译文/Translated：
撰稿人：Brandon Lovejoy
共识架构师是一群致力于开发EOSIO技术堆栈并对其进行迭代的先驱者。他们是区块链世界的无畏探索者，通过专注于研究区块链技术的Elliptic Curves和 Merkle Trees，向世人揭示EOSIO的巨大潜力。
我很荣幸对能够对共识架构师Areg Hayrapetian进行了一次视频采访。通过这次采访对话，我深切的感受到Areg是一个极其专注、好奇心旺盛的人。他睿智且富有深度，内心充满了对最先进区块链知识和技术的向往与追求。
Areg具有全面的思维能力，从去中心化和中心化的对比设计，到账户权限、每秒交易量等细节思考，再到社会自由与治理之间的考量。他意识到了EOS拥有巨大的潜力，也对人工智能技术的表层和深层定义有了清晰的认知。
作为一名共识机制的区块链架构师和工程师，33 岁的Areg自2013年对比特币产生浓厚兴趣后，始终致力于研究区块链和加密货币的无限可能性。 在完成加州大学洛杉矶分校机械工程专业本科学业后，Areg 开始攻读麻省理工学院同一领域的博士学位。 在这段时间，他对区块链行业如痴如迷，甚至已经到了无法自拔的地步。2018 年，他加入Block.one工作，并帮助其技术团队交付EOSIO 1.0。 而现在，Areg受聘成为EOS网络基金会技术总监，他将继续发挥自己的才能，推动EOS发展成为世界一流的Web3.0智能合约平台和区块链生态系统。
问题：是什么让您对区块链和加密货币产生了兴趣？
比特币向我展示了一个更为广泛的概念，即有可能以一种巧妙的方式，使用代码技术和激励模型来创建一个平台，使人们能够持有金融价值的代币，他们可以交换有形的商品和服务，同时该平台并不会由任何单一实体或机构拥有或控制。
事实上，这一切都是可以实现的，而且仅是这个概念，就让我觉得它非常了不起，它让你开始思考：钱到底是什么？
因此，作为一个对这个想法感兴趣的钻研者，我也开始对密码学，对如何应用它来开发平台，以及博弈论、经济学等等都产生了浓厚的兴趣。比特币背后蕴藏的技术本身就已经足够吸引我了。
另外一个因素是，我认为这个概念极具吸引力的重要原因是，我希望金融激励这一概念可以整合到更广阔的应用程序中，以创造比现有的金融网络更为宽松的环境，这能够刺激数字空间的更大竞争和创新。
当谈到与金融脱钩的数字空间中的产品和服务时，这方面已经是一个激烈的竞争态势。 我认为这些竞争是一件好事，因为它带来了创新性和多样性，可以更好地匹配用户多样化的需求及偏好。
而当这一系列概念与金融或者货币深度结合时，可能会出现更有趣、更强大的产品和服务。 在我看来，传统金融体系是保守的，在创新和创作自由方面形成了瓶颈。
因此，我兴奋地想到，在传统金融创新受阻的情况下，一个更为开放的且不断增长的金融系统替代方案，可以进一步释放竞争，充分激发产品和服务的潜力。
我一直都有一些担忧，认为过度自由可能会对社会造成一定的危害。随着年龄的增长，担忧也更进一步。对于大部分事情而言，适度是最好的，而过度可能是坏事。过去十年已经表明，在非金钱层面，过度的言论自由同样会对社会造成巨大的伤害。金融或金钱可以被认为是一种改变人们行为的特殊且有效的语言变体。所以，我并非追求一个没有任何限制且绝对自由的资金流动世界。在我看来，这会对社会文明产生净负面的影响。
话虽如此，但我确实发现，我们所处的社会，无论在言论和金融问题，还是其他方面，都更倾向于过度的和不必要的限制，以至于我认为通过释放竞争去打破现有平衡的技术也许是利大于弊。
再者，适度是关键。我所喜欢的加密货币领域中也会存在追求极端的人。这些追求极端的人，与目前社会中的秩序管理者存在一种紧张的关系，一个想要更多自由，一个想要更大程度的控制自由。这两者之间的紧张关系将有望在关于自由的平衡中达成妥协，而我对这种妥协更为满意。尽管存在一些保留意见，但我更加倾向于支持加密货币领域的整体精神。
问题：您是否觉得区块链将兑现互联网的早期承诺，即带来一个更去中心化的点对点网络，就像在中心化服务器成为主导架构之前那样？
是的，我希望如此。互联网本身是一个去中心化的基础设施，即在没有过多限制的情况下做你想做的事情。互联网价值虽高，但很难通过去中心化的方式实现。在这个情况下，Web 2.0 和云服务模式应运而生，并逐渐占据主导地位。但我认为它更像一个来回摆动的钟摆：
在互联网的发展早期，存在一个去中心化模式的想法。这是一个很酷的、强大的且鼓舞人心的想法；但实际上它很难运行，它比中心化系统更难。因此，我们一直想要做出转变，希望在不牺牲过多便捷性的情况下，构建一个更去中心化的系统。
当你想构建有用且简单的东西时，中心化系统会更便捷。 我们的终极目标是构建一个便捷、灵活且具有可拓展性的平台，同时有效消除应用程序的操作负担，无论是核心业务逻辑、营销还是其他方面。
许多应用程序的公共基础设施并非是它们的特别之处；在理想情况下，公共基础设施部分应该被抽离出来并交给专家处理。但相比于目前，去中心化的主要区别在于：这些便捷的去中心化应用程序平台不应就此妥协，每个人在平台上的控制权不应该最终交给少数的个体。
我希望随着时间的推移，所有的事情可以回到去中心化，但这将是一个极其漫长的过程。因为，这个过程不仅需要迭代很多技术才能得以实现，同时不影响人们考虑将这种替代方案作为技术堆栈的必要条件。
在使用区块链应用开发应用，与使用传统技术堆栈开发应用方面，我们需要缩小差距、提高开发便捷性、压缩开发成本以及降低门槛。通过尝试在区块链上建立一个复杂的应用程序，我得以更深入地了解了这些领域。但是除非我们可以有效的缩小差距，否则绝大多数应用程序都是无法进入到区块链世界的。
目前，区块链技术仅适用于真正需要去中心化的的一小部分应用程序，否则它们将无法生存。
我希望看到那些并非绝对需要去中心化，但仍能从中受益的应用程序越来越多地走向去中心化，至少在关键功能方面。
问题：实际上，您攻读的博士学位与区块链并不相关。从最初的机械工程领域到现在的区块链领域，您是如何创造出如此史诗般的辉煌呢？
