Is Bitcoin a false flag?

The importance of ( what I would say is a socialist) system of currency is paramount to all else even if its breaking laws

Interesting thought. So the idea is that maybe this is an attempt from the US government to covertly shake the reins of the banking cartels? That's a doozy.

Its a trial not really a trojan horse.

Actually not targeted directly at Central Banks...more to maintain the USA as currency kings to ward of advances from Russia/China.

Hmm.
>china/russia consistently push for USD to be replaced as the world reserve currency by a basket of currencies including the yuan
>the NSA introduces bitcoin covertly as a way to introduce a new blockchain based world currency, the idea for which seemingly doesnt spawn from them but some rogue cryptographer
>a decade of trial use which shows that blockchain based technology is supposedly impenetrable from the outside
Something along those lines?

I rail against commies in general...but truth be known I think the world governments are experimenting with a kind of new SOCIALIST currency, regardless if they have a capitialist economic structure presently. How these two are reconciled I have no idea. Just take the GOLD vs US dollar race for example, IS THIS what we can expect from two competing IDEOLOGICAL currency systems at "war" thus stagnating the worlds economies. your probably smarter than I am. just some thoughts user

Yep. its not a sinister plot Just big time turmoil over global currency and trade status i spose.I don't buy into Illuminati conspiracies that much. but thats me.

No, you're bringing up some points I hadn't really considered. I do agree that whatever new financial system they put in place will have a socialist bent. I don't know what form that will take but it is no mystery that they will do whatever it takes to ensure consumerism is always cultivated.

I don't believe in the illuminati either. Power structures are hidden in plain sight. Why invent an underground society when the visible one is powerful/wealthy enough to control every major world government?

Have another hottie, just because.

>to maintain the USA as currency kings
But then why is China the leading force in the mining industry and why is Russia pushing for BTC too? just look at RT they often talked about BTC as a good thing, at least till a year ago or so that's when I was following the BTC scene, I don't really know if anything changed now a days, but they sure loved BTC back then. IMHO there's no way anyone could ever centralize BTC unless they can overpower the Chinese mining industry, it's literally impossible. Even if it magically happens in a way or another, people will just switch to the next cryptocurrency the next day and continue their stuff.

tl;dr op is fud.

Yes, I believe this. "Satoshi" is a group of NSA employees.

Not that it changes much.

By mining you mean bitcoin mining right?just to clarify.
god know whats possible with quantum computing in the near future.
p.s Im not an avid bitcoiner just some thoughts on the topic you guys can fill in the blanks maybe

yeah he means bitcoin mining

bitcoin is illegal in russia now

OK now school me here ...where and how do bitcoiners come up with value etc of the currency
because I think its in that area were the future possibilities are in the eyes if the users advocates etc. and probably governments

How long has BTC been traded on the FOREX?

There are tons and tons of coins that have not been found yet. If you know what you are doing, Bitcoin is impossible to track. And it will only get more and more anonymous:

insidebitcoins.com/news/reusable-payment-codes-could-make-blockchain-analysis-companies-obsolete/35899

add in coinjoin + confidential transactions = game over, we have actual internet cash

The powers that be don't like this, they want control, that's why they want to kill Bitcoin, they want to get rid of cash, and Bitcoin is an huge annoyance.

Satoshi was smart enough to create Bitcoin, and smart enough to know that it would be stupid to be public (look what happened to all the Bitcoin precursors like Liberty Reverse

cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-predecessor-liberty-reserve-founder-receives-20-year-prison-sentence

Why would anyone like Craig Wright want to be Satoshi? fame and power, not to mention the very possible scenario of Craig Wrigh being a PSYOPs agent trying to distabilize Bitcoin to then push an agenda that would be pro-node centralizing, like pushing for the Classic fork (how convenient Gavin was convinced this guy was Satoshi...)

Bitcoin is the most important technology ever since the internet, it's gold 2.0, it's almost fucking magic. It's our only way out to financial privacy once the powers that be elimiate cash in the next decade. Whoever Satoshi was gave us a gift in open source form so others could continue developing it. The people still not getting it and remaining in denial deserve a bullet to the brain.

