Intuition 백서 전문

ction : • Users search for products, relying on Amazon’s search algorithm to display relevant results. • T rust Assumption: – Users trust that Amazon’s algorithms accurately rank products based on quality, relevance, and user reviews. 3. Review and Rating Analysis : • Users read product reviews and ratings to gauge product quality and seller reliability. • T rust Assumption: – Users trust that reviews are genuine and not manipulated by sellers or competitors. They also trust the platform’s moderation systems to ﬁlter out fake or misleading reviews. 4. Payment and Checkout : • Users enter payment information and complete the purchase. • T rust Assumption: – Users trust Amazon’s payment processing system to handle their ﬁnancial information se- curely and protect them from fraud. 5. Order F ulﬁllment and Delivery : 11 • Users wait for their product to be delivered, relying on Amazon’s logistics network. • T rust Assumption: – Users trust Amazon and its delivery partners to fulﬁll the order accurately and on time. 6. Post-Purchase Support : • Users may need to return products or seek customer support. • T rust Assumption: – Users trust Amazon’s customer service to resolve issues fairly and eﬃciently. 2.5.2 Flaws in the W eb2 T rust Stack As framed through the example above, the centralized nature of Web2 platforms introduces several vulnera- bilities and challenges: 1. Data Privacy and Security : • Centralized platforms control vast amounts of user and user-generated data, making them prime targets for data breaches and misuse. Users have little control over how their data is stored, shared, or sold. 2. Algorithmic T ransparency: • Algorithms that govern search results, recommendations, and review moderation lack trans- parency. Users cannot verify if these algorithms are fair or biased, leading to potential manip- ulation. 3. Monopolistic Control : • A few dominant platforms hold signiﬁcant power, limiting competition and innovation. Users are often locked into ecosystems with little recourse if they are dissatisﬁed with the service. 4. Review Manipulation : • The reliability of reviews and ratings can be compromised by fake reviews, paid promotions, or biased moderation. Users cannot easily discern the authenticity of the information they rely on. 5. Single Points of F ailure : • Centralized systems are vulnerable to outages, cyberattacks, and policy changes. Users are at the mercy of the platform’s stability and integrity. 6. Erosion of User Trust : • Repeated data breaches, privacy scandals, and opaque practices have eroded user trust in cen- tralized platforms. Users are increasingly concerned about their data privacy and the fairness of digital interactions. As we can see, though these systems oﬀer convenience, they also concentrate power and control, exposing users to a plethora of risks. As we transition to Web3, addressing these ﬂaws by decentralizing trust and empowering users with greater control over their digital identities and interactions becomes imperative. 2.6 The Role of Decentralization in Reshaping Digital T rust Decentralized/decentralizing technologies are fundamentally reshaping how trust is established and main- tained in the digital realm. These technologies aim to migrate the digital world from subjective trust systems, which rely on human judgment and intermediaries as outlined above, to objective trust systems, based on programmatic and mathematical proofs. Within this decentralization paradigm, the seamless user experience of familiar Web2 systems can be achieved - and even surpassed - with signiﬁcantly fewer trust assumptions. With this comes a shifting of power to the edges of the system, distributing it away from the centralized control of institutional gatekeepers. As a result, control and data are redistributed back to indi- viduals, democratizing access and participation. This shift not only creates a more secure and transparent framework for digital interactions but also redeﬁnes the mechanisms through which trust can be established and maintained. 12 2.6.1 Decentralized Identity & Agent-Centric Data The evolution from a federated identity model to a model of decentralized identity and agent-centric data represents a signiﬁcant advancement in how we establish and maintain trust in digital interactions. Rooted in the idea that a uniﬁed set of self-sovereign credentials can be used to seamlessly interact with the entire web, this approach aggregates data around a single universal identiﬁer for each agent in the system. This paradigm shift eliminates the need for intermediary identity providers and gatekeepers, thereby facilitating more seamless interoperability across the web. By removing the explicit need to trust speciﬁc centralized entities for identity and data management, decentralized identity and agent-centric data fosters a more trustful digital environment. Importantly, this model does not suggest a uniform identity for all interactions. Instead, it supports a system where