Oddbean

Didn't the CIA create Bitcoin? An analysis >>>>> Although I haven't seen any credible evidence of this, let's just assume for a minute that it was, similar to how the NSA created the Tor network. The NSA created the Tor network in order to allow operatives to communicate from unfriendly territories without the possiblity of being traced. But, for it to work, enough people had to actually use Tor so that communications could blend in with the crowd to avoid detection. In order to get people to use it, they had to put it out there in the open. The Tor network is just a piece of open source software that anyone is free to read, analyze, use, fork, copy, and alter. There's no secret sauce. Anyone with the capability of reading computer code can understand the design of the Tor network. One could draw similar parallels to Bitcoin. The CIA could've created Bitcoin in order to allow funding of programs without touching traditional financial systems of unfriendly countries. But, for it to work, enough people would have to actually use Bitcoin so that transactions could blend in with the crowd to avoid detection. But, if that were true, then why would they design Bitcoin to have all transactions be publicly visible in a blockchain? To me it seems like they would've designed it similar to other cryptocurrencies, which obfuscates transaction details on the ledger. In short, how does the CIA benefit from having a publicly viewable immutuable leder of their dirty business? If it were true, why would they design a system that is resistant to censorship? To me it seems like they would've designed it with censorship capabilities, for example with the proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, which would allow the person with the most of the coin to censor transactions at will. In short, how does the CIA benefit from having a tool that their enemies can also use freely? If it were true, why would they design a system that incentivizes decentralization? To me it seems like they would've designed it with centralization in mind, enabling them to leverage that into control over the network. For example, wouldn't they prefer to launch Bitcoin as a business using In-Q-Tel (the venture capital arm of the CIA that invested in Facebook early on)? If a single company "owned" the Bitcoin network, this would enable them to leverage more control over the network and future development. Just like with Tor, Bitcoin is just computer code. It's open source software that anyone in the world is free to read, analyze, use, fork, modify, or do anything they want with it. There is no secret sauce behind Bitcoin. It has been analyzed, studied, and attacked for 15 years by many of the world's top mathemeticians, cryptographers and security researchers. To date, the Bitcoin network has not been broken. It's clear when studying the source code of Bitcoin that it's design goals were decentralization, transparency & censorship resistance. Why would the CIA design Bitcoin with these design goals? There's a quote "A sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic.", known as Clarke's Third Law. The technology behind Bitcoin may appear mysterious and magical to non-technical people, but it is grounded in sound mathematical principles and open-source development. I fully support the motto "Don't trust, verify", and encourage you to perform your own research from first principles. Maybe you do want to go so far as to learn programming to be able to inspect the source code of Bitcoin first hand. But, even if you don't, I would recommend starting with the Bitcoin whitepaper which explains the design of the network. It's only 8 pages long. I've attached the Bitcoin Whitepaper here. I invite you to read it, study it, and join us at our events around the area to come and discuss with others!

I don't think they did (it more likely would have been the NSA), but as with Tor, does it matter? As long as we understand not just what it does, but how it works, the origin of the code isn't important. (Compare this to recommended curves, where we don't know all of the mathematical implications.) As for argument that an agency would have favored centralized control... I'm not convinced, for the same reasons that Tor is decentralized: for practical not philosophical reasons. The same could be said of transparent transactions: sometimes you need to solve a problem first before you can solve it well. Still, the early history doesn't sound like the kind of people that work at agencies, so I don't think it originated in one.

