Was Crypto Started by Western Elites?

[BobK71]

Please discuss!

I do not have direct evidence either way, but I have come to the conclusion that, if Bitcoin did not exist, the Western elites would have liked to create it in secret.  My indirect evidence includes:

- Bitcoin has not been killed by a combination of regulation, market manipulation, and propaganda after 10 years.  As turbulent as the price has been, Bitcoin has been an excellent long-term bet.  Whatever assault it has suffered, it always seems to survive.

- Bitcoin has taken demand away from gold and silver, which traditionally are the big threats against central bank money.

- If central banks secretly own lots of Bitcoin (we still don't know who really owns "Satoshi's bitcoins!") they will have the best of both the gold-standard and fiat worlds in the future.  (I will explain this when I have time.)

[1714042062]

1714042062

[1714042062]

1714042062

[1714042062]

1714042062

[smartbitcoininvestor]

Bitcoin was created by Satoshi Nakamoto. I would check out the original Bitcoin whitepaper and wiki to learn more.

[STT]

- Bitcoin has taken demand away from gold and silver, which traditionally are the big threats against central bank money.

The biggest change to use of gold and silver was the US dollar and other currencies switching away from any backing.  The last government to do so was the Swiss in 2000

Even now central banks do store gold for current account exchange especially in harsh times and extreme economics.  Gold is always going to be relevant as a backstop, it just used to be used every day either directly or in exchange via notes.   Now common money has link to value at all, only by the word of a private banker who chooses to slowly issue more of that currency.   Generally you can see the value of cash going down in line with the debt of the government, the bank backstops the costs of a budget deficit.


The gold is no threat to central banks, its just the final call in value they might exchange between each other.   At present the world we live in has politics of most countries agreed to swap mostly notes not gold.   Some think this will change like Russia and China have both greatly increased their holdings of gold.  UK sold off most of them and USA has barely any percentage of value left in their gold and most in politics see debt as an asset to the country.  So long as it never has to be repaid that might be true and so far or for 30 years thats been the case

Bitcoin isnt a replacement for gold.   If anything I think Bitcoin relates to FIAT but with a fixed known monetary base and with no individual who can alter that, so its seen as superior possibly for some

[Kakmakr]

Well, if they owned Satoshi's coins, then they would surely be the wealthiest people on the planet, if this goes to the Moon.

They surely have enough fiat to manipulate and influence the masses to buy into this and to pump this to the Moon, so I would not discount the probability that some of the wealthiest people in the western world, might be behind this technology.

Nothing is stopping anybody now, to buy bitcoins and to wait until the price skyrockets. So you can join the wealthy elites, if you have some money to buy some coins, whilst it is cheap. 

[bayu7adi]

if bitcoin is made by ordinary people, I don't think the existence of bitcoin will get to this stage, it has been 10 years BTC and every year has experienced price increases,
positive, BTC is a project of the global elite with lots of money, which hides their identity with a specific purpose

[Kemarit]

Please discuss!

I do not have direct evidence either way, but I have come to the conclusion that, if Bitcoin did not exist, the Western elites would have liked to create it in secret.  My indirect evidence includes:

- Bitcoin has not been killed by a combination of regulation, market manipulation, and propaganda after 10 years.  As turbulent as the price has been, Bitcoin has been an excellent long-term bet.  Whatever assault it has suffered, it always seems to survive.

I think it has survived because people saw it as a way to make money. But its really hard to see Western Elites being the early adopters. Those who see bright future for bitcoin are not wealthy elite but people who wanted to go away from banking system.

- Bitcoin has taken demand away from gold and silver, which traditionally are the big threats against central bank money.

Bitcoin could be taken demand away for gold and silver but I'm sure those have left already and taking the profits with them. That's how those rich become wealthy elites, take advantage of the market and get out before it goes down.

- If central banks secretly own lots of Bitcoin (we still don't know who really owns "Satoshi's bitcoins!") they will have the best of both the gold-standard and fiat worlds in the future.  (I will explain this when I have time.)

Of course its obvious, but we really don't know, if Central Banks have been stacking Bitcoin since the beginning. We know for sure they're go full Fiat, but this scenario might be scary thought.  

[imToken]

Yes, Bitcoin was originally produced in the West. But it does not mean that this is a game in the West. In fact, a few years ago the elites of the world entered this field, but many ordinary people did not know. The cryptocurrency is spread from the elite, and it is very difficult for people with no education to understand the uniqueness of the cryptocurrency.

[jpoker272727]

I dont know if the western is credited to this.
All i know is cryptocurrency started because of BITCOIN influential.
Then BTC is created by a man named Satoshi Nakamoto.
As the name state, i would think it is started from ASIA.

[guoyu78]

Please discuss!

I do not have direct evidence either way, but I have come to the conclusion that, if Bitcoin did not exist, the Western elites would have liked to create it in secret.  My indirect evidence includes:

- Bitcoin has not been killed by a combination of regulation, market manipulation, and propaganda after 10 years.  As turbulent as the price has been, Bitcoin has been an excellent long-term bet.  Whatever assault it has suffered, it always seems to survive.

