Was Crypto Started by Western Elites?

[exstasie]

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.

What you're saying is very true. They have all the incentive in the world, but this is all completely hypothetical. I just think it's really unlikely they would have had the vision and forethought to infiltrate an obscure cypherpunk cryptography mailing list and launch Bitcoin. It would have been such a longshot, out of left field. It's not like Bitcoin was the first peer-to-peer currency. It's just the first one that ever took off.

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.

Do you think it can be killed those ways? Geopolitics precludes outright prohibition and complicates regulation. Manipulation is difficult in globally distributed markets, especially markets that can't be traded with leveraged non-BTC collateral.

[1714044829]

1714044829

[1714044829]

1714044829

[1714044829]

1714044829

[STT]

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.)

Gold was valuable because of the people.    The banks only leveraged that into fractional paper reserves with their backing it allowed them to balance spending across a nation which gave them alot of benefit.  The basic idea for gold as an asset of worth to exchange is all about the people though.    Its still held that way in large parts of India and China which matters alot because those are two of the largest nations on earth, about 3 billion people so it counts.

Forget the whole central banking, governments, elites and whatever ideas based off forced control of economies.   The most power influence is the billions not the few, and the many do favour gold as its very easily appraised in value.     I know we are at the opposite ends now, we have the paper complicated holdings of various finance instruments that may or may not work out to pay the value they are supposed to.   We are so far from that plain solid value but I dont think its impossible for us to return to that other extreme where the solid assets are what determines finance and trade not this system of debt.

Some central banks increased their gold in the last decade and most reduced or held flat. Overall the average holding of gold by these national banks is rising, its a big note to keep track of when recognising a trend likely to rise for gold pricing

[Huskarls]

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.)

in my opinion they could have been involved with the beginning of crypto, although it might have been indirect, because for example if they were discovered that the crypto was built by the west then there would have been many people who disagreed because we knew in other parts of the country they still had enough hidden enemies who want to go beyond the western economic level

[BobK71]

What you're saying is very true. They have all the incentive in the world, but this is all completely hypothetical. I just think it's really unlikely they would have had the vision and forethought to infiltrate an obscure cypherpunk cryptography mailing list and launch Bitcoin. It would have been such a longshot, out of left field. It's not like Bitcoin was the first peer-to-peer currency. It's just the first one that ever took off.

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.

Do you think it can be killed those ways? Geopolitics precludes outright prohibition and complicates regulation. Manipulation is difficult in globally distributed markets, especially markets that can't be traded with leveraged non-BTC collateral.

Of course, we can never be 100% sure, but I think the history of money as controlled by Western elites is full of bold and brilliant moves.  Think of the demonetization of silver in the 1860s to strengthen the British Empire.  Think of the invention of the central bank, or the use of Saudi oil and cheap Chinese labor as the 'new gold to back the dollar' in the 90s and before.  'Out of left field' is probably a requirement for a move this big, with a fundamentally deceptive system.

As far as digital currencies before Bitcoin, the closest thing I know is the failed DigiCash, which had the anonymity feature, but was not at all decentralized or independent of the fiat system.  (It used banks in the back end.)

As I mentioned before, even if Bitcoin can't be killed by the elites, its price would be much lower today, if the elites wanted to kill it.

In the end, it really doesn't matter if Bitcoin was truly created independently.  If it was, the elites likely have understood its benefits, and the rest of the argument goes the same way, anyway.

[BobK71]

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.)

Gold was valuable because of the people.    The banks only leveraged that into fractional paper reserves with their backing it allowed them to balance spending across a nation which gave them alot of benefit.  The basic idea for gold as an asset of worth to exchange is all about the people though.    Its still held that way in large parts of India and China which matters alot because those are two of the largest nations on earth, about 3 billion people so it counts.