确实如此。最初，我的学业和职业均专注于机械工程领域。但在我的小时候，我就对计算机和编程很感兴趣，所以我对机械工程这条路是犹豫的。自孩童时代，我开始自学计算机科学，并在业余时间从事编程项目来获得乐趣。
2013年，我首次对比特币产生浓厚的兴趣；到2017年底，我发现自己花了越来越多的空余时间来学习区块链技术和加密货币的知识；同时，我也通过自己的项目贡献了一些开源代码，并参与加密货币社区论坛讨论。显然，我的心思已不在原来的机械工程领域上，我真正想从事的是区块链领域。因此，2018年2月，当我加入Block.one帮助构建EOSIO时，加密货币和区块链从我的爱好正式转变为我的全职工作和事业。
问题：在EOSIO的早期开发阶段，您在Block.one主要负责什么工作？
我加入Block.one时，EOSIO团队正忙于在EOS代币销售结束前，完成并交付EOSIO 1.0。 我参与其中，并帮助团队在截止日期前完成交付，这是一项艰巨的工作，但也很有趣。
我兴奋地见证了社区如何聚集在一起，获取我们开发的开源代码，并应用在EOS主网以及整个EOS生态。这是激动人心的时刻，我也很享受上线后的头两年，当时EOSIO团队致力于不断改进EOSIO软件，开发新功能，以及帮助EOS社区诊断和解决黑客攻击问题。EOS成为众多公链中，在抵御黑客攻击方面最具经验的区块链。
在接下来的两年，我在Block.one走了一段弯路，我被分配负责建立交易所Bullish。也是从那时开始，我专注于建立加密货币交易所，以及在交易所基础上改进基于EOSIO协议的私有链。 但这也是一段很好的体验，在EOSIO上开发综合应用程序时，我发现EOSIO自身存在很多缺陷，更不用说其他区块链了。当谈到在公链上开发综合且性能强大的应用程序时，我们发现，改善区块链技术还有很多工作要去做！
现在，我正式加入了EOS网络基金会，我希望加入ENF之后能够回归我加入Block.one时的初衷，就是通过先进技术，让EOS成为伟大的公链，让开发人员在EOS上开发高使用率、高性能的去中心化综合应用程序。
问题：据我所知，您正在研发Trust EVM。 您在Trust EVM项目中担任什么角色？您对于Trust EVM的重要性有什么看法？
在Trust EVM项目中，我的角色是竭尽全力为团队提供所有帮助，直到其上线发布并且继续不断改进更新。其中重点工作是，在涉及EOS客户端层面（nodeos）将Trust EVM堆栈组件进行更高效和可持续的升级。
我认为Trust EVM 的重要性，不仅体现在帮助那些习惯于使用 Solidity 和类似 EVM 的平台进行开发的开发人员，能够更能够轻松的在 Trust EVM 上构建应用，我们可以吸引更多的开发人员在 EOS 上进行构建，还体现在我们极有可能激发用户的需求。 Trust EVM将会提供一个低门槛的EVM平台，因为其具有极高的吞吐量，并且可以实现极低的Gas费用。开发人员更容易在 EOS 上构建出色的应用程序，而终端用户对于产品的期望和需求也会更高。Trust EVM上线发布将使EOS生态再度蓬勃发展。
对我来说，如果Trust EVM上线后不影响原生EOS开发，甚至能够支持其发展，那么Trust EVM是非常成功的。EOS社区将会继续迭代改进原生EOS的开发工具和平台，努力消除与其他EVM之间的差距。在某种程度上，我希望通过Trust EVM进入EOS生态的开发人员，可以进行原生EOS开发，并将其移植到现有的应用程序（例如：利用更高的性能）；或者在开展新项目（可能是一个更复杂的应用程序）时， 可以从原生EOS开发模型的独特功能中享受到更多好处。
所以对我来说，Trust EVM在EOS上获得成功在于两点：从短期来看，基于Trust EVM开发去中心化应用程序的需求增加，用户对在EOS上运行的应用程序的需求增加；从长远来看，在EOS上运行的应用的用户需求持续高涨，但大部分用户活动集中运行在改进的本地EOS开发模型上的去中心化应用，EVM需求仍然存在，Trust EVM仍发挥其补充原生EOS开发的重要作用。
问题：您最擅长什么编程语言？另外，您还掌握哪些其他并不那么擅长的编程语言？
我了解各种编程语言，但我喜欢且常使用的是C++，其他编程语言，如 Python、JavaScript、Rust，我也可以很好地使用它们，但 C++ 是我最擅长的编程语言。
就平时工作而言，我更倾向于在系统中进行编程工作，所以C++ 更加适合。与此同时，我也很喜欢Rust，因为这是一种简洁的编程语言。
问题：您觉得自己哪些相关的计算机科学技能，是处于顶尖水平？例如系统架构方面？
是的，我确实发现自己很享受系统架构领域，并在过去的四年里花了很多时间在上面。 我经常参与 EOSIO 的架构设计工作，并探索如何不断改进软件和完善架构。 在Bullish交易所项目中，我是用户使用账户和权限系统的主架构师，带领着团队开发了该系统。 随着时间的流逝，我越来越关注架构构建，并领导开发团队开发系统，这实际上也是一种自我开发，尽管我仍然喜欢编码。
问题：可以跟我们聊聊您参与过的一些比较著名的区块链项目吗？
我踏入区块链领域是从比特币社区开始，主要通过社区论坛上与其他成员讨论、分析和反馈等形式去贡献自己的力量。在Steem区块链项目时，我扮演了更积极的角色，除了参与Steemit平台的功能开发之外，我还向Steem区块链代码库贡献了一些代码，发现并修复了一些bug。我也算是Steem的见证人，相当于一个区块生产者。
但我大部分贡献仍旧是从我开始研发EOSIO时做出的。 我参与研发了EOSIO核心代码库的多个部分；尤其在账户和系统权限，重要级别仅次于DPoS的共识算法，以及更容易完成硬分叉升级的协议框架等层面的贡献。 此外，我还专注于研发智能合约及在智能合约上实现PowerUp。