multiple contextual identities (e.g., professional, personal) are anchored to a central identiﬁer and associated set of credentials. Advanced cryptographic techniques ensure the privacy and distinctiveness of these identities while maintaining user control. This structure allows the maintenance of distinct personas tailored to diﬀerent contexts while beneﬁting from the coherence and continuity provided by a uniﬁed identity framework. The concept of decentralized identity also extends beyond individuals to encompass all entities—products, services, concepts, and more. By adopting the same decentralized identity patterns used for individuals and assigning globally persistent decentralized identiﬁers to all entities, data aggregation can similarly center around these universal identiﬁers rather than disparate, application-speciﬁc ones. This approach helps obviate the need for extensive data reconciliation eﬀorts across platforms. For example, product reviews could be seamlessly aggregated from across the entire internet, rather than being scattered across various centralized platforms, akin to Tim Berners-Lee’s vision of the Semantic Web. The interoperability aﬀorded by these universal identiﬁers helps to ensure that data associated with any entity is consistently and coherently managed, enhancing the overall eﬃciency and utility of digital interactions. In the realm of blockchain technology, decentralized identiﬁers are already prevalent, with Ethereum ad- dresses serving as a prime example. An Ethereum address functions as a decentralized identiﬁer due to its unique, veriﬁable nature and independence from intermediaries. Importantly, Ethereum externally owned accounts (EOAs) are based on secp256k1 elliptic-curve-derived keys. This cryptographic standard ensures secure and interoperable transactions across the entire Ethereum ecosystem, eliminating the need for interme- diaries. Consequently, users do not need to create separate accounts for each application; a single Ethereum address operates as a uniﬁed, decentralized identiﬁer, enabling streamlined and secure interactions across the ecosystem. Furthermore, the cryptographic principles underlying Ethereum addresses extend their utility beyond the Ethereum network. The secp256k1 elliptic-curve-derived keys, which form the basis of Ethereum EOAs, are 13 widely recognized and supported across various blockchain and cryptographic systems. This compatibility allows Ethereum keys to be utilized for authentication and secure transactions in other environments that adopt the same cryptographic standards. Ethereum addresses are also not limited to representing users, as smart contracts also have addresses. This characteristic extends the concept of decentralized identiﬁers to non-human entities, enabling the aggregation of agent-centric data around these addresses. Consequently, both users and smart contracts can interact within the same ecosystem, using a uniﬁed system of identiﬁers. This agent-centric approach fosters more eﬃcient data management and interoperability, as data associated with a particular address—whether it belongs to a user or a smart contract—can be more seamlessly aggregated and utilized across diﬀerent platforms and applications. 2.6.2 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Proliferation One often overlooked yet transformative beneﬁt of blockchain-based systems is their signiﬁcant contribution to advancing Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). Blockchain technology has compelled millions of users to manage their own private keys, thereby reclaiming control over their digital identities. This shift is crucial for the next evolution of the internet—one that minimizes many of the trust assumptions inherent in Web2. As the blockchain ecosystem necessitates the interaction with and management of cryptographic keys, numerous teams have developed sophisticated technologies to assist users in handling self-sovereign identiﬁers. What was once a complex and cumbersome process is becoming increasingly accessible and user-friendly, thanks to the innovations driven by the blockchain community. With this ease of use comes the feasibility of additional utility. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) has long been a cornerstone of digital security, providing the framework for encrypting, signing, and verifying data. Historically, PKI was primarily used for secure email, SSL/TLS for web traﬃc, and VPNs. However, the advent of blockchain technology has signiﬁcantly broadened the adoption and utility of PKI. With the rise of blockchain wallets, millions of users now possess self-sovereign private keys. The widespread proliferation of blockchain wallets has democratized access to robust cryptographic tools, empowering users to engage in secure, trustless interactions across decentralized networks. Today, PKI underpins a wide range of decen- tralized systems, enabling essential security functions that ensure the integrity and authenticity of digital