[2018-1-20]KASPERSKY LABS CO-FOUNDER SAYS BITCOIN CREATED BY AIA

[hugeblack]

Natalya Kaspersky is the co-founder of Kaspersky Labs, a highly reputable cybersecurity firm headquartered in Moscow. She is also currently the CEO of the InfoWatch group of companies. She recently gave a presentation called “Modern technologies – the basis for information and cyber-wars” at the ITMO University in St. Petersburg.

During her presentation, this little bit of information appeared on a slide:

Bitcoin is a project of American intelligence agencies, which was designed to provide quick funding for US, British and Canadian intelligence activities in different countries. [The technology] is ‘privatized,’ just like the Internet, GPS and TOR. In fact, it is dollar 2.0. Its rate is controlled by the owners of exchanges,

Read full & Source : https://bitcoinist.com/kaspersky-labs-co-founder-says-bitcoin-created-american-intelligence-agencies/

[darkangel11]

In fact, it is dollar 2.0.

And what are those facts? Got none? I'm so sorry.
Bitcoin can't be created out of thin air like a dollar. It can't be taken away from a specific user, it would have to be destroyed node by node until there's none left.
And on top of that we have a Russian woman comparing BTC to the Dollar as if it was the greatest scam ever made, the pinnacle of all that's bad and corrupt. What about the Rubble? Is it that much different? Why say BTC is USD 2.0 and not fiat 2.0? Another Russian provocation...

[J. Cooper]

First we had involvement of McAfee, now Kaspersky. What's next? Is it time for the CEO of bull guard to get involved ? How is this different from practically any other anti-bitcoin conspiracy theory though? She doesn't have any proof to back up her claims so why even bother taking this stuff seriously?

[jjacob]

It really doesn't matter who created Bitcoin. The fact of the matter is that it is open-source and decentralized. Even if the American Intelligence Agencies created Bitcoin, they really can't control it. Even manipulating the price of Bitcoin is expensive - given its liquidity, a large amount of fiat would be required to move its price. Controlling mining operations would also be difficult.

[yojodojo21]

OP stated  that Bitcoin was made in a private way. So how this could happen that everybody in this forum are from different country that is inclined in the crypto industry.? And dollar 2.0? Oh common we can also say yen 2.0 or any other Fiat currency. This article can cause another issue contradicting Satoshi nakamoto as the creator.

P.S. this article is not accurate.

[cybersofts]

In fact, it is dollar 2.0.

And what are those facts? Got none? I'm so sorry.
Bitcoin can't be created out of thin air like a dollar. It can't be taken away from a specific user, it would have to be destroyed node by node until there's none left.
And on top of that we have a Russian woman comparing BTC to the Dollar as if it was the greatest scam ever made, the pinnacle of all that's bad and corrupt. What about the Rubble? Is it that much different? Why say BTC is USD 2.0 and not fiat 2.0? Another Russian provocation...

It is funny how many people try to come up with bitcoin origin and the team behind it.
How can they say the bitcoin was created by this guy today and say another guy the next day? That's dramatic!
I don't believe AIA created the bitcoin because the bitcoin is fully open-source and many developers around the world contributed to it.
Did anyone here ever see the government project "An Intelligence Project" came out to be open-source? I don't think so. That's why I'm not buying this  

[reliable]

In fact, it is dollar 2.0.

And what are those facts? Got none? I'm so sorry.
Bitcoin can't be created out of thin air like a dollar. It can't be taken away from a specific user, it would have to be destroyed node by node until there's none left.
And on top of that we have a Russian woman comparing BTC to the Dollar as if it was the greatest scam ever made, the pinnacle of all that's bad and corrupt. What about the Rubble? Is it that much different? Why say BTC is USD 2.0 and not fiat 2.0? Another Russian provocation...

