Topic: Was Crypto Started by Western Elites? (Read 694 times)

If his assumptions are assumed to be right, I would give these three answers as well.

- It has not been killed by regulation? Look at ETF. Market manipulation? Oh, just look at how whales these thousands of bitcoin like it was nothing in the last 10 years. If bitcoin is a long term bet, why not bet in stocks where you can actually see your money flow in and out right? It will be the same anyway, since it involves money.

- If central banks secretly own lots of bitcoin, they won't ban it and make sure people are going to use it. Number 1 Reason? Money again. Bitcoin works like stocks but is different in terms of decentralization.

- If western people started crypto, why was the whitepaper creator sounded so Japanese? And come to think of it, the person himself is Japanese, they claimed it according to wikipedia.

This should be related to Wall Street, but not absolute. The rise of cryptocurrencies was created by the global elite. The 2017 cryptocurrency transitioned from elite to financial investors, so bitcoin took off. The next bitcoin takeoff is when cryptocurrency applications become popular.

I'm afraid you're right because this are what happening over the decade but if we look the battle which bitcoin have fought and overcome and how Satoshi mail archive look like we can still the Western Elite might be the the started of crypto currency.

I've always figured they don't desire to kill it because they know they can't. They could facilitate prohibitions and push the price way down, but in the end, they'd probably look impotent. If a government prohibits Bitcoin usage, it also puts them at a potentially great economic disadvantage to other world powers as cryptocurrency businesses flock to friendlier jurisdictions, (bringing growth with them).

If they control the Satoshi coins, they could create a pretty convincing narrative about Satoshi's return (contrasted against Faketoshi's appearance). The appeals to authority would be powerful.

I quite support your view due to my own observations, although stand to be corrected. It is a fact that anything not invented, or liked or supported by the likes of US, Great Britain and France, they all go out to either ridicule or destroy it. This has not happened to Bitcoin despite its ten years of existence.

Western elites favor total centralization. The financial freedoms that people received with the advent of cryptocurrency do not fit into the concept of centralization. Therefore, I am sure that Western elites are not the initiators of the emergence of cryptocurrency.

One could claim that they haven't killed it because it's too late. Bitcoin was able to fly under the radar for all these first initial years in which it was vulnerable, but the elites haven't recognized it or even became aware of it's existence after the network effect was too big to kill it.

If they tried to kill, it could have 2 negatives for the nation states trying to do so:

-They could no longer be able to claim they are "free countries". They would be going full totalitarian on it, hard to defend this for a marketing PoV where you are supposed to be on the land of the free or whatever they like to sell it.
-If they finally tried to kill it, and they failed, they could be seen as impotent and it would only strengthen Bitcoin long term after it recovers.

The theory that SN are the elites and they are custodian of all these coins is also valid, but they would need to move these coins first, which goes against their incentives since there would be a panic sell, so they can't basically move it.

They could keep buying Bitcoin into a large number of addresses when people are selling.  And it seems nowadays they really know how to get people to sell!  The difference between $2/coin and $4000/coin is huge for us, but for central banks they are 'small change' vs 'smaller change!'

I think it’s definitely possible but we’ll never know.

bitcoin is something revolutionary and disruptive to modern economy model. elitist wouldnt make something to kill themselves.

Lol, what are you talking about, and who the heck are Western Elites? First cryptocurrency and most famous is Bitcoin and it was created by Satoshi Nakamoto, and based on my research so far Satoshi is a person,. Well, I have seen some sources refer to Satoshi Nakamoto as a group of people, but whatever.

It provides outlet for us to own personal wealth that can’t be restricted or confiscated by anyone. Waiting for your explanation though, cause I still don’t get what you mean.

As what I have learned, Bitcoin is created by a US citizen named satoshi nakamoto. Eventhough his name is like a Japanese but it is said that he's a citizen from USA and using the name of nakamoto is just used to hide his true identity. Nonetheless, Western elites creates another crypto to rival the creation of Bitcoin and is supported by most of their citizens and all parts of the world.

There is no point on talking about japan or asia just by looking at the name Satoshi Nakamoto. First of all thats not a real name as far as we know, even if it was don't you think we would have figured out who is satoshi nakamoto by just checking all the satoshi nakamotos in the whole world and find which one is more suitable for doing something like this? Don't you think if there was some cryptography professor or something named Satoshi Nakamoto the world wouldn't find out? Hence I think it is a nickname or sorts for the real person and it could be from anywhere.

Of course it could be an asian person that's still possible but not because of the name, because right now that person could be from ANYWHERE in the world (ok I think we can rule out antartica, I am %99 positive it is not from there). Hence when considering who started it, never assume where he is from.

I do not think bitcoin is like any other currency or even commodity we have faced so far in the history of money. It does have one difference between all others like fiat and gold which is having the decentralized human aspect. Fiat is heavily centralized and can be printed whenever federal banks wants to and governments control it by regulating it to even smallest aspects of it.

Gold is a bit decentralized considering no one can actually print more gold (they can mine it like bitcoin if they want) and there has been no known tempering with gold since it is an element and what is gold is gold and can't change anything else into gold. Now with all that in mind gold can't be used to buy stuff that easily, it is really difficult to use it as a payment option, it can be a good investment if you want but can't be changing hands that easily (at least not anymore).