The argument that the CIA might have created Bitcoin isn't entirely implausible when you consider the agency's broader goals, especially its role in protecting U.S. economic interests globally. While the CIA’s public mission is often framed around national security, a significant aspect of that security is economic stability. The CIA was formed in the wake of World War II, shortly after the establishment of the Bretton Woods system and NATO, and the U.S. dollar became the world’s reserve currency. Protecting the strength of the dollar and U.S. economic dominance is intrinsically tied to maintaining geopolitical influence. One of the greatest threats to U.S. economic stability today is not an external foreign power but domestic fiscal irresponsibility—specifically, Congress's unchecked spending and the resulting accumulation of debt. This spiraling debt has led to a weakening dollar, and the fiat system underpinning global economies is increasingly fragile. The creation of Bitcoin, or a similar decentralized currency, could provide a way to gradually transition away from fiat dependence, offering nations and institutions an off-ramp from the debt-laden global central banking system. By facilitating a decentralized system, the CIA could help protect the U.S. from the catastrophic collapse of global fiat currencies while maintaining U.S. economic leadership. While Bitcoin was not explicitly designed with censorship or central control in mind, its transparency, decentralization, and resistance to manipulation might be features rather than bugs from the perspective of U.S. interests. A decentralized currency would provide the U.S. government—or any government—a way to operate outside the constraints of traditional financial systems, as the OP suggests, but its public ledger would also ensure a degree of trust in the system. The fact that Bitcoin has survived so long without being “broken” speaks to its resilience and adaptability—features the CIA or similar entities might have found appealing as a hedge against financial collapse. Furthermore, when we "follow the money," the lack of clear evidence for or against CIA involvement should not dismiss the possibility outright. Historically, many major developments, especially in technology and economics, have had hidden origins or state involvement that only became known later. Given the CIA’s track record of involvement in various covert global operations, it’s not entirely unreasonable to speculate that a think tank or similar body within the agency could have proposed a system like Bitcoin as a solution to the looming fiat crisis. In fact, nearly 100% of the time, the widely accepted narratives about events of major consequence have proven to be incomplete or even false upon deeper investigation. Whether or not the CIA created Bitcoin, the idea that a decentralized, censorship-resistant currency could help stabilize or transition the global economic system is in line with broader U.S. goals of maintaining global financial leadership. Thus, dismissing this possibility entirely seems premature without considering the CIA's role in shaping economic policies for the long-term stability of the U.S. and its allies.

Why does it say p2p electronic cash system in the title? I thought its a custodial NGU hodlhodl never sell laser eyes technology? I am confused. Pura Vida! nostr:note1fa9ypwdwc46c97fg2agldgvat2qfkpy84dfcvnwk723fs692qgrqdduy4w

Why isn't this zapped more? Come on guys. nostr:nevent1qqsy7jjqhxhv2avzly59w50k5xw44qymqjr6k5uxfht09g5cdz4qypspz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7q3q4f26g7dddy6dpltc70da3pg4e5w2p4apzzqjuugnsr2ema6e3y6sxpqqqqqqz4ztpu5

"In short, how does the CIA benefit from having a tool that their enemies can also use freely?" You just gave the example of Tor, which you explained could be used freely. Satoshi Nakamoto literally means central intelligence. I'm not saying that they did it or it's bad if they did, but your argument seems self-defeating.

I'm available for a 1-1 convo. Get in touch with me now via simpleX🔗 https://simplex.chat/contact#/?v=2-7&smp=smp%3A%2F%2FZKe4uxF4Z_aLJJOEsC-Y6hSkXgQS5-oc442JQGkyP8M%3D%40smp17.simplex.im%2FGURI7tP4afExB-87ZpAQViqh3dnT87ia%23%2F%3Fv%3D1-3%26dh%3DMCowBQYDK2VuAyEAT8NmXPElFRftWJE-Y9p4joK98e-kk6dV0tJNN0frDjM%253D%26srv%3Dogtwfxyi3h2h5weftjjpjmxclhb5ugufa5rcyrmg7j4xlch7qsr5nuqd.onionn

It wasn't that long ago that things happened. You are partially correct that the technology was created by professionals often employed by three letter agencies. However, it wasn't done with their permission. The original author at some point feared that bitcoin would be the end of his career, eventually killed himself in the middle of a heavy depression. That coin wasn't encrypted/private simply because he didn't had the knowledge to make it happen. That tech only materialized a few years later with Monero. Eventually the feds found great benefit in promoting that transparent coin, all drug transaction were for a few years really easy to track until the darkweb stopped using bitcoin, they still keep promoting it because it isn't that different to other coins under their control.