Topic: Was Crypto Started by Western Elites? - page 2. (Read 694 times)

Yes, it was Satoshi Nakamoto started it all with its blockchain technology. However, other people took advantage of the technology. The early developers of the bitcoin were the ones who got rich. Then, bigtime and most influencial people around the world also didn't want to be left behind. Other cryptocurrencies followed developed by people from different parts of the world.

There's a lot of truth to what you say, but we also have to keep in mind, in the roughly 600 years of modern history, how much power central bank money has enjoyed.  Even on the eve of World War I, Britain was still able to get the world to recognize its paper money (GBP) as the world reserve currency, while proclaiming that all this paper money was freely redeemable for gold at the official price of less than 5 GBP per ounce, and owning only 3% of the gold required to redeem all the paper at that price.  (Things in the West have only gone further in this direction since!)

So how have a small no. of elites been able to fool the world for 600 years?  I have some ideas about how their system works, but generally we have to recognize soberly that they know what they're doing.  Perhaps not in their politics or their economics (which have been full of unrest and boom-bust cycles,) but certainly when it comes to the core base of their power -- the money system.

I'm only describing the surface here, and will be happy to go into more detail when time allows...

Of course, we can never be 100% sure, but I think the history of money as controlled by Western elites is full of bold and brilliant moves.  Think of the demonetization of silver in the 1860s to strengthen the British Empire.  Think of the invention of the central bank, or the use of Saudi oil and cheap Chinese labor as the 'new gold to back the dollar' in the 90s and before.  'Out of left field' is probably a requirement for a move this big, with a fundamentally deceptive system.

As far as digital currencies before Bitcoin, the closest thing I know is the failed DigiCash, which had the anonymity feature, but was not at all decentralized or independent of the fiat system.  (It used banks in the back end.)

As I mentioned before, even if Bitcoin can't be killed by the elites, its price would be much lower today, if the elites wanted to kill it.

In the end, it really doesn't matter if Bitcoin was truly created independently.  If it was, the elites likely have understood its benefits, and the rest of the argument goes the same way, anyway.

in my opinion they could have been involved with the beginning of crypto, although it might have been indirect, because for example if they were discovered that the crypto was built by the west then there would have been many people who disagreed because we knew in other parts of the country they still had enough hidden enemies who want to go beyond the western economic level

Gold was valuable because of the people.    The banks only leveraged that into fractional paper reserves with their backing it allowed them to balance spending across a nation which gave them alot of benefit.  The basic idea for gold as an asset of worth to exchange is all about the people though.    Its still held that way in large parts of India and China which matters alot because those are two of the largest nations on earth, about 3 billion people so it counts.

Forget the whole central banking, governments, elites and whatever ideas based off forced control of economies.   The most power influence is the billions not the few, and the many do favour gold as its very easily appraised in value.     I know we are at the opposite ends now, we have the paper complicated holdings of various finance instruments that may or may not work out to pay the value they are supposed to.   We are so far from that plain solid value but I dont think its impossible for us to return to that other extreme where the solid assets are what determines finance and trade not this system of debt.

Some central banks increased their gold in the last decade and most reduced or held flat. Overall the average holding of gold by these national banks is rising, its a big note to keep track of when recognising a trend likely to rise for gold pricing

What you're saying is very true. They have all the incentive in the world, but this is all completely hypothetical. I just think it's really unlikely they would have had the vision and forethought to infiltrate an obscure cypherpunk cryptography mailing list and launch Bitcoin. It would have been such a longshot, out of left field. It's not like Bitcoin was the first peer-to-peer currency. It's just the first one that ever took off.


Do you think it can be killed those ways? Geopolitics precludes outright prohibition and complicates regulation. Manipulation is difficult in globally distributed markets, especially markets that can't be traded with leveraged non-BTC collateral.

Here is a response that might be more specific to the points you raised...


