrained situations, it's very difficult to prove anything. The sad thing about it, I don't know if it's sad, but it seems like we don't even have the mathematical tools to reverse engineer stuff. I don't know if they exist or not, but in the space of the universe, I don't know if they exist or not, but in the space of cellular automata, where you start with something simple and you create something incredibly complex, can you take a small picture of that complex and reverse engineer? That's kind of what we're doing as scientists here. You're seeing the result of the complexity and you're trying to come up with some universal law that generate all of this. What is the theory of everything? What are the basic physics laws that generate this whole thing? There's a hope that you should be able to do that, but it's difficult. There is also some poetry on the fact that it's difficult because it gives us some mystery without which it's not so fun. Life will be less fun. Can we talk about interactive proofs a little bit and zero-knowledge proofs? What are those? Okay. How do they work? Interactive proof actually is a modern realization and conceptualization of something that we knew was true, that is easy to go to lecture. In fact, that's my motivation. We invented schools to go to lecture. We don't say, oh, I have the Minister of Education. I published this book. You read it. This is a book for this year. This book for this year. We spend a lot of our treasury in educating our kids and in person, educating, go to class, interact with the teacher on the blackboard and chalk on my time. Now we can have a whiteboard and presumably you're going to have actually these magic pens and a display instead. But the idea is that interactively, you can convey truth much more efficiently. We knew this psychologically. It's better to hear an explanation than just to belabor some paper. Same thing. Interactive proofs is a way to do the following. Rather than doing in some complicated, very long papers and possibly infinitely long proofs, exponentially long proofs, you say the following. If this theorem is true, there is a game that is associated to the theorem. And if the theorem is true, this game, I have a winning strategy that I can win half of the time, no matter what you do. Okay. So then you say, well, is the theorem true? You believe me. Or why should I believe you? So, okay, let's play. And if I prove that I have a strategy and I win the first time and I win the second time, then I lose a third time, but I win more than half of the time, or I win all the time if the theorem is true, and at least at the most half of the time if the theorem is false, you statistically get convinced. You can verify this quickly. And therefore, when the game typically is extremely fast, so you generate a miniature game in which if the theorem is true, I win all the time, if the theorem is false, I can win at most half of the time. And if I win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, you can deduce either the theorem is true, which most probably is the case, or I've been very, very unlucky because it's like if I had a hundred coin tosses and I got a hundred heads, very improbable. So that is a way. And so this transformation from the formal statement of a proof into a game that can be quickly played, and you can draw statistics how many times you win, is one of the big conquests of modern complexity theory. And in fact, actually as I highlighted, the notion of a proof has really given us a new insight of what to be true means and what truth is and what proofs are. So these are legitimately proofs. So what kind of mysteries can it allow us to unlock and prove? You said truth. So what kind of truth does that allow us to arrive at? So it enlarges the real mobile disprovable because in some sense of the classical way of proving things was extremely inefficient from the verifier point of view. And so therefore there is so much proof that you can take. But in this way, you can actually very quickly, minutes, verify something that is the correctness of an assertion that otherwise would have taken a lifetime to belabor and check all the passages of a very, very long proof. And you better check all of them because if you don't check one line, an error can be in that line. And so you have to go linearly through all this stuff rather than bypass this. So you enlarge a tremendous amount what the proof is. And in addition, once you have the idea that essentially a proof system is something that allows me to convince you of a true statement but does not allow me to convince you of a false statement. And that at the end says it's a proof. Proof can be beautiful, should be elegant, but at the end it is true or false if you want to be able to differentiate. It is possible to prove the truth and it should be impossible or statistically extremely hard to prove something false. And if you do this, you can prove way, way more once you understand this. And on top of it, we got some insight like in this zero-knowledge proofs that is something which you took for granted were the same, knowledge and verification, actually separate concepts. So you can verify that an assertion is correct without having any idea why this is so. And so people felt to say, if you want to verify something, you have to have the proof. Once you have the proof, you know why it's true. You have the proof itself. And so somehow you can totally differentiate knowledge and verification, validity. So totally you can decide if something is true and still have no idea. Is there a good example in your mind? Oh, actually, you know, at the beginning we labored to find the first knowledge, zero-knowledge proof. Then we found a second, then we found a third. And then a few years later, actually we proved a theorem which essentially says every theorem, no matter what about, can be explained in a zero-knowledge way. Okay. Wow. So it's not a class of theorem, but all theorems. And it's a very powerful thing. So we were really for thousands of years bought this identity between knowledge and verification had to be hand in hand together and for no reason at all. I mean, we had to develop a wave of technology. As you know, I'm very big in technology because it makes us more human and make us understand more things than before. And I think that is a good thing. So this interactive proof process, there's power in games. Yes. And you've recently gotten into, recently, I'm not sure you can correct me, mechanism design. Yeah. So it's, I mean, first of all, maybe you can explain what mechanism design is and the fascinating space of playing with games and designing games. Mechanism design is that you want a certain behavior to arise. If you want to organize a societal structure or something, you want to have some orderly behavior to arise because it is important for your goals. But you know that people, they don't care what my goals are. They care about maximizing their utility. So putting crassly, making money, the more money, the better, so to speak. I'm exaggerating. Self-interest in whatever way they... So what you want to do is, ideally, what you want to do is to design a game so that while people played so to maximize their self-interest, they achieve the social goal and behavior that I want. That is really the best type of thing. And it is a very hard science and art to design these games. And it challenges us to actually come up with solution concepts for way to analyzing the games that need to be broader. And I think game theory has developed a bunch of very compelling way to analyze the game. If the game has the best property, you can have a pretty good guarantee that it's going to be played in a given way. But as it turns out, and not surprisingly, these tools have a range of action like anything else. All these so-called the technical solution concept, the way to analyze the game like dominance, strategy, equilibrium, something comes to mind to be very meaningful, but as a limited power. In some sense, the games that can be admit such a way to be analyzed... There's a very specific kind of games and the rules are set, the constraints are set, the utilities are all set. So if you want to reason, if there is a way, say, that you can analyze a restricted class of games this way, but most games don't fall into this restricted class, then what do I do? Then you need to enlarge a way what a rational player can do. So for instance, in my opinion, at least in some of my... I played with this for a few years and I was doing some exoteric things, I'm sure, in the space that were not exactly mainstream. And then I changed my interest and now I'm doing blockchain. But what I'm saying, for a while I was doing... So for instance, to me, is a way in which I designed the game and you don't have the best move for you. The best move is the move that is best for you no matter what the other players are doing. Sometimes a game doesn't have that. Okay, so you don't have to do that. Sometimes a game doesn't have that. Okay, it's too much to ask. But I can design the game such that given the option in front of you say, oh, these are really stupid for me, take them aside. But these are not stupid. So if you design the game so that in any combination on non-stupid things that the player can do, I achieve what I want, I'm done. I don't care to find the very unique equilibrium. I don't give a damn. I want to say, well, as long as you don't do stupid things and nobody else does stupid things, good social things outcome arise, I should be equally happy. And so I really believe that this type of analysis is possible and has a bigger radius. So it reaches more games, more classes of games. And after that, we have to enlarge it again. And it's going to be, we're going to have fun because human behavior can be conceptualized in many ways. And it's a long game. It's a long game. Do you have favorite games that you're looking at now? I mean, I suppose your work with the blockchain and Algorand is the kind of game that you're basically just mechanism design, design the game such that it's scalable, secure and decentralized, right? Yes. Yes. And very often yet to say, and you must also design so that the incentives are and tend to be the truth or whatever little I learned from my venture in mechanism design is that incentives are very hard to design because people are very complex creatures. And so somehow the way we design Algorand is a totally different way, essentially with no incentives, essentially. And then, but technically speaking, there is a notion that is actually believable, right? So that to say, people want to maximize their utility. Yes. Up to a point. Let me tell you. Assume that if you are honest, you make a hundred bucks. But if you are dishonest, no matter how dishonest you are, you can only make a hundred bucks and one cent. What are you going to be? I'm saying, you know what, technically speaking, even that one cent, nobody bothers and say, how much am I going to make by honest hundred? If I'm devious and if I'm a criminal, 100 bucks and one cent, you know, I might as well be honest. Okay. So that essentially is called, Epsilon utility equilibrium, but I think it's good. And that's what we design essentially means that there is an, having no incentives is actually a good thing because it prevents people from reasoning how else I'm going to gain the system. But why can we achieve in our ground to have no incentives? And in Bitcoin instead, you have to pay the miners because they do tremendous amount of work. Because if you have to do a lot of work, then you demand to be paid accordingly. Because you, right. But if I're going to say, you had to add two and two equal to four, how much you want to be paid for this. If you don't give me this, I don't add the two and two. I would say you can add the two and two in your sleep. You don't need to be paid to add the two and two. So the idea is that if we make the system so efficient, so that generating the next block is so damn simple, it doesn't hit the universe, let alone my computer, let alone take some microsecond of computation, I might as well not being received incentives for doing that and try to incentivize some other part of the system, but not to the main consensus, which is a mechanism for generating an adding block to the chain. Since you're Italian, Sicilian, I also heard rumors that you are a connoisseur of food. If I said today is the last day you get to be alive, you shouldn't have trusted me. You never know with the Russian whether you're going to make it out or not. If you had one last meal, you can travel somewhere in the world, either you make it or somebody else makes it, what's that going to look like? All right. If it's one last meal, I must say in this era of COVID, I've not been able to see my mom. My mom was a fantastic chef and had this very traditional food. As you know, the very traditional food are great for a reason because they survived hundreds of years of culinary innovation. There is one very laborious thing, which is, you heard the name, which is this parmigiana, but to do it is a piece of art, it requires so many hours, that only my mom could do it. If we have one last meal, I want to parmigiana. What's the laborious process? Is it the ingredients? Is it the actual process? Is it the atmosphere and the humans involved? The latter. The ingredient like in any other, in Italian cuisine, believes in very few ingredients. If you take quintessential Italian recipe, spaghetti pesto, pesto is olive oil, very good, extra virgin olive oil, basil, pine nuts, pepper, clove of garlic, not too much, otherwise you do- Overpower everything. And then you have to do either two schools of thought, parmesan or pecorino or a mix of the two. I mentioned six ingredients. That is typical Italian. I understand that there are other cuisines, for instance, the French cuisine, which is extremely sophisticated, and extremely combinatorial, or some Chinese cuisine, which has a lot of many more ingredients in this. And yet the art is to put them together a lot of things. In Italy, it's really the striving for simplicity. You have to find few ingredients, but the right ingredients to create something. In parmigiana, the ingredients are eggplants, tomatoes, basil, but how to put them together in the process is an act of love, labor and love. You can spend the entire day, I'm exaggerating, but the entire morning for sure to do it properly. Yeah, as a Japanese cuisine too, there's a mastery to the simplicity with the sushi. I don't know if you've seen Georgians of sushi, but there's a mastery to that that's propagated through the generations. It's fascinating. It's fascinating. People love it when I ask about books. I don't know if books, whether fiction, nonfiction, technical, or completely non-technical, had an impact in your life throughout, if there's anything you would recommend, or even just mention as something that gave you an insight or moved you in some way. So, okay. I don't know if I can comment, because in some sense, you almost had to be Italian or to be such a scholar, but being Italian, one thing that really impressed me tremendously is the Divine Comedy. It is a medieval poem, a very