It is funny how many people try to come up with bitcoin origin and the team behind it.
How can they say the bitcoin was created by this guy today and say another guy the next day? That's dramatic!
I don't believe AIA created the bitcoin because the bitcoin is fully open-source and many developers around the world contributed to it.
Did anyone here ever see the government project "An Intelligence Project" came out to be open-source? I don't think so. That's why I'm not buying this  

Nobody could still figure out the Satoshi Nakamoto and this gave them a chance to create some drama by taking somebody else name and then try to prove that it was created by xyz for some purpose. Thinking about this fiasco from last 9 years now it seems highly that nobody would be able to figure out the actually creator or the brain behind the technology.

[buwaytress]

First we had involvement of McAfee, now Kaspersky. What's next? Is it time for the CEO of bull guard to get involved ? How is this different from practically any other anti-bitcoin conspiracy theory though? She doesn't have any proof to back up her claims so why even bother taking this stuff seriously?

I was just thinking the SAME things. McAfee and Kaspersky may have made a name for themselves with anti-virus and Internet security but this makes them simply that - corporate successes in their field. Are we now going to have to sit through the ramblings of every other moderately successful commercial software? Bull Guard, Avira, AVG, Norton, Panda. Let's line them up and hold a conference just for them.

I hope the observers saw how inaccurate that statement was. Private tech? I bet she's never even owned or sent any Bitcoin.

[DooMAD]

Did she get Bitcoin and Ripple mixed up or something?  That's the privatised dollar 2.0 of the cryptospace.  And even if the incessant murmurings about Bitcoin being a product of some government agency did turn out to have some slight basis in reality, I'd simply thank them for letting the genie out of the bottle without realising they can't get it back in.  It wouldn't faze me in the slightest.  Whoever or whatever brought this thing into the world has literally no control over it anymore.  If it really did turn out to be one or more of the intelligence services, it was either a short-sighted decision on their part, or they secretly don't agree with their own governments about how the economy should be run.  Whichever it might have been, or whether it was neither of those and something else entirely, it's ours now.

But I'm inclined to believe the more likely explanation is that being a senior member of an internet security company lends itself to some decidedly paranoid proclivities and this is a load of delusional bollocks.  

Slowly but surely, they're all going nuts.  Send some straightjackets out to all the other big virus software companies just in case.   

[J. Cooper]

Did she get Bitcoin and Ripple mixed up or something?

Yeah her description seems to relate an awful lot to ripple...

First we had involvement of McAfee, now Kaspersky. What's next? Is it time for the CEO of bull guard to get involved ? How is this different from practically any other anti-bitcoin conspiracy theory though? She doesn't have any proof to back up her claims so why even bother taking this stuff seriously?

I was just thinking the SAME things. McAfee and Kaspersky may have made a name for themselves with anti-virus and Internet security but this makes them simply that - corporate successes in their field. Are we now going to have to sit through the ramblings of every other moderately successful commercial software? Bull Guard, Avira, AVG, Norton, Panda. Let's line them up and hold a conference just for them.

I hope the observers saw how inaccurate that statement was. Private tech? I bet she's never even owned or sent any Bitcoin.

There's a big difference between corporate success in the anti-malware sector and expertise in a very brand new and primarly unkown technology. If someone that has ties to one of the companies you summed up is coming forward with a different statement it would seem like they're taking the piss.

[Carlton Banks]

I've always thought that the first half of this interpretation was plausible: I mean, who's got the time, the resources and the motivation to come up with a working cryptocurrency system first? Intelligence agencies innovate some pretty incredible tech (including alot of cryptography), and are even perhaps responsible for more everyday items than we'll ever know.

But it's hardly impossible that a motivated individual came up with the idea too (individuals came up with multiple predecessors to Bitcoin, after all). Whichever is the answer, we may never know: Satoshi made very sure that he would be difficult to trace. Intelligence agencies would be the No.1 people that could find Satoshi, they're the only ones with the resources to do so. And yet it seems that if they did find Satoshi, he was left in peace (at least for now).

But these things are just historical details really, in the end it won't matter. Sovereignty over the money supply has been a highly effective tool of oppression for millennia. That's gone forever now, the genie is out of the lamp.

[tee-rex]

I've always thought that the first half of this interpretation was plausible: I mean, who's got the time, the resources and the motivation to come up with a working cryptocurrency system first? Intelligence agencies innovate some pretty incredible tech (including alot of cryptography), and are even perhaps responsible for more everyday items than we'll ever know.

