If the CIA/NSA created Bitcoin, would it hurt the price?

[legiteum]

One theory of Satoshi's origin is that he is/was a worker or group at the CIA, NSA, DARPA, or some other US agency. This theory is consistent with the facts because it explains why Satoshi never sold a single sat (if he worked at the CIA etc. he would not be able to sell because of the bureaucratic issues). This theory is becoming more popular lately because it's the only one that isn't easily refuted by any known facts.

It's just a theory, but here's an interesting thought experiment: would the world learning that that Bitcoin's origin was from the US government hurt Bitcoin's price? Would this reduce or remove the mystique around Bitcoin, thus dragging the price down? Would it make no difference? Would it even pump the price if people found out it was never actually made for the reasons they said it was, and it's just a plain old investment?

My own opinion is that it would detract quite a bit from the price, especially over the longer-run. So much of Bitcoin's original appeal was its "libertarian philosophy" (which is laughable when many Bitcoiners are begging for government handouts in the form of "Bitcoin reserves" but the legend still survives so far).

But another opinion might be that since Bitcoin is now an "official" (they might think) coin of the US government, perhaps it would be seen as a safer investment and thus the price would pump. That's possible too.

What do you think?

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

One theory of Satoshi's origin is that he is/was a worker or group at the CIA, NSA, DARPA, or some other US agency. This theory is consistent with the facts because it explains why Satoshi never sold a single sat (if he worked at the CIA etc. he would not be able to sell because of the bureaucratic issues). This theory is becoming more popular lately because it's the only one that isn't easily refuted by any known facts.

In the past, after Satoshi Nakamoto sent his last email to Gavin Andresen for announcing his departure from Bitcoin community, and leaving Bitcoin project to good hands in community, days later Gavin Andressen announced this one.
Gavin will visit the CIA.

With this announcement and action from CIA, I believe that CIA is not the creator of Bitcoin as no information and evidence that are enough to convince me CIA is the creator of Bitcoin.

But another opinion might be that since Bitcoin is now an "official" (they might think) coin of the US government, perhaps it would be seen as a safer investment and thus the price would pump. That's possible too.

What do you think?

Governments like the USA Government would have never created a project, a blockchain that is actually decentralized like Bitcoin so that they are and will never be able to control, centralize and censor it.

[legiteum]

In the past, after Satoshi Nakamoto sent his last email to Gavin Andresen for announcing his departure from Bitcoin community, and leaving Bitcoin project to good hands in community, days later Gavin Andressen announced this one.
Gavin will visit the CIA.

With this announcement and action from CIA, I believe that CIA is not the creator of Bitcoin as no information and evidence that are enough to convince me CIA is the creator of Bitcoin.

That's not evidence of anything. First, the CIA, like any intelligence agency, is compartmentalized: the people he met with would not have known if Bitcoin was created at the CIA just because they worked there. Second, even if this was the actual group who created Bitcoin, it could very easily been something staged to spread disinformation, which is something that the CIA and other intelligence agencies do all of the time.

Governments like the USA Government would have never created a project, a blockchain that is actually decentralized like Bitcoin so that they are and will never be able to control, centralize and censor it.

Sure they would. First of all, the CIA/NSA/etc. do all kinds of projects and wherein they didn't think through the implications. There is no "strategy bureau" who includes the Illuminati or whatever who signs off on every single CIA project. That doesn't even make any sense.

Second, after 15 years Bitcoin hasn't brought down the US financial system and shows no sign of doing so. Third, the president of the USA owns almost $1 billion in Bitcoin himself, and crypto is now the #1 corporate lobby to the US congress, so there's absolutely nothing "anti-government" about Bitcoin.

Finally, the US could make Bitcoin illegal any time they wanted to and while they couldn't out-and-out kill Bitcoin, they could certainly drop the price by 99.9% and make it so only a few hundred people would actually hold it, which for most people would be the same thing.

[Alpha Marine]

One theory of Satoshi's origin is that he is/was a worker or group at the CIA, NSA, DARPA, or some other US agency. This theory is consistent with the facts because it explains why Satoshi never sold a single sat (if he worked at the CIA etc. he would not be able to sell because of the bureaucratic issues). This theory is becoming more popular lately because it's the only one that isn't easily refuted by any known facts.

