More evidence that Bitcoin was created by the US government

[MusaMohamed]

Why would the US government, the entity that is in partnership with the banking cartel, want to create a digital currency that has no inflation and allows people to protect themselves from the central bank theft? What's the intention behind this operation?

If I were an intelligence agency, and wanted to try this experiment, at least I would not pick a fixed supply.

Stablecoins can be better candidates of honeypots created by governments behind the scene. Even governments can not freeze Ethereum in non custodial wallets, and it's surely impossible to do that with Bitcoin.

Governments and banks won't create things that they're unable to control and throughout history of Bitcoin blockchain development and operation, there is no evidence to support a theory that government created Bitcoin in 2009.

The hack of Binance and how hackers move hacked funds show that Bitcoin is their favorite choice, then Ethereum because they know that governments and companies can not freeze bitcoins and ETHs in non custodial wallets of hackers.

[legiteum]

Why would the US government, the entity that is in partnership with the banking cartel, want to create a digital currency that has no inflation and allows people to protect themselves from the central bank theft? What's the intention behind this operation?

If I were an intelligence agency, and wanted to try this experiment, at least I would not pick a fixed supply.

There is a no such thing as "The US Government", only two million individuals workers to have a job within the US government. These people all operate as individuals, not some kind of "hive mind".

And the CIA and NSA in particular has a history of rogue projects not approved by anybody on the chain of command.

Bitcoin was a project that was either a small group or one person, and there are thousands of workers within these agencies who have enough leeway to create Bitcoin. And the project would be a state secret, so it wouldn't be shared with almost anybody--or even nobody.

Finally, most people agree that Bitcoin is good for the USA, not bad. You can agree or disagree with this, but that doesn't matter: what matters is what most people think in this context. In other words, it's very plausible that the maker(s) of Bitcoin were in the group who thought Bitcoin would help the USA, not hurt the USA, as you allege.

Also, even if Satoshi was an Illuminati believer, he had no idea what Bitcoin would become. Nobody did.

[nullius]

How is it that on the sixth page of this thread, I am the only person who has noticed that OP is hinged on a lie?

Cross-reference to Reputation: legiteum (u=3597964) and Haypenny.net

Even though I did not know about this alleged 1996 document, it only adds to those speculating about the origins of Bitcoin.

Did you read the document?  No, scratch that question:  Did you read the authors’ names at the top of the document?

It’s not an “alleged” document.  It is real.  It is well-known.  And legiteum flat-out lied about who wrote it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20261025042804/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5597690.0[/anchor]

Today I came across this paper, which was created in 1996 by employees at the NSA including Satoshi Nakamoto Tatsuaki Okamoto:

How To Make A Mint: The Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash

(While I don't think Mr. Okamoto himself was Satoshi, I think it would be a fitting tribute name to give the "author" of Bitcoin a name that recalled his).

HOW TO MAKE A MINT: THE CRYPTOGRAPHY OF ANONYMOUS ELECTRONIC CASH

Laurie Law, Susan Sabett, Jerry Solinas

National Security Agency Office of Information Security Research and Technology

Cryptology Division

18 June 1996

Tatsuaki Okamoto did not write that NSA paper—and in fact, Okamoto did not work for NSA.  Okamoto is a famous cryptographer (arguably best known for co-discovering the FO transform), a Japanese citizen, who worked for NTT (the Japanese telephone company; think of it like Japanese AT&T/Bell Labs).

Some of Okamoto’s work is discussed in §4.2 and §5 of Law’s, Sabett’s, and Solinas’ paper—and thus, three papers authored or co-authored by Okamoto are amongst the 14 papers cited by Law, Sabett, and Solinas.

legiteum’s modus operandi is an Alex Jones type of conspiracy theorizing based on flat-out lies:

• Falsely claim that a Japanese cryptographer (who, in fact, worked for the Japanese telephone company NTT) wrote an NSA research paper (which, in fact, was co-authored by three Americans).
• Equate the Japanese cryptographer’s name with “Satoshi Nakamoto”, on no possible basis but the patently racist view that all Japanese names look alike.
• Claim that because a Japanese cryptographer wrote an NSA research paper (which, in fact, they didn’t write), and their name looks like “Satoshi Nakamoto” (which it really doesn’t), Bitcoin was invented by the U.S. government. /logic
• When called out for this lie, dodge the issue, and act extremely confident and authoritative.
• Bonus:  When distrusted for sleazy grifter behaviour, send retaliatory negative trust feedback.

Of course, this strategy depends on Bitcoin Forum members being fools.  Before I stepped in, legiteum’s spam megathread somehow got to its third page without anyone noticing that Tatsuaki Okamoto didn’t even write this paper[.]

[JollyGood]

Good to see you have returned after your hiatus. I used the word "alleged" for a specific reason as I had not at that time read, never heard of it nor taken it seriously. Maybe I should have used different terminology. Yes I read the authors name at the bottom of the document and also read the names of the authors that were referenced at the end of the same document.

As for the OP, his feedback seems apt.

Did you read the document?  No, scratch that question:  Did you read the authors’ names at the top of the document?

It’s not an “alleged” document.  It is real.  It is well-known.  And legiteum flat-out lied about who wrote it.

[nullius]

Good to see you have returned after your hiatus.

Thanks.  I singled out your post, because I recalled that you had a reputation for scambusting.  It means that you’re supposed to have sharp eyes.

Yes I read the authors name at the bottom of the document and also read the names of the authors that were referenced at the end of the same document.

WTF?  Have you ever read an academic-style paper?  The author(s) of the paper itself are named at the top, not the bottom.

Seriously, do I need to explain this?  Go read the Bitcoin whitepaper (PDF).  Observe that at the top, it says, “Satoshi Nakamoto”, and at the end, under the bibliographic “References”, it cites W. Dai, H. Massias, X.S. Avila, J.-J. Quisquater, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, A. Back, R.C. Merkle, and W. Feller.  Pop quiz:  Who wrote the Bitcoin whitepaper?

As for the OP, his feedback seems apt.

Please clarify:  Do you mean my feedback to him, or his feedback to me?

[JollyGood]

Seriously, do I need to explain this?  Go read the Bitcoin whitepaper (PDF).  Observe that at the top, it says, “Satoshi Nakamoto”, and at the end, under the bibliographic “References”, it cites W. Dai, H. Massias, X.S. Avila, J.-J. Quisquater, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, A. Back, R.C. Merkle, and W. Feller.  Pop quiz:  Who wrote the Bitcoin whitepaper?

I appreciate the offer but I have to politely decline. No, please do not explain anything to me in relation to this thread. I am no longer interested in anything here therefore it is my last post in this thread. There are plenty of threads around the forum that I can enjoy reading (and participate in) and prefer to spend my time elsewhere.

As for the OP, his feedback seems apt.

Please clarify:  Do you mean my feedback to him, or his feedback to me?

I was referring to the feedback that all members have left for the OP.

[legiteum]

Seriously, do I need to explain this?  Go read the Bitcoin whitepaper (PDF).  Observe that at the top, it says, “Satoshi Nakamoto”, and at the end, under the bibliographic “References”, it cites W. Dai, H. Massias, X.S. Avila, J.-J. Quisquater, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, A. Back, R.C. Merkle, and W. Feller.  Pop quiz:  Who wrote the Bitcoin whitepaper?

I appreciate the offer but I have to politely decline. No, please do not explain anything to me in relation to this thread. I am no longer interested in anything here therefore it is my last post in this thread. There are plenty of threads around the forum that I can enjoy reading (and participate in) and prefer to spend my time elsewhere.

As for the OP, his feedback seems apt.

Please clarify:  Do you mean my feedback to him, or his feedback to me?

I was referring to the feedback that all members have left for the OP.

This is an amazing exercise in how people simply don't read posts. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I never said that Okamoto wrote the paper, I said he was referenced in the paper, which he was.

But people are so insanely emotional over the (very plausible) possibility that Satoshi was working for the US government when he/she/they made Bitcoin that they are unable to read simple English.

Of course, after that falsehood about the OP (all one has to do is actually read the OP to see it's a falsehood for chrissakes), then somebody here made the conclusion that was not mere oversight, but rather that I, personally, must be... a linebacker for the LA Rams "a racist". And also a  "scammer" (trying to steal what from people, they do not explain).

And of course the point about Okamoto was only a minor point about the broader NSA paper story, which was only one item of evidence among others that Satoshi could have been a person or group working within the US government.

Look, this is just a theory, and there's no proof--or proof of any other theory at this time. I am fine with people giving counter-evidence and even simply doubting the theory it because it doesn't "feel right" to them.

But I guess for some people, this would destroy their entire world view, so they react... emotionally to the idea.  

[Abiky]

Why would the US government, the entity that is in partnership with the banking cartel, want to create a digital currency that has no inflation and allows people to protect themselves from the central bank theft? What's the intention behind this operation?

If I were an intelligence agency, and wanted to try this experiment, at least I would not pick a fixed supply.

The intention is to preserve/maintain dominance over the world economy. Bitcoin would act as a "failsafe" against a potential collapse of the USD as the world's reserve currency. What started as an "experiment", is now considered a trillon-dollar payment network. Think about it. This is assuming the US government was deeply involved in Bitcoin's creation. For now, this remains a conspiracy theory. We may never know who Satoshi is or really was.

I guess some things are better left in the dark. Would you imagine if Satoshi's identity were to be discovered? It would have huge implications for the future of Bitcoin. Even though Bitcoin itself is decentralized, Satoshi himself can "dump" all of his BTC holdings (if forced to) and crash market prices along with it. At least, that's what I think will happen. There are other important matters to focus on. Scalability and volatility are issues that must be addressed. Not trying to find who created Bitcoin. When will people move on?

[2stout]

Why would the US government, the entity that is in partnership with the banking cartel, want to create a digital currency that has no inflation and allows people to protect themselves from the central bank theft? What's the intention behind this operation?

If I were an intelligence agency, and wanted to try this experiment, at least I would not pick a fixed supply.

The intention is to preserve/maintain dominance over the world economy. Bitcoin would act as a "failsafe" against a potential collapse of the USD as the world's reserve currency. What started as an "experiment", is now considered a trillon-dollar payment network. Think about it. This is assuming the US government was deeply involved in Bitcoin's creation. For now, this remains a conspiracy theory. We may never know who Satoshi is or really was.

I guess some things are better left in the dark. Would you imagine if Satoshi's identity were to be discovered? It would have huge implications for the future of Bitcoin. Even though Bitcoin itself is decentralized, Satoshi himself can "dump" all of his BTC holdings (if forced to) and crash market prices along with it. At least, that's what I think will happen. There are other important matters to focus on. Scalability and volatility are issues that must be addressed. Not trying to find who created Bitcoin. When will people move on?

I don't believe the market cap of Bitcoin would be anywhere close to being enough to be a "failsafe" against the potential collapse of the USD as the world's reserve currency at the current moment and in intermediate future.

As for moving on from who created Bitcoin- people will never move on, even if futile, as it's in our nature to discover, find, and solve.  I agree that it's best left in the dark as to who created Bitcoin.

[7juju]

Maybe the bigger question is why Satoshi chose to leave Bitcoin untouched even as its value grew beyond anyone's expectations.

Point of correction, the value of bitcoin never grew beyond many investors expectations. Right from the very beginning there those that has always believed that bitcoin would grow beyond the level it has achieved so far. Bitcoin growth is only a surprise to those who never saw the future in it. But for those that saw the potential in it from the very beginning has always known that the price will get to this point and will go beyond it. Have you ever asked yourself why those investors who has been holding from the beginning never sold their bitcoin till date? I feel they are fully aware that bitcoin haven’t achieved the price they expect it to get.

[nullius]

This is an amazing exercise in how people simply don't read posts. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

You’re right that it’s amazing:  I am the only one here who reads posts.  That’s how you’re scamming everyone else.

I never said that Okamoto wrote the paper, I said he was referenced in the paper, which he was.

But people are so insanely emotional over the (very plausible) possibility that Satoshi was working for the US government when he/she/they made Bitcoin that they are unable to read simple English.

Of course, after that falsehood about the OP (all one has to do is actually read the OP to see it's a falsehood for chrissakes),

And now, thereby, you are lying about what you said in OP.  You use the strategy of counterattack with false airs of authority, to manipulate others’ emotions.  You speak a falsehood, to accuse me of falsehood.  But indeed, your OP is there for everyone to read—if anyone other than me will actually read it—and there are multiple archives that you can never change:

https://web.archive.org/web/20261025042804/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5597690.0

Today I came across this paper, which was created in 1996 by employees at the NSA including Satoshi Nakamoto Tatsuaki Okamoto:

How To Make A Mint: The Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash

(While I don't think Mr. Okamoto himself was Satoshi, I think it would be a fitting tribute name to give the "author" of Bitcoin a name that recalled his).

legiteum, you clearly claimed in OP, in simple English:

• The paper was “created [] by” persons including Tatsuaki Okamoto.  (False as to fact.  I could write a paper that cites Okamoto, Nakamoto, and Leonhard Euler; it wouldn’t mean that Okamoto, Nakamoto, and Euler “created” my paper, nor that my paper was “by” them.)
• Tatsuaki Okamoto was an employee at NSA.  (False as to fact.  Okamoto is a Japanese citizen who worked for NTT, the Japanese telephone company.)
• The name Satoshi Nakamoto “recalled” Tatsuaki Okamoto.  (That’s more a matter of opinion than fact, but it’s an absurdly foolish opinion.  It shows that to you, any Japanese name looks the same as “Satoshi Nakamoto”—or perhaps any name ending in -moto (hiragana: もと), a common Japanese word and name suffix.^*)

^* This is easy to look up in any Japanese-English dictionary.

Your OP does not claim that Okamoto was “referenced in” the paper.  The word “referenced” doesn’t even appear anywhere in OP.  On its face, in fact, it doesn’t—and moreover, such a claim would be nonsensical in the context, as meaningless as it is trivially true.  The paper has fourteen references, three of which were authored or co-authored by Okamoto; what relevance does any of that have to the paper’s authorship?

I am the only person thus far posting in this thread who can read simple English.  Case in point:

Seriously, do I need to explain this?  Go read the Bitcoin whitepaper (PDF).  Observe that at the top, it says, “Satoshi Nakamoto”, and at the end, under the bibliographic “References”, it cites W. Dai, H. Massias, X.S. Avila, J.-J. Quisquater, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, A. Back, R.C. Merkle, and W. Feller.  Pop quiz:  Who wrote the Bitcoin whitepaper?

I appreciate the offer but I have to politely decline.

A remedial reading lesson would cost you, anyway.  I no longer work for free; hard experience has taught me that it’s a poor policy.

It’s ironic:  I’m currently set to start reading a novel about theft of Bitcoin via social engineering attacks.

“We’re gonna rob them all, and they’ll never know who did it. They won’t even know how it happened.”

When you don’t see what’s right before your eyes, that makes you a juicy mark.  It shows poor judgment, and too much gullibility to be a scamfighter.