Same here.


I'm against conspiracy theories too, and the idea that the two million employees of the US Federal Government all act in lockstep unison based on some complicated analysis of the what the US supposedly stands to gain from a small project is... a conspiracy theory. The fallacy involves believing this collection of employees is a unified hive mind that makes decisions like an individual would--and that individual is also mistaken about Bitcoin's potential impact.

The fallacy also involves the misjudgment that Bitcoin somehow damages the USA, which after 17 years it hasn't done so in the slightest, and now the US president owns a half billion dollars in Bitcoin and it's just another asset traded on our markets. People love this idea that Bitcoin "brings down the traditional financial system" and whatnot, but it simply does no such thing--and there's no way anybody would seriously believe it could. Hence this idea that "the US would never do that" is false on multiple levels.

Neither Satoshi nor anybody else at the time of Bitcoin's creation had any idea what the future would be, and surely most thought it wouldn't amount to anything at all (based on the market price). This fallacy is called The Historian's Fallacy, which is when people look at Bitcoin's $1 trillion market cap and project that backwards assuming that's what Satoshi knew they were creating it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy

There are many theories, and it's not wrong to start exploring things that seem far-fetched, but I don't believe that BTYC was created by the US government. I'm more inclined to think that Satoshi was a group of people, or perhaps I like to think that maybe he was the creator of Apple, but I don't believe it was a government. Even if the government had the best intentions, I don't think so.

It's not worth revealing who Satoshi was; the fact that we don't know who he was is what makes the story even more fascinating.

Um, you don't seem to understand how Bitcoin works. It is not a secret system run by some guy named Satoshi. Finding Satoshi would not de-decentralized Bitcoin. 

Regardless, I think the much simpler explanation is that people are curious...

If the government were involved in this, they surely wouldn’t have left any evidence behind, not even circumstantial traces. Do you really think those organizations don’t know how to cover their tracks?

So, should we now suspect every employee in organizations with a Japanese name of actually being Satoshi?

If I were a guy named Satoshi of Japanese descent who wanted to conceal his true origins, the very last thing I would do is adopt a Japanese pseudonym.

The only connection here is that the names are of Japanese origin. There are about ~120 million such instances worldwide.

Of course, it is easier to carry out any undertaking when you have a group of people on a state salary and access to sponsorship. However, enthusiasts, driven by their ideas and a desire to see them realized, will pour all their own resources (time and money) into bringing their dreams to life, simply because they are far more motivated.

I’m also inclined to think that Satoshi might actually be a group of people (after all, it’s easier to carry out a project as a team) though it’s certainly not impossible for an individual to do it alone.

I don’t see anything implausible about Satoshi maintaining his anonymity. He simply did something quite modest (yet nonetheless valuable): he didn’t go around sharing unnecessary details about himself.

I agree with you here: the government is not a single organism with a collective mind, but rather a collection of disparate structures -and the projects being developed by any one of them are often unknown to the other parts of this supposed "single organism".

But, then again, that still doesn't prove anything.

That’s already a conspiracy theory.

The explanation could be simpler: Satoshi didn’t need the money (for instance, due to a terminal illness), and he might not have had time to use it (because he died). Why is my theory any worse than yours?

The U.S. government can easily print money out of thin air, even without bitcoin. Why would they want to complicate things?

I didn’t see anything that could prove your theory. Your arguments are completely unconvincing.

Satoshi could have had other sources of income, couldn't he? If he managed to pull off the "Bitcoin" project, he surely possessed the skills required to secure a decent standard of living for himself. Also, don't forget that some people, when deeply engrossed in a project, aren't necessarily driven by the desire to make money; for them, the "obsession" with bringing their idea or project to life may be what matters most.

You are overstating the level of hidden involved.

Because at that time, bitcoin was worth nothing.

That, in fact, explains everything quite well.

What’s to stop people from dying after an official farewell? He might have known that his days were numbered, for instance, due to an illness.

I guess I base my theory on an understanding of human nature, life experience, and basic logic. As in, it's simply impossible that somebody would not spend anything if for no other reason than to see if it works.

It's also impossible for me to believe that somebody would just disregard millions--or even billions--of dollars. They could have given it to charity, their family, the EFF, or any number of things.

On the other hand, the US government theory explains that perfectly: that the sats could not be spent lest the action reveal an important state secret.


That is actually my point about it being the US government in particular: no human individual could disregard billions of dollars, only a government could, and this is so much money that it would have to be the US government in particular.


That made him $80 billion? Um... no.


He was still around when Bitcoin was tradable to USD. My point was that any normal person--especially an engineer proud of their work--would at least try it out.

And if he knew his days were numbered we would have made arrangements for the billions of dollars, and, frankly, it's impossible to imagine somebody wouldn't want to at least tell the world who they were after they were gone (and this all assumes he wasn't close to another living soul whom he cared enough about to leave them his money and/or knowledge).

I agree this is all a theory in absence of direct proof, but I have yet to see a theory that doesn't involve believing a lot of very unbelievable things...