- Bitcoin has taken demand away from gold and silver, which traditionally are the big threats against central bank money.

- If central banks secretly own lots of Bitcoin (we still don't know who really owns "Satoshi's bitcoins!") they will have the best of both the gold-standard and fiat worlds in the future.  (I will explain this when I have time.)

I don't know what "western elites" is and I am pretty sure you mean rich people in european and mainly american countries however I doubt that was the case. The western elites already had all the money they want and the bitcoin project with all these new cryptos are so little compared to what they have is that they wouldn't even care to work on this if that was the case.

I am sure they could have made money in any case and even if they wanted to find a new system that would make money for them it wouldn't be this socialist "money of the people" type thing. It wasn't this big for almost a decade and suddenly it was worth something last year. We can also see who has how much which also begs the question why would they want us to know how much they manipulate. No bitcoin did not started by western elites, I think it was started by people who were sick and tired of the western elites.

[Dimon8]

Clearly, cryptography began with the elites of our world. Under the guise of a decentralized currency, Bitcoin, Etherium and other higher currencies were issued to attract the attention of the masses of people and make all digital slaves. This is one of the stages of the globalization of the whole world.

[hatshepsut93]

1. They haven't banned it like authoritarian countries did because that's exactly the difference between them - western countries follow the rules and don't outlaw things on a whim, at least not before a long discussion.

2. This is nonsense, Bitcoin is bigger threat to central banks than gold.

3. Same as before, even if central banks had tons of coins, it would change nothing, it wouldn't give them control over the network or other advantages, and they still would suffer from their lose of control over the money.

[STT]

Dont criminalise a population, its a standard strut to democracy really.   In many countries the people have no real say or its only a vote system for show not any effect but in many western countries its especially poor politics to criminalise a population of users who are not violent or even disruptive to the economy or community.  As said this represents tech development to many even who do not know many details, we arent the big bad wolf anymore in that respect really

[BobK71]

By 'Western elites,' I meant the top officers of Western governments, central banks, and banks that collectively run the world.

There is evidence that this group is a lot more unified than we the public give them credit for.  Just as a small example, consider why the British and American elites were so intent on sending people to die in World War I.  The American people were against the war from the start.   Nobody can tell us what the war was all about today, but the war did bring about the successful transfer of the global money bubble from British to American custody, while taking Germany decisively out of the running.  (A Germany that was unfriendly to that bubble.)

[BobK71]

1. They haven't banned it like authoritarian countries did because that's exactly the difference between them - western countries follow the rules and don't outlaw things on a whim, at least not before a long discussion.

It is true, the Western elites profit greatly from their (often well earned) perception as guardians of free market competition.  But IMO that is their strategy for success (by attracting capital, trust, talent, etc.) rather than a true moral constraint.  When it became advantageous for the US to ban ownership of gold by Americans in 1934 to minimize the degree of devaluing the dollar against gold, it did.  (And not with any discussion!)

2. This is nonsense, Bitcoin is bigger threat to central banks than gold.

Don't forget who built and supported the gold standard: central banks and mainstream economists.  The gold standard was a great source of Western elite power, and arguably a fundamentally stronger support for their system than fiat money.  The only problem is that they don't have much gold left today, after decades of selling to keep its price down (see books like 'The Gold Cartel' and 'Gold Wars' for serious evidence.)

3. Same as before, even if central banks had tons of coins, it would change nothing, it wouldn't give them control over the network or other advantages, and they still would suffer from their lose of control over the money.

Having tons of coins changes everything.  There's no need to control the network.  Gold and silver standards were stabilized by owning only a small fraction of the gold or silver required to redeem all outstanding paper money.  When you have power as well as just enough 'hard' money, there are games you can play.  This is well documented by the history of finance.

Of the 400 years of  the era of central banks, only the last 45 used fiat money.  (And trust me, fiat monies were tried and failed before 1971!)  These 4 decades also happen to be the most financially unstable, with the possible exception of the Great Depression period.

The elites could easily have concluded that fiat money is more trouble than it's worth.  Of course, they'll never say such a thing openly, before the timing is ripe!

[BobK71]

For background information, see my posts:

Dissecting the Parasitocracy

A Brief History of Modern Money

[mrcash02]

If they had created Crypto-Currency, they would have created it in a centralized way already, no? Why would they create an issue (decentralization) to be solved by them later? Seems desnecessary work. If Bitcoin has not been killed by regulations, manipulations, and propagandas it is thanks to the enthusiasts who support it and think outside the default system. Maybe the same people who are defeating the old default system members on several countries in the world, choosing new style of governments.

[timerland]

I would seriously doubt it. Even though in western countries I don't think that crypto has necessarily been banned in the majority of the states yet, decentralized ones are certainly not something that historically the governments have been very positive about.