long poem divided in three parts, Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. Okay? And that is the non-trivial story of a middleman man gets into a crisis, personal crisis. And then out of this crisis, he purifies makes a catastrophe, purifies himself more and more and more until he's become capable of actually meeting God. Okay? And that is actually a complex story. So you have to get some very sophisticated language, maybe Latin at that point that we were talking about 1200s Italy, right? In Florence. This guy, instead, he chose his own dialect, not spoken outside his own immediate circle, right? Florentine dialect. Actually, Dante really made Italian. So how can you express such a sophisticated things and so forth? And then the point is that these words that nobody actually knew because they were essentially dialect and plus a bunch of very intricate rhymes in which you had to rhyme with the things and turns out that by getting meaning from the things that rhyme, you essentially guess what the word means and you invent Italian and you communicate by almost osmosis what you want is a miracle of communication in a dialect, a very poor language, a very unsophisticated to express very sophisticated situation. I love it. People who love it and Italians and not Italian. But what I got of it is that very often limitations are our strength because if you limit yourself at a very poor language, somehow you get out of it and you achieve even better form of communication. They're using a hyper sophisticated, a literary language with lots of resonance from the prior books that you can actually instantaneously quote. He couldn't quote anything because nothing was written in Italian before him. So I really felt that limitations are our strength. And I think that rather than complaining about the limitations, we should embrace them because if you embrace our limitation, limited as we are, we find very creative solutions that people with less limitation we have, we would not even think about it. Well, the limitations are kind of superpower. If you choose to see it that way, is there, since you speak both languages, is there something that's lost in translation to you? Is there something you can express in Italian that you can't in English and vice versa? Maybe is there something you could say to the musicality of the language? I mean, I from I've been to Italy a few times and I'm not sure if it's the actual words, but it's the people are certainly very, there's body language too. There's just the whole being is language. So I don't know if you miss some of that when you're speaking English in this country. Yes. In fact, actually, I certainly, I miss it. And somehow it was a sacrifice that I made consciously by the time I arrived, I knew that this, I was not going to express myself at that level. And it was actually a sacrifice because given to you have also your mother tongue is Russian. So you know that you can be very expressive in your mother tongue and not very expressive in this new tongue, in new language. And then what people think of you in the new language, because when the precise of expression of things, it generates, it shows elegance or it shows knowledge or it shows as a census or it shows as a caste or education, whatever it is. So all of a sudden I found myself on the bottom. So I had to fight all my way up, back up. And, but what I'm saying, their limitations are actually our strength. In fact, it's a trick to limit yourself to exceed. There are examples in history, if you think about Hernan Cortez, he goes to invade Mexico. He has what a few hundred people with him and he has a hundred thousand people in arms on the other side. First thing he does, he limits himself. He sinks his own ship. There is no return. And at that point he actually managed to come up victorious. I actually, first of all, that's inspiring to me. I feel like I have quite a few limitations, but more practically on the Russian side, I'm going to try to do a couple of really big and really tough interviews in Russian. Once COVID lifts a little bit, I'm traveling to Russia. And I'll keep your advice in mind that the limitations is a kind of superpower. We should use it to our advantage because you do feel less like you're not able to convey your wisdom in the Russian language. Because I moved here when I was 13. So you don't, the parts of life you live under a certain language are the parts of life you're able to communicate. I became a thoughtful, deeply thoughtful human in English. But the pain from World War II, the music of the people, that was instilled with me in Russian. So I can carry both of those and there's limitations in both. I can't say philosophically profound stuff in Russian, but I can't in English express that melancholy feeling of the people. And so combining those two, I'll somehow- Oh, beautifully said. Thanks for sharing. This is great. Yes. I totally understand you. It's a struggle. You've accomplished some incredible things in the space of science, in the space of technology, in the space of theory and engineering. Do you have advice for somebody young, an undergraduate student, somebody in high school, or anyone who just feels young about life or about career, about making their way in this world? So I was telling before that I believe in emotion and my thing is to be true to your own emotion. And I think that if you do that, you're doing well because it's a life well spent and you are going never tired because you want to solve all these emotional knots that have always intrigued you from the beginning. And I really believe that to live meaningfully, creatively, and to live your emotional life. So I really believe that whether you're a scientist or an artist even more, but a scientist, I think of them as artists as well. If you are a human being, so you are really to live fully your emotions and to the extent possible, sometimes emotions can be overbearing. And my advice is try to express them with more and more confidence. Sometimes it's hard, but you are going to be much more fulfilled than by suppressing them. What about love? One of the big ones, what role does that play? That's the bigger part of emotions. It's a scary thing, right? It's a lot of vulnerability that comes with love, but there is also so much energy and power and love in all senses and in the traditional sense, but also in the sense of a broader sense for humanity, this feeling of compassion that makes us one with other people and the suffering of other people. I mean, all of this is very scary stuff, but it's really the fabric of life. Well, the sad thing is it really hurts to lose it. Yes. That's why the vulnerable comes with it. That's the thing about emotion is it's the up and down and the down seems to come always with the up, but the up only comes with the down. Let me ask you about the ultimate down, which is unfortunately, we humans are mortal or appear to be for the most part. Do you think about your own mortality? Do you fear death? I hope so, and I do, because without death, there is no life. So at least there is no meaningful life. Death is actually in some sense our ultimate motivator to live a beautiful and meaningful life. I myself felt as a young man that unless I got something that I wanted to do, I don't know why I got this idea of something to say, if I'm not able to say, I would suicide. So maybe it was a way to motivate myself, but you don't need to motivate it because in some sense, fortunately, death is there. So you better get up and do your thing because that is the best motivation to live fully. What do you hope your legacy is? You mentioned you have two kids. Yes. And so I really feel that there is, on one side is my biological legacy and that is my two kids, right? And their kids hopefully. And that is one thing. And the other thing is this common enterprise, which is society. And I really feel that my legacy would be better by providing security and privacy. Actually, for me, are metaphorical to say, I want to give you the ability to interact more and take more risks and reach out to more and more people as difficult and dangerous as it may seem. But my all scientific work is about to guarantee privacy and give you the security of interaction. And not only in a transaction, like it would be a blockchain transaction, but that is really one of the hard core of my emotional problems. And I think that these are the problems I want to tackle. And ultimately privacy and security is freedom. Freedom is at the core of this. It's dangerous. It's like the emotion thing. But ultimately that's how we create all the beautiful things around us. Do you think there's meaning to it all? This life, except the urgency that death provides and us anxious beings create cool stuff along the way. Is there a deeper meaning than if it is, what is it? Well, meaning of life. Actually, there are three meanings of life. Great. That's great. One, to seek. Two, to seek. And three, to seek. To seek what? Or is there no answer to that? There's no answer to that. I really think that the journey is more and more important than the destination, whatever that be. And I think that is a journey and is, in my opinion, at the end of the day, must admit meaningful in itself. And we must admit that maybe whatever your destination might be, we may never get there, but hell, it was a great ride. Well, I don't think there's a better way to end this, Silvio. Thank you for joining. Thank you for wasting your extremely valuable time with me today, joining on this journey of seeking something together. We found nothing, but it was very fun. I really enjoyed it. Thank you so much for talking to me today. Thank you, Alex. It's been really special for me to be interviewed by you. Thank you for listening to this conversation with Silvio Macaulay, and thank you to our sponsors, Athletic Greens Nutrition Drink, the Information In-Depth Tech Journalism website, Four Stigmatic Mushroom Coffee, and Better Help Online Therapy. Click the sponsor links to get a discount and to support this podcast. And now let me leave you with some words from Henry David Thoreau, Wealth is the ability to fully experience life. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
 The following is a conversation with Silvio Michali, a computer scientist at MIT,
 winner of the Turing Award and one of the leading minds in the fields of cryptography,
 information security, game theory, and most recently cryptocurrency and the theoretical
 foundations of a fully decentralized, secure, and scalable blockchain and Algorand, a company
 of cryptographers, engineers, and mathematicians that he founded in 2017.
 Quick mention of our sponsors, Athletic Greens Nutrition Drink, the Information In-Depth Tech
 Journalism website, Four Sigmatic Mushroom Coffee, and BetterHelp Online Therapy. Click
 the sponsor links to get a discount and to support this podcast.
 As a side note, let me say that I will be having many conversations this year on the topic of
 cryptocurrency. I am reading and thinking a lot on this topic. I just recently finished reading
 The Bitcoin Standard, a book I highly recommend. As always with this podcast, I'm approaching it
 with an open mind, with compassion, with as little ego as possible, and yes, with love.
 I hope you go along with me on this journey and don't judge me too harshly on any likely missteps.
 As usual, I will play devil's advocate. I will on purpose sometimes ask simple, even dumb questions
 all to try and explore the space of ideas here with as much grace as I can muster.
 I have no financial interests here. I only have a simple curiosity and a love for knowledge,
 especially about a set of technologies that may very well transform the fabric of human civilization.
 If you enjoy this thing, subscribe on YouTube, review it on Apple Podcasts,
 follow on Spotify, support it on Patreon, or connect with me on Twitter at Lex Friedman.
 And now here's my conversation with Silvio Macaulay.
 Let's start with the big and the basic question. What is a blockchain and why is it interesting?
 Why is it fascinating? Why is it powerful? All right. So a blockchain, think of it, is
 really a common database distributed. Think about it as a ledger in which everybody can write an
 entry in a page. You can write, I can write, and everybody can read. And you have a guarantee
 that everybody has the same copy of the ledger that is in front of you. So whatever you see on
 page seven, anyone else sees on page seven. So what is extraordinary about this is this common
 knowledge thing that I think is really a first for humanity. I mean, if you look at communication,
 like right now, you can communicate very quickly images, thoughts, or photos. But do you have a
 certainty that whatever you have received has been received by everybody else? Not really.
 And so this common knowledge and the certainty that everybody can write, nobody has been
 prevented from writing whatever they want. Nobody can erase, nobody can tear a page of a ledger,
 nobody can swap page, nobody can change anything. And that is immutable common record is extremely
 powerful. And there's something fundamental that is decentralized about it. So at least in spirit,
 to some degree, or against maybe a resistance to centralization. Absolutely. If it is not
 decentralized, how can it be common knowledge? If only one person or a few people have a ledger,
 the only way you don't have a ledger, you have to ask, what is on page seven? And how do you know
 that whatever they tell you is on page seven, they tell the same thing to everybody else.
 And so this common knowledge is extremely powerful. Just to give you an example, assume that
 you do an auction. You have worked very hard, you build a building, and now you want to auction off.
 It makes sense because you want to auction worldwide, better yet you want to tokenize
 the building and sell it in parcels. Now everybody sees the bids and you know that everybody sees the
 bids. You and I see the same bids and so does everybody else. So you know that a fair price
 has reached and you know who owns what and who has spent how much. And if you do it instead of
 a wise, you know, in a centralized system, I put a bid saying, oh, congratulations, Alex, you won.
 And your price is $12,570. I don't know. So if instead of this common knowledge is a very powerful
 tool for humanity. So we return to it from a bunch of different perspectives, including like a
 technical perspective, but you often talk about blockchain and some of these concepts of
 decentralization, scalability, security, all those kinds of things. But one of the most maybe
 impactful, exciting things that leverage the blockchain, this kind of ledger idea of common
 knowledge is cryptocurrency. So in the financial space. So is there, can you say in the same kind
 of basic way, what is cryptocurrency in the context of this common knowledge and in the
 context of the blockchain? Great. Cryptocurrency is a currency that is on such a ledger. So imagine
 that on the ledger, initially, you know that somehow say you and I are the only owner of each one. Let's
 give it to ourselves a billion each of whatever this unit. Then I start writing on the ledger.