在我参与研发Bullish交易所项目期间，我还参与了几个很有意思的项目。一个是 EOSIO 和比特币之间的IBC协议的概念验证（PoC），有效实现了对信任需求极小的BTC托管方案。在研发更便捷的存取代币方式之前，我们在比特币测试网做了一系列的测试。在Bullish交易所项目中，我主要负责架构设计并领导开发团队构建基于EOSIO的账户和权限系统，以满足交易所使用WebAuthn密钥完成更高权限操作，为低权限操作建立过期会话密钥。同时利用运营商规则（例如合规性限制）适度调节，并在链上建立防篡改日志的追踪和验证机制，以此保障用户和操作员账户日常活动。
问题：您认为开发人员在开发区块链时面临的主要挑战是什么？
首先，开发人员，尤其是不熟悉在EOSIO和其他公链构建应用的开发人员，他们将面临更改智能合约代码的挑战，尤其在一些错误和修复的情况下，它通常要求修改合约访问尚未编制索引的数据。 这是一个难题，涉及到状态迁移和向后兼容性的复杂过程。那么，开发更便捷的工具将会有效帮助开发人员更容易接近SQL数据库。
第二个挑战是，使用高效的开发人员工具来完成调试。 例如，目前没有针对EOSIO智能合约的调试器。
最后一个挑战在于，如果开发人员想要某些应用程序达到EOSIO的运行速度，这意味着需要做大量工作去改进性能。在目前阶段，区块链还没有真正为它们所需的吞吐量和可拓展性做好准备。尽管开发者希望这些应用程序可以通过建立在去中心化区块链上，以此获取收益，但这个想法多少有点疯狂。
问题：您认为在区块链上实现什么样的功能是非常不可思议的？
我正在改进集中交易功能，希望在保持低延迟情况下，它可以轻松达到每秒超过100,000笔交易的吞吐量。 但现在尝试将这一想法构建为智能合约是一个坏主意。
问题：就TPS而言，我们目前对EOSIO的关注点是什么？
这取决于我们处理什么类型的交易。现有的EOSIO网络中已轻松超过4000TPS。通过技术改进，我们可以实现大幅度提升，但目前不能给出准确的数据。因此，我们需要在实验室环境中和真实全球网络环境中进行实际测试，以此得出实际的速度。
我们并非在高谈阔论，在技术改进后，每笔交易均为正常的简单交易的情况下，我认为10,000TPS是一个很合理的数字。
问题：您选择EOS的原因是什么？在这崭新的历史时刻，您认为EOS的核心价值主张是什么？
首先，我认为有些社区对技术应该如何建立非常严格，并且处于去中心化权利下方的两个极端，我不认为他们会做出正确的权衡，并基于此建立一些运行良好的产品，并且从长远来看，我也并不认为他们可以捕获一个庞大的开发者社区。
在我看来，EOS社区成员至少都是很灵活的。因此，EOS符合我所认同的区块链架构，我认为良好的架构可成为高性能区块链所必备的因素。
其次，EOS具有长期去中心化的特殊优势。纵观其他公链，他们专注于成为去中心化应用的通用平台，但如果你看看他们的代币分布，你会发现他们看起来并不如EOS那样去中心化，他们的核心内部人员拥有大量代币，这也意味着这些核心内部人员在未来很长一段时间拥有巨大的治理权和影响力。因为它使少数动机强烈的人能够采取果断行动，为网络的利益服务，从而使自己成为非常大的代币持有人。但我认为，当社区向去中心化结构过渡时，这不会激发人们对于社区长期获益的信心。
理想情况下，这些去中心化的应用平台在去中心化治理系统的控制下，会展示出成功，特别是开发者和用户的采用，这样用户就能对这种模式在未来的长期可持续性感到放心。
我不否认通过授权中心化为代币持有者谋取利益更容易取得成功，但我希望出现一种更强大的机制来协调中心化支持者和代币持有者之间的利益，而不仅仅是核心内部人员继续维持他们已经垄断的经济利益。这就是EOS网络基金会的财务结构让我非常兴奋的原因。
如果EOS网络基金会未能满足社区的期望，将会被切断资金供给，资金会转流向正确的地方。存在这样一种理念，即在构建区块链设置方式上，可以创建一个分叉从表现不佳的内部人员手中获取预分配资金。但这是具有争议性的，因为代币持有者会担心社区名誉受损而拒绝分叉。这种极端的分叉选择是建立在内部人员的所有预分配资金都作为代币在链上储存，且社区不影响分叉的假设之上。
EOS代币的广泛分布特性，EOS网络基金会资助框架，加上EOS网络基金会代表广大代币持有者利益的强大领导，这一切足够让我相信EOS生态将在未来几年蓬勃发展。这也将有效改善社区不满情绪，吸引更多的开发人员加入，创造更大的用户需求。这将会是一个可持续发展的EOS生态，消除因少数内部人员套现而导致系统崩溃的风险。
诚然，我承认EOS上现有的治理机制是滞后且存在缺陷的。因此，我认为EOS治理机制需要不断迭代改进。撇除这些缺陷，相对于其他公链，我仍然对EOS的可持续性和长期去中心化保持极大的信心。我相信EOS能够在未来几年克服这个困难。这个困难说着简单，但实际操作难度蛮大。但我认为相信是重要的成功信仰。一旦成功克服困难，那么EOS的未来将会一片光明。
EOS独特的历史和EOS社区所处的劣势局面造就了我们所看到的一切。 但我认为，不幸和绝望同样可以创造一个更雄心壮志的社区。虽然风险很大，但我们愿意采取重要措施来尝试解决问题。而这种大胆的行动正是EOS成功的必经之路。 我们还有很多工作和转变需要做，但转变方向和保持正确方向都需要大量投资。 在投资和社区的加持下，EOS将会开启新的篇章。在四年之后的今天，我们可以看到仍旧有不少杰出的开发人员一直扎根在EOS生态。未来，这些杰出的开发人员将会是推动EOS快速发展的中坚力量。
问题：除了计算机科学相关领域之外，您还涉猎哪个领域呢？
我喜欢深入研究一两件事，这包括区块链，但很多时候也要求我更广泛的学习更多知识。我喜欢广泛地学习，即便有时候这种学习可能停留在表面，但也能建立一定的认知。我花费时间广泛学习的领域包括数学、物理、工程、心理学、经济学和政治学。在知识的广度上，我是有自己的选择权。相比较于其他，我更愿意把时间花在试图更好地理解这个世界和其中的人是如何运作的。
问题：您的未来目标是什么？您终身的职业发展会是是区块链领域吗？
