The Silent Debate: Bitcoin Between Decentralized Ideals and Legal Reality

Nick Szabo Breaks Silence on Bitcoin’s Legal Vulnerabilities

Nick Szabo, the architect of smart contracts and a possible intellectual predecessor of Satoshi Nakamoto, has spoken out to reveal an uncomfortable truth: Bitcoin’s decentralization could be undermined by legal pressure. His analysis in November 2025 points to a fundamental problem – the so-called “legal vulnerability” of the network.

When the Blockchain Becomes an Attack Surface

The core of Szabo’s concerns lies in an often overlooked reality: governments and authorities could target various actors within the Bitcoin ecosystem. Miners, node operators, and wallet providers are in a regulatory gray area that allows judges to consider them potential accomplices in the dissemination of illegal content – especially if the data stored on the blockchain is easily identifiable, such as images or other visual content.

This opens a legal scenario where decentralized infrastructure operators could be pressured to filter or block certain transactions. Szabo aligns with a growing faction advocating for technical safeguards and filtering mechanisms – similar to critics of Core v30 and supporters of Knots.

Shared Concerns in the Industry

Jack Mallers, founder and CEO of Strike, holds a related but slightly different concern. His focus is less on legal vulnerability and more on Bitcoin’s functional identity. Mallers sharply criticizes that Ordinals and Runes distract Bitcoin from its core mission – to serve as an optimal form of money, rather than being misused as an NFT or token platform.

Although Mallers did not dominate the discussion around OP_RETURN in November 2025, he has consistently argued against “Inscriptions” and defended Bitcoin’s purpose as a superior medium of exchange. His position underscores a consensus: the diversity of applications could bring both technical and philosophical challenges.

A Deeper Discomfort

What unites Szabo and Mallers is a fundamental unease that the Bitcoin community sometimes deviates from its original purpose. While Szabo targets the external threat – regulation – Mallers focuses on internal erosion through misappropriated uses. Both perspectives point to a reality: Bitcoin is not immune to structural vulnerabilities, neither legally nor in terms of application.