 I give a hundred of these units to my sister. I give this much to my aunt. And then now,
 because it's written on the ledger and everybody can see, my sister can give 57 of these units
 that she received from me to somebody else. And that is money. And that is money because
 you can see that somebody who tenders your payment has really the money there. You don't have any
 more of a doubt when you want to sell an item. If I write you a check, is the check covered?
 Or do I have the money at the moment of a transaction? You really see because the ledger
 is always updated. What you see is what I see, the merchant sees. You know that the money. So
 the most powerful money system there is because it is totally transparent. And so you know that
 you have been paid and you know that the money is there. You have not to second guess anything else.
 So the common knowledge applied there is you're basically mimicking the same kind of thing you
 would get in the physical space, which is if you give a hundred of that thing, whatever,
 of that cryptocurrency to your sister, the actual transfer is as real as you giving like a basket
 of apples to your sister. Because so in the case in the physical space, the common knowledge is in
 the physics of the atoms. And then it's digital space, the common knowledge is in this ledger.
 And so that transfer holds the same kind of power, but now it's operating in the digital space.
 Go ahead.
 Again, I apologize for a set of ridiculous questions, but you mentioned cryptocurrencies
 and money. What is money? Why do we have money? Do you think about this kind of from this high
 philosophical level at times of this tool, this idea that we humans have all kind of came up with
 and seem to be using effectively to do stuff? Money is a social construct, okay, in my opinion.
 And this has been somehow people always felt that somehow money is a way to allow us to transact,
 even though we want to different things. So I have two sheep and then you have one cow.
 And I want the cow, but you are looking for blankets instead. So to have money is really
 simplifies this. But at the end of it, that's why a bit was invented. And you start with gold,
 then you start to win the congee, then you start to win the check. But at the end of the day,
 money is essentially a social construct because you know that what you receive, you can actually
 spend with somebody else. And so there is a kind of a social pact and social belief that you have.
 At the end of the day, even a barter requires these beliefs that other people are going to accept
 the quote unquote currency you offer them. Because if I'm a Mason and you ask me to build a wall
 in your field, and I did, and you in exchange, you give me a thousand sheep,
 what am I going to do? Eat them all? No, I have to feed them. And if I don't feed them,
 they die and my value is zero. So in receiving these livestock, I must believe that somebody else
 will accept them in return for something else. So my is this social belief, social shared belief
 system that makes people transact. That's fascinating. I didn't even think about that,
 that you're actually, you have a deep network of beliefs about how society operates. So the
 value is assigned even to sheep based on that everyone will continue operating how they were
 previously operating. Somebody will feed the sheep. I didn't even think about that. That's
 fascinating. So that directly transfers to the space of money and then to the space of digital
 money and cryptocurrency. Okay. Does it bother you sort of intellectually when this money that is a
 social construct is not directly tied to physical goods, like gold, for example?
 Not at all, because after all, gold has some industrial value. Nobody delights it. It's a
 metal, it doesn't oxidate. It has some good things about it. But does this industrial value really
 represent the value to which it now is traded? No. So gold is another way to express our belief.
 I give you an answer. Gold, you treat it like, oh, somebody else will want this for doing
 something else. So it is really this notion of this money is a mental construct and is shared,
 it's a social construct, I believe. And so some people feel that it's physical,
 so therefore gold exists. But then as you know now, countries, most sophisticated country right now,
 they print their own money and you believe that they are not going to exaggerate it with inflation.
 Not everybody believes it. But I'm saying there is at least, they are not going to exaggerate it
 blatantly. And therefore you receive it because you know that somebody else will accept it,
 will have a faith in the currency and so on and so forth. But whether it's gold, whether it's
 livestock, whatever it is, money is really a shared belief. So there is something, you know,
 and I've been reading more and more about different cryptocurrencies. There is a kind of
 belief that the scarcity of a particular resource like Bitcoin has a limited amount
 and it's tied to physical, you know, to proof of work. So it's tied to physical reality in terms
 of how much you can mine effectively and so on, that that's an important feature of money. Do you
 think that's an important feature to be a part of whatever the money is? That is certainly a very
 useful part. So at some point in time, you know, assume that money is something that all of a sudden
 we say daisies are money, are the currency. Then, you know, I offer you 10 daisies in payment of
 whatever goods and services you want to provide. But at the end of the day, if you know that you
 can cultivate it and generate them at will, then perhaps, you know, you should not accept my payment
 in here is a bouquet of daisies. So you need some kind of scarcity, the inability to create
 suddenly out of nothing is unimportant. And it's not an intrinsic necessity, but it's much easier
 to accept once you know that there is a fixed number of units of whatever currency there is.
 And therefore you can mentally understand I'm getting, you know, this much of a piece of a pie
 and therefore I consider myself paid. I understand what I'm receiving.
 You describe the goals of a blockchain, you have a nice presentation on this, as scalability,
 security and decentralization. And you challenge the blockchain trilemma that claims you can only
 have two of the three. So let's talk about each. What is scalability in the context of blockchain
 and cryptocurrency? What does scalability mean?
 So remember, we said that the blockchain is a ledger and each page receives a, gets transaction
 and everybody can write in this, in these pages of a ledger. Nobody can be stopped for writing
 and everybody can read them. Okay. Scalability means how fast can you write? Just imagine that
 you can write an entry in this special shared ledger once every hour. Well, you know, what are
 you going to do if you have an O1 transaction per hour, the world doesn't go around. So you need to
 add to have scalability means here that you can somehow write a lot of transaction and then you
 can read them and everybody can validate them. And that is the speed and the number of transactions
 on per second and the fact that they are shared. So you want to have this, this, the speed,
 not only in writing, but in sharing and inspection for validity. This is scalability.
 The world is big. The world wants to interact with the people, want to interact with each other.
 And you better be prepared to have a ledger in which you can write lots and lots and lots of
 transactions in this special way. Very, very, very quickly.
 So maybe from a more mathematical perspective, or can we say something about how much scalability
 is needed for a world that is big? Well, it really depends how many transactions
 you want. But remember that I think right now you have to go into at least a thousand
 transactions per second. Even if you look at credit cards, we are going to go from an average
 of 1600 to peaks of 20,000, 40,000, something like this. But remember, it's not only a question of
 the transaction per se, but the value is that the transaction is actually being shared and visible
 to everybody. And the certainty that that is the case. I can print on my own printer
 way more transactions, but nobody has the time to see or to inspect. That doesn't count. Right?
 So you want scalability at this common knowledge level. And that is the challenge.
 I also meant from a perspective of like a complexity analysis. So when you get more
 and more people involved, doesn't it just scale in some kind of way that...
 Do you like to see certain kind of properties in order to say something is scalable?
 Oh, absolutely. I took a little bit implicitly that the people transacting are actually very
 different. So if there is two people who can do a thousand transactions per second with each other,
 this is not so interesting. What we really need is to say there are billions of people at any point
 in time, thousands and thousands of them want to transact with each other and you want to support
 that. So Algorand, it solves... So that's the company, the team of cryptographers and mathematicians,
 engineers, so on, that challenged the blockchain trilemma. So let's break it down in terms of
 achieving scalability. How do we achieve scalability in the space of blockchain,
 in the space of cryptocurrency? Okay. So scalability, security, remember, and decentralization.
 Right? So that's what they want. What's the best way to approach? Can we break it down?
 Let's start with scalability and think about how do we achieve it?
 Well, to achieve it one at a time is perhaps easy. Even security, if nobody transacts,
 nobody loses money. So that is secure, but it's not scalable. So let me tell you, I'm a cryptographer,
 so I try to fight the bad guys. And what you want is that the vessel-ager that we discussed before
 cannot be tampered with. So you must think of it as a special link that nobody can erase.
 Okay. Then it has to be everybody should be able to read and not to alter the pages or the content
 of the pages. That's okay. But you know what? That is actually easy cryptographically. Easy
 cryptographically means you can use tools invented 50 years ago, which in cryptographic time is
 prehistory. Okay. We are cavemen working around and solve their problem in cryptography land.
 But there is really a fundamental problem, which is really almost a social, seems a political problem,
 is to say who the hell chooses or publishes the next page on the ledger. I mean, that is really
 the challenge. This ledger, you can always add a page because more and more transactions are to be
 written on there. And somebody has to assemble this transaction, put them on a page and add the next
 page. Who is the somebody who chooses the page and adds it on? Who can be trusted to do it?
 Exactly. Assume it is me for what I'm being, not that I want to volunteer for the job, but then I
 would have more power than any absolute monarch in history because I would have the tremendous power
 to say these are the transactions that the entire world should see. And whatever I don't write,
 this transaction will never see the light of day. I mean, no one had any such power in history.
 So it's very important to do that. And that is the quintessential problem in a blockchain.
 And people have thought about it to say it's not me, it's not you. But for instance, in proof of
 work, what people say is they say, okay, it's not me, it's not you. You know what it is? We make a
 very difficult, we invent a cryptographic puzzle, very hard to solve. The first one to solve it
 has the right to add one page to the ledger on behalf of everybody else. That now seems okay
 because sometimes I solve a puzzle before you do, sometimes you solve it before I do, or before
 somebody else solves it, it's okay. And presumably the effort you put in is somehow correlated with
 how much trust you should be given to add to the ledger. Yeah, so somehow you want to make sure
 that you need to work because you want to prevent, you want to make sure that you get one solution
 every 10 minutes, say, like in particular example of Bitcoin. So that is very rare, but two pages
 are added at the same time. Because if I solve a puzzle at the same time you do, it could happen
 that if it happens once or twice, we can survive it. But if it happens, every other page is a double
 page, then which of the two is the real page, it becomes a problem. So that's why in Bitcoin,
 it is important to have a substantial amount of work so that no many, how many people try on Earth
 to solve a puzzle, you have one solution out of how many people are trying every 10 minutes.
 So that you have, you distance these pages and you have the time to propagate through the network
 a solution and the page attached to it. And therefore there is one page at a time that is
 added. And they say, well, why don't we do it? We have a solution. Well, first of all, a page
 every 10 minutes is not fast enough. So it's a question of scalability. And second of all,
 to ensure that no matter how many people try, you get one page every 10 minutes, one solution to the
 riddle every 10 minutes. This means that the riddle becomes very, very hard. And to have a chance to
 solve it within 10 minutes, you must have such an expensive apparatus in terms of specialized
 computers, not one, not two, but thousands and thousands of them. And they produce tons of heat.
 Okay. These dissipate heat like maniac. And then you have to refrigerate them too. And so then,
 now you have air conditioning galore to add to the thing. It becomes so expensive that fewer and
 fewer and fewer people can actually compete in order to add to the page. And the problem becomes
 so crucial that in Bitcoin, depending on which day of the week you look at it, you are going to
 have two or three mining pools are really the ones capable of controlling the chain.
 So you're saying that's almost like least centralization.
 Right. It started being decentralized, but the expenses became higher and higher and higher.