未来，我在区块链领域仍旧有很多工作要做，而我将会一直扎根在这领域。 如果一切进展顺利，这将解决很多的问题，而我的重点将主要集中在技术堆栈的最高层。 同时，我对EOS基础层面的技术很感兴趣，等到它变得更加成熟和稳定，我将会探索其他层面的工作。
我没有考虑太多这个问题，但我会始终探索扎根在机器学习和人工智能领域。
问题：机器学习与区块链的开发方面具有相似性，可以这样理解吗？
是的，最近机器学习掀起一阵热潮。互联网网络的超强算力和和海量数据使得深度学习和反向传播算法取得了重大进展。人工智能在经历寒冬之后，机器学习领域重新焕发生机。
虽然这一领域取得新进展，但距离实现通用人工智能（AGI）仍有很长的一段路。深度学习催生了一系列有用的新事物，包括自动驾驶汽车等。 虽然它们会对我们的社会产生深远影响，但其影响力远不及人类智慧。当然，这是难以解决的，我的直觉告诉我，即使在未来的几十年里，仍然会有很多人在努力解决这个问题。
现在是区块链技术发展的关键时期。 换言之，如果区块链技术足够成熟，且各种应用程序都在链上建立，那么将会诞生很多有趣的工作岗位。也就是说，在往后几十年间，科学家和工程师将为实现通用人工智能（AGI）而不断奋斗。
问题：相比较于生物智能领域的道阻且长，似乎区块链技术的里程碑更容易实现。
是的。 您现在可以通过机器学习实现许多细分领域的应用，这将会是一个高价值的职业。对我而言，在AI（人工智能）和ML（机器学习）的价值在于为通用人工智能（AGI）目标而不断奋斗。在机器学习领域中的精准应用程序中取得进展都是振奋人心的。无论出于何种原因，我对区块链领域的创新更加感到欣喜若狂。
问题：针对埃隆·马斯克对人工智能的担忧，您可以谈谈您的看法吗？
我关注的是一般的生存威胁。我担心更强大的技术，可能是人工智能，但甚至只是狭义的人工智能，在愚蠢的人手中做鲁莽的事情，对人类社会产生毁灭性的破坏。但我想我更关心的是人工智能发展的这一方面，而不是一个有意识的自我指导的人工智能，选择对人类进行破坏的可能性。
但这些担忧远超过人工智能领域。因为它应用在各种技术中，也包括区块链。我们需要思考两个问题：第一，技术是如何被创造且使用 ？第二，它是否对社会产生正向的积极影响？有些技术自诞生以来就具有破坏性，但在大多数情况下，技术是中性的。它们的共同点在于无限放大技术的力量。关键在于，由谁将控制这项技术，他们将如何扩大使用权限？这两个问题衍生出了各种社会挑战，这些都是需要不断克服。
我觉得这一个治理问题，而非典型的技术问题。当然，有很多人把治理视为一种社会技术问题。
问题：您有什么建议给到那些想要在加入区块链的开发人员呢？
撸起袖子加油干，勇敢试一试吧。不需要提前学习相关课程和书籍，或者考取对应证书，您只需要通过互联网上免费提供的信息开始学习，开始构建一个简单的应用程序作为练习。 兴趣是最大的老师，如果您想进一步提升您的知识技能，您可以选择开始一个新项目，或者为现有的开源项目做出贡献。
谢谢您的建议，再次感谢您抽出宝贵时间来分享您的想法和见解！
我的荣幸。
. . .
在本期的采访中， Areg还深入研究了各种区块链共识算法的多重权衡，而这绝妙的思考将会呈现在另外一篇文章中，如果您感兴趣，欢迎与我们一起探索区块链共识算法的奥秘！
本篇文章是新栏目「架构师共识」的首次采访。
欢迎各位朋友留言评论。
. . .
关于EOS 网络
EOS网络是区块链3.0时代的典范之作，由EOS VM提供支持。EOS VM是一个低延迟、高性能和可扩展的WebAssembly引擎，能够近乎无感的实现确定性交易执行。EOS网络专为Web 3设计，致力于实现最佳的Web 3用户和开发人员体验。EOS是EOSIO协议的旗舰区块链和金融中心，并通过EOS网络基金会（ENF）作为多链协作和发展公共基础产品的工具，进一步完善基础设施，驱动EOS快速发展。
关于EOS网络基金会
EOS网络基金会是一个非营利性的组织，旨在倾听社区声音、传达社区意愿并扶持社区优质项目发展，成为EOS社区的信息共享桥梁，并为EOS生态提供资金、技术、运营、未来规划、生态构建等关键基础设施支持，进一步发挥EOS作为世界速度最快的治理型区块链的全部潜力。
原文/Original：
By Brandon Lovejoy
Architects of Consensus is a series dedicated to shining a light on the unseen figures who are developing and advancing the most battle-tested, highly performant blockchain stack in the world — EOSIO. These are the intrepid explorers whose lives have traced the elliptic curves and merkle trees of blockchain technology to reveal its many potentials, and who have returned to share that knowledge with us.
I had the pleasure of sitting down with Areg Hayrapetian over a video call, apropos of the virtual worlds we frequently inhabit. Our corresponding chats online revealed a focused and curious individual, possessed of a significant intellect, who has followed his inner muse along an unlikely trajectory to arrive at the bleeding edge of blockchain.