>where and how do bitcoiners come up with value etc of the currency
Have heard of supply and demand? geez. Bitcoin is worth as much as the next person is willing to pay for it, aka the only way to price something.

Good points. From the data on the largest bitcoin exchanges it seems like the majority of bitcoin is traded by China now. Also, the majority of Bitcoin is mined in China. Back in 2013, 80% of bitcoin transactions were handled by MtGox (a japanese company that operated in the US). Now 90% of bitcoin transactions flow through Huobi and OkCoin (both Chinese exchanges). What does this mean? It seems like the US has abandoned bitcoin on a large scale and left it to the Chinese. If we take the theory that the US government had involvement in the creation of bitcoin, why would they abandon it at this point? Maybe it served their purpose of cracking down on the online drug trade and now they have no use for it? Maybe it was a trojan horse for the Chinese so that when the US introduces a blockchain based world reserve currency that China will be more receptive to it? The Central Bank of China is already looking in to blockchain technology as it relates to their own national currency. If blockchain technology has backdoors that allows the US to monitor it (or even worse, infiltrate it), this would be disasterous for China and every other country who adopts the tech. What is the end goal.

Sorry, at this point there seems to be more questions than answers.

On the other hand we could be fucked if governments switch to blockchain currency. Basically no transaction could take place without being recorded -> zero privacy.

>The powers that be don't like this, they want control, that's why they want to kill Bitcoin
This is the part that does not make much sense. If the US wanted to kill bitcoin they could have taken a lot of drastic steps to at least hinder it (which they havent at this point). Even Ben Bernanke who is literally the spokesperson for the banking cartel has said thay cryptos "may hold long term promise" and are "interesting from a technological point of view". Those are not screaming endorsements but they sure are a far cry from the theory that bitcoin is hated by the US. In fact, most political proponents have left bitcoin alone. There is no raging "war on bitcoin". If there was, bitcoin might be in a very different state today. I'm just not too sure that the theory that the US governement and large banks being worried about bitcoin holds much merit. For the most part, the propoganda machine (US media) has been silent, except for a few articles here and there which actually place bitcoin in a good light. When bitcoin showed up on the cover of the economist, you know something funny is going on. Why would they endorse bitcoin, unless it serves their purpose? Thats the real question.

Did you even read what I said.

China found themselves in an ideal scenario to become miners: cheap electricity.
US is not involved (yet) because they are too slow to get it, they still don't take it seriously. It's still tiny (7 billion marketcap) even tho they are starting to get scared about it becoming a thing.

youtube.com/watch?v=fV8ScIImSCo

>this is not specifically about Bitcoin but about encryption, but you can connect the dots and you'll see what's up

They are trying to rebrand bitcoin into "blockchain technology", they don't say bitcoin is awesome, they talk about how blockchain technology is awesome, to try to develop their own closed source, state-controlled version of bitcoin. They also try to connect Bitcoin to deep web criminals all the time.

Even if they tried, they know it's futile, the network will never be killed by authorities. You could ask yourself why bittorrent hasn't been anihilated. They lose tons of millions in unpaid taxes thanks to illegal downloads of movies, games and all of shit. Guess what, because they can't do shit about it, and Bitcoin is even harder to try to stop. The direct attack it's over, they will try with the disinfo agenda (blockchain tech is the next big thing and not Bitcoin)

>US is not involved (yet) because they are too slow to get it
Not entirely. At one point the US was involved much more than they are today. The volume of bitcoin transactions going through the US was at the highest level in the end of 2013 and the US made up for 80% of overall transactions. Now the tides have turned and China makes up for 90% of transactions. Its not that the US is slow to adopt, it is that they are actively retreating from the market.

>scared of it becoming a thing
I still dont see any evidence of that. Ironically, the youtube video you linked was Obama addressing Apple and the controversy with iphone encryption. The title of the video is incredibly misleading.The US wants the ability to hack in to iphones that they suspect are owned by "terrorists". It had nothing to do with bitcoin. It's almost like bitcoin users want the US to fear/hate bitcoin because they think that gives bitcoin more relevancy. Again, bitcoin being featured on the cover of The Economist pretty much destroys the theory that banks fear bitcoin since it is Rothschild owned.