Bitcoin is both like fiat and gold in the sense that you can use it like fiat but it will be decentralized like gold.

I think the crypto is starting from the Chinese people, not the Westerners or the Japanese. Because the number of Chinese entering this market is very high. If Bitcoin is produced in Japan, the people there will occupy more Bitcoins than the data.

I don’t really believe in these conspiracies, unless somehow these bitcoins were stolen.

It is very stupid to simply define the place of birth of Bitcoin by name.In general, I think the creator of Bitcoin is not 1 person but a group of people.And if it is a group of people, it is not the fact that they all sit in the same office).A group of these persons may be people of different nationalities and affiliations and creeds.Perhaps the crypto currency was created not by the state authorities but by some transnational corporations.

There are other form of digital currency exist before the cryptocurrency and bitcoin come, others called them e-currency, cyber-money, virtual currency, digital coin and most of them was developed by the Westerners but it does not intended for the anti-banking system until bitcoin introduced the cryptocurrency where you can have a reward thru cryptographic hash calculation and brute force computational problem. Bitcoin was documented by Satoshi Nakamoto but it does not mean that he made it only by himself rather it is made by a group of radical thinkers on how to evade the banking systems and i believe that the Western Elites initiates this project because eiltes are in favor of banking system as the milking cow of their wealth.

This could be possible that the one who created bitcoins are group of elites of the group of central banks that are participating in cryptocurrency. Even our local exchanges has talking about regulations and the central bank of the country about them joining in cryptocurrency as trading for bitcoins and other cryptocurrency. I had already getting idea from you and this may had a probability that your claim is true.

Does it? If they created Bitcoin, they likely control a very significant chunk of total supply. That would be a game-changer (as I think you pointed out earlier). But if they only started paying attention a few years in, they're not in that kind of position at all, especially considering China's position in mining and speculation since 2013.

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.

I think it has survived because people saw it as a way to make money. But its really hard to see Western Elites being the early adopters. Those who see bright future for bitcoin are not wealthy elite but people who wanted to go away from banking system.


Bitcoin could be taken demand away for gold and silver but I'm sure those have left already and taking the profits with them. That's how those rich become wealthy elites, take advantage of the market and get out before it goes down.


Of course its obvious, but we really don't know, if Central Banks have been stacking Bitcoin since the beginning. We know for sure they're go full Fiat, but this scenario might be scary thought.  

if bitcoin is made by ordinary people, I don't think the existence of bitcoin will get to this stage, it has been 10 years BTC and every year has experienced price increases,
positive, BTC is a project of the global elite with lots of money, which hides their identity with a specific purpose

Well, if they owned Satoshi's coins, then they would surely be the wealthiest people on the planet, if this goes to the Moon.

They surely have enough fiat to manipulate and influence the masses to buy into this and to pump this to the Moon, so I would not discount the probability that some of the wealthiest people in the western world, might be behind this technology.

Nothing is stopping anybody now, to buy bitcoins and to wait until the price skyrockets. So you can join the wealthy elites, if you have some money to buy some coins, whilst it is cheap. 

The biggest change to use of gold and silver was the US dollar and other currencies switching away from any backing.  The last government to do so was the Swiss in 2000

Even now central banks do store gold for current account exchange especially in harsh times and extreme economics.  Gold is always going to be relevant as a backstop, it just used to be used every day either directly or in exchange via notes.   Now common money has link to value at all, only by the word of a private banker who chooses to slowly issue more of that currency.   Generally you can see the value of cash going down in line with the debt of the government, the bank backstops the costs of a budget deficit.


The gold is no threat to central banks, its just the final call in value they might exchange between each other.   At present the world we live in has politics of most countries agreed to swap mostly notes not gold.   Some think this will change like Russia and China have both greatly increased their holdings of gold.  UK sold off most of them and USA has barely any percentage of value left in their gold and most in politics see debt as an asset to the country.  So long as it never has to be repaid that might be true and so far or for 30 years thats been the case

Bitcoin isnt a replacement for gold.   If anything I think Bitcoin relates to FIAT but with a fixed known monetary base and with no individual who can alter that, so its seen as superior possibly for some

Bitcoin was created by Satoshi Nakamoto. I would check out the original Bitcoin whitepaper and wiki to learn more.

Please discuss!

I do not have direct evidence either way, but I have come to the conclusion that, if Bitcoin did not exist, the Western elites would have liked to create it in secret.  My indirect evidence includes:

- Bitcoin has not been killed by a combination of regulation, market manipulation, and propaganda after 10 years.  As turbulent as the price has been, Bitcoin has been an excellent long-term bet.  Whatever assault it has suffered, it always seems to survive.

- Bitcoin has taken demand away from gold and silver, which traditionally are the big threats against central bank money.

- If central banks secretly own lots of Bitcoin (we still don't know who really owns "Satoshi's bitcoins!") they will have the best of both the gold-standard and fiat worlds in the future.  (I will explain this when I have time.)