 When the cost becomes higher and higher, fewer and fewer people can afford them. And then it becomes
 de facto centralized. And a different type of approach is instead, for instance, a delegated
 proof of stake, which is also very easy to explain. Essentially boils down to say, well,
 look at these 21 people say, okay. Don't they look honest? Yes, they do. In fact,
 I believe that they're going to remain honest for the foreseeable future. So why don't we do
 ourselves a favor? Let's entrust them to add the page on behalf of all of us to the ledger.
 Okay. Okay. But now we are going to say, is this centralized or decentralized? Well,
 21 is better than one. I have to say it's very little. So if you look at when people rebelled
 to centralized power, I don't know, the French revolutions, okay, there was a monarch and the
 nobles. Were there 21 nobles? No, there were thousands of them, but there were millions and
 millions of disempowered citizens. So one is centralized, 21 is also centralized.
 So that's delegated proof of stake. It's kind of like representative democracy, I guess.
 Yes, which is good. It's working great, right?
 It's working great. Well, it's better than the single monarch, right?
 There's problems. There are problems.
 Yeah. And so we were looking for a different,
 when thinking about Algorand, for a different approach. And so we have an approach in that,
 it's really, really decentralized because essentially it works as follows. You have a bunch
 of tokens, right? These are the tokens that have equal power and you have to say 10 billions of
 tokens distributed to the entire world. And the owners, each token has a chance to add the ledger,
 equal probability like everybody else. In fact, actually, if you want, here is how it works.
 So think about by some magic cryptographic process, which is not magic, it's mathematics,
 but think of it as magic. Assume that you select a thousand tokens,
 and so sometimes a random, okay? And you have a guarantee that they're randomly selected.
 And then the owners of these 1000 tokens somehow agree on the next page, they all sign it,
 and that's the next page. Okay? So it is clear that nobody has the power, but
 you know, once in a while, one of your tokens is selected and you are in charge of this
 committee to select the next page. But this goes around very quickly. So, and if you look at this,
 the question really is that it's not really centralized. And because for agreeing on the
 same page, it is important that the 1000 tokens that you're randomly selected
 are in honest hands, the majority of them. So which, if the majority of the tokens
 are in honest hands, that is essentially true. Because if the majority of the tokens are in
 honest hands, if you select, say 90% of the people are, 90% of the tokens are in honest hands.
 So can you randomly select a thousand? In this thousand, you find the 501
 tokens in bad hands. Very, very improbable. So basically, when a large fraction of people
 are honest, then you can use randomness as a powerful tool to get decentralization.
 So what does honesty mean? And now we're into the social side of things, which is,
 how do we know that the large fraction of people or participating parties are honest?
 That is an excellent question. So by the way, first of all, we should realize that the same thing is
 for every other system. When you look at proof of work, you rely that the majority of the mining
 power is in honest hands. When you look at the delegated proof of stake, you rely that the
 majority of these 21 people are honest. What is the difference? The difference is that in these
 other systems, you should say the whole economy is secure if the majority of this small piece of
 the economy are honest. And that is a big question. But instead, in our approach, we say,
 the whole economy is secure if the majority of the economy is honest. In other words,
 who can subvert Algorand? It's not a majority of a small group, but it is a majority of the token
 holders had to conspire with each other in order to sink the very economy for which they own the
 majority of. That I think it is a bit harder to... Like a self-destructive majority, essentially.
 And you're also making me realize that basically every system that we have in the world today
 assumes that the majority of participants is honest. Yes. The only difference is the majority
 of whom. And in some cases, the majority of a club. And in our case, it's the majority of the whole
 system. The whole system. Okay. So that's fact. So through that kind of random sampling, you can
 achieve decentralization. You can achieve... So the scalability, I understand. And then the security
 that you're referring to, basically the security comes from the fact that the sample selected would
 likely include honest people. So it's very difficult to... So by the way, the security,
 as you mentioned, that you're referring to is basically security against dishonesty,
 right? Or manipulation or whatever. Yes. Yes. So essentially, when what you're going to do is
 to be following and say, well, Silvio, I understood what you're saying, but somebody has to randomly
 select the tokens when I believe you. So then who does this random selection? That's a good point.
 And in our grant, we do something a little bit unorthodox. Essentially is the token,
 choose themselves at random. And you say, if you think about it, that seems to be a terrible idea.
 Because if you want to say, choose yourself at random and whoever chooses themselves is a
 thousand people committee, you choose the page for the rest of us. And because if I'm a bad person,
 I'm going to select myself over and over again, because I want to be part of the committee every
 single time, but not so fast. So what do we do in our grant? What does it mean that I select myself?
 Each one of us in the privacy of our own computer, actually a laptop, what you do is that you execute
 your own individual lottery. And think about that you pull a lever of a slot machine. You can only
 pull the lever once, not until you win, not enough times until you win. And when you pull the lever,
 case one, either you win in such a case, you have a winning ticket or you lose, you don't get any
 winning ticket. So if you don't have a winning ticket, you can say anything you want about the
 next page in the ledger. Nobody pays attention. But if you have a winning ticket, people say,
 oh, wow, this is one of the 1000 winning tickets, we better pay attention to what he or she says.
 And that's how it works. And the lottery is a cryptographic lottery, which means that even if
 I am an entire nation, extremely powerful with incredible computing powers, I don't have the
 ability to improve even minimally my probability of one of my talking winning the lottery.
 And that's how it happens. So everybody pulls the lever. The 1000 random winners say, oh,
 here is my winning ticket. And here is my opinion up or down about the block. These are the ones
 that count. And if you think about it, why this is distributed, because there is the case of Algon,
 there is 10 billion tokens, and you selected a 1000 of them more distributed than this,
 you cannot get. And then why is this scalable? Because what do you have to do? Okay, you have
 to do the lottery. How long the lottery takes? It takes actually one microsecond. Whether you have
 one token or two tokens or a billion tokens is always one microsecond of computation, which
 is very fast. We don't hit the planet with a microsecond of computation. And finally, why is
 this secure? Because even if I were a very evil and very, very powerful individual, I'm so powerful
 that I can corrupt anybody I want instantaneously in the world. Who would I want to corrupt? The
 people in the committee so that I can choose the page of the ledger. But I do have a problem.
 I do not know whom I should corrupt. Should I corrupt this lady in Shanghai, this other guy
 in Paris? Because I don't know, the winners are random, so I don't know whom I should corrupt.
 But once the winner come forward and say, here is my winning ticket, and you propagate your winning
 ticket across the network, together with your opinion about the block, now I know who they are.
 For sure, I can corrupt all 1000 of them given to my incredible powers. But so what? Whatever
 they said, they already said, and their winning tickets and their opinions are
 very propagated across the network. And I do not have the power, no more than the US government,
 or any government has the power to put back in the bottle a message, very propagated by WikiLeaks.
 So everything you just described is kind of, is fascinating, a set of ideas. And, you know,
 you know, online, I've been reading quite a bit, and people are really excited about a set of ideas.
 Nevertheless, it is not the dominating technology today. So Bitcoin, in terms of cryptocurrency,
 is the most popular cryptocurrency, and then Ethereum, and so on. So it's useful to kind
 of comment, we already talked about proof of work a little bit. But what, in your sense,
 does Bitcoin get right? And where is it lacking? Okay, so the first thing that Bitcoin got right
 is to understand that there was the need of a cryptocurrency. And that, in my opinion,
 they deserve all the success, because they say the time is ripe for this idea. Because very often,
 it's not enough to be right here to be right at the right time. And somebody got it right there.
 So hard to offer to Bitcoin for that. And so what they got right is that it is hard
 to subvert and change the ledger to cancel a transaction. It's not impossible, but it is very
 hard. What they did not get right is somehow that is a great story of value, currency-wise.
 But money is not only a question that you store it and you put under the mattress. Money wants to be
 transacted. And the transaction in Bitcoins are very little. So if you want to store value,
 everybody needs to store value. Might as well use Bitcoin. I mean, it's the plan, but if you
 don't look at it for a moment, at least it's a great store of value. And everybody needs a
 store of value. But most of the time, we want to transact. We want to interact. We don't put the
 money under the mattress, right? So we want to transact. And that, they didn't get it right. That
 is too slow to transact. Too few transactions. Just the scalability. The scalability issue.
 Is it possible to build stuff on top of Bitcoin that fixes the scalability? I mean, this is the
 thing. You look at, there's a bunch of technologies that kind of hit the right need at the right time
 and they have flaws, but we kind of build infrastructures on top of them over time to fix it
 as opposed to getting it right from the beginning. Or is it difficult to do?
 Well, that is difficult to do. So you're talking to somebody that when I decided to throw my heart
 in the arena and I decided, first of all, as I said before, I much admire my predecessors. I mean,
 they got it right, a lot of things. And I really admire for that. But I had a choice to make.
 Either I patch something that has holes all over the place or I start from scratch. I decided to
 start from scratch because sometimes it's a better way. So what about Ethereum, which looks at proof
 of stake and a lot of different innovative ideas that kind of improve or seek to improve on some of
 the flaws of Bitcoin? Ethereum had another great idea. So they figured out that money and payments
 are important as they are. They are only the first level, the first stepping stone. The next level
 are smart contracts. And they were at the vision to say, the people will need smart contracts,
 which allow me and you to somehow to transact securely without being shopper owned by a trusted
 third party, by a mediator. By the way, because mediators are hard to find. And in fact, maybe
 even impossible to find. If you live in Thailand and I live in New Zealand, maybe we don't have
 a common person that we know and trust. And even if we find them, guess what? They want to be paid.
 So much so that 6% of the world GDP goes into financial friction, which is essentially third
 party. So the headed right of the world needed that. But again, the scalability
 is not there. And the system of smart contracts in Ethereum is slow and expensive. And I believe
 is not enough to satisfy the appetite and the need that we have for smart contracts.
 Well, what do you make of just as a small sort of aside in human history, perhaps it's a big one,
 is NFT the non-fungible tokens? Do you find those interesting technically or is it more
 interesting on the social side of things? Well, both. I think NFTs are actually great,
 right? So you are an artist to create a song or it could be a piece of art.
 It has many unique representation of a piece where there is an artifact of something dreamed up
 by you and as unique representation, but now you can trade. And the important part is that now you
 have not only the NFTs themselves, but their ability to trade them quickly, fast, securely,
 knowing who owns which rights. And that gives a totally new opportunity for content creators to
 be remunerated for whatever they do. So, but ultimately you still have to have that scalability,
 security and decentralization to make it work for bigger and bigger applications.
 Correct. Yeah. I still wonder what kind of applications are yet to be enabled by it,
 because so much. The interesting thing about NFTs, if you look outside of art,
 is just like money, you can start playing with different social constructs. You can start
 playing with ideas. You can start playing with even like investing. Somebody was talking about
 almost creating an economy out of like creative people or influencers. Like if you start a YouTube
 channel or something like that, you can invest in that person and you can start trading their
 creations and then almost like create a market out of people's ideas, out of people's creations,
 out of the people themselves that generate those creations. And there's a lot of interesting
 possibilities of what you can do with that. I mean, it seems ridiculous, but you're basically
 creating a hierarchy of value, maybe artificial in the digital world and are trading that.
 But in so doing are inspiring people to create. So maybe as a sort of our economy gets better and
 better and better where actual work in the physical space becomes less and less in terms
 of its importance, maybe we'll completely be operating in a digital space where
 these kinds of economies have more and more power. And then you have to have this kind of blockchains
 to the scalability, security and decentralization. And decentralization is of course the tricky one
 because people in power start to get nervous. Absolutely. Once in power, you're always nervous
 that you'll be supplanted by somebody else. That is your job. So you can relation to that.