It's not a solid argument, actually. To what ends? I mean, we've known the US government and specifically the CIA to never make a decision without a reason, so what would be the endgame for them in creating Bitcoin? The codes are all public, and every human who can understand code can see and understand them, so for 17 years, with dozens of code updates and versions, if there were codes that spy on people or do something else, people would spot it.
Then why would the US government create a currency that would be a competition to its dollar?
And we've seen emails to and from Satoshi from verified people. When has the CIA been known to do things so openly? Then why go ahead to create this forum and the bitcoin.org forum and make it open source?
Despite all these, the main question remains: "To what ends?" What do they stand to gain from it?

I believe Satoshi is just someone who was fed up with the traditional finance system after its crash in 2008 and decided to do something about it. But it would make sense if he has experience working with a security agency like the NSA, because that would explain how he was/is able to stay so anonymous in this digital world.

would the world learning that that Bitcoin's origin was from the US government hurt Bitcoin's price? Would this reduce or remove the mystique around Bitcoin, thus dragging the price down? Would it make no difference? Would it even pump the price if people found out it was never actually made for the reasons they said it was, and it's just a plain old investment?

Hypothetically, the price would crash if people found out a US agency like the CIA created Bitcoin. People would panic and sell. Even people who won't panic would sell because of that kind of FUD that would be going on. Adding to that FUD would be the conspiracy theories that would be going on, and the 666 and Illuminati people. Imagining it in my head makes me laugh. It would be a disaster. I think that would be the beginning of the end for Bitcoin.

[legiteum]

It's not a solid argument, actually. To what ends? I mean, we've known the US government and specifically the CIA to never make a decision without a reason, so what would be the endgame for them in creating Bitcoin?

We have? Since when? The CIA/NSA/DARPA/etc. make decisions on their own all of the time. A project like Bitcoin would require a single person who had some freedom to sit and hack for a while--maybe even a part-time project.

The codes are all public, and every human who can understand code can see and understand them, so for 17 years, with dozens of code updates and versions, if there were codes that spy on people or do something else, people would spot it.

What people? You understand that nobody actually knows who Satoshi is, right?

Then why would the US government create a currency that would be a competition to its dollar?

Because it's not a competitor, and nobody except religious hard-core Bitcoin maxes think that :-). For everybody else who live in the real world, Bitcoin is as much a competitor to the USA as soybean futures are.

And we've seen emails to and from Satoshi from verified people. When has the CIA been known to do things so openly? Then why go ahead to create this forum and the bitcoin.org forum and make it open source?

Wow, where do I start? Here's a list of 10 examples:

https://listverse.com/2026/05/13/10-astounding-ways-spy-agencies-hid-in-plain-sight/

Despite all these, the main question remains: "To what ends?" What do they stand to gain from it?

Who knows. What did any other idea of Satoshi stand to gain from it? Why would he/they need a reason?

Hypothetically, the price would crash if people found out a US agency like the CIA created Bitcoin. People would panic and sell. Even people who won't panic would sell because of that kind of FUD that would be going on. Adding to that FUD would be the conspiracy theories that would be going on, and the 666 and Illuminati people. Imagining it in my head makes me laugh. It would be a disaster. I think that would be the beginning of the end for Bitcoin.

Certainly any major news like this in the world of Bitcoin would create a panic sell-off. Imagine, for instance, if a single sat were sold from one of Satoshi's keys...

[yhiaali3]

Personally, I don't believe this theory about Satoshi working as part of a team at the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or any other US agency, and I don't like to believe it. I think most people who like Bitcoin and Satoshi don't want to believe this narrative.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that this story is true, then in my personal opinion, most Bitcoin lovers will refuse to believe this story even if there is strong evidence that it is actually true, because the beauty of Bitcoin and part of its strength lies in this legendary touch that makes Satoshi a savior to many, so they do not want to believe the theory and they want to believe the legend.