interactions: • Cryptographic Authentication – PKI enables cryptographic authentication, ensuring that only the legitimate owner of a private key can initiate transactions or access certain data. This authentication is foundational to maintaining trust in decentralized systems, where traditional intermediaries are absent. • Data Integrity – By using digital signatures, PKI ensures that data has not been tampered with. Every trans- action or message signed with a private key can be veriﬁed by others using the corresponding public key, guaranteeing that the data remains intact and unaltered. • Non-Repudiation – PKI provides non-repudiation, ensuring that a user cannot deny the validity of their signed transactions. This feature is crucial for accountability in decentralized systems, where trust must be established without centralized oversight. • Decentralized Identity – PKI is integral to the development of decentralized identiﬁers (DIDs) and veriﬁable credentials (VCs), explored in more detail later in this paper. These technologies rely on PKI to enable self- sovereign identity management, allowing users to control their identity information and share it securely across diﬀerent platforms. • Secure Communication – PKI facilitates secure communication between participants in decentralized networks. By en- crypting messages with the recipient’s public key, users can ensure that their communications are private and secure from eavesdropping or interception. • Interoperability 14 – The standardized nature of PKI allows it to function across various platforms and blockchain networks. This interoperability is critical for creating a cohesive and interconnected decen- tralized ecosystem, where trust can be maintained consistently across diﬀerent services and applications. 2.6.3 Building T rustless Systems with Blockchain Technology Decentralized identiﬁers (DIDs) have commenced a revolution in establishing and maintaining digital trust by bestowing users with sovereignty over their identities, eliminating dependency on intermediaries. Nonetheless, DIDs alone are insuﬃcient to entirely escape the trust assumptions entrenched in the Web2 stack. To actualize a genuinely trustless internet, it is imperative to have platforms where these DIDs can be employed securely and directly. This necessity is fulﬁlled by decentralized applications (dApps). With the advent of blockchain technology, a movement is underway to mitigate the reliance on traditional trust assumptions prevalent in Web2. Blockchain platforms, notably Ethereum, are at the forefront of this paradigm shift, enabling the construction of trustless systems wherein interactions are governed by transparent and immutable code, thereby obviating the need for intermediaries. The Ethereum ecosystem has been pioneering in the development of dApps through smart contracts—self- executing agreements that operate precisely as programmed without susceptibility to censorship or interfer- ence. These smart contract platforms act as “decentralized world computers,” enabling users to use decen- tralized identiﬁers to permissionlessly engage with arbitrarily complex code distributed across a network of nodes. This transition from subjective trust systems, reliant on intermediaries, to objective trust systems, governed by transparent and immutable code, constitutes a fundamental shift in digital trust. It eliminates the need to place trust in third parties, allowing users to ‘verify, not trust. ’ Understanding how this shift is possible requires an exploration of the core objective-trust mechanisms within the decentralized web stack, which are currently laying the foundation for a more secure and reliable digital future: Consensus Consensus mechanisms are the cornerstone of decentralized networks, enabling a global, dis- tributed, and permissionless network of participants to maintain the integrity of the ‘world computers. ’ These mechanisms ensure that all honest nodes agree on the blockchain’s state, even in the presence of malicious actors. In blockchain ecosystems, consensus mechanisms secure the network by requiring validators to com- mit signiﬁcant resources. In Proof of Work (PoW) systems, computational power is used, while in Proof of Stake (PoS) systems, validators stake tokens. This resource commitment makes it prohibitively expensive for attackers to manipulate the system, thereby safeguarding the network’s integrity. The consensus process is inherently transparent and veriﬁable, with every state transition recorded on a public ledger accessible to anyone. This transparency fosters trust by allowing independent veriﬁcation of the blockchain’s integrity and the validity of transactions. The distributed nature of consensus mechanisms ensures that no single entity has control over the network, aligning with the core principles of decentralization. Execution Once a network can reach distributed consensus, the next logical step is to determine the applications for which this consensus can be