I came across an interesting point made by Buterin about the essence of security. It's not just about the robustness of the system, but about how well the user's intent aligns with the actual operation of the system.

In other words, security and UX are not opposing axes; fundamentally, they are different perspectives on the same problem. The role of security is to minimize discrepancies like when a user intends to "send 1 ETH to Bob" but ends up with a different result. Conversely, reducing that discrepancy also leads to better UX.

However, perfect security is theoretically impossible in reality because human intent is inherently difficult to define mathematically. When dealing with complex goals like privacy protection, the risk can sometimes come more from metadata leaks than from encryption strength.

What Buterin proposes is a design that leverages redundancy. By layering verification methods—type systems, formal verification, transaction simulation, multi-signatures, spending limits—using multiple perspectives, the goal is to protect the user's true intent.

An interesting aspect is the use of large language models (LLMs). If these models can approximate human common sense, they could serve as an auxiliary tool for intent verification. However, relying solely on them is risky; they should be combined with other verification methods, adopting a cautious approach.

Designing blockchain security, especially balancing it with user experience, will become increasingly important in the future.