Areg’s wide-ranging thoughts stretch from the contrasting design characteristics of decentralization and centralization, to the minutiae of account permissions, transactions per second, and back again to the tension between freedom and control in society. His perspectives on the hard-won potential of EOS, the intrigue of AI, and the nature of technology, also surface.
At 33 years of age, Areg is a consensus level blockchain architect and engineer who has been investigating the possibilities of blockchain and cryptocurrency since he first became interested in Bitcoin back in 2013. Having completed his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering at UCLA, Areg began pursuing his Ph.D. in the same field at MIT, however, he was still fascinated by blockchain, and at some point, the pull became irresistible. In 2018 he joined Block.One to help their engineering team deliver EOSIO 1.0. Areg now works for the EOS Network Foundation as the Director of Engineering where he continues to use his talents to advance EOS as the best-in-class Web3 smart contract platform and blockchain ecosystem for the benefit of the whole community.
What got you interested in blockchain and cryptocurrency?
Bitcoin introduced me to the broader concept that it was possible to use technology and incentive models built into code in a clever way to create a platform that allows people to hold tokens of financial value that they could exchange for tangible goods and services while also not requiring the platform to be owned or controlled by any single entity or institution.
The fact that this was achievable, and just the overall concept of it, I found to be pretty remarkable. And it makes you sort of start thinking, what is money, really? Ahh, ok!
So just as a nerd interested in this idea, interested in cryptography, interested in how it could be applied to build cool things, as well as the game theory, economics, and all of that, the technology behind Bitcoin was already motivating enough by itself.
But also one of the other motivators, and I think a significant part of the appeal of the concept was my hope that this could provide ways of integrating financial incentives into applications that are more permissive than what existing financial networks allowed, which could spur greater competition and innovation in the digital space.
When it comes to products and services in the digital space that are largely decoupled from finances, I already believed there was a lot of competition. I view this competition as a good thing since it leads to innovation and also to great variety which can better meet customers’ similarly varied desires and preferences.
But far more interesting and powerful products and services become possible when they are deeply integrated with finances and money. And the connection to the traditional financial system, which appears to me to be very conservative in its nature, seems to create a bottleneck in innovation and creative freedom. So I was excited by the thought that perhaps a growing open-access alternative to the existing financial system could unlock competition and the potential for products and services that never came to be, due to hindrance from the dominant traditional financial system.
The natural tension between those in this space that are more extreme on one side and the powerful incumbents in our society on the other side who want too much control over everyone’s lives will hopefully lead to a compromise in the middle that I am much more comfortable with.
I did and still do, even more so as I have gotten older, have some concerns about too much freedom and the harm it can have on a society. Almost everything is best in moderation, and too much of a good thing can be bad. I think the past decade has shown how even non-financial aspects of life such as free speech, which all things considered I am still a pretty big proponent of, can be weaponized to cause harm at a large scale. Finances or money can be thought of as a particular potent variant of speech which is quite effective in altering people’s behavior. So, I do not actually want a world of absolute freedom with regards to the flow of money and no restrictions whatsoever on finances since I view that as a net negative for civilization.
That said, I do often find our society biased more towards the, in my view, overly and unnecessarily restrictive side on matters of speech and finances, and generally other forms of expression, and I think technology that can provide significant competition to shift that balance back a bit is probably doing more net good than harm. Again, moderation is key, and I believe there are many in the cryptocurrency space that go too far to the extreme for my liking. The natural tension between those in this space that are more extreme on one side and the powerful incumbents in our society on the other side who want too much control over everyone’s lives will hopefully lead to a compromise in the middle that I am much more comfortable with. So, I tend to support the overall spirit in the cryptocurrency space, although with some reservations.
Do you feel like blockchain will make good on the early promise of the internet, and bring about a more decentralized, peer to peer network, like before centralized servers came to be the dominant architecture?
Yeah, I hope so. Well, the Internet itself is this wonderful, decentralized infrastructure that you can do things on without too many levers of power that control everything, but the reason Web 2.0 and the cloud model have arisen is because there’s a lot of value in it, and it’s more difficult to achieve that value through an alternative means that doesn’t centralize control.
It makes sense why that model has become so dominant. But I think it may be like a pendulum swinging back and forth. You have the more decentralized model to start, with the early Internet, and that was a really cool, powerful idea. Very inspiring but hard to work with, harder than a more centralized system, which is kind of what we moved to. Hopefully it will go back to a more decentralized system without compromising too much of the conveniences.
The key difference for this decentralized future compared to what we have today is that these convenient decentralized application platforms should not compromise in such a manner that gives control over the platforms everyone depends on to a hierarchical structure that is ultimately controlled at the top by very few individuals.
When you want to build something useful and easy, it’s simpler to do it centralized. The goal ultimately should be to still achieve a platform that offers convenience, flexibility, and addresses scaling challenges while removing those burdens of operation from the people who just want to focus on the unique aspects of their application, whether that’s the core business logic, the marketing, or whatever. The infrastructural parts common to many applications, which isn’t what makes them each special, should ideally be abstracted away and handled by experts focused on that. The key difference for this decentralized future compared to what we have today is that these convenient decentralized application platforms should not compromise in such a manner that gives control over the platforms everyone depends on to a hierarchical structure that is ultimately controlled at the top by very few individuals.
While I do hope to see things move back to the decentralized side over time, I think it’ll be a very long process because there’s a lot of technology that needs to be built to achieve that goal without compromising on the things that are essential for people to even consider this alternative as the tech stack to build on.
We still need to shrink the gap between blockchain and the traditional tech stack for building applications in terms of cost, in terms of developer convenience, and in terms of all sorts of areas that blockchain is still lagging behind on which I’ve learned about more deeply through trying to build a sophisticated application on it. Unless we shrink that gap, it won’t be viable for the vast majority of applications.
Currently, it’s only viable for a small subset of applications that truly need decentralization otherwise they can’t survive. What I’d like to see is a world where applications that don’t absolutely need but could still stand to benefit from it move more and more towards that, at least for their critical functions.
You were actually on a completely different track pursuing a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, how did you end up making such an epic course change to where you are today?