Forget the whole central banking, governments, elites and whatever ideas based off forced control of economies.   The most power influence is the billions not the few, and the many do favour gold as its very easily appraised in value.     I know we are at the opposite ends now, we have the paper complicated holdings of various finance instruments that may or may not work out to pay the value they are supposed to.   We are so far from that plain solid value but I dont think its impossible for us to return to that other extreme where the solid assets are what determines finance and trade not this system of debt.

Some central banks increased their gold in the last decade and most reduced or held flat. Overall the average holding of gold by these national banks is rising, its a big note to keep track of when recognising a trend likely to rise for gold pricing

There's a lot of truth to what you say, but we also have to keep in mind, in the roughly 600 years of modern history, how much power central bank money has enjoyed.  Even on the eve of World War I, Britain was still able to get the world to recognize its paper money (GBP) as the world reserve currency, while proclaiming that all this paper money was freely redeemable for gold at the official price of less than 5 GBP per ounce, and owning only 3% of the gold required to redeem all the paper at that price.  (Things in the West have only gone further in this direction since!)

So how have a small no. of elites been able to fool the world for 600 years?  I have some ideas about how their system works, but generally we have to recognize soberly that they know what they're doing.  Perhaps not in their politics or their economics (which have been full of unrest and boom-bust cycles,) but certainly when it comes to the core base of their power -- the money system.

I'm only describing the surface here, and will be happy to go into more detail when time allows...

[bettercrypto]

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

Yes, it was Satoshi Nakamoto started it all with its blockchain technology. However, other people took advantage of the technology. The early developers of the bitcoin were the ones who got rich. Then, bigtime and most influencial people around the world also didn't want to be left behind. Other cryptocurrencies followed developed by people from different parts of the world.

[exstasie]

As I mentioned before, even if Bitcoin can't be killed by the elites, its price would be much lower today, if the elites wanted to kill it.

In the end, it really doesn't matter if Bitcoin was truly created independently.  If it was, the elites likely have understood its benefits, and the rest of the argument goes the same way, anyway.

Does it? If they created Bitcoin, they likely control a very significant chunk of total supply. That would be a game-changer (as I think you pointed out earlier). But if they only started paying attention a few years in, they're not in that kind of position at all, especially considering China's position in mining and speculation since 2013.

[jademaxxiss012]

This could be possible that the one who created bitcoins are group of elites of the group of central banks that are participating in cryptocurrency. Even our local exchanges has talking about regulations and the central bank of the country about them joining in cryptocurrency as trading for bitcoins and other cryptocurrency. I had already getting idea from you and this may had a probability that your claim is true.

[yugyug]

There are other form of digital currency exist before the cryptocurrency and bitcoin come, others called them e-currency, cyber-money, virtual currency, digital coin and most of them was developed by the Westerners but it does not intended for the anti-banking system until bitcoin introduced the cryptocurrency where you can have a reward thru cryptographic hash calculation and brute force computational problem. Bitcoin was documented by Satoshi Nakamoto but it does not mean that he made it only by himself rather it is made by a group of radical thinkers on how to evade the banking systems and i believe that the Western Elites initiates this project because eiltes are in favor of banking system as the milking cow of their wealth.

[Nolimitz84]

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.

It is very stupid to simply define the place of birth of Bitcoin by name.In general, I think the creator of Bitcoin is not 1 person but a group of people.And if it is a group of people, it is not the fact that they all sit in the same office).A group of these persons may be people of different nationalities and affiliations and creeds.Perhaps the crypto currency was created not by the state authorities but by some transnational corporations.

[AAlex48]

I don’t really believe in these conspiracies, unless somehow these bitcoins were stolen.

[Pikachu12]

I think the crypto is starting from the Chinese people, not the Westerners or the Japanese. Because the number of Chinese entering this market is very high. If Bitcoin is produced in Japan, the people there will occupy more Bitcoins than the data.

