Another article in the series on “Who Satoshi Nakamoto Is,” this time deepening the intelligence-agency hypothesis through historical and institutional context.
Bitcoin could not have emerged “at just any time.”
2008 was a perfect window — and this is not a metaphor.
The context that is usually overlooked
- The collapse of Lehman Brothers
- Emergency money printing (QE)
- A loss of trust in the banking system
- Panic among elites — not only the masses
It is important to understand: intelligence agencies do not deal only with wars and terrorism.
Financial stability is a component of national security.
It was precisely in 2008–2009 that:
- states first realized that global finance could collapse in a cascading manner;
- it became clear that traditional banking oversight could not cope with new capital flows.
In this context, an experiment with an alternative, observable financial system no longer looks absurd.
A private contractor as the perfect form of camouflage
One of the most underestimated hypotheses is not “Bitcoin = NSA”, but:
Bitcoin = a project by private cryptographers working under an informal government mandate
These are fundamentally different things.
Why this is plausible
- intelligence agencies rarely write code themselves;
- they fund research, grants, and “independent initiatives”;
- legal distance is a key element of plausible deniability.
TOR is illustrative once again:
- formally — an academic project;
- in practice — a funded infrastructure.
Bitcoin fits this model perfectly:
- no direct trace of the state;
- an academic tone;
- an ideological wrapper.
The whitepaper as a politically neutral document — too neutral
The Bitcoin whitepaper is remarkable not only for what it contains, but also for what it omits.
It lacks:
- radical rhetoric;
- anti-state slogans;
- calls to resistance;
- even the word “liberty” is barely used.
The tone of the document is:
- dry;
- engineering-driven;
- apolitical.
For cypherpunks of that era, this was atypical.
Almost all of their texts were ideologically charged.
The Bitcoin whitepaper reads like:
- a technical proposal,
- intended for expert discussion,
- without any attempt to mobilize a movement.
This is the style of a research institute, not an underground manifesto.
Satoshi and the strange absence of “social engineering”
Any revolutionary project usually requires:
- charisma,
- a leader,
- a personality cult.
Satoshi did the opposite:
- did not promote himself;
- did not build a myth while alive;
- did not attempt to control the community.
If the goal was revolution, this was a mistake.
If the goal was a resilient, centerless system, it was a smart move.
For an institutional project:
- the author’s identity is a liability;
- disappearance is protection.
States do not need control — they need predictability
One of the weakest arguments against the intelligence-agency hypothesis sounds like this:
“But Bitcoin isn’t controlled”
This is a false dichotomy.
Historically, states value:
- predictability more than control;
- observability more than prohibition.
Bitcoin:
- cannot be stopped → therefore it can be studied;
- cannot be forged → therefore it can serve as a source of truth;
- cannot be rewritten → therefore it is convenient for legal and analytical purposes.
From this perspective, Bitcoin is not a threat, but a new layer of reality that institutions can adapt to.
Why the intelligence-agency hypothesis is so aggressively denied
An interesting social detail:
this hypothesis is most often rejected not by states, but by crypto enthusiasts.
Why?
Because it:
- strips away romanticism;
- destroys the myth of “pure rebellion”;
- forces the admission that freedom may be a side effect of someone else’s plan.
But the history of technology is ruthless:
- the Internet was created by the military;
- GPS — by the military;
- TOR — by the military;
- cryptography — by the military.
Bitcoin does not stand apart from this lineage.
It simply turned out to be the most philosophically uncomfortable.
A subtle point: the absence of interference is also a signal
Over 15+ years:
- Bitcoin has not been globally banned;
- it has not been attacked at the protocol level;
- it has not been discredited through “exposure of the author.”
For a truly dangerous technology, this is unusual.
States:
- ban what they do not understand;
- use what they do understand.
Bitcoin clearly belongs to the second category.
Transition to the next level
At this stage, the “Bitcoin as an intelligence-agency project” hypothesis no longer looks like conspiracy theory, but rather one of several plausible interpretations, supported by:
- historical analogues;
- institutional logic;
- technical compatibility with reality.
But the main question remains:
If this was an experiment — what was its real objective?
Money? Surveillance? Preparation for central bank digital currencies?
Or a test of societal reaction?
The beginning of the article is here 👉 Who Created Bitcoin?
To be continued in the next article
