If we take the intelligence-agency version seriously, a key question arises:
why launch a system that cannot be shut down with a button?
The answer lies not in control, but in behavior modeling.
States rarely introduce radical changes directly. Instead, they:
- launch external experiments,
- observe reactions,
- record side effects,
- and only then create official counterparts.
Bitcoin fits this role perfectly.
For the first time in history, it made it possible to observe:
- how people relate to money without an issuer;
- how trust forms without an institution;
- how markets behave under fixed issuance;
- how speculative bubbles arise without central banks.
No economic simulator could have produced such data.
Bitcoin did. For free. In real time.
Why CBDCs are not a “response” to Bitcoin, but its logical continuation
A common claim:
“CBDCs are being created to destroy Bitcoin”
But if you look at it soberly, the relationship runs the other way.
CBDCs:
- appeared after Bitcoin proved the technical feasibility of digital money;
- borrow many concepts (programmability, addresses, finality);
- but deliberately abandon anonymity.
If Bitcoin is seen as an experiment, then CBDCs are:
- an institutional version,
- with mistakes taken into account,
- and useful observations preserved.
Bitcoin showed:
- that money can be purely digital;
- that people are willing to store value outside banks;
- that markets accept algorithmic issuance.
CBDCs respond:
- “yes, but under our control.”
Why states did not copy Bitcoin directly
If Bitcoin is so useful, why not simply create a “state Bitcoin”?
Because Bitcoin is valuable precisely as an external object.
It is advantageous for the state if:
- the experiment is independent;
- failures are not associated with authority;
- responsibility rests with “the market.”
Bitcoin fulfills this role:
- it can be studied,
- it can be regulated at the edges,
- but there is no need to be responsible for it.
This is a typical strategy:
first let the system grow on its own, then integrate into it.
Another uncomfortable detail: who Bitcoin does NOT try to protect
If Bitcoin is a tool of radical freedom, it is strange that it:
- does not protect the user by default;
- requires a high level of technical competence;
- punishes mistakes without appeal.
Lose your key — lose everything.
Send it to the wrong address — forever.
This is:
- bad for mass liberation,
- but ideal for natural selection of participants.
The system retains:
- the patient,
- the disciplined,
- the technically competent.
A plus for an experiment.
Questionable for a utopia.
The strongest argument AGAINST the intelligence-agency version
There is one argument that genuinely strikes at this hypothesis.
It goes like this:
If Bitcoin is an intelligence-agency project, why allow alternatives to emerge that:
- fix its weaknesses;
- add privacy;
- make analysis harder?
Monero, Zcash, MimbleWimble — all of these emerged without suppression.
A counter-argument to the counter-argument:
- perhaps Bitcoin was never meant to be perfect;
- perhaps its role was to be first, not best;
- perhaps alternatives only emphasize its analytical value as a “base layer.”
But this is already a fine line.
And here the theory begins to lose its solidity.
Why the truth is likely hybrid
The deeper the analysis, the harder it is to maintain a binary model:
- either “pure cypherpunk,”
- or “pure state commission.”
The history of technology is rarely that simple.
A far more plausible scenario is one in which:
- the ideas emerged in the cypherpunk environment;
- people had experience working on government projects;
- funding, consulting, or research ran in parallel;
- and the final result exceeded the scope of any single intent.
In this sense, Bitcoin may be:
- not a weapon,
- not a revolution,
- but a by-product of intersecting interests.
The final layer: why mystery matters more than the answer
The most paradoxical aspect of this whole story is that:
- Bitcoin works perfectly without knowing its author;
- its mythology strengthens trust;
- uncertainty has become part of the protocol.
If Satoshi were revealed:
- the project would lose universality;
- it would have to be “rewritten” historically.
Mystery is not a bug.
It may be the most successful design feature.
Instead of a conclusion
The question “who created Bitcoin” remains open not because there is no answer,
but because any unambiguous answer oversimplifies reality.
Bitcoin fits too well:
- into cypherpunk culture,
- into the logic of the state,
- and into the history of dual-use technologies.
That is why it is still alive.
And each year, Satoshi’s mystery becomes less important for how the system works, but more important for its legitimacy.
The paradox:
- if Satoshi turned out to be a lone individual, the myth would collapse;
- if it turned out to be a state, trust would suffer;
- if it turned out to be a group, disputes over power would begin.
Uncertainty:
- levels everyone;
- removes the question of authority;
- makes code the sole source of truth.
This is a rare case where the absence of an answer stabilizes the system.
A final thought without a conclusion
Bitcoin can be interpreted as:
- a cypherpunk project,
- an intelligence-agency experiment,
- a random convergence of ideas,
- or a dual-use technology that escaped control.
Each version:
- has arguments FOR,
- has arguments AGAINST,
- and none closes all questions.
And perhaps this is the only form of truth compatible with the very spirit of Bitcoin.
Not a monolith.
Not a conspiracy.
Not a utopia.
But a system too complex to have a single author and too resilient to need his name.
The beginning of the article is here 👉 Who created Bitcoin?