However, I do see the argument that bitcoin hasn't been killed yet. I think that in a way, regulation has already tightened a lot since its inception to the point that trading has become extremely difficult, but banning bitcoin imho would be unfeasible anyways as it is difficult to enforce and the government would be losing out on a lot of revenue.

Also, I don't see any incentive for them to create cryptocurrencies, which could potentially take control away from the banks and even central banks. But who cares - as far as I'm concerned, even if they've created it for whatever reason which I think is very unlikely, it's still a decentralized platform that is outside of governments' direct reach.

[BobK71]

I would seriously doubt it. Even though in western countries I don't think that crypto has necessarily been banned in the majority of the states yet, decentralized ones are certainly not something that historically the governments have been very positive about.

However, I do see the argument that bitcoin hasn't been killed yet. I think that in a way, regulation has already tightened a lot since its inception to the point that trading has become extremely difficult, but banning bitcoin imho would be unfeasible anyways as it is difficult to enforce and the government would be losing out on a lot of revenue.

Also, I don't see any incentive for them to create cryptocurrencies, which could potentially take control away from the banks and even central banks. But who cares - as far as I'm concerned, even if they've created it for whatever reason which I think is very unlikely, it's still a decentralized platform that is outside of governments' direct reach.

I think most people today don't understand the soft power of  money, ie pretending to be friendly to some non-state-issued, limited-supply, publicly-supported money, and using that money to support the central bankers' money printing.  It was this way with gold and silver standards that accounted for 90% of the central-bank-era of modern history.

You can easily argue that the hard-money-standard is fundamentally better than fiat money, from the elites' point of view (see my posts slightly above.)

[Sarastiche]

No one can categorically confirm the region where crptocurrency started, but we are sure that base on the level of information technology emanating  from the western world, we can conclude that the western elites  has a major input  in the commencement of crypto

[BobK71]

Here is a response that might be more specific to the points you raised...

I would seriously doubt it. Even though in western countries I don't think that crypto has necessarily been banned in the majority of the states yet, decentralized ones are certainly not something that historically the governments have been very positive about.

True.  Think of gold: Americans were banned from holding gold from 1934 to the 1970s, and both mainstream economists and media have been negative about gold as an investment and as a (potential) part of the monetary system.

But that was because the Western elites don't have enough gold, and the US defaulted on the gold it owed other governments under the Bretton Woods system.  If the monetary system were to go back to the gold standard today, based on the gold held by Western central banks and the current size of the money base, the gold price would have to be so high (to keep the new gold standard stable) that it would seriously discredit central bank money.  

But the fiat system is fundamentally unstable, so if Bitcoin takes the place of gold, central banks would have the best of both worlds, if they have secretly collected a lot of Bitcoin.  (Now I don't think the new system will be exactly like the gold stanard -- for one thing, there will be multiple hard monies.  For another, the elites won't repeat anything like the old 'gold is money, and dollar is debt' story that got them into so much trouble over the 20th century -- but that's another topic.)

However, I do see the argument that bitcoin hasn't been killed yet. I think that in a way, regulation has already tightened a lot since its inception to the point that trading has become extremely difficult, but banning bitcoin imho would be unfeasible anyways as it is difficult to enforce and the government would be losing out on a lot of revenue.

As far as I can see, at least in the US, anyone can open a coinbase account and link it to their bank account and start trading.  If you hold your coins for a year or more, you get the benefit of being taxed at the low long-term rate.  I don't see any serious issue here.

Though banning Bitcoin totally might be unfeasible, such a law would seriously hurt the price.  I don't think tax revenues are an important consideration when the elites are dealing with something that can potentially threaten their entire power base (the control of money,) if we go with the conventional wisdom.

Also, I don't see any incentive for them to create cryptocurrencies, which could potentially take control away from the banks and even central banks.

This is the heart of our debate.  I totally understand your point, and we have seen it in action with regard to gold.  But to re-state my point from a different angle, the elites may well have decided that something like a gold standard (but not an exact copy of it) is actually better for their system than fiat money, as it's more stable and less troublesome.

The total control of money in a fiat system comes with the problem of the incentives for members of the elites to create too much money and debt, and thus long-term trouble.  A gold-standard-type system gives the illusion that money is a free market, but really is under central bank control (which was why central banks liked it so much until they ran out of gold.)  This type of system is also in keeping with the general style of the Western elites in all areas, e.g. politics and press freedom.  A lot of the power of the Western elites comes from the perception (if not the reality) that they promote freedom and property rights of all kinds.  They're not afraid of people bad-mouthing them or taking their savings out -- or at least that's the perception they want to cultivate.

But who cares - as far as I'm concerned, even if they've created it for whatever reason which I think is very unlikely, it's still a decentralized platform that is outside of governments' direct reach.

It's surely possible to argue that a (de facto) hard-money standard is still something of a win-win for both the elites and the public, compared to fiat money.  We just have to be clear-eyed as to the true nature of any system.