This is the part where you definitely need to speak with an attorney. This depends entirely on the method you're trying to claim and its possible alternatives. There's not really a way to answer this -- and it shouldn't EVER be done in a public forum.
Related to transitional phrases:
If you're working on a US patent the principal ones cited by the USPTO are:
2111.03 Transitional Phrases [R-08.2017]
The transitional phrases “comprising”, “consisting essentially of” and “consisting of” define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. The determination of what is or is not excluded by a transitional phrase must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts of each case.
It is possible to use
"having:" which refers back to the specification. I'm not really sure how that one works--as I've not fully read-up on the case law involved in the use of that phrase.
All that said. I'm not sure legal theory would support someone trying to claim future technologies not yet invented if you can't describe them. Further, I doubt it would be doable merely using a transitional phrase.
In many venues the essential purpose of the claims is to cite matter that has already been invented and disclosed and identify those parts which the inventor claims deserve special legal protection. If it hasn't been invented yet, and can't be described yet, then it isn't technically part of the "prior art" and isn't even part of the "disclosed specification". Consequently I'm not sure it can be successfully claimed.
I believe this may be one of the purposes the USPTO has for continuing patent applications--to address changes in ongoing work, or changes in technology for which the original specification might apply.