[m2017]

One theory of Satoshi's origin is that he is/was a worker or group at the CIA, NSA, DARPA, or some other US agency. This theory is consistent with the facts because it explains why Satoshi never sold a single sat (if he worked at the CIA etc. he would not be able to sell because of the bureaucratic issues). This theory is becoming more popular lately because it's the only one that isn't easily refuted by any known facts.

But this theory is also difficult to confirm with any facts, isn't it? Everything remains at the level of speculation.

It's just a theory, but here's an interesting thought experiment: would the world learning that that Bitcoin's origin was from the US government hurt Bitcoin's price? Would this reduce or remove the mystique around Bitcoin, thus dragging the price down? Would it make no difference? Would it even pump the price if people found out it was never actually made for the reasons they said it was, and it's just a plain old investment?

Since the crypto market is entirely speculative and reacts to any news, information about the origin of bitcoin (connection to a government) will immediately impact the asset's price. Demystifying bitcoin's origins will deprive the asset of its "magic", likely reducing demand and, consequently, the price.

In reality, bitcoin has long been operating autonomously, and whatever its origin is, it's essentially irrelevant. Decentralization is the solution. But hype-mongering and panicking investors are equally indifferent.

My own opinion is that it would detract quite a bit from the price, especially over the longer-run. So much of Bitcoin's original appeal was its "libertarian philosophy" (which is laughable when many Bitcoiners are begging for government handouts in the form of "Bitcoin reserves" but the legend still survives so far).

A valid observation. It also seems contradictory to me when bitcoiners are waiting for regulators to "approve" bitcoin. What have you traded your ideals for?

But another opinion might be that since Bitcoin is now an "official" (they might think) coin of the US government, perhaps it would be seen as a safer investment and thus the price would pump. That's possible too.

This will increase investor confidence, although it also directly contradicts the ideals of bitcoin for which this asset was created. An alternative and a challenge to the traditional financial system? No. It's better to integrate BTC into this flawed system.

[Son Of Blockchain (SOB)]

 There's been many conspiracy theories about Bitcoin and we're yet to see the end of it cause there would be more theories in future since less busy people are just bent on knowing who the creator of Bitcoin (Satoshi) is, but i have a question for you and my question is, if you later discover that Satoshi is related with the CIA or another top intelligency, would you sell off all your holdings?
 Lets of act like Satoshi is the one who controls Bitcoin, despite all the theories In the past the price of Bitcoin has never drop back to the starting point instead it keeps going higher. As for the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, it's one mystery that might never be solved even in the future, so I'll rather spend time trying to accumulate more than enough Bitcoin than worry about Satoshi's identity or whether he's related with the CIA.

[ertil]

Satoshi never sold a single sat

Why do you think so? Satoshi definitely made some transactions in early days, to see, that the system is working correctly. For example: https://mempool.space/tx/f4184fc596403b9d638783cf57adfe4c75c605f6356fbc91338530e9831e9e16

And also, when it comes to the Patoshi pattern, then it is all speculation: each time the extra nonce is resetted, it could be this miner, or that miner. Even if you go to http://satoshiblocks.info/ and see block number 127, then it is just a guess, if it is owned by someone else, than block number 128, or not. According to this site, the owner is different, while in practice, it could be the same. Which means, that these connections are arbitrary.

If the CIA/NSA created Bitcoin, would it hurt the price?

No, because people wouldn't believe it, even if it would be true.

Imagine, for instance, if a single sat were sold from one of Satoshi's keys...

In that case, people wouldn't even be sure, if that coin was owned by Satoshi or not. Note that in Patoshi pattern, spent coins are marked as "others", and excluded from the pattern for some reason, and it is just an arbitrary decision of the chart maker.

So, it would be no different, than if any early adopter would recover some old coins today. Because we can be sure only about single coins, that are owned by Satoshi. All of that headlines, like "Satoshi owns 1 million BTCs" is just a pure speculation, and guessing, based on Patoshi's pattern.

And I even wonder, if those, who are deeply convinced, that all of these coins are owned by Satoshi, will really take them from him, or from some other early adopters instead. It would be funny, if someone would recover some 50 BTCs from the old wallet, and then figure out, that he was marked as "Satoshi" on some altcoin, and he has only BTCs, because other coins were stolen, because of a false guess of marking them as "Satoshi's coins".