>They are trying to rebrand bitcoin into "blockchain technology",
I think that was the goal all along. Bitcoin was never meant to be a world reserve currency. I believe it was created as a precursor to blockchain technology (which a world currency will eventually spawn from). Blockchain tech could not specifically come from one individual country or other countries would reject adoption of it due to its source and possibility of it being compromised (which it might be anyway). If bitcoin introduces itself as being anti-government then countries that are leery of the US would be less hesitant to use it. If this really was the goal then it was an unprecedented success. China has embraced bitcoin and blockchain tech with open arms. China was the biggest hindrance to the status quo and now the US has a solid ally if they ever want to push for a new blockchain based world currency. China will do anything to not have USD as the world reserve currency anymore. Bitcoin is a tiny piece of a larger puzzle.

WTF?

>still dont see any evidence of that. Ironically, the youtube video you linked was Obama addressing Apple and the controversy with iphone encryption

learn to read

>this is not specifically about Bitcoin but about encryption, but you can connect the dots and you'll see what's up

The parallel can obviously be drawn. If everyone used Bitcoin everyone WOULD be walking around with a swiss account on their pocket, thats a nightmare for governments.

The Economy featured a blockchain article, it's always the same shit. "The technology behind bitcoin.. blablah".

And again, it doesn't matter who is behind or who thinks they can get something out of it. The technology is decentralized and open source, they can't coerce it in any way.

Again, part of the China being a big actor in this is simply luck. They had an excellent situation on their hands to basically get money out of nowhere, because their electricity is cheap as fuck, so who wouldn't mine.

There is an agenda to get rid of physical cash. Once physical cash is removed, people will feel a need for an alternative to keep working under the government radar. Bitcoin is the only way to do this, therefore, Bitcoin is not a friend of the powers that be. Look at what Jamie Dimon and people with actual power has to say about Bitcoin.

> If everyone used Bitcoin everyone WOULD be walking around with a swiss account on their pocket, thats a nightmare for governments.
The whole point of this thread is that if bitcoin was created by the NSA or in tandem with governement agencies then they probably had the foresight to create it with private keys that under ECC they have known backdoors to. It could be the reason that banks and the US in general has mostly embraced blockchain tech and not taken a hard stand against it. Obviously this is all conjecture but it would explain why cryptos have not been banned here and why crypto exchanges have not been shut down. If they were afraid of it you would think at the very least they would try to deter its use? The very fact that the government is NOT treating this as a nightmare scenario leads to believe that there are other factors at play.

>The Economy featured a blockchain article
With bitcoin on the cover. Talking about bitcoin specifically. Why have it on the cover at all if bitcoin is such a threat? Why give it any amount of credibility?

>Again, part of the China being a big actor in this is simply luck.
Not exactly. Chinese are always looking for different ways to move currency out of their economy due to government restrictions. There are about a dozen ways they can do this but bitcoin has proven to be a fairly reliable method. If the Chinese government ever lifted those restrictions, it is a reasonable assumption to believe that the bitcoin economy would shrink overnight. It used to be the online drug trade fueling bitcoins adoption but darkmarkets have taken a huge hit over the last couple years after federal infiltrations, seizures and busts. China might be the only support propping up bitcoins marketcap right now. None of that is at all intereresting, though. The recent development of the Central Bank of China creating a digital currency is much more noteworthy.

>Bitcoin is not a friend of the powers that be
Not too sure about that. If bitcoin was really created by a rogue cryptographer then they seem to be taking a 'wait and see' approach if any action needs to be taken. If bitcoin was created by the US government 1) as a means to spy on money launderers and drug traffickers and/or 2) a prototype for a blockchain based world currency, then it is absolutely accomplishing those goals.

The US media is usually a good indicator of the sentiment of the wealthy elite. I haven't really seen any major slam articles by the media at all. If anything they seem to be putting bitcoin in a good light. Yes, they are pushing for blockchain technology but I think that is just because it serves the end goal of having a pure digital currency run on the blockchain. They don't really need bitcoin to accomplish this at this point but they also havent gone to any lengths to take down bitcoin (either because they see it as a non-threat or because it still serves their purposes somehow).