 That is your job. So you can relation to the job, the top job, and now everybody wants it.
 Well, what is your sense about our time and the future hope about the decentralization
 of power? Do you think that's something that we can actually achieve?
 Given that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And it's so wonderful to be
 absolutely powerful. Well, good question. So there are, so first of all, I believe that by the way,
 there is a complex questions, Lex, and like all the rest of your questions.
 I'm so very sorry. It's okay. I am enjoying it. So, but so there are two things. First of all,
 power has been centralized for a variety of reasons. When you want to get it, it's easier
 for somebody, even a single person to grab power. But there is also some kind of a technology,
 lack of it, that justified having in power. Because in a way, in a society in which even
 communication, nevermind blockchain, which is common knowledge, but even simple unilateral
 communication is hard, it is much easier to say, you do as I say, because the alternative is.
 So there is a little bit of a technology barrier. But I think of it, and now to get to this common
 knowledge, that is a totally different story. Now we have finally the technology for doing this. So
 that is one part. But I really believe that by having a distributed system, not only you don't
 have a way, you have to actually much more stable and durable system. Because not only for corruption,
 but even for things that go astray and you give it a long enough time by strange version of Murphy's
 law, whatever goes wrong, goes wrong. And so, and if the power is diffused, you actually are much
 more stable. If you look at any living complex, living being is distributed. I mean, I don't
 have somebody is a, okay, tell Sylvia now it's time to eat. You have millions of cells in your body.
 You have billions of bacteria. Exactly. Help me in the guts of the thing. You know, we are in a
 soup of it somehow keeps us alive. So it's strange enough, however, when we design systems, we design
 them centralized. We ourselves are distributed beings. And when we plan to say, okay, I want to
 create an architecture, how about I make a pyramid, I put this on the top and the power flows down.
 And so again, it's a little bit perhaps of a technology problem, but now the technology is
 there. So that is a big challenge to rethink how we want to organize power in very large system and
 distribute a system in my opinion, a much more resilient. Let's put this way. There was a wine
 of my Italian compatriots, right? I know Machiavelli who looked at the time, there was a big,
 there was a bunch of a small state, a democratic Republic of Florence, of Venice, and the other
 thing. And there was the Ottoman Empire, but at the time was an empire and a Southern was very
 centralized. And he made the political observation that goes roughly to say whenever you have such a
 centralized thing, it's very hard to overtake that the former government is centralized.
 But if you get it, it's so easy to keep the population. While instead these other things
 are much more resilient. When the power is distributed, it's going to be lasting for much
 a longer time. And ultimately maybe the human spirit wants that kind of resilience, wants that
 kind of distribution. It's just that we didn't have technology throughout history. Machiavelli
 didn't have the computer, the internet. That is certainly part of the reason. Yes.
 You've written an interesting blog post. If we take a step out of the realm of bits and into the
 realm of governance, you wrote a blog post about making Algorand governance decentralized.
 Can you explain what that means? The philosophy behind that? How you decentralized basically
 all aspects of this kind of system? Well, the philosophy and how, let's start
 with the philosophy. So I really believe that nothing fixed lasts very long. And so I really
 believe that life is about intelligent adaptation. Things change and we have to be nimble and adjust
 to change. And when I see a lot of a crypto project, actually very proud to say it's fixed in stone.
 Right? Code is law, law is code. I very far of a code that will never change. You go,
 wow. When I'm saying this is a recipe to me of disaster, not immediately, but soon. Just imagine
 you take an ocean liner and you want to go, I don't know, from Lisbon to New York and you set
 a course, iceberg, no iceberg, tempest, no tempest. It doesn't matter. That is not the way. You need
 a till, you need to correct, you need to adjust. And so by the way, we would design Algorand with
 the idea that the code was evolving as the needs. And of course, a waiver is a system in which,
 every time there is an adjustment, you must have essentially a vote that right now is
 orchestrated. 90% of the stake, they say, okay, we are ready. We agree on the next version and
 we pick up this version. So we are able to evolve without losing too many components left and right.
 But I think without evolving, any system essentially become asphytic and is going to
 shrivel and die sooner or later. And so that is needed. And what do you want to do on the blockchain?
 You have a perfect platform in which you can log your wishes, your votes, your things, so that you
 have a guarantee that whatever vote you express is actually seen by everybody else. So everybody sees
 really the outcome, call it a referendum or a change. And VETA is, in my opinion, a system that
 wants to live long as to adapt. There's an interesting question about leaders. I've talked
 to Vitalik Buterin, I'll probably talk to him again soon. He's one of the leaders, maybe one
 of the faces of the Ethereum project. And it's interesting, you have Satoshi Nakamoto, who's
 the face of Bitcoin, I guess, but he's faceless. He, she, they. It does seem like in our, whatever
 it is, maybe it's 20th century, maybe it's Machiavellian thinking, but we seek leaders.
 Leaders have value. Linus Torvald, the leader of Linux, open source development, a lot. I mean,
 there's no, it's not, it's not that the leadership is sort of dogmatic, but it's inspiring. And it's
 also powerful in that through leaders, we propagate the vision. Like the vision of the project is more
 stable. Maybe not the details, but the vision. And so do you think there's value to, because
 we're, there's a tension between decentralization and leadership, like in visionaries. What do you
 make of that tension? Okay. So I really believe that that's another good question. I think that,
 I really believe in the power of emotions. I think the emotional, the creative impulse of
 everybody else. And therefore it's very easy for a leader to be a physical person, a real being.
 And that interprets our emotions. And by the way, this emotion has to resonate. And what is good
 is that the more intimate our emotions are, the more universal they are, paradoxically. The more
 personal, the more everybody else somehow magically agrees and feels a bit of the same. And so,
 and it's very important to have a leader in the initial phase that generates out of nothing,
 out of nothing something that is important leadership. But then the true test of leadership
 is to disappear after you led the community. So in my opinion, the quintessential leader in my,
 according to my vision is George Washington. He served for one term, he served for another term.
 And then all of a sudden he retired and became a private citizen. And 200 and change years later,
 we still are with some defects, but we have done a lot of things right. And we have been able to
 evolve. That to me is success in leadership. While instead you contrast our experiment with
 a lot of our experiment. I've done so much so well that I want another four years. And why should I
 be only a four and I have another eight? Why should it be another eight? Give me 16 and we'll fix all
 your problems. And then is the type in my opinion of failed leadership. Leadership ought to be really
 lead, ignite and disappear. And if you don't disappear, the system is going to die with you.
 And it's not a good idea for everybody else. Is there, so we've been talking a little bit
 about cryptocurrency, but is there spaces where this kind of blockchain ideas that you're describing,
 which I find fascinating. Do you think they can revolutionize some other aspects of our world?
 That's not just money. A lot of things are going to be revolutionized. Is independent of finance.
 So by the way, I really believe that finance is an incredible form of freedom. I mean, if I'm free
 to do everything I want, but I don't have the means to do anything, that's a bad idea. So I really
 think the financial freedom is very, very important. But you know, but just to say that,
 you know, against, you know, censorship, you write something on the chain and now nobody can
 take it out. That is a very important way to express, you know, our view. And then the
 transparency that you give because everybody can see what's happening on the blockchain.
 So transparency is not money, but I believe that transparency actually is a very important
 ingredient also of finance. Let's put it this way, as much as I'm enthusiastic about blockchain and
 decentralized finance, and we have actually our expression, we're creating this future five,
 as much as we want to do, we must agree that the first guarantee of financial growth and prosperity
 are really the legal system, the courts, because we may not think about them and say, oh, the courts
 are a kind of a bunch of boring lawyers, but without them, I'm saying there is no certainty,
 there is no notion of equality, there is no notion that you can resolve your disputes.
 Think that's what drives the commerce and things. And so what I really believe that the blockchain
 actually makes a lot of this trust essentially automatic by making it impossible to cheat in
 very way. You don't even need to go to court if nobody can change the ledger. So essentially
 it's a way of, you cannot solve an illegal system that uses a blockchain, but what I'm saying,
 a big chunk of it can actually be guaranteed and there is no reason why technology should be
 antagonistic to legal scholarship. It could be actually coexisting and one should start
 to doing the interest things that the technology alone cannot do, and then you go from there.
 But I think that essentially blockchain can affect all kinds of our behavior.
 Yes. In some sense, the required transparency ensures honesty, prevents corruption. So there's
 a lot of system that could use that and the legal system is one of them. There's a little bit of
 attention that I wonder if you can speak to where this kind of transparency, there's a tension with
 privacy. Is it possible to achieve privacy if wanted on a blockchain? Do you have ideas about
 different technologies that can do that? People have been playing with different ideas.
 So absolutely. The answer is yes. And by the way, I'm a cryptographer.
 Right. So I really believe in privacy and I have devoted a big chunk of my life
 to guarantee privacy even when it seems almost impossible to have it. And it is possible to have
 it also in the blockchain too. However, I believe in timing as well. And I believe that the people
 have the right to understand their system they live in. And right now, people can understand
 the blockchain to be something that cannot be altered and is transparent. And that is good
 enough. And right now, any way to add, and there is a pseudo privacy for the fact that who knows if
 this public key belongs to me or to you, right? And when I want to change my money from one public key,
 I split it to other public keys, going to figure out which one is Sylvia, all of them are Sylvia,
 only one of Sylvia. Who knows? So you get some vanilla privacy, not the one I could talk.
 And I think it's good enough because, and it's important for now, that we absorb this stage.
 Because the next stage, we must understand the privacy tool rather than taking on faith.
 When the public starts saying, I believe in the scientists and whatever they say,
 I swear by them and therefore they tell me it's private, it's private, and nobody understands it
 very well, we need a much more educated about the tools we are using. And so I look forward to
 deploying more and more privacy on the blockchain. But we are not, I will not rush to it until the
 people understand and are behind whatever we have right now. So you build privacy on top of the
 power of the blockchain, you have to first understand the power of the blockchain. Yes.
 So Algorand is like one of the most exciting, technically at least from my perspective,
 technologies, ideas in this whole space. What's the future of Algorand look like?
 Is it possible for it to dominate the world? Let's put it this way. I certainly working very hard
 with a great team to give the best blockchain that one can demand and enjoy. And that said,
 I really believe that there is going to be, it's not a winner takes them all. So it's going to be
 going to be a few blockchains and each one is going to have its own brand and it's going to
 be great at something. And sometimes it's scalability, sometimes it's your views,
 sometimes it's a thing. And it's important to have a dialogue between these things. And I'm sure,
 and I'm working very hard to make sure that Algorand is one of them, but I don't believe that
 it's even desirable to have a winner takes all because we need to express different things.
 But the important thing is going to have enough interoperability with various systems so that you
 can transfer your assets where you have the best tool to service them, whatever your needs are at
 the time. So there's an idea, I don't know, they call themselves Bitcoin maximalists,
 which is essentially the bet that the philosophy that Bitcoin will eat the world. So you're talking
 about it's good to have variety. Their claim is it's good to have the best technology dominate
 the medium of exchange, the medium of store value, the money, the digital currency space.
 What's your sense of the positives and the negatives of that?
 So I feel people are smart and it's going to be very hard for anybody and Bitcoin to win.