That’s right. Initially, I had been focusing my education and career towards a different field: mechanical engineering. I had already been somewhat hesitant about my decision to go down that path since I had been interested in computers and programming from a young age. As a child and young adult I studied computer science on my own and worked on programming projects on the side for fun. Then starting from when I first got interested in Bitcoin in 2013 and through the end of the 2017, I found myself spending an increasing amount of my limited free time learning all I could about blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies, contributing some open source code to projects I was interested in, and participating in cryptocurrency community discussion forums. It became obvious that my heart was not in the field or career path that I was trying to continue to follow out of inertia, and that what I really wanted to do is spend most of my time working on blockchain projects. Then in February 2018, I made a transition from having cryptocurrency and blockchain be my hobby to having it be my full-time focus and career when I joined Block.one to help build EOSIO.
What was your experience like working at Block.one during the early stages of EOSIO development?
I joined Block.one at a time when the EOSIO team was rushing to complete and deliver EOSIO 1.0 in time for the deadline marking the end of the EOS token sale. It was a lot of hard work but also fun getting to be part of that rush and help the team deliver working software by the deadline.
I was overjoyed to witness how a community came together to take that open source code we developed and used it to launch a blockchain, the EOS blockchain, as well as a whole ecosystem surrounding it. It was a very exciting time, and I also enjoyed the two years after the launch when the EOSIO team was busy constantly improving the EOSIO software, adding new features, and even helping the EOS community diagnose and solve various issues that came up as EOS became battle-hardened in the public arena full of hackers and attackers.
Now I have joined the EOS Network Foundation with the hopes of getting back to doing what I had originally set out to do…
I took a slight detour in the following two years at Block.one, and then Bullish, where I became focused on building a cryptocurrency exchange and improving a private version of an EOSIO-based blockchain that the exchange was built on. It was good experience and the process of actually dog-fooding, building a sophisticated application on EOSIO, showed me where there are a lot of the deficiencies in EOSIO, not to mention other blockchain platforms, when it comes to building a sophisticated and performance intensive application on the blockchain managed by a large team of developers. There is still a lot of work to do to improve blockchain technology!
Now I have joined the EOS Network Foundation with the hopes of getting back to doing what I had originally set out to do when I first joined Block.one: to help make the technology underlying the EOS network a great blockchain platform upon which developers can build performant and sophisticated decentralized applications that are highly usable.
So right now, among other things, you’re working on Trust EVM. What’s your role on that project and what’s your view on the significance of that project?
My role right now as it relates to Trust EVM is to provide that team with whatever development assistance I can to continue improving the software as the team gets it ready for production launch. In particular, right now that involves upgrading the implementation of a component of the Trust EVM stack, the translator, from its current quick solution to a more performant and sustainable implementation as a nodeos plugin.
To me, if EVM on EOS is successful, that does not take away from native EOS development but rather it can ultimately support it.
My view of the significance of Trust EVM particularly as it relates to EOS is that by enabling existing developers who are used to developing using Solidity and against an EVM-like platform to easily switch over to building on the Trust EVM with little to no changes required on their part, we can attract more developers to build on EOS which can hopefully induce demand by users. Providing a familiar EVM platform lowers the barrier to switch, but the expectation is that developers would be motivated to switch because Trust EVM running on EOS can leverage the higher transactional capacity available on EOS which should ultimately result in cheaper transactions than many of the alternative EVM-based platforms developers can currently choose from. This will hopefully revitalize development on EOS and that positive sentiment can drive further value and improvements to EOS.
To me, if EVM on EOS is successful, that does not take away from native EOS development but rather it can ultimately support it. The EOS community will continue to innovate and improve the tooling and platform for native EOS development to hopefully address any gaps some developers may see compared to what they are used to with developing on EVM-like platforms. And at some point, my hope is that the developers brought over to the EOS ecosystem through Trust EVM will start exploring native EOS development either to port their existing app (e.g. to take advantage of even greater performance) or when taking on a new project which may be a more sophisticated application that can benefit from the unique capabilities that are available in the native EOS development model but not in the EVM model.
So to me, success with Trust EVM on EOS is: in the short term, a boost in developer activity of EVM-based decentralized applications on EOS and an increase in user demand of applications running on EOS; and, in the long term, continued high user demand of applications running on EOS but with most of the user activity concentrated on decentralized applications running on an improved native EOS development model and the EVM still around to complement native EOS development for the applications where it still makes sense.
What programming languages are you most competent in, and what are some others that you can program in, but you wouldn’t consider yourself top level.
I know various languages, but certainly the one that stands out compared to the rest is C++ and that’s the language I like to work in the most. Other languages like Python, JavaScript, Rust, I can work well in them, but C++ is the one I’m most proficient in. And then, in terms of languages I’d like to work in, I actually do prefer working in systems languages, so C++ fits but I also really like Rust. I think it’s a neat language.
What are some adjacent computer science skills, such as architecture, that you feel like you’re uniquely qualified in?
Yeah I do find myself enjoying, and have spent quite a bit of time over the last four years, on the architectural side. I was often part of the architectural design of EOSIO and figuring out how to continue to improve software and build out the architecture. In Bullish I was the architect behind the account and permission system that they’re using and led the team to develop that. As time has gone by, I have been focusing more on that side of building out architecture, and leading a team of developers to work on it, more so than actually developing myself, although I still love coding as well.
Tell us about some of the more notable blockchain projects you’ve worked on.
I started by participating in the BitShares community. Mostly it was limited to contributions in the form of discussions with other members in the community forums, ideas, analysis and feedback, etc. Then when I started getting involved in the Steem blockchain, I took a more active role. Besides participating on the Steemit platform itself through adding content, I also contributed some code to the Steem blockchain code base, found and fixed some bugs, and was even a witness, the equivalent of a block producer, on Steem for a little while.
But most of my contributions in the blockchain space came when I started working on EOSIO. I worked on a bunch of various parts of the core EOSIO code base. Of particular note where I tended to spend more of my time in the code base was in the account and permission system, the consensus algorithm, which is lower level than DPoS, and the protocol feature framework to enable easier hard forking upgrades of the protocol. I also spent time working on the system contract and its various features, and in particular worked on the implementation of PowerUp within the system contract.
