Vitalik’s New Take on Security & Human Intent

The majority of people associate the term "security" with two-factor authentication, encryption, and passwords. However, security, in Vitalik Buterin's opinion, is something far more profound and personal.

The fundamental goal of security is to close the gap between what a system does and what a user intends to accomplish. The reasoning behind user experience is the same. The distinction is that security is more concerned with extreme circumstances, particularly those involving attackers.

Wallets, operating systems, smart contracts, and even artificial intelligence are all viewed differently by this method of thinking.

• Security Is About Matching Human Intent
• Why Simple Safeguard's Don't Resolve Real Problems?
• Redundancy Is The Secret Behind Good Security
• How LLMs Fit Into This New View of Security?

Security Is About Matching Human Intent

The primary objective of Vitalik is straightforward: security is in place to reduce the discrepancy between human intent and machine behaviour.

Consider a simple scenario. The user may think, "I would like to send Bob 1 ETH." That sounds simple. However, this intent is reduced to an address, a network, a confirmation click, and a transaction hash from the standpoint of a system. "Bob" even turns into a series of characters. Might that address have been copied incorrectly? What if there is a network split? What if Bob doesn't really own the key?

This demonstrates the inability of perfect security. Not because developers are irresponsible or machines malfunction, but rather because human desire is so intricate. Simple inputs cannot properly capture the rich mental models that people carry, which are full of context, trust, and common sense.

When viewed in this light, security and user experience are not distinct domains. Reducing human-system misunderstanding is the goal of both. Security just focuses on situations where errors have serious repercussions.

Why Simple Safeguard's Don't Resolve Real Problems?

Many individuals think that adding encryption or confirmation windows solves the security issue. However, true intent is multi-layered.

A great example is privacy. Although content is protected when communications are encrypted, critical information might still be exposed by patterns such as who speaks to whom, how often, and when. The context, which is difficult to define, determines whether that constitutes a minor leak or a significant breach.

The problem is the same in all technologies. Everything a user enters, whether it be smart contracts, operating systems, hardware, or cryptocurrency wallets, is too basic to accurately reflect what they really mean.

This reflects early ideas about AI safety: it's very difficult to define goals precisely. It is the same problem for security. The inability of human intention to be accurately translated into code is the issue, not the lack of functionality.

How I think about "security":

The goal is to minimize the divergence between the user's intent, and the actual behavior of the system.

"User experience" can also be defined in this way. Thus, "user experience" and "security" are thus not separate fields. However, "security"…

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) February 22, 2026

Redundancy Is The Secret Behind Good Security

Strong systems rely on redundancy since intent cannot be fully captured.

Good security designs ask users to indicate their intents in several overlapping ways rather than relying on a single signal. Confirmation is combined with action. Structure and code go hand in hand. Simulations are used in conjunction with transactions. Authority is distributed across several keys. Extra checks are triggered by unusual activity.

Intent is approached differently by each layer. One concentrates on the actions of the user. Other concentrates on anticipated results. Another restricts possible harm. The system moves forward when all of these signals are in agreement. It slows down when they don't.

Security functions by stacking separate safeguards rather than striving for perfection. Every additional viewpoint reduces the likelihood of disastrous errors.

How LLMs Fit Into This New View of Security?

Approximating purpose is done quite differently with large language models.

An LLM may behave as if it were a shadow of human common sense. It can even reflect personal patterns when tailored to an individual, assisting in identifying what feels natural and what doesn't. Because of this, LLMs are a valuable extra lens through which to view user behaviour.

Vitalik is unambiguous, though: LLMs should never be relied upon as the only arbiter of purpose.

Their basic differences from conventional systems are what make them valuable. Rather than taking the place of redundancy, that difference makes it stronger.

This reinterprets usefulness as well. Enforcing users to click endlessly is not what security is all about. It entails making low-risk activities simple while inherently delaying riskier ones. Daily actions ought to seem effortless. Risky behaviour ought to cause conflict.

If you find any issues in this article or notice missing information, please feel free to reach out at team@etherworld.co for clarifications or updates.

To promote your Web3 articles, events, and projects, you may reach out anytime via EtherWorld PR for submissions and collaboration.

Related Articles

1. Vitalik Buterin on Why Ethereum Must Stay Neutral
2. Vitalik’s ZK API Proposal Aims to Make Ethereum the Home for AI
3. Vitalik Rethinks the Role of Ethereum Layer 2s
4. Vitalik Buterin Explains What Creator Coins Got Wrong
5. Vitalik Buterin Bets on Privacy Pools, A New Chapter for Ethereum Privacy?

To follow blockchain news, track Ethereum protocol progress, and read our latest stories, subscribe to our weekly today.