 And because people want more and more things. There is an Italian saying that goes as,
 translates well, I think, it goes, the appetite grows while eating. Okay. I think you understand
 what he means. So I say, I'm not hungry. Okay, food. Let me try this and that. So we want more
 and more and more. And when you find something like Bitcoin, which I already had very good things to
 say, but it does something very well, but it's a static, I mean, store value. Yes, I think it's a
 great, like the rest, it would be a sad world if the world in which we are so anchoring down,
 so on the defensive that we want to store value and hide it under the mattress. I long for a world
 in which is open. We all want to transact and interact with each other. And therefore, when you
 want to store value, one, perhaps the one chain, you want to have transact, maybe is another.
 I'm not saying that, you know, one chain cannot be stored of value or other thing, but I really
 believe that I believe in the ingenuity of people and in the innovation that is intrinsic to the
 human nature. We want always different things. So how can it be something invented, whatever it is,
 the decades ago is going to fulfill the needs of our future generations. I'm not going to fulfill
 my needs, let alone my kids or their kids. I use the, we are going to have a different world. And
 we are going to have a different world and things will evolve.
 So you believe, yeah. So you believe that life, intelligent life is ultimately about adaptability
 and evolving. So static loses in the end.
 Let me ask the, well, first the ridiculous question. Do you have any clue who Satoshi
 Nakamoto is? Is that even an interesting question? Well, your questions are very interesting. So,
 and I think, so I would say, first of all, it's not me. Okay. And I can prove it because, you know,
 if I were Satoshi Nakamoto, I would have not found an algorithm which takes totally different
 principles to approach to the system. But the other thing, who is Satoshi Nakamoto? You know,
 what the right answer is, is not him or she, her or them. Satoshi Nakamoto is Bitcoin. Because to me,
 is such a coherent proof of work that at the end, the creator and the creation identify themselves.
 So he says, okay, I understand Michelangelo. Okay. He did the Sistine Chapel. Fine. He did the
 St. Peter's dome. Fine. He did the most of the Pietra statue. Fine. But besides this, who was
 Michelangelo? That's the wrong question. It's his own work. That is Michelangelo. So I think that
 when you look at the Bitcoin is a piece of work that as it defects, yes, like anything human,
 but it was captivated the imaginations of millions of people as subverted the status quo.
 And I'm saying, you know, whoever this person or people are, he's living in this piece of work.
 It is Bitcoin. That's my idea. The idea of the work is bigger. We forget that sometimes. It's
 something about our biology once likes to see a face and attach a face to the idea when really
 the idea is the thing we love. The idea is the thing that impact ideas, the thing that ultimately
 we, you know, Steve Jobs or somebody like that will associate with the Mac or the iPhone with
 just everything he did at Apple. Apple, actually the company is Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs, the man is,
 is, is a pales in comparison to the creation. Correct. And the sense of aesthetics that has
 brought to the daily lives and very often aesthetic wins in the long, in the long,
 in the long game. And these are very elegant design product. And when you say, oh, elegance,
 a very few people care about it. Apparently millions and millions and millions and millions
 of people do because we are attacked by beauty. And these are beautifully designed products.
 And, and, and, you know, and they've in addition to ever the technological aspect of the other
 thing. And I think, yes, that is, uh, yeah, as the Stasiewski said, beauty will save the world.
 So I'm, I'm with you on that one. Right. It currently seems like cryptocurrency,
 all these different technologies are, um, gathering a lot of excitement, not just in our
 discourse, but in their like scale of financial impact. A lot of companies are starting to invest
 in Bitcoin. Do you think that, uh, the main method of store value and exchange of value,
 basically money will soon or at some point in the century will become cryptocurrency?
 Yes. So mind you, as I said, that the notion of cryptocurrency, like any other fundamental
 human notion has to evolve, but yes. So I think that, uh, he has a lot of momentum behind it.
 Um, it's not only static as of this programmable money as a, I think smart contracts,
 it allows a peer to peer interaction among people who don't even know each other. Right.
 And they don't even very far. I cannot even trust each other just because of it. They never
 they never saw each other. So I think it's so powerful that, uh, uh, is going to do this said
 again, a particular cryptocurrency should develop and cryptocurrency, they will all develop,
 but the answer is yes, we are going to, uh, towards a much more, uh,
 unless we have a society, a sudden crisis for different reasons, which nobody hopes.
 There's always an asteroid, there's always something, uh, nuclear war and all the
 existential crisis that we kind of think about, including artificial intelligence. Uh, okay.
 It's funny. You mentioned that, um, Michelangelo and Steve jobs, you know, set of ideas
 represents the person's work. So we talked about Algorand, which is a super interesting
 set of technologies, but you know, he did also win the touring award. You have a bunch of,
 you have a bunch of ideas that are, you know, seminal ideas. So can we talk about
 cryptography for a little bit? What is the most beautiful idea in cryptography or computer science
 or mathematics in general? Asking somebody who has explored the depths of all.
 Well, there are a few contenders
 and, uh, either your work or, uh, or other work.
 Let's leave my work aside. And, uh, and, uh, so, but the one, uh, powerful idea and is, uh,
 both an old idea in some sense and a very, very modern one. And, uh, in my opinion is this idea
 of a one way function. So a function that easy to evaluate. So given X, you can compute F of X
 easily, but given F of X is very hard to go back to X. Okay. Think like breaking a glass, easy,
 reconstruct the glass harder. Frying an egg, easy, fried egg to go back to the original egg,
 hard. If you want to be extreme killings, a living being, unfortunately easy, the other way around,
 very hard. And so the fact that the notion of, of a function, which you have a recipe that is in
 front of your eyes to transform an X into F of X. And then from F of X, even though you see the
 recipe to transform it, you cannot go back to X that in my opinion is one of the most elegant
 and momentous notions that there are. And there is a computational notion because of the difficulties
 in a computational sense. And it's a mathematical notion because you were talking about function.
 And, uh, it's so fruitful because that is actually the foundation of all the cryptography.
 And, uh, let me tell you, it's an old notion because very often in any mythology that we
 think of the most powerful gods or goddesses are the ones of X and the opposite of X, the gods of
 love and death. And when you take opposite, they don't just, you know, erase one another,
 you create something way more powerful. And they, this one way function is extremely powerful
 because essentially becomes something that is easy for the good guys and bad for the,
 but hard for the bad guys. So for instance, in pseudo random number generation,
 the easy part of the function corresponds. You want to generate beats very quickly
 and hard is predicting what the next bit is. It doesn't look the same. One is X F of X going
 from X to X. What does it do predicting beats by a magic of reductions and mathematical, um,
 um, um, apparatus, this simple function morphs itself into pseudo random generation.
 This simple function morphs itself in digital signature scheme in which
 digitally signing should be easy and forging should be hard. Again, a digital signature is not
 going from X to F of X, but the magic and the richness of this notion is met that it is so
 powerful with morphs in all kinds of incredible constructs. And, uh, in both these two opposites
 coexist, the easy and the hard. And in my opinion, it is a very, very elegant notion.
 So that simple notion ties together cryptography. Like you said, pseudo random number generation,
 you have work on pseudo random functions. What are those? What, uh, what's the difference in
 those and the generators, pseudo random number generators. Okay. Let's, uh, let's go back to
 pseudo random number generation. Yes. First of all, people think of the pseudo random number
 generation generates random number. Not true because I don't believe that from nothing you can
 get, you can, you can get, uh, something. So nothing from nothing, but randomness, you cannot
 create out of nothing, but what you can do is that you can be expanded. So in other words,
 if you give me somehow 300 random bits, truly random bits, then I can give you
 300,000, 300 million, 300 trillions, 300 quadrillions, as many as you want, random bits.
 So that even though I tell you the recipe by which I produce these bits, but I don't tell you
 the initial 300 random numbers, I keep them secret. And you see all the bits I produce so far.
 If I, if you were to bet, given all the bits produced so far, what is the next bit in my
 sequence better than 50 50, of course, 50 50, anybody can guess, right? But to be in fair in
 something, you have to be a bit better than the effort to do this extra bit is so enormous.
 That is the factor random. So that is a pseudo random generator of these expanders of secret
 randomness, which it goes extremely fast. Okay. That said, what is the-
 Expanders of secret randomness beautifully put. Okay. So every time, every time somebody who,
 if you're a programmer is using a function that's not called pseudo random, it's called random.
 Usually, you know, these programming languages and it's generating different, uh, that's essentially
 expanding the secret randomness, but they should in the past, actually most of the library, they used
 something pre modern cryptography. Unfortunately, they would be better served.
 They could 300, uh, real seed, random number and, uh, and then expand them properly as we know now.
 Uh, but that has been a very old idea. In fact, one of the best philosophers have debated, uh,
 the, uh, whether the world was deterministic or probabilistic. Yes. Very big questions, right?
 Does God play dice? Exactly. Einstein says it does.
 It doesn't, but in fact, now we have a language of it. Even at the Albert time was not around,
 but it was this complexity theory, modern complexity based cryptography. And now we know that
 in the universe as 300 random beats, whether where is random or probabilistic or deterministic,
 it doesn't matter because you can expand this initial seed of randomness forever in which all
 the experiments you can do, all the inferences you could do, all the things you can do there,
 you are not be able to distinguish them from truly random. So if you are not able to distinguish
 truly random from this super duper pseudo randomness, are they really different things?
 So many had to become a really philosophical. So for things to be different, but I don't have
 in my lifetime in the lifetime of the universe, any method to set them aside. Well, I should be
 intellectually honest, say, well, pseudo random in this special function is as good as random.
 Do you think true randomness is possible and what does that mean? So I practically speaking,
 exactly as you said, if you're being honest, the pseudo randomness approaches true randomness
 pretty quickly. But is it, maybe this is a philosophical question, is there such a thing
 as true randomness? Well, the answer is actually maybe, but if it exists,
 it's most probably expensive to get. And in any case, if I give you one of mine,
 you'll never tell them apart by any other shape, no matter how much you work on it. So in some sense,
 if it exists or not, it really is a quote philosophical sense in the colloquial way to
 say that we cannot somehow pin it down. Do you ever, again, just to stay on philosophical
 for a bit, for a brief moment, do you ever think about free will and whether that exists? Because
 ultimately free will sort of is this experience that we have, like we're making choices,
 even though it appears that, you know, the world is deterministic at the core. I mean,
 that's against the debate, but if it is in fact deterministic at the lowest possible level,
 at the physics level, how do you make, if it is deterministic, how do you make sense of the
 difference between the experience of us feeling like we're making a choice and the whole thing
 being deterministic? So first of all, let me give you a gut reaction to the question. And the gut
 reaction is that it is important that we believe that there exists free will. And second of all,
 almost by weird logic, if we believe it exists, then it does exist. Okay?
 So it's very important for our social apparatus, for our sense of ourselves, that it exists. And
 the moment in which we so want to be almost to be conjured up in existence. But again,
 I really feel that if you look at some point, the space of free will seems to shrink.
 We realize how more and more, how much of our, say, genetic apparatus dictates who we are,
 why we prefer certain things than others, right? And why we react to noises of music,
 we prefer poetry, we may explain even all this. But at the end of the day, whether it exists in
 a philosophical sense or not, it's like randomness. If you can, if pseudo random is as good as random
 vis-a-vis lifetime of the universe, our experience, then it doesn't really matter.