True.  Think of gold: Americans were banned from holding gold from 1934 to the 1970s, and both mainstream economists and media have been negative about gold as an investment and as a (potential) part of the monetary system.

But that was because the Western elites don't have enough gold, and the US defaulted on the gold it owed other governments under the Bretton Woods system.  If the monetary system were to go back to the gold standard today, based on the gold held by Western central banks and the current size of the money base, the gold price would have to be so high (to keep the new gold standard stable) that it would seriously discredit central bank money.  

But the fiat system is fundamentally unstable, so if Bitcoin takes the place of gold, central banks would have the best of both worlds, if they have secretly collected a lot of Bitcoin.  (Now I don't think the new system will be exactly like the gold stanard -- for one thing, there will be multiple hard monies.  For another, the elites won't repeat anything like the old 'gold is money, and dollar is debt' story that got them into so much trouble over the 20th century -- but that's another topic.)

As far as I can see, at least in the US, anyone can open a coinbase account and link it to their bank account and start trading.  If you hold your coins for a year or more, you get the benefit of being taxed at the low long-term rate.  I don't see any serious issue here.

Though banning Bitcoin totally might be unfeasible, such a law would seriously hurt the price.  I don't think tax revenues are an important consideration when the elites are dealing with something that can potentially threaten their entire power base (the control of money,) if we go with the conventional wisdom.


This is the heart of our debate.  I totally understand your point, and we have seen it in action with regard to gold.  But to re-state my point from a different angle, the elites may well have decided that something like a gold standard (but not an exact copy of it) is actually better for their system than fiat money, as it's more stable and less troublesome.

The total control of money in a fiat system comes with the problem of the incentives for members of the elites to create too much money and debt, and thus long-term trouble.  A gold-standard-type system gives the illusion that money is a free market, but really is under central bank control (which was why central banks liked it so much until they ran out of gold.)  This type of system is also in keeping with the general style of the Western elites in all areas, e.g. politics and press freedom.  A lot of the power of the Western elites comes from the perception (if not the reality) that they promote freedom and property rights of all kinds.  They're not afraid of people bad-mouthing them or taking their savings out -- or at least that's the perception they want to cultivate.


It's surely possible to argue that a (de facto) hard-money standard is still something of a win-win for both the elites and the public, compared to fiat money.  We just have to be clear-eyed as to the true nature of any system.

No one can categorically confirm the region where crptocurrency started, but we are sure that base on the level of information technology emanating  from the western world, we can conclude that the western elites  has a major input  in the commencement of crypto

I think most people today don't understand the soft power of  money, ie pretending to be friendly to some non-state-issued, limited-supply, publicly-supported money, and using that money to support the central bankers' money printing.  It was this way with gold and silver standards that accounted for 90% of the central-bank-era of modern history.

You can easily argue that the hard-money-standard is fundamentally better than fiat money, from the elites' point of view (see my posts slightly above.)

I would seriously doubt it. Even though in western countries I don't think that crypto has necessarily been banned in the majority of the states yet, decentralized ones are certainly not something that historically the governments have been very positive about.

However, I do see the argument that bitcoin hasn't been killed yet. I think that in a way, regulation has already tightened a lot since its inception to the point that trading has become extremely difficult, but banning bitcoin imho would be unfeasible anyways as it is difficult to enforce and the government would be losing out on a lot of revenue.

Also, I don't see any incentive for them to create cryptocurrencies, which could potentially take control away from the banks and even central banks. But who cares - as far as I'm concerned, even if they've created it for whatever reason which I think is very unlikely, it's still a decentralized platform that is outside of governments' direct reach.

If they had created Crypto-Currency, they would have created it in a centralized way already, no? Why would they create an issue (decentralization) to be solved by them later? Seems desnecessary work. If Bitcoin has not been killed by regulations, manipulations, and propagandas it is thanks to the enthusiasts who support it and think outside the default system. Maybe the same people who are defeating the old default system members on several countries in the world, choosing new style of governments.

