Bitcoin pioneer Nick Szabo has raised concerns about the network's resilience to attacks, suggesting that while Bitcoin is a trust-minimized network, it is not entirely trustless and remains vulnerable to disruption by nation-states and corporations.
In a recent post on X, Szabo explained that every cryptocurrency and layer 1 network possesses a "legal attack" surface, which governments can exploit to disrupt them. He emphasized that believing Bitcoin or any blockchain protocol is a "magical anarcho-capitalist Swiss army knife that can withstand any kind of governmental attack in any legal area is insanity."
Szabo's perspective holds significant weight within the crypto community. He is recognized as an early pioneer of smart contracts, and some have speculated that he could be the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, given his development of the Bit Gold concept in 1988. However, Szabo has publicly denied these claims.
Szabo further elaborated in a follow-up post that actions against Bitcoin miners, node operators, and wallet service providers could be coordinated in jurisdictions that adhere to the rule of law.
His specific concern centers on the ability to delete "arbitrary data" if regulators compel network participants to manipulate the network.
Ordinals and Runes Transactions Fuel Szabo's Concerns
These concerns are linked to the ongoing debate within the Bitcoin community regarding the inclusion of non-financial content, such as images, videos, and audio, through Ordinals, Runes, and BRC-20 transactions within the Bitcoin ecosystem.
In recent months, Bitcoin Knots have captured a larger market share of Bitcoin node validators. This shift occurred as some Bitcoin proponents expressed dissatisfaction with Bitcoin Core developers implementing the controversial OP_RETURN function, which has led to an increase in "spam" on the Bitcoin network.
Criticism of Nick Szabo's Comments
Szabo's remarks have drawn criticism from various Bitcoiners. Chris Seedor, CEO of Bitcoin seed storage provider Seedor, argued that Szabo was overestimating the influence of speculative "legal boogeymen."
Seedor stated, "Bitcoin's resilience was never about predicting every possible domain of law — it was about minimizing technical points where coercion can bite." He further contended that regulators would have shut down protocols like PGP and Tor if they had possessed such power.