What this guy said

The kikes in control of the banks have been trying their best to ignore bitcoin and shill blockchain bullshit.

About a year and a half ago they started spamming the blockchain meme to try and distract the goyim from bitcoin

This guy posting the chicks is a fucking contrarian retard.

I can't even be bothered reading what you type

>About a year and a half ago they started spamming the blockchain meme to try and distract the goyim from bitcoin
There really hasnt even been that many mainstream articles on blockchain tech. All the spam is coming from crypto media (i.e. coindesk, cointelegraph, etc.) who regurgitate the news ad nauseum. The bitcoin crowd loves this news because they collectively feel that banks looking in to blockchain tech validates and legitimizes bitcoin. I find it hard to believe that the uses between bank run blockchain tech and bitcoin itself would be at all compatible, but thats just me. Every time that major news outlets post anything blockchain related, they mention bitcoin. I don't see how it detracts from bitcoin at all, rather it pushes it to the limelight. If they really wanted bitcoin to go away they would not mention bitcoin at all and let it fade into obscurity. Again, I am just not to sure with your analysis that banks are trying to crush bitcoin. There are a lot more damaging things that they can do than write glowing articles about the tech and put it on magazine articles and talk favorably about it on bloomberg. I'm not seeing any war on bitcoin at all here.

Fuck. These hot chinky girls are positively distracting.

Again, they can't do shit nothing about it but trying to do damage control, in other words, rebrand Bitcoin as "blockchain tech" and release their own shit. When you try to ban something, you just raise it's popularity, case in point: Russia. The more you scare people away, the more curiosity it creates around it.
They can't do nothing about Bitorrent, they can't do nothing about Bitcoin, it is what it is.

>With bitcoin on the cover. Talking about bitcoin specifically. Why have it on the cover at all if bitcoin is such a threat? Why give it any amount of credibility?

Read point above. It's too late to try to act as if Bitcoin doesn't exist. Talking about blockchain tech without talking Bitcoin would expose them.

>Not exactly.
Yes exactly. Cheap as fuck electricity = free money, so they naturally became mining leaders. If it helps moving capital around, good for them too.
There's a lot of racism around China being a leading Bitcoin force. If they were some northen European country, there wouldn't be so many weird theories around it.
If other countries aren't invested in Bitcoin is because they are too dumb to see the importance of being well positioned yet.

The US is constantly saying Bitcoin is used by deep web pedophiles and terrorists funding ISIS and shit, I've seen it on TV several times, but the view with slowly have to become more netural or even show the positive side, just like the internet was something that weird freaks used at the early stages.

And again, it doesn't even fucking matter, who created it, as long as it's open source. TOR was greated by US army, and now they can't stop it, they can't do shit about it other than some lame tricks and exploits that don't do shit at a core level.

Bitcoin will eventually mutate to schnorr signatures anyway, so all that dumb paranoia about how it uses an algorithm that has ties to the NSA will be over.

Blythe Masters did a fucking cover with Bloomberg magazine, "It's all about the BLOCKCHAIN". Are you fucking kidding me.
You may honestly be too dumb to read between the lines to see war beyond direct attacks. The rabbit hole hole goes way deeper.

>If Satoshi really is one of the top cryptographers in the world with libertarian leanings, why would he knowingly use elliptical curve cryptography to generate private keys when he knows the NSA has had backdoors to ECC in the past?

fun fact! Satoshi used Secp256K1 instead of secp256r1 which was NIST approved and we late come to find out, thanks to Eddie Snow,that it was owned and had a back-door. So.. Satoshi was smart enough not to use the NIST one... explain that. you can't1

Why would they need to ban it or rebrand it if they created it? Obviously it serves some purpose to them. Even if bitcoin is a threat (which I don't believe, since I think that it is a trojan horse), there would absolutely no reason to spin a positive light on it in major news outlets. I don't agree with you that all of the reporting is just on blockchain tech. They report favorably on bitcoin as well. If they were trying to kill bitcoin, wouldn't the best course of action be to let it fade into obscurity and not bring it to the public eye so often?