[raven7886]

I do not think bitcoin is like any other currency or even commodity we have faced so far in the history of money. It does have one difference between all others like fiat and gold which is having the decentralized human aspect. Fiat is heavily centralized and can be printed whenever federal banks wants to and governments control it by regulating it to even smallest aspects of it.

Gold is a bit decentralized considering no one can actually print more gold (they can mine it like bitcoin if they want) and there has been no known tempering with gold since it is an element and what is gold is gold and can't change anything else into gold. Now with all that in mind gold can't be used to buy stuff that easily, it is really difficult to use it as a payment option, it can be a good investment if you want but can't be changing hands that easily (at least not anymore).

Bitcoin is both like fiat and gold in the sense that you can use it like fiat but it will be decentralized like gold.

[ausbit]

There is no point on talking about japan or asia just by looking at the name Satoshi Nakamoto. First of all thats not a real name as far as we know, even if it was don't you think we would have figured out who is satoshi nakamoto by just checking all the satoshi nakamotos in the whole world and find which one is more suitable for doing something like this? Don't you think if there was some cryptography professor or something named Satoshi Nakamoto the world wouldn't find out? Hence I think it is a nickname or sorts for the real person and it could be from anywhere.

Of course it could be an asian person that's still possible but not because of the name, because right now that person could be from ANYWHERE in the world (ok I think we can rule out antartica, I am %99 positive it is not from there). Hence when considering who started it, never assume where he is from.

[Ranly123]

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.)

As what I have learned, Bitcoin is created by a US citizen named satoshi nakamoto. Eventhough his name is like a Japanese but it is said that he's a citizen from USA and using the name of nakamoto is just used to hide his true identity. Nonetheless, Western elites creates another crypto to rival the creation of Bitcoin and is supported by most of their citizens and all parts of the world.

[Kiweikoo]

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.)

Lol, what are you talking about, and who the heck are Western Elites? First cryptocurrency and most famous is Bitcoin and it was created by Satoshi Nakamoto, and based on my research so far Satoshi is a person,. Well, I have seen some sources refer to Satoshi Nakamoto as a group of people, but whatever.

It provides outlet for us to own personal wealth that can’t be restricted or confiscated by anyone. Waiting for your explanation though, cause I still don’t get what you mean.

[sinkfish]

bitcoin is something revolutionary and disruptive to modern economy model. elitist wouldnt make something to kill themselves.

[Vt100]

I think it’s definitely possible but we’ll never know.

[BobK71]

As I mentioned before, even if Bitcoin can't be killed by the elites, its price would be much lower today, if the elites wanted to kill it.

In the end, it really doesn't matter if Bitcoin was truly created independently.  If it was, the elites likely have understood its benefits, and the rest of the argument goes the same way, anyway.

Does it? If they created Bitcoin, they likely control a very significant chunk of total supply. That would be a game-changer (as I think you pointed out earlier). But if they only started paying attention a few years in, they're not in that kind of position at all, especially considering China's position in mining and speculation since 2013.

They could keep buying Bitcoin into a large number of addresses when people are selling.  And it seems nowadays they really know how to get people to sell!  The difference between $2/coin and $4000/coin is huge for us, but for central banks they are 'small change' vs 'smaller change!'

[cellard]

- 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.

One could claim that they haven't killed it because it's too late. Bitcoin was able to fly under the radar for all these first initial years in which it was vulnerable, but the elites haven't recognized it or even became aware of it's existence after the network effect was too big to kill it.

If they tried to kill, it could have 2 negatives for the nation states trying to do so:

-They could no longer be able to claim they are "free countries". They would be going full totalitarian on it, hard to defend this for a marketing PoV where you are supposed to be on the land of the free or whatever they like to sell it.
-If they finally tried to kill it, and they failed, they could be seen as impotent and it would only strengthen Bitcoin long term after it recovers.

The theory that SN are the elites and they are custodian of all these coins is also valid, but they would need to move these coins first, which goes against their incentives since there would be a panic sell, so they can't basically move it.