During my time working on the Bullish exchange, I worked on a couple of different projects that were pretty interesting. One was a proof-of-concept of an inter-blockchain communication system between an EOSIO blockchain and the Bitcoin blockchain that enabled a BTC custody solution requiring minimal need for trust. We did get token deposits and withdrawals working with a Bitcoin test network before Bullish ultimately went another direction that allowed for more easily adding a wide variety of new tokens. The thing I spent most of my time on in Bullish was designing the architecture of and leading a team of developers to build a flexible account and permission system built upon an EOSIO blockchain that met the Bullish exchange’s needs of using WebAuthn keys for higher privilege operations, establishing expiring session keys for lower privilege operations, leveraging roles with granular capabilities that are modulated by policies imposed by exchange operators (e.g. compliance restrictions), and facilitating all of this through tracking and validation on a blockchain which establishes a tamper-resistant log of both user and operator account activity.
What are the main challenges developers face when building on blockchain.
One of the main challenges is the difficulty for developers, especially developers who are not super familiar with what it’s like to build on EOSIO specifically and on blockchain more generally, to change the contract code over time after launch especially if there is some bug and fixing it requires the contract to access data that is not already indexed in existing tables. It’s a complicated process that involves migrations of state, and considering the backwards compatibility aspect it is all a huge burden. Having better developer tools to abstract that and make that easier for developers so it’s closer to SQL databases would be very helpful.
At this stage, blockchain is not really ready for the throughput and scale demanded by some applications. Those are the applications where as much as you would like them to benefit from decentralization and building on a blockchain, you would be kind of crazy to do it.
Another thing is just better developer tooling to help debug issues. For example, there currently is no debugger for EOSIO smart contracts.
Finally, as fast as EOSIO is, there’s a lot of performance improvement still needed to build certain types of applications. At this stage, blockchain is not really ready for the throughput and scale demanded by some applications. Those are the applications where as much as you would like them to benefit from decentralization and building on a blockchain, you would be kind of crazy to do it.
So what’s an example of something that’s totally insane to build on blockchain?
I’m thinking of the performance expected from many centralized exchanges, where it’s expected to easily absorb throughputs of over 100,000 transactions per second while still maintaining low latency. Trying to build that as a smart contract is a bad idea right now.
What are we clocking in at right now with EOSIO in terms of TPS?
It depends on what the transaction is doing. It’s already been demonstrated that in a public global decentralized EOSIO network you can go past 4000 token transfers easily, and you can sustain that. With some other tricks and tuning I know you can go considerably beyond that, but it’s hard to say definitively. We have to actually benchmark it, and not just in lab settings but also in a real global network setting, to see what can be realistically sustained. We’re not talking high double digit thousands TPS, we’re probably talking about a number in the low double digit thousands. I think around 10,000 TPS sounds pretty reasonable if you tune it well and each transaction isn’t doing anything too complicated.
So, why EOS? What do you think are the core value propositions of EOS, in this historical moment, not just in the abstract.
First, I think some communities can be very hard lined about how technology should be built and are at more extreme ends of the decentralization spectrum that I don’t think make the right trade-offs to build something that works well and can capture a large developer community in the long run. It seems that people in this community are at least more flexible, if not just more aligned with what I think are the right trade-offs to make for the platform and its governance system and consensus. So it feels like there’s alignment to build the architecture that I think would be necessary to create a viable platform for the future.
Second, EOS is actually in a surprisingly rare situation that is beneficial for the long-term decentralization of the platform. There are several cryptocurrencies out there focused on being a general purpose platform for decentralized applications. And if you look at their token distributions, they look less decentralized than EOS. This is especially true for many of the more recent platform projects, which have very large insider allocations which typically also means that those insiders will have outsized governance influence for many years to come. That kind of centralization can actually work to the benefit of those communities in the short-term because it enables few highly-motivated individuals to take decisive action for the benefit of the network and thus themselves as very large token holders. But I don’t believe it inspires much confidence in the long-term success of the platform when transition to a decentralized power structure remains unproven for them.
The widely distributed nature of the EOS token and the mechanism used to decide on, fund, and if necessary revoke coordinators like the ENF that lead and represent the interests of the token holders gives me confidence…
Ideally, these decentralized application platforms would demonstrate success, specifically developer and user adoption, while under the control of a decentralized governance system, so that users can feel comfortable about the long-term sustainability of this model going into the future. I do think success is far more achievable by empowering centralized coordination to lead and act in the interests of the token holders, but I like to see a more robust mechanism that aligns interests between the centralized coordinators and the token holders than simply hoping the insiders will continue to maintain a financial interest in the tokens they were granted control over. That’s why the funding structure of the EOS Network Foundation really excites me. If the ENF fails to meet the community’s expectations, they can be cut off from the inflation tap and those funds can be redirected somewhere more productive. And the way things are set up on the blockchain, there is a cultural expectation that it is okay to do that, whereas creating a fork to seize pre-allocated funds from insiders who are failing to perform is more controversial and so token holders may be reluctant to carry out such a fork out of fear of damaging the reputation of their platform. And even that extreme option is assuming the insiders’ pre-allocated funds are held as tokens on a blockchain that the community has any influence to successfully fork.
The widely distributed nature of the EOS token and the mechanism used to decide on, fund, and if necessary revoke coordinators like the ENF that lead and represent the interests of the token holders gives me confidence that if over the next few years EOS can survive, revitalize the community, improve sentiment, increase developer adoption, and create large user demand, then that success can survive for the long-term as a sustainable system not at risk of insiders losing interest, cashing out, and letting the system die without their support. Granted, I admit these currently available governance mechanisms on EOS are primitive and have their flaws. I do think that still needs to improve. But despite those flaws, I still have more confidence in the sustainability and long-term decentralization of EOS than many of the other recent general purpose blockchain platforms, assuming EOS is able to overcome the enormous hurdle of relevance over the next couple of years. I don’t want to make it seem like overcoming that hurdle will be easy. It will be difficult and it is a bit of a long shot. But it is important to me to believe that if that hurdle was to be successfully overcome then the long-term future of EOS can be very bright, otherwise it will feel like a major waste of effort.