applied. The concept of a ‘world computer’ where anyone can code arbitrarily complex logic becomes feasible, enabling the use of distributed consensus for a myriad of applications. This is epitomized in the trustless execution layer of the decentralized web’s stack. Trustless execution, primarily facilitated by smart contracts, is a fundamental component of decentralized systems. These self-executing programs on blockchains like Ethereum automate state transitions based on predeﬁned conditions, without intermediaries, ensuring that their terms will be enforced exactly as written. Every state transition is recorded on the blockchain, ensuring a transparent and auditable history. Storage Trustless storage is a critical enhancement to the trust stack, providing secure and reliable data storage through decentralized networks. This ensures data accessibility and security without reliance on central authorities, which is particularly vital for applications requiring long-term data integrity, such as record-keeping and decentralized applications. Decentralized storage is an intrinsic feature of all blockchain systems. Blockchains inherently function as decentralized storage solutions because they require a distributed ledger that all participants can access and verify. Every transaction and state transition on a blockchain is recorded in a decentralized manner, ensuring data integrity and availability across the network. 15 In addition to the storage provided by blockchains themselves, there are specialized decentralized storage solutions such as IPFS, Filecoin, and Arweave. These technologies extend the concept of decentralized storage beyond the blockchain, distributing data across a network of nodes. This distribution ensures that the data is not reliant on a single point of failure, enhancing its robustness and resilience. By eliminating the need for a central provider, decentralized storage addresses issues like censorship and data loss risks. Data replication across multiple nodes ensures redundancy and availability, even if some nodes fail. Cryptographic techniques can secure the data, ensuring that only authorized parties have access despite it being widely distributed. Once data is signed and stored in these systems, it cannot be altered, providing a reliable and immutable record of its history. This immutability is crucial for applications that depend on the long-term integrity and veriﬁability of data. By leveraging both blockchain-based and specialized decentralized storage solutions, the decentralized web can ensure a high level of data integrity and accessibility. This decentralized approach to storage underpins the trustless systems that are essential for the next evolution of the internet, supporting a wide range of applications and ensuring that data remains secure and available without centralized oversight. Economic Incentives Trustless economic incentives are fundamental to the functioning of decentralized systems, enabling trustless consensus, execution, and storage. These incentives drive the participation of individuals and entities in maintaining and securing decentralized networks, ensuring their integrity and reliability without the need for central authorities. In decentralized networks, consensus mechanisms such as Proof of Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS) rely heavily on economic incentives to encourage participants to act in the network’s best interests. In PoW systems, miners expend computational resources to solve cryptographic puzzles, with the successful miner receiving a block reward and transaction fees. This process not only secures the network by making it costly for malicious actors to attack but also incentivizes honest behavior through potential ﬁnancial gains. Similarly, in PoS systems, validators lock up a certain amount of cryptocurrency as a stake. They are selected to validate transactions and create new blocks based on the size of their stake and other factors. Honest validators earn rewards in the form of additional tokens, while dishonest behavior can result in the loss of their staked tokens. This alignment of economic interests with network security ensures robust protection against attacks and promotes the overall health of the network. Trustless execution is also supported by economic incentives. Smart contracts, which automate the execution of agreements on the blockchain, often include mechanisms to reward participants who contribute to their successful execution. For instance, decentralized ﬁnance (DeFi) platforms use smart contracts to facilitate lending, borrowing, and trading of assets. Users are incentivized to provide liquidity, execute trades, or participate in governance by receiving economic rewards such as interest, fees, or governance tokens. These incentives ensure active participation and the smooth functioning of decentralized applications. Decentralized storage networks leverage economic incentives to ensure data integrity and availability. In syste