But it's hardly impossible that a motivated individual came up with the idea too (individuals came up with multiple predecessors to Bitcoin, after all). Whichever is the answer, we may never know: Satoshi made very sure that he would be difficult to trace. Intelligence agencies would be the No.1 people that could find Satoshi, they're the only ones with the resources to do so. And yet it seems that if they did find Satoshi, he was left in peace (at least for now).

But these things are just historical details really, in the end it won't matter. Sovereignty over the money supply has been a highly effective tool of oppression for millennia. That's gone forever now, the genie is out of the lamp.

We shouldn't exclude the possibility that bitcoin was in fact private at first, and then some angry former employee or even a guy with guts like Snowden made it public and called himself Satoshi Nakamoto. What I mean to say is that in real life things may be complicated beyond our imagination. Also, we don't know whether they didn't find him and what they put him through if they did.

[hatshepsut93]

Bitcoin wasn't created in a vacuum, it has dozens of failed predecessors, so it shouldn't be strange that after 15-20 years of trying some genius finally came up with a solution for decentralized electronic money. Russians are just paranoid, they see CIA behind every corner, and these views presented by Kaspersky mirror the views of Putin and other leaders who are strongly opposed to cryptocurrencies and everything that wasn't made in Russia. Which is bad often for them, like for example when they didn't want to use standard ciphers like AES and instead came up with their own ciphers, which were later proven to be weak.

[Carlton Banks]

Bitcoin wasn't created in a vacuum, it has dozens of failed predecessors, so it shouldn't be strange that after 15-20 years of trying some genius finally came up with a solution for decentralized electronic money. Russians are just paranoid, they see CIA behind every corner, and these views presented by Kaspersky mirror the views of Putin and other leaders who are strongly opposed to cryptocurrencies and everything that wasn't made in Russia. Which is bad often for them, like for example when they didn't want to use standard ciphers like AES and instead came up with their own ciphers, which were later proven to be weak.

Remember that successful cryptography often comes out of intelligence agencies too. And that intelligence agencies have a very good incentive to fund a Bitcoin-like project: Satoshi levels of wealth.

Remember also that Putin's western focused television propaganda helped to popularise Bitcoin a great deal. Your interpretation would make alot more sense if Russian government propaganda had been villainising Bitcoin.


I agree though, that just because someone like GCHQ or the NSA could have created Bitcoin doesn't mean they did, only Satoshi knows the answer. It will be kind of irrelevant though, if Satoshi turned out to be some kind of bad actor, intending to use vast Bitcoin wealth as a domination end-game, there's nothing to stop the world from invalidating that wealth by starting again from block 1. Not such a great plan, in other words.

[hatshepsut93]

Remember that successful cryptography often comes out of intelligence agencies too. And that intelligence agencies have a very good incentive to fund a Bitcoin-like project: Satoshi levels of wealth.

Remember also that Putin's western focused television propaganda helped to popularise Bitcoin a great deal. Your interpretation would make alot more sense if Russian government propaganda had been villainising Bitcoin.


I agree though, that just because someone like GCHQ or the NSA could have created Bitcoin doesn't mean they did, only Satoshi knows the answer. It will be kind of irrelevant though, if Satoshi turned out to be some kind of bad actor, intending to use vast Bitcoin wealth as a domination end-game, there's nothing to stop the world from invalidating that wealth by starting again from block 1. Not such a great plan, in other words.

I know that Bitcoin is being promoted on Russia Today, but this doesn't mean that the Russian government endorses it. In fact, Russia is supporting pretty much anything in the West that can be destabilizing - most notable example is how they support both far left and far right movements. But domestically it's very different - for the past year or so we've been getting very mixed and mostly negative signals, that can be summarized as "Russia doesn't trust cryptocurrencies". This is why they are talking about CryptoRuble - they want a "cryptocurrency" that was made in Russia and is under total control of the government.

And as for Bitcoin, it's just like with cryptography - we believe that it wasn't backdoored because researches haven't found anything, so even if it was created by intelligence agencies, it doesn't really matter.