Then there are aspects of EOS and the EOS community that have come to be because of the unique history of EOS and the unfortunate situation the community finds itself in today. I think that misfortune and, frankly, desperation can create a more aggressive, ambitious community with a large risk appetite that is willing to take significant steps to try to fix the problems we see. And that sort of bold action is exactly what I think EOS needs right now to succeed. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done, many big changes to be implemented, and large investments required for changing course and moving in the right direction. I’m hopeful our disappointing history thus far can establish a new culture that, when coupled with appropriate investment and a community that even after four years of disappointment has many amazing and brilliant developers still remaining and building, will ultimately end up being a super power for EOS in the long run.
What are you exploring outside of computer science related fields?
I like going deep in one or two things, which I guess in this case would include blockchain, but then also having a breadth of knowledge. I like to learn broadly, even if it comes with the trade-off that you are forced to remain more shallow in that knowledge. The areas I spend some time trying to learn broadly include math, physics, engineering, psychology, economics, and politics. I guess even in that breadth I am still selective in the sense that I prefer spending my time trying to better understand how the world and people within it function more so than even broader ways that one could spend their time such as developing other skills or dabbling in the arts.
What are your future aspirations? Is there life after blockchain?
I do think there is a lot of work to be done in blockchain for many years to come that I am very interested in continuing to do. But if all goes well, eventually a lot of the low-hanging fruit will have been addressed and the focus will predominantly be at the highest layers of the technology stack. I’m a lot more interested in working on the foundations, and if it has been well established and become more mature and stable, I will likely start entertaining other things beyond blockchain.
I haven’t given it too much thought, but I think one possibility that I may eventually be interested in exploring is the area of machine learning and artificial intelligence.
It seems like machine learning is in a similar stage as blockchain, development wise, but maybe not?
Certainly it’s very hot right now, again. Better computing and enormous amounts of data enabled by the internet has resulted in major progress with deep neural networks and back-propagation which has reinvigorated the field after a period of AI winter.
With blockchain, I feel like the critical time for the history of that technology is the present.
Despite the significant recent progress in machine learning, I do personally feel like we’re still very far away from what I’m a lot more interested in, which is solving the problem of general artificial or machine intelligence. Neural networks now allow for a lot of cool things and not just that, useful things as well, like self-driving cars. That can have an enormous impact on our society. But it is nowhere near as impactful as a general machine intelligence that can be on par with or exceed human intelligence. Of course, that is a ridiculously hard problem to solve and my intuition tells me that even several decades in the future there will still be a lot of people working on solving that problem.
With blockchain, I feel like the critical time for the history of that technology is the present. And what I mean by that is that if blockchain does ultimately mature and becomes a reliable, viable platform for building a wide variety of applications, then I believe most of the really interesting work to make that future a reality will be happening in this next decade. On the other hand, I think it is likely that scientists and engineers will still be struggling to get closer and closer to that milestone of general machine intelligence on par with humans throughout the remainder of this century.
When you put it like that and start comparing it against biological intelligence, the curve is very steep, and blockchain seems really achievable by comparison.
Yes. Of course, there are many narrower applications that you can achieve now with machine learning. And that can be a very rewarding career. It’s just that for me, what I would find most rewarding in the area of AI and ML is feeling like you are getting close to that general machine intelligence milestone. Making progress in a narrow application of machine learning could be exciting and cool as well, but for whatever reason I’m just more thrilled by getting to explore and innovate within the blockchain space at the moment.
Do you share any of Elon Musk’s concerns about AI?
I am concerned about existential threats in general. I’m concerned about how more powerful technology, which could be AI but even just narrow AI, in the hands of foolish people doing reckless things puts all of human civilization at extreme risk. But I guess I’m more concerned about that aspect of AI development than I am about the possibility of a conscious self-directed AI choosing to wreak havoc on humanity.
…what all useful technologies have in common is that they amplify power.
But these sorts of concerns apply more broadly than AI. It applies to any technology, blockchain included. It is important to think through how technology that is being created can be used in ways you didn’t intend and to question whether what you are building is actually a net positive for society. Some technology is more naturally inclined to be used for destructive purposes, but for the most part technology is neutral. However, what all useful technologies have in common is that they amplify power.
The important questions are, who will be in control of that technology and how will they be using that increased power? I think there are a lot of challenges in our society regarding these two questions. These are important challenges to overcome if we want to have a bright future. I guess that is more of a governance problem than a typical technology problem. But one can view governance as a social technology.
What advice would you give to those wanting to build on blockchain?
Just do it. Just try it. Get involved. Don’t expect that there’s some course or specific book you need to read, or some credentials you need to acquire as a prerequisite. Just start learning about it using the information freely available on the internet and start building a simple application simply as a learning exercise. That’s the best education you can get if you’re interested in learning how to do it. Then eventually to further advance your knowledge and skills, either start a new project or contribute to an existing open source one.
Good advice. Thanks for your time, and for sharing all your thoughts and insights here today!
My Pleasure.
For a considerable portion of this interview with Areg, he delved so deeply into the multiple tradeoffs inherent in the types of consensus algorithms that various blockchains employ, that I have opted to save the entirety of those particular thoughts for another piece altogether, so if you enjoyed this, know that we will yet go deeper into the mysteries of blockchain consensus!
This was the first interview of our new series, Architects of Consensus.
Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!
EOS Network
The EOS Network is a 3rd generation blockchain platform powered by the EOS VM, a low-latency, highly performant, and extensible WebAssembly engine for deterministic execution of near feeless transactions; purpose-built for enabling optimal web3 user and developer experiences. EOS is the flagship blockchain and financial center of the EOSIO protocol, serving as the driving force behind multi-chain collaboration and public goods funding for tools and infrastructure through the EOS Network Foundation (ENF).
EOS Network Foundation
The EOS Network Foundation (ENF) is a not-for-profit organization that coordinates financial and non-financial support to encourage the growth and development of the EOS Network. The ENF is the hub of the EOS Network, harnessing the power of decentralization as a force for positive global change to chart a coordinated future for EOS.
Chinese
原文链接/Original URL:
