More evidence that Bitcoin was created by the US government

[nullius]

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

A simple question when it is really created by the US government why do they bother with creating something that is against their supremacy when from the beginning they have always been central in any monopoly but with bitcoin it actually makes the pressure on the government will be much greater because the ideology is different, is there also a conspiracy in it 

Or why only the US is the center of this speculation, why not with other countries because even though in the US there are so many organizations that you call and allow to cover satoshi then if other countries cannot do it?
Too much speculation that only refers to personal assumptions will actually make you more confused and it would be better not to look further about satoshi than you get dizzy with other wild theories later.

they know they can handle and they'd still dominate as they can command governments to obey them. the economic war begins when a country disobeys.
they are confident they will dominate especially if that 1M BTC of satoshi belongs to them also. all can be a deception.

So, you buy that [0] USG created Bitcoin, [1] Satoshi has 1 million BTC (note: this was never anything but speculation and guesswork), and therefore, [0] USG has 1 million BTC?

From that, it looks like you understand better than I’d inferred.  If so, perhaps I may apologize for being so sharp with you.  But if so, why [...]

Big “if”.

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

[red4slash]

A simple question when it is really created by the US government why do they bother with creating something that is against their supremacy [...]

I see you didn't read the thread (and asked the same question that has been asked and answered here about 10 times now) .

Oh well, here's the answer (again):

1. The US federal government has over two million people individuals working for it, and Satoshi could have been any one (or more) of them.

2. These federal workers do not operate as a magical "hive mind" who all think the same way you and some other people think.

3. The CIA and NSA are especially notorious for doing things outside of the chain of command.

4. Most people do not think as you do, and don't think that Bitcoin is a threat to the USA. As such, most of the two million workers within the US government don't think that way, statistically speaking.

See?
Although what you said may be true in points 1 and 2 (the number of workers in the US) but it does not show specifically true that Satoshi is a part of it and honestly this kind of speculation is what I avoid because we will only fantasize according to what we think.
For the third point it is always adrift with conspiracy theories but it is also not capable enough to make proof.
For the 4th point this is a bit contradictory because even though now they are a little more friendly towards bitcoin but there is no need to be naive they made this strictly in terms of regulation and this indicates that there is little threat although from the beginning they were wrong in making the decision because they thought bitcoin was not what it is now.

For me things like this are too ridiculous if there is a country that always prioritizes supremacy and the control center makes some things that will interfere with their supremacy and bitcoin is certainly part of that makes their supremacy disturbed.

Or why only the US is the center of this speculation, why not with other countries because even though in the US there are so many organizations that you call and allow to cover satoshi then if other countries cannot do it?

That's a very good question. I agree other countries could have done it, but I think it's uniquely the USA who could ignore $80 billion (as of this writing). Any other country--except perhaps China--couldn't justify not giving this money back to the People just to keep a secret. For the US, it's quite plausible.

This argument even shows the contradiction between what you wrote and the title you made bro.

[pawanjain]

There is lots of circumstantial evidence--although no direct evidence--that "Satoshi" was a person or team working within the US government.

Today I came across this paper, which was created in 1996 by employees at the NSA and included a citation from 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).

My circumstantial evidence of "Satoshi" being a person or team within a US agency is as follows:

1. The US government has thousands of employees who do research and have the time and opportunity to do a project like Bitcoin.

2. Various US government agencies i.e. the NSA, CIA and DARPA, have the expertise to pull off the necessary tradecraft to hide the identity of Satoshi. It's doubtful that a mere amateur individual could pull stay anonymous under such intense scrutiny as Satoshi has undergone.

3. US government employees, especially ones working for spy agencies like the CIA and the NSA, and especially those whom are not field agents are not ideological. Moreover, they don't all operate as part of a coordinated strategic plan. The idea that "the US would never create Bitcoin because it hates Bitcoin" is utterly ignorant. The two million employees of the US government don't operate that way, and the CIA/NSA definitely doesn't operate that way.

4. Satoshi never spent a single sat. This fact is simply impossible to overlook, and there is only one reasonable explanation for it: that he/she/they couldn't spend their Bitcoin--even a dollar's worth to try it out--because to do so would create a massive paperwork shit storm within the US government. Then as Bitcoin got bigger, the problem got bigger. (And only the US government is big enough to ignore $hundreds of billions just to keep a state secret).

I continue to solicit comments that will disprove this theory. So far I have heard nothing even remotely compelling. All I have gotten so far is:

1. Satoshi was just a nice guy who didn't want any money. Besides being against everything we know about human nature going back thousands of years, it also doesn't explain how "some guy" could maintain the tradecraft necessary to keep himself hidden like this.

2. Satoshi died before he could spend anything. This doesn't explain why he didn't spend even a single sat, and doesn't explain why he formally said goodbye before he stopped posting, which goes against the idea that he died suddenly.

Why do you think that the US government created bitcoin ? What was the purpose behind it ?

To answer your questions:Yes, it is still completely possible to get off the grid. It takes time and patience to do so but its not impossible.
There are several hackers even on this date that hack money off the sites and get away without ever getting caught.
Besides that, Satoshis went off the grid more than a decade ago and so it becomes even more harder for someone to catch his presence online from several years ago.

He could have been dead, that is something I can consider too. May be he went off the grid and then someone actually caught him in the real world.
Tried extorting the keys from him but Satoshi didn't let them extort the keys from himself and so they killed him or something.
The possibilities can be endless. One of the possibilities can be as you say too but there's no sure evidence that can prove anything.

[legiteum]

Although what you said may be true in points 1 and 2 (the number of workers in the US) but it does not show specifically true that Satoshi is a part of it [...]

Nobody said that that it did.

You asserted it was IMPOSSIBLE that Satoshi could be a US Federal worker because every individual working there is part of the same hive mind who all think like you do. That's what I was addressing.

Satoshi being a US government worker or team is consistent with the facts--it's not impossible. But I've never asserted here that there's any definitive proof of anything.

Or why only the US is the center of this speculation, why not with other countries because even though in the US there are so many organizations that you call and allow to cover satoshi then if other countries cannot do it?

That's a very good question. I agree other countries could have done it, but I think it's uniquely the USA who could ignore $80 billion (as of this writing). Any other country--except perhaps China--couldn't justify not giving this money back to the People just to keep a secret. For the US, it's quite plausible.

This argument even shows the contradiction between what you wrote and the title you made bro.

How so?

Why do you think that the US government created bitcoin ? What was the purpose behind it ?

One fallacy that keeps coming up here is the idea that every single project within the US government automatically has some higher purpose that is perfectly in line with the "Leader of the USA" who controls everything. That's simply not how the US government (or any democratic government) works.

The purpose could have been, "this will be a fun project, so I think I'll do it"--and it was a guy sitting behind the desk of some US agency.

He could have been dead, that is something I can consider too.

For me, that's the second-most plausible theory of Satoshi. It has some counter-evidence that I've discussed here, but it's plausible.

[Hamza2424]

This could make sense, given that Satoshi was never found by the authorities. Even the most sophisticated hacker can't completely hide his trail from the web. For a person to remain fully anonymous and suddenly disappear, it must mean one thing. That such person works for the government or he's the government himself. Come to think of it, I've always wondered why Bitcoin's "B" insignia resembles the US Dollar ($) sign.

You have a point, I can't disagree with it, but bro, what you are saying, would you also apply it to North Korean hackers? So far, only exchanges that are not in the West have been attacked. Why are exchanges in the US not being attacked by hackers?

But it is also possible they are not behind it, because if they were, then they would have attacked their own exchanges as well just to stop the suspicion, haha. The thing is, governments are not that sophisticated. I am not a hacker, or someone who understands encryption and all that hacking stuff. But I know there are ways for you to hide your identity.

If you are really good, then you won't be caught, and Satoshi was good.

[BlackHatCoiner]

That's a very good question. I agree other countries could have done it, but I think it's uniquely the USA who could ignore $80 billion (as of this writing).

That is contradictory to the other two points you have raised:

2. These federal workers do not operate as a magical "hive mind" who all think the same way you and some other people think.

3. The CIA and NSA are especially notorious for doing things outside of the chain of command.

If the federal worker who wrote Bitcoin did not operate with another group as a "hive mind", then he could surely spend some of the bitcoin, and nobody would notice. You also claim that the CIA is notorious for doing things that are outside the chain of command, therefore at least someone in charge could have had access to $80 billion of cash. I don't understand why you don't think the federal workers wouldn't touch that money, considering they are just people working normal government jobs, as you previously said.

[Richbased]

This could make sense, given that Satoshi was never found by the authorities. Even the most sophisticated hacker can't completely hide his trail from the web. For a person to remain fully anonymous and suddenly disappear, it must mean one thing. That such person works for the government or he's the government himself. Come to think of it, I've always wondered why Bitcoin's "B" insignia resembles the US Dollar ($) sign. The name of Tatsuaki Okamoto you've mentioned, is very similar to "Satoshi Nakamoto".

Nonetheless, I'm afraid the real identity of Bitcoin's creator might never be revealed to the public. Assuming your theory is true. At this point, I've already given up trying to figure out who Satoshi is (or ever was). I'd just keep focusing on Bitcoin's achievements for the greater good. I mean, isn't this what's most important?

It also raises serious concern because I have known the US intelligence unit to be very active in unveiling anonymous people (though it's mostly in scam cases). Maybe it's because Satoshi Nakamoto didn't commit any crime that is why they didn't care about unmasking him to the public. But I still doubt if the US has any hand in Bitcoin because what could be their motive when they themselves do not even have control over it. If they plan to trap everyone's money in Bitcoin, how can they achieve that when the only way to trap investors is to do an extreme liquidation including Satoshi's Bitcoins. Is the amount of Bitcoin that Satoshi and the US have enough to cause a severe panic among investors? Maybe it can, may not. The fiat currency has failed after many years of its existence, if Bitcoin fails us too then it won't be as painful as how the fiats made us feel over the years.

[electronicash]

This could make sense, given that Satoshi was never found by the authorities. Even the most sophisticated hacker can't completely hide his trail from the web. For a person to remain fully anonymous and suddenly disappear, it must mean one thing. That such person works for the government or he's the government himself. Come to think of it, I've always wondered why Bitcoin's "B" insignia resembles the US Dollar ($) sign. The name of Tatsuaki Okamoto you've mentioned, is very similar to "Satoshi Nakamoto".

Nonetheless, I'm afraid the real identity of Bitcoin's creator might never be revealed to the public. Assuming your theory is true. At this point, I've already given up trying to figure out who Satoshi is (or ever was). I'd just keep focusing on Bitcoin's achievements for the greater good. I mean, isn't this what's most important?

It also raises serious concern because I have known the US intelligence unit to be very active in unveiling anonymous people (though it's mostly in scam cases). Maybe it's because Satoshi Nakamoto didn't commit any crime that is why they didn't care about unmasking him to the public. But I still doubt if the US has any hand in Bitcoin because what could be their motive when they themselves do not even have control over it. If they plan to trap everyone's money in Bitcoin, how can they achieve that when the only way to trap investors is to do an extreme liquidation including Satoshi's Bitcoins. Is the amount of Bitcoin that Satoshi and the US have enough to cause a severe panic among investors? Maybe it can, may not. The fiat currency has failed after many years of its existence, if Bitcoin fails us too then it won't be as painful as how the fiats made us feel over the years.

one wouldn't have to defend Bitcoin accused being created by US government if its not them who created it. for all you care who created it, whether  its Satoshi or whoever it is. i thought we only care if its decentralized. it won't hurt you if you just stay silent. and ignore the accusation. who cares.

but seeing people are defending it like their career depends on it. its funny it affects them so much.  if it convinces people or not, its just up to them really.
given the current situation now that governments are choking the market, would you consider BTC decentralized or centralized? point is that whoever created it, didn't mean to keep it entirely decentralized. regulation centralizes it.

[legiteum]

That's a very good question. I agree other countries could have done it, but I think it's uniquely the USA who could ignore $80 billion (as of this writing).

That is contradictory to the other two points you have raised:

2. These federal workers do not operate as a magical "hive mind" who all think the same way you and some other people think.

3. The CIA and NSA are especially notorious for doing things outside of the chain of command.

Cashing in the BTC would set off all of the bureaucratic alarms. In other words, that's exactly how the Satoshi Project would be detected at every level of government. And there's no chance that Satoshi would just take the money since they would fear prosecution.

It's very easy to hide a coding project like Bitcoin. It's impossible to hide money, at least at this level.

If Satoshi was a secret project within the US government, this is exactly how it would operate.

[...] But I still doubt if the US has any hand in Bitcoin because what could be their motive when they themselves do not even have control over it. [...]

Please read the 15 other places in this thread where that myth of the "hive mind" has been dispelled. Satoshi could have just been "some guy" working at the CIA/NSA/DARPA/etc., not the President of the United States.

Most people think Bitcoin is good for the USA, not bad. And there's no way that anybody would have thought the impact of the project would have been what it was when it started, even if you did believe all of these things.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Cashing in the BTC would set off all of the bureaucratic alarms. In other words, that's exactly how the Satoshi Project would be detected at every level of government. And there's no chance that Satoshi would just take the money since they would fear prosecution.

But how would every level of government, whatever that means, be able to tell if Satoshi sold a coin? We don't even know which coins are Satoshi's, I'm just reminding you this, because you probably believe the Patoshi story is completely accurate.

But even if he was a federal worker, and the CIA/NSA had "forced him" to mine on a wallet they all knew, there are several question marks;

• Why didn't the federal worker also mine in secret at his house? Friendly reminder that you could mine 50 BTC every few hours with a junk CPU back then.
• Why didn't anyone get access to those coins? Nobody apart from the intelligence agency or some sub-group would knew it, and nobody could prove these were theirs in the first place. As you said, they are especially notorious for doing things outside of the chain of command.

[legiteum]

Cashing in the BTC would set off all of the bureaucratic alarms. In other words, that's exactly how the Satoshi Project would be detected at every level of government. And there's no chance that Satoshi would just take the money since they would fear prosecution.

But how would every level of government, whatever that means, be able to tell if Satoshi sold a coin? We don't even know which coins are Satoshi's, I'm just reminding you this, because you probably believe the Patoshi story is completely accurate.

But even if he was a federal worker, and the CIA/NSA had "forced him" to mine on a wallet they all knew, there are several question marks;

Money leaves a trail, especially $80 billion.

Why didn't the federal worker also mine in secret at his house? Friendly reminder that you could mine 50 BTC every few hours with a junk CPU back then.

That wouldn't change the fact that the government owns his coins. There's no way a worker would flirt with a prison sentence using some technicality like that. Again, the millisecond there is "real money" involved in the project, all of the rules change.

Why didn't anyone get access to those coins? Nobody apart from the intelligence agency or some sub-group would knew it, and nobody could prove these were theirs in the first place. As you said, they are especially notorious for doing things outside of the chain of command.

Because to spend them would set off all of the alarms. The safest thing to do would be to not tell anybody.

Of course the other possibility here is that the hierarchy does know, and that hierarchy has decided it's not worth divulging a state secret in exchange for spending the current Bitcoin (which, again, would involve them telling Congress all about everything and making the whole thing political).

In any case, the fact that the coins are not spent is strong evidence pointing toward the US government...

[BlackHatCoiner]

Money leaves a trail, especially $80 billion.

You don't have to spend $80 billion. It's very possible you start spending $10 million here and $20 million there, every few months. For people working at "normal government jobs", that's a lot of money, and it wouldn't leave a trail if they practiced privacy techniques. There are hackers who have got away with a lot more.

That wouldn't change the fact that the government owns his coins. There's no way a worker would flirt with a prison sentence using some technicality like that.

Why would the federal worker go to prison for running a Bitcoin miner at his home? There were several other developers running Bitcoin on their laptops back in the day. He could just do the same, that's all I'm saying. (While also mining for the "CIA wallet".)

Because to spend them would set off all of the alarms. The safest thing to do would be to not tell anybody.

Intelligence agencies have engaged in activities that would make this tiny consolidation forgettable in a few weeks. There is just no reason in my head why anyone with access wouldn't move them at some point, there is no property on paper that says those coins were mined by the given entity, so nobody can hold them liable if they are spent. No bureaucracy, no nothing.

[legiteum]

Money leaves a trail, especially $80 billion.

You don't have to spend $80 billion. It's very possible you start spending $10 million here and $20 million there, every few months.

Even that would set off alarms within a government agency.

And on a personal level, too. These are folks who make $80k per year. If they suddenly are driving a Porsche around, they get on security radar for obvious reasons. And these are also people who work in an agency whose job it is to find people who do things like this--and then put them in prison. Almost nobody would risk it.

That wouldn't change the fact that the government owns his coins. There's no way a worker would flirt with a prison sentence using some technicality like that.

Why would the federal worker go to prison for running a Bitcoin miner at his home?

He is profiting from his government-funded research. It's the same reason you can't invent something working for a military contractor and then sell the idea to the Russians in your spare time.

Again, all of this is assuming the "lone wolf theory", which is just one possibility here: that Satoshi was a single worker who nobody else in the government knew about. It's also likely that a whole group within the CIA knows, maybe even the CIA director, and maybe even the president. All of these modes would explain the Satoshi bitcoin not being spent.

And perhaps your own risk tolerance is a lot higher than most, but it's very very rare that somebody would want to risk prison for any reason at all.

[BlackHatCoiner]

And on a personal level, too. These are folks who make $80k per year. If they suddenly are driving a Porsche around, they get on security radar for obvious reasons.

And on a personal level, these are people who live off $80k, and presumably created something that could make them millionaires without even the world realizing who Satoshi is. You're talking about bureaucracy for a non-issue; this would involve bureaucracy if the CIA was publicly known to be the entity that created it.

He is profiting from his government-funded research. It's the same reason you can't invent something working for a military contractor and then sell the idea to the Russians in your spare time.

And something that people do all the time, when the reward outweighs the risk. This person's creation was so successful that we're now talking about an asset that is competing gold. In fact, it's so successful that he can sell a block reward, without even intelligence agencies realize it, because plenty of those early blocks were mined by just miners playing with Bitcoin; in fact, we frequently notice even today some of these blocks getting spent after 16 years of inactivity. It could be his.

Again, all of this is assuming the "lone wolf theory", which is just one possibility here: that Satoshi was a single worker who nobody else in the government knew about. It's also likely that a whole group within the CIA knows, maybe even the CIA director, and maybe even the president. All of these modes would explain the Satoshi bitcoin not being spent.

What matters, whether it was a "lone wolf" or a team, is that someone left a computer running and mined 20 thousand blocks. So someone custodied the bitcoin, and could have access to 1 million tons of gold worth of money today.

What I'm trying to say here is that there is enough level of doubt to believe the CIA theory with 100% certainty. Unless you want to sell a shitcoin service, in which case you want Bitcoin to look bad.  

[legiteum]

And on a personal level, too. These are folks who make $80k per year. If they suddenly are driving a Porsche around, they get on security radar for obvious reasons.

And on a personal level, these are people who live off $80k, and presumably created something that could make them millionaires without even the world realizing who Satoshi is. You're talking about bureaucracy for a non-issue; this would involve bureaucracy if the CIA was publicly known to be the entity that created it.

Again, this gets down to plain old crime: risk prison in exchange for getting a lot of money. Regardless of how "sure" somebody thinks their plan is, they know there's always a possibility they will be hauled away by the police in the middle of the night for the rest of their lives. Most people don't want to live their lives that way--especially people who work for an organization like the CIA or NSA where they know it has huge staffs of experts looking at them 24/7. Almost nobody who works for these places would dare risk it.

On the other hand, if the Satoshi person/team simply created Bitcoin and let the money just sit there, then they aren't in any serious trouble (the worst that could happen is that they'd be fired, and even then... why?).

And of course all of this is moot if there was more than one individual aware of the project, which is pretty likely.

Personally, the lone-wolf sub-theory here is less plausible since, even if a worker is given latitude to do small projects (which many are), this is the kind of thing that would end up in the worker's weekly status report ("created this project called, "Bitcoin" which a few people on the internet have downloaded, we'll see where it goes). It's important to remember that nobody expected Bitcoin to be popular like it is now. Nobody would have thought they were working on something "big" in the first year of its existence at least. Hence I think it's more plausible that the secret got shared among at least a small group of people.

As for upper-level reporting, remember that secrets within the government are need-to-know. Unless somebody specifically asks, and justifies the need for their question to be answered, then nobody else gets to know. It's not like a normal private company where they send out the list of "interesting projects everybody is working on". Combine this with the culture that everybody in an intelligence agency will be part of: they don't ask questions.

There's a very fun Netflix streaming series that captures the banal reality of working for an IC agency within the US government called, "The Recruit":

https://www.netflix.com/title/81396545

This show really illustrates how things really work: nobody wants to know anything about what anybody else is doing, because the more you know, the worse it is for your job.

One thing that's interesting about the "Satoshi question" is that, while there's this intense curiosity among millions of people about the origin, the answer has almost no practical implications. The worst that could happen is that the US government would sell off Satoshi's bitcoin, which would cause a ripple in the price of BTC, but certainly not change anything structural about it.

All that said, while it's plausible that the hierarchy including the President doesn't know the secret, it's also plausible that he does (say if that president were in the crypto business himself and was curious). With that, I'll leave my post this this link :

Donald Trump Once Said The US Could Pay Off Its $37 Trillion Debt Burden With Bitcoin

[Ambatman]

Most people think Bitcoin is good for the USA, not bad. And there's no way that anybody would have thought the impact of the project would have been what it was when it started, even if you did believe all of these things.

Most people believe it would be good for their country if properly implemented
Not just the united state
Why don't you assume is China and they banned it to destroy evidence
Or it was created by Russia.

In any case, the fact that the coins are not spent is strong evidence pointing toward the US government...

TBS your evidence Is like
Since Eagles can fly then apple is definitely a fruit.

On the other hand, if the Satoshi person/team simply created Bitcoin and let the money just sit there, then they aren't in any serious trouble (the worst that could happen is that they'd be fired, and even then... why?).

I believe you too fixated on the Pattoshi pattern
Since there's no evidence satoshi sold a Bitcoin
It's not like Bitcoin is non fungible that any coin mined by satoshi has his name on it.

[legiteum]

Why don't you assume is China and they banned it to destroy evidence
Or it was created by Russia.

I would place China alongside the US as the only other country that would spend this much money just to keep a state secret. But it seems unlikely that Satoshi was Chinese for a bunch of other reasons.

Russia is too small and the $80 billion would make too big of a difference to them.

[Ambatman]

Russia is too small and the $80 billion would make too big of a difference to them.

The US has a huge and growing debt
And they would need Every peice of dollar they would need.

I would place China alongside the US as the only other country that would spend this much money just to keep a state secret. But it seems unlikely that Satoshi was Chinese for a bunch of other reasons.

Even if they did create Bitcoin
They didn't spend much in creating thing.
It's like you believe am average citizen can't pretend they can access billions of dollars.
You can't rule out the fact that satoshi might be dead, lost the keys or simply made enough
And see no reason to complicate his life.

[legiteum]

Russia is too small and the $80 billion would make too big of a difference to them.

The US has a huge and growing debt
And they would need Every peice of dollar they would need.

$80 billion is less than 10% of one year's defense budget. It's less than 0.5% of the US national debt.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Hence I think it's more plausible that the secret got shared among at least a small group of people.

That's even less plausible. There's a saying, "three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead."

The most plausible scenario is that a person realized the difficulty adjustment combines all the work of people like Adam Back and Wei Dai, and wrote the code to make it a reality. Cryptoanarchists were talking about decentralized cryptocurrency long before Satoshi, they simply lacked that one property that could make it work; he could very well just be one of them who figured it out.

Satoshi not spending his coins is not inexplicable at all. He simply chose to keep his anonymity. In fact, I now realize that the Patoshi pattern might be the perfect scapegoat he thought of, so that his real block rewards would be spent without anyone "pointing Satoshi woke up".