 Yeah. So, you know, we're talking about randomness. I wonder if I can weave in
 quantum mechanics for a brief moment. There's a, you know, a lot of advancements on the quantum
 computing side. So leveraging quantum mechanics to perform a new kind of computation. And there's
 concern of that being a threat to a lot of the basic assumptions that underlie cryptography.
 What do you think? Do you think quantum computing will challenge a lot of cryptography
 or will cryptography be able to defend all those kinds of things?
 Okay, great. So first of all, for the record, and not because I think it matters, but it's important
 to set the record, there are people who continue to contend that quantum mechanics exist, but it's
 nothing to do with computing. It's not going to accelerate it, at least in very basic, hard
 computation. That is a belief that you cannot take it out. I'm a little bit more agnostic about it,
 but I really believe going back to whatever I said about the one-way function. So one-way function,
 what is it? That is a cryptography. So does quantum computing challenge the one-way function?
 Essentially, you can boil it down to does quantum computing follow one-way function? What is one
 way function? Easy in one direction, hard in the other. Okay, but if quantum computing exists,
 when you define what it is easy, it's not easy by a classical computer and hard by a classical
 computer, but easy for a quantum computer, that's a bad idea. But once easy means it should be easy
 for a quantum and hard for also quantum. Then you can see that yes, it's a challenge, but it's
 a hope because you can absorb if one computing really realizes and becomes available according
 to the promises, then you can use them also for the easy part. And once you use it for the easy part,
 the choices that you have a one-way function, they multiply. So okay, so they particularly
 are candidates of one-way function. They not be one-way anymore, but quantum one-way function
 may continue to exist. And so I really believe that for life to be meaningful with one-way function
 had to exist because just imagine that anything that becomes easy to do. I mean, what kind of
 life is it? I mean, so you need that. And if something is hard, but it's so hard to generate,
 you'll never find something which is hard for you. You want that there is abundance, that is easy to
 produce hard problem. That's my opinion is why life is interesting because hard problem pop up
 at a really relative speed. So in some sense, I almost think that I do hope they exist. If they
 don't exist, somehow life is way less interesting than it actually is. Yeah, it does. That's funny.
 It does seem like the one-way function is fundamental to all of life, which is the emergence
 of the complexity that we see around us seem to require the one-way function. I don't know if you
 play with cellular automata, that's just another formulation of a very simple, it's almost a very
 simple illustration of starting out with simple rules and one way being able to generate incredible
 amounts of complexity. But then you ask the question, can I reverse that? And it's just
 surprising how difficult it is to reverse that. It's surprising even in constrained situations,
 it's very difficult to prove anything. The sad thing about it,
 I don't know if it's sad, but it seems like we don't even have the mathematical tools
 to reverse engineer stuff. I don't know if they exist or not, but in the space of the universe,
 I don't know if they exist or not, but in the space of cellular automata, where you start with
 something simple and you create something incredibly complex, can you take a small picture
 of that complex and reverse engineer? That's kind of what we're doing as scientists here. You're
 seeing the result of the complexity and you're trying to come up with some universal law that
 generate all of this. What is the theory of everything? What are the basic physics laws
 that generate this whole thing? There's a hope that you should be able to do that, but it's difficult.
 There is also some poetry on the fact that it's difficult because it gives us some mystery
 without which it's not so fun. Life will be less fun.
 Can we talk about interactive proofs a little bit and zero-knowledge proofs? What are those?
 Okay. How do they work? Interactive proof actually is
 a modern realization and conceptualization of something that we knew was true, that is easy
 to go to lecture. In fact, that's my motivation. We invented schools to go to lecture. We don't say,
 oh, I have the Minister of Education. I published this book. You read it. This is a book for this
 year. This book for this year. We spend a lot of our treasury in educating our kids and in person,
 educating, go to class, interact with the teacher on the blackboard and chalk on my time. Now we can
 have a whiteboard and presumably you're going to have actually these magic pens and a display
 instead. But the idea is that interactively, you can convey truth much more efficiently.
 We knew this psychologically. It's better to hear an explanation than just to belabor some paper.
 Same thing. Interactive proofs is a way to do the following. Rather than doing in some complicated,
 very long papers and possibly infinitely long proofs, exponentially long proofs,
 you say the following. If this theorem is true, there is a game that is associated to the theorem.
 And if the theorem is true, this game, I have a winning strategy that I can win half of the time,
 no matter what you do. Okay. So then you say, well, is the theorem true? You believe me.
 Or why should I believe you? So, okay, let's play. And if I prove that I have a strategy
 and I win the first time and I win the second time, then I lose a third time, but I win
 more than half of the time, or I win all the time if the theorem is true, and at least at
 the most half of the time if the theorem is false, you statistically get convinced. You can verify
 this quickly. And therefore, when the game typically is extremely fast, so you generate a miniature game
 in which if the theorem is true, I win all the time, if the theorem is false, I can win at most
 half of the time. And if I win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, you can deduce either the theorem
 is true, which most probably is the case, or I've been very, very unlucky because it's like if I had
 a hundred coin tosses and I got a hundred heads, very improbable. So that is a way. And so this
 transformation from the formal statement of a proof into a game that can be quickly played,
 and you can draw statistics how many times you win, is one of the big conquests of modern
 complexity theory. And in fact, actually as I highlighted, the notion of a proof has really
 given us a new insight of what to be true means and what truth is and what proofs are.
 So these are legitimately proofs. So what kind of mysteries can it allow us to unlock and prove?
 You said truth. So what kind of truth does that allow us to arrive at?
 So it enlarges the real mobile disprovable because in some sense of the classical way of proving
 things was extremely inefficient from the verifier point of view. And so therefore there is so much
 proof that you can take. But in this way, you can actually very quickly, minutes, verify something
 that is the correctness of an assertion that otherwise would have taken a lifetime to belabor
 and check all the passages of a very, very long proof. And you better check all of them
 because if you don't check one line, an error can be in that line. And so you have to go linearly
 through all this stuff rather than bypass this. So you enlarge a tremendous amount what the proof is.
 And in addition, once you have the idea that essentially a proof system is something that
 allows me to convince you of a true statement but does not allow me to convince you of a false
 statement. And that at the end says it's a proof. Proof can be beautiful, should be elegant, but at
 the end it is true or false if you want to be able to differentiate. It is possible to prove the truth
 and it should be impossible or statistically extremely hard to prove something false.
 And if you do this, you can prove way, way more once you understand this. And on top of it,
 we got some insight like in this zero-knowledge proofs that is something which you took for
 granted were the same, knowledge and verification, actually separate concepts. So you can verify that
 an assertion is correct without having any idea why this is so. And so people felt to say,
 if you want to verify something, you have to have the proof. Once you have the proof,
 you know why it's true. You have the proof itself. And so somehow you can totally differentiate
 knowledge and verification, validity. So totally you can decide if something is true and still have
 no idea. Is there a good example in your mind? Oh, actually, you know, at the beginning we
 labored to find the first knowledge, zero-knowledge proof. Then we found a second, then we found a
 third. And then a few years later, actually we proved a theorem which essentially says every
 theorem, no matter what about, can be explained in a zero-knowledge way. Okay. Wow. So it's not a
 class of theorem, but all theorems. And it's a very powerful thing. So we were really for thousands
 of years bought this identity between knowledge and verification had to be hand in hand together
 and for no reason at all. I mean, we had to develop a wave of technology. As you know,
 I'm very big in technology because it makes us more human and make us understand more things than
 before. And I think that is a good thing. So this interactive proof process, there's power in games.
 Yes. And you've recently gotten into, recently, I'm not sure you can correct me, mechanism design.
 Yeah. So it's, I mean, first of all, maybe you can explain what mechanism design is and the
 fascinating space of playing with games and designing games. Mechanism design is that you
 want a certain behavior to arise. If you want to organize a societal structure or something,
 you want to have some orderly behavior to arise because it is important for your goals.
 But you know that people, they don't care what my goals are. They care about maximizing their
 utility. So putting crassly, making money, the more money, the better, so to speak. I'm
 exaggerating. Self-interest in whatever way they... So what you want to do is,
 ideally, what you want to do is to design a game so that while people played so to maximize their
 self-interest, they achieve the social goal and behavior that I want. That is really the best
 type of thing. And it is a very hard science and art to design these games. And it challenges us to
 actually come up with solution concepts for way to analyzing the games that need to be broader.
 And I think game theory has developed a bunch of very compelling way to analyze the game.
 If the game has the best property, you can have a pretty good guarantee that it's going to be
 played in a given way. But as it turns out, and not surprisingly, these tools have a range of
 action like anything else. All these so-called the technical solution concept, the way to analyze
 the game like dominance, strategy, equilibrium, something comes to mind to be very meaningful,
 but as a limited power. In some sense, the games that can be admit such a way to be analyzed...
 There's a very specific kind of games and the rules are set, the constraints are set,
 the utilities are all set. So if you want to reason, if there is a way, say, that you can analyze
 a restricted class of games this way, but most games don't fall into this restricted class,
 then what do I do? Then you need to enlarge a way what a rational player can do. So for instance,
 in my opinion, at least in some of my... I played with this for a few years and I was doing some
 exoteric things, I'm sure, in the space that were not exactly mainstream. And then I changed
 my interest and now I'm doing blockchain. But what I'm saying, for a while I was doing...
 So for instance, to me, is a way in which I designed the game and you don't have the best
 move for you. The best move is the move that is best for you no matter what the other players
 are doing. Sometimes a game doesn't have that. Okay, so you don't have to do that.
 Sometimes a game doesn't have that. Okay, it's too much to ask. But I can design the game such that
 given the option in front of you say, oh, these are really stupid for me, take them aside. But
 these are not stupid. So if you design the game so that in any combination on non-stupid things
 that the player can do, I achieve what I want, I'm done. I don't care to find the very unique
 equilibrium. I don't give a damn. I want to say, well, as long as you don't do stupid things and
 nobody else does stupid things, good social things outcome arise, I should be equally happy.
 And so I really believe that this type of analysis is possible and has a bigger radius. So it reaches
 more games, more classes of games. And after that, we have to enlarge it again. And it's going to be,
 we're going to have fun because human behavior can be conceptualized in many ways. And it's a
 long game. It's a long game. Do you have favorite games that you're looking at now? I mean, I suppose
 your work with the blockchain and Algorand is the kind of game that you're basically
 just mechanism design, design the game such that it's scalable, secure and decentralized, right?
 Yes. Yes. And very often yet to say, and you must also design so that the incentives are
 and tend to be the truth or whatever little I learned from my venture in mechanism design
 is that incentives are very hard to design because people are very complex creatures.
 And so somehow the way we design Algorand is a totally different way, essentially with no
 incentives, essentially. And then, but technically speaking, there is a notion that is actually
 believable, right? So that to say, people want to maximize their utility. Yes. Up to a point. Let
 me tell you. Assume that if you are honest, you make a hundred bucks. But if you are dishonest,
 no matter how dishonest you are, you can only make a hundred bucks and one cent. What are you going
 to be? I'm saying, you know what, technically speaking, even that one cent, nobody bothers
 and say, how much am I going to make by honest hundred? If I'm devious and if I'm a criminal,
 100 bucks and one cent, you know, I might as well be honest. Okay. So that essentially is called,
 Epsilon utility equilibrium, but I think it's good. And that's what we design essentially means that
 there is an, having no incentives is actually a good thing because it prevents people from
 reasoning how else I'm going to gain the system. But why can we achieve in our ground to have no
 incentives? And in Bitcoin instead, you have to pay the miners because they do tremendous
 amount of work. Because if you have to do a lot of work, then you demand to be paid accordingly.