You fucking racist troll, idiot, and liar, this paper wasn’t even written by the person with the Japanese name:


It’s not the first time I’ve seen that paper, by the way; the paper is very well-known.  But whether or not others here have seen it before, any literate person who clicks the link can see that you are lying:


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.

Oh, but Tatsuaki Okamoto is a Japanese name like “Satoshi Nakamoto”.  All japs are the same, amirite?  And Okamoto is mentioned and cited in the paper, so Okamoto wrote the paper.

As a rule of thumb, Hanlon’s razor suggests that I should call you merely stupid, not malicious.  However, this is far too blatant and too ridiculous to be adequately explained by only stupidity.  The only plausible explanation is stupidity, plus Alex Jones tier dishonesty.

Therefore, I am giving you red distrust.  This is not mere disagreement of opinion:  You’re a grifter spreading misinformation.  You should not be trusted with money, either.

Your unedited OP is archived.  (Page 2, page 3 shortly before my post.)

P.S., don’t bother making excuses like “a superintelligent AI summarized it for me” or “a dog ate my homework” or whatever.  You are responsible for what you write—and when what you write falls into the category of totally making shit up, no reasonable person will believe your excuses, anyway.

---

---

---

Quote from: Alpha Marine on October 24, 2026, 05:05:41 PM

Thanks.  After I wasted time skimming the first two pages of the thread, you saved me some time writing my post.  You made one-and-a-half of the four major points I wanted to.

Quote from: Alpha Marine on October 24, 2026, 05:05:41 PM

When a person has a conspiracy theory in his head, every argument you want to make against it will be deflected, and you will keep going round and round.

Yup.  Tenfold so when they can weave a bullshit story that just sounds too good for them, as a tall tale to tell others.

Quote from: Alpha Marine on October 24, 2026, 05:05:41 PM

The idea of electronic cash has been in existence for a long time. Bitcoin was not even the first electronic. The idea of eCash and hashcash has been in existence since the 90s. The fact that Bitcoin was the first decentralised, blockchain-based cryptocurrency doesn't mean it is the first time the idea has been published.
So you can't use the fact that an intelligent agency did research on an idea to say they created Bitcoin.

Notwithstanding a few ambiguous technical errors (see below), at least you know some of the context.  Why does no one else in this thread know Bitcoin’s antecedent historical context?

I add (a) Cypherpunks, and (b) academic research.  Satoshi cleverly assembled years and decades of others’ ideas in a new form.

Corrections or clarifications:  Despite the name, Hashcash was not electronic money; it was an antispam system, first proposed by Adam Back on Cypherpunks in 1997.  The blockchain itself was first invented by Satoshi (based on decades of old ideas, such as Hashcash, and such as Merkle trees invented by Ralph Merkle in 1979).

My third major point:  Bitcoin was patently invented by an amateur.  I should write a post about that sometime.  But this thread is not the appropriate place for it.

Suffice it here to note that much of Bitcoin’s design and original implementation are riddled with mistakes, which no cryptographer (let alone a team of NSA cryptographers) would have made.  I am on record as saying that Bitcoin Core is rock-solid—but that’s only because crypto-wizards and A-grade software engineers have devoted years of their lives to cleaning up Satoshi’s mess.  Nonetheless, Bitcoin still bears the imprint of design by one lone, intelligent, passionate, idiosyncratic, slightly paranoid amateur.

My fourth major point is at the start of this post.  Even if no one else here has ever seen the [Law, Sabett, and Solinas 1996] paper, do people check the link to see if it supports what is claimed!?

---

Note:  I started to write this post when I sent merit to Alpha Marine, at 2026-10-25T02:56:28Z.  I see now that some other replies have been made—one mentioning something about the foolishness of latching onto a Japanese name, but somehow not noticing that Okamoto didn’t even contribute to the NSA paper!  WTF, is everyone blind?

This is consistent with Satoshi being an average software worker within the CIA/NSA/DARPA/etc. Just because you work in a US government agency, that doesn't mean you are an expert on... anything. It's also consistent with a small group as well. Again, just because you have a project in one of these agencies doesn't mean your project garners the input of every single expert within the US government, or even anybody else besides yourself for that matter.

As for the rest of your apoplectic post... dude, calm down...  

So do you really think Bitcoin is a side project of government?

Look at Bitcoin, its design shows the creators have deep expertise on economics, cryptography and also how to distribute it well. That form is not actually just like a side project which random employee of government can easily build.

That innovative creation is created by well verse crypherpunk and not just an average random bored dude.

I know perfectly well what i am saying. Ask yourself why is who Satoshi was is such a big deal that some people spent billions on knowing who he was, if it's not for shady purposes?
Satoshi identity not been know is the reason why some people didn't sue him for the features of Bitcoin because some people never like the idea BTC.
An example. Is Tornado cash which some people use to it some ETH years ago, and the person who developed it was prosecuted years ago.