For background information, see my posts:

Dissecting the Parasitocracy

A Brief History of Modern Money

It is true, the Western elites profit greatly from their (often well earned) perception as guardians of free market competition.  But IMO that is their strategy for success (by attracting capital, trust, talent, etc.) rather than a true moral constraint.  When it became advantageous for the US to ban ownership of gold by Americans in 1934 to minimize the degree of devaluing the dollar against gold, it did.  (And not with any discussion!)

Don't forget who built and supported the gold standard: central banks and mainstream economists.  The gold standard was a great source of Western elite power, and arguably a fundamentally stronger support for their system than fiat money.  The only problem is that they don't have much gold left today, after decades of selling to keep its price down (see books like 'The Gold Cartel' and 'Gold Wars' for serious evidence.)


Having tons of coins changes everything.  There's no need to control the network.  Gold and silver standards were stabilized by owning only a small fraction of the gold or silver required to redeem all outstanding paper money.  When you have power as well as just enough 'hard' money, there are games you can play.  This is well documented by the history of finance.

Of the 400 years of  the era of central banks, only the last 45 used fiat money.  (And trust me, fiat monies were tried and failed before 1971!)  These 4 decades also happen to be the most financially unstable, with the possible exception of the Great Depression period.

The elites could easily have concluded that fiat money is more trouble than it's worth.  Of course, they'll never say such a thing openly, before the timing is ripe!

By 'Western elites,' I meant the top officers of Western governments, central banks, and banks that collectively run the world.

There is evidence that this group is a lot more unified than we the public give them credit for.  Just as a small example, consider why the British and American elites were so intent on sending people to die in World War I.  The American people were against the war from the start.   Nobody can tell us what the war was all about today, but the war did bring about the successful transfer of the global money bubble from British to American custody, while taking Germany decisively out of the running.  (A Germany that was unfriendly to that bubble.)

Dont criminalise a population, its a standard strut to democracy really.   In many countries the people have no real say or its only a vote system for show not any effect but in many western countries its especially poor politics to criminalise a population of users who are not violent or even disruptive to the economy or community.  As said this represents tech development to many even who do not know many details, we arent the big bad wolf anymore in that respect really

1. They haven't banned it like authoritarian countries did because that's exactly the difference between them - western countries follow the rules and don't outlaw things on a whim, at least not before a long discussion.

2. This is nonsense, Bitcoin is bigger threat to central banks than gold.

3. Same as before, even if central banks had tons of coins, it would change nothing, it wouldn't give them control over the network or other advantages, and they still would suffer from their lose of control over the money.

Clearly, cryptography began with the elites of our world. Under the guise of a decentralized currency, Bitcoin, Etherium and other higher currencies were issued to attract the attention of the masses of people and make all digital slaves. This is one of the stages of the globalization of the whole world.

I don't know what "western elites" is and I am pretty sure you mean rich people in european and mainly american countries however I doubt that was the case. The western elites already had all the money they want and the bitcoin project with all these new cryptos are so little compared to what they have is that they wouldn't even care to work on this if that was the case.

I am sure they could have made money in any case and even if they wanted to find a new system that would make money for them it wouldn't be this socialist "money of the people" type thing. It wasn't this big for almost a decade and suddenly it was worth something last year. We can also see who has how much which also begs the question why would they want us to know how much they manipulate. No bitcoin did not started by western elites, I think it was started by people who were sick and tired of the western elites.

I dont know if the western is credited to this.
All i know is cryptocurrency started because of BITCOIN influential.
Then BTC is created by a man named Satoshi Nakamoto.
As the name state, i would think it is started from ASIA.

Yes, Bitcoin was originally produced in the West. But it does not mean that this is a game in the West. In fact, a few years ago the elites of the world entered this field, but many ordinary people did not know. The cryptocurrency is spread from the elite, and it is very difficult for people with no education to understand the uniqueness of the cryptocurrency.