 Because you, right. But if I're going to say, you had to add two and two equal to four, how much you
 want to be paid for this. If you don't give me this, I don't add the two and two. I would say
 you can add the two and two in your sleep. You don't need to be paid to add the two and two.
 So the idea is that if we make the system so efficient, so that generating the next block
 is so damn simple, it doesn't hit the universe, let alone my computer, let alone take some
 microsecond of computation, I might as well not being received incentives for doing that
 and try to incentivize some other part of the system, but not to the main consensus,
 which is a mechanism for generating an adding block to the chain.
 Since you're Italian, Sicilian, I also heard rumors that you are a connoisseur of food.
 If I said today is the last day you get to be alive, you shouldn't have trusted me.
 You never know with the Russian whether you're going to make it out or not. If you had one last
 meal, you can travel somewhere in the world, either you make it or somebody else makes it,
 what's that going to look like? All right. If it's one last meal, I must say
 in this era of COVID, I've not been able to see my mom. My mom was a fantastic chef and had this
 very traditional food. As you know, the very traditional food are great for a reason because
 they survived hundreds of years of culinary innovation. There is one very laborious thing,
 which is, you heard the name, which is this parmigiana, but to do it is a piece of art,
 it requires so many hours, that only my mom could do it. If we have one last meal,
 I want to parmigiana. What's the laborious process? Is it the ingredients? Is it the
 actual process? Is it the atmosphere and the humans involved?
 The latter. The ingredient like in any other, in Italian cuisine, believes in very few ingredients.
 If you take quintessential Italian recipe, spaghetti pesto, pesto is olive oil, very good,
 extra virgin olive oil, basil, pine nuts, pepper, clove of garlic, not too much, otherwise you do-
 Overpower everything.
 And then you have to do either two schools of thought, parmesan or pecorino or a mix of the two.
 I mentioned six ingredients. That is typical Italian. I understand that there are other
 cuisines, for instance, the French cuisine, which is extremely sophisticated, and extremely
 combinatorial, or some Chinese cuisine, which has a lot of many more ingredients in this.
 And yet the art is to put them together a lot of things. In Italy, it's really the striving
 for simplicity. You have to find few ingredients, but the right ingredients to create something.
 In parmigiana, the ingredients are eggplants, tomatoes, basil, but how to put them together
 in the process is an act of love, labor and love. You can spend the entire day,
 I'm exaggerating, but the entire morning for sure to do it properly.
 Yeah, as a Japanese cuisine too, there's a mastery to the simplicity with the sushi.
 I don't know if you've seen Georgians of sushi, but there's a mastery to that that's
 propagated through the generations. It's fascinating.
 It's fascinating. People love it when I ask about books.
 I don't know if books, whether fiction, nonfiction, technical, or completely non-technical,
 had an impact in your life throughout, if there's anything you would recommend,
 or even just mention as something that gave you an insight or moved you in some way.
 So, okay. I don't know if I can comment, because in some sense, you almost had to be Italian or
 to be such a scholar, but being Italian, one thing that really impressed me tremendously
 is the Divine Comedy. It is a medieval poem, a very long poem divided in three parts,
 Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. Okay? And that is the non-trivial story of
 a middleman man gets into a crisis, personal crisis. And then out of this crisis, he purifies
 makes a catastrophe, purifies himself more and more and more until he's become capable of actually
 meeting God. Okay? And that is actually a complex story. So you have to get some very sophisticated
 language, maybe Latin at that point that we were talking about 1200s Italy, right? In Florence.
 This guy, instead, he chose his own dialect, not spoken outside his own immediate circle, right?
 Florentine dialect. Actually, Dante really made Italian. So how can you express such a
 sophisticated things and so forth? And then the point is that these words that nobody actually
 knew because they were essentially dialect and plus a bunch of very intricate rhymes in which
 you had to rhyme with the things and turns out that by getting meaning from the things that rhyme,
 you essentially guess what the word means and you invent Italian and you communicate by almost
 osmosis what you want is a miracle of communication in a dialect, a very poor language, a very
 unsophisticated to express very sophisticated situation. I love it. People who love it and
 Italians and not Italian. But what I got of it is that very often limitations are our strength
 because if you limit yourself at a very poor language, somehow you get out of it and you
 achieve even better form of communication. They're using a hyper sophisticated,
 a literary language with lots of resonance from the prior books that you can actually
 instantaneously quote. He couldn't quote anything because nothing was written in Italian before him.
 So I really felt that limitations are our strength. And I think that rather than complaining
 about the limitations, we should embrace them because if you embrace our limitation,
 limited as we are, we find very creative solutions that people with less limitation we have,
 we would not even think about it. Well, the limitations are kind of superpower.
 If you choose to see it that way, is there, since you speak both languages, is there something that's
 lost in translation to you? Is there something you can express in Italian that you can't in
 English and vice versa? Maybe is there something you could say to the musicality of the language?
 I mean, I from I've been to Italy a few times and I'm not sure if it's the actual words,
 but it's the people are certainly very, there's body language too. There's just
 the whole being is language. So I don't know if you miss some of that when you're speaking
 English in this country. Yes. In fact, actually, I certainly,
 I miss it. And somehow it was a sacrifice that I made consciously by the time I arrived,
 I knew that this, I was not going to express myself at that level. And it was actually a sacrifice
 because given to you have also your mother tongue is Russian. So you know that you can be very
 expressive in your mother tongue and not very expressive in this new tongue, in new language.
 And then what people think of you in the new language, because when the precise of expression
 of things, it generates, it shows elegance or it shows knowledge or it shows as a census or it
 shows as a caste or education, whatever it is. So all of a sudden I found myself on the bottom.
 So I had to fight all my way up, back up. And, but what I'm saying,
 their limitations are actually our strength. In fact, it's a trick to limit yourself to exceed.
 There are examples in history, if you think about Hernan Cortez, he goes to invade Mexico.
 He has what a few hundred people with him and he has a hundred thousand people in arms on
 the other side. First thing he does, he limits himself. He sinks his own ship. There is no return.
 And at that point he actually managed to come up victorious.
 I actually, first of all, that's inspiring to me. I feel like I have quite a few limitations,
 but more practically on the Russian side, I'm going to try to do a couple of really big
 and really tough interviews in Russian. Once COVID lifts a little bit, I'm traveling to Russia.
 And I'll keep your advice in mind that the limitations is a kind of superpower. We should
 use it to our advantage because you do feel less like you're not able to convey your wisdom
 in the Russian language. Because I moved here when I was 13. So you don't, the parts of life you live
 under a certain language are the parts of life you're able to communicate. I became a thoughtful,
 deeply thoughtful human in English. But the pain from World War II, the music of the people,
 that was instilled with me in Russian. So I can carry both of those and there's limitations in
 both. I can't say philosophically profound stuff in Russian, but I can't in English express that
 melancholy feeling of the people. And so combining those two, I'll somehow-
 Oh, beautifully said. Thanks for sharing. This is great. Yes. I totally understand you.
 It's a struggle. You've accomplished some incredible things in the space of science,
 in the space of technology, in the space of theory and engineering. Do you have advice
 for somebody young, an undergraduate student, somebody in high school, or anyone who just feels
 young about life or about career, about making their way in this world?
 So I was telling before that I believe in emotion and my thing is to be true to your own emotion.
 And I think that if you do that, you're doing well because it's a life well spent and you are
 going never tired because you want to solve all these emotional knots that have always intrigued
 you from the beginning. And I really believe that to live meaningfully, creatively, and to
 live your emotional life. So I really believe that whether you're a scientist or an artist even more,
 but a scientist, I think of them as artists as well. If you are a human being, so you are really
 to live fully your emotions and to the extent possible, sometimes emotions can be overbearing.
 And my advice is try to express them with more and more confidence. Sometimes it's hard, but
 you are going to be much more fulfilled than by suppressing them. What about love? One of the big
 ones, what role does that play? That's the bigger part of emotions. It's a scary thing, right? It's
 a lot of vulnerability that comes with love, but there is also so much energy and power and
 love in all senses and in the traditional sense, but also in the sense of a broader sense for
 humanity, this feeling of compassion that makes us one with other people and the suffering of other
 people. I mean, all of this is very scary stuff, but it's really the fabric of life.
 Well, the sad thing is it really hurts to lose it.
 Yes. That's why the vulnerable comes with it.
 That's the thing about emotion is it's the up and down and the down seems to come always with the
 up, but the up only comes with the down. Let me ask you about the ultimate down, which is
 unfortunately, we humans are mortal or appear to be for the most part. Do you think about your
 own mortality? Do you fear death? I hope so, and I do, because without death, there is no life.
 So at least there is no meaningful life. Death is actually in some sense our ultimate motivator
 to live a beautiful and meaningful life. I myself felt as a young man that unless I got
 something that I wanted to do, I don't know why I got this idea of something to say, if I'm not
 able to say, I would suicide. So maybe it was a way to motivate myself, but you don't need to
 motivate it because in some sense, fortunately, death is there. So you better get up and do your
 thing because that is the best motivation to live fully. What do you hope your legacy is?
 You mentioned you have two kids. Yes. And so I really feel that there is,
 on one side is my biological legacy and that is my two kids, right? And their kids hopefully.
 And that is one thing. And the other thing is this common enterprise, which is society.
 And I really feel that my legacy would be better by providing security and privacy. Actually,
 for me, are metaphorical to say, I want to give you the ability to interact more and take more
 risks and reach out to more and more people as difficult and dangerous as it may seem. But my
 all scientific work is about to guarantee privacy and give you the security of interaction. And
 not only in a transaction, like it would be a blockchain transaction, but that is really
 one of the hard core of my emotional problems. And I think that these are the problems I want to
 tackle. And ultimately privacy and security is freedom. Freedom is at the core of this.
 It's dangerous. It's like the emotion thing. But ultimately that's how we create all the
 beautiful things around us. Do you think there's meaning to it all? This life, except the urgency
 that death provides and us anxious beings create cool stuff along the way. Is there a deeper meaning
 than if it is, what is it? Well, meaning of life. Actually,
 there are three meanings of life. Great.
 That's great. One, to seek. Two, to seek. And three, to seek.
 To seek what? Or is there no answer to that?
 There's no answer to that. I really think that the journey is more and more important than the
 destination, whatever that be. And I think that is a journey and is, in my opinion, at the end of the
 day, must admit meaningful in itself. And we must admit that maybe whatever your destination might be,
 we may never get there, but hell, it was a great ride.
 Well, I don't think there's a better way to end this, Silvio. Thank you for joining. Thank you
 for wasting your extremely valuable time with me today, joining on this journey of seeking
 something together. We found nothing, but it was very fun. I really enjoyed it. Thank you so much
 for talking to me today. Thank you, Alex. It's been really special for me to be interviewed by you.
 Thank you for listening to this conversation with Silvio Macaulay, and thank you to our sponsors,
 Athletic Greens Nutrition Drink, the Information In-Depth Tech Journalism website,
 Four Stigmatic Mushroom Coffee, and Better Help Online Therapy. Click the sponsor links to get a
 discount and to support this podcast. And now let me leave you with some words from Henry David Thoreau,
 Wealth is the ability to fully experience life. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.