>importance of being well positioned yet
Positioned for what? China already controls the majority of the mining and the the majority of the transaction volume. The rest of the world has let them have bitcoin. I would tend to agree with you if we have seen some major increase in transaction volume from anywhere else, or even a push towards that, but we don't. Even the US, which used to control most bitcoin transactions has lost enormous ground to China and has not tried to reclaim it. If anyone was worried about China completely cornering and dominating the bitcoin market, nobody has shown it.

>bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-11/bitcoin-what-s-in-store-for-2016
>bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-04-22/bitcoin-s-big-boom-when-will-blockchain-go-mainstream
>m.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3zr6k2/marc_faber_mentions_bitcoins_on_bloomberg_as_the/
>bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1366820.0

So much for your theory that bloomberg only writes good articles for blockchain tech and not bitcoin specifically. That is just a few articles (there are more) and that is just one major news outlet. Again, where is this war that you are alluding to? I see 10 bitcoin praise pieces for every 1 that offers even the slightest negative connotations. I really am beginning to think that bitcoin users created this ficticious war because if banks and governments are not really concerned then you probably woudnt like the implications.

>bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-11/bitcoin-what-s-in-store-for-2016

>One cause for that will probably be the lower-than-anticipated pace of consumer bitcoin adoption. Sharp swings in the digital money's value against the dollar and other currencies will continue to turn off users and make bitcoin impractical for everyday purchases.

All articles always tend to end like this.

Dude you are fucking annoying. I alread told you, they would look like retards acting as if Bitcoin doesn't exist, they can't let it fade into obscurity, none of those articles saying Bitcoin is awesome.

Again, nothing of this matters as long as the project is open source, TOR was created by US Army, so fucking what, they can't stop it now. There are no tricks behind the curtain. The only legitimate conspiracy theory is the Bitcoin hardfork one, where they try to take control of Bitcoin via a hardfork to kick the current dev team (example, Bitcoin XT which had anti-privacy code, Bitcoin Classic is a less agressive one but is anti node decentralization added to the Gavin-Wright conspiracy as well)

Other than that, no, Bitcon will save your ass once they remove physical cash, so start learning how it works now and be thankful you even know it exists. You can either do this, or keep fabricating arguments into your head to justify your fear to buy in and get involved.

Fuck bitchcoin buy ethereum

>All articles always tend to end like this.
You mean realistic? It can't always be flowers and rainbows in my opinion. If merchant adoption is faltering then they are going to report on that. I am going to give you 2 scenarios and tell me which makes more sense.

Scenario 1:
>Banks and the US government are not worried about bitcoin (for whatever reason, let's not even assume they created it for a second)
>the media and press that the banks own ask them permission on what articles they can publish
>the powers that be respond something along the lines of "print whatever you want. make sure you mention blockchain technology a lot because we have plans for that"
>when banks say they have plans for blockchain tech they really do have plans for blockchain tech and are not throwing shade
>major media sources mostly post glowing reviews on bitcoin and how cool the technology is
>occasionally they mention stuff like how bitcoin is a risky investment and that adoption rates are sputtering
>a few more contraversial news outlets (foxnews, gaurdian) post sensationalist articles about how bitcoin is being used to fund isis
>the economist features a picture of bitcoin on its cover and posts an entire piece on bitcoin and blockchain tech
>for the most part, the majority of bitcoin news is pro-bitcoin

Scenario 2:
>banks are terrified of bitcoin because they think it has a chance of replacing the banking industry
>for an unknown reason they still instruct the major news media outlets to write pro-bitcoin articles and keep it in the public eye
>they are so clueless about the technology or they think crypto users are so dense that they push blockchain tech, thinking people will confuse it for a replacement to bitcoin
>the point of adopting blockchain tech is to confuse everyone, not because they actually are looking to use blockchain tech
>the majority of bitcoin posts are only pro-bitcoin because of some reverse psychology thing they have going on

I'm sorry I am not buying scenario 2 at all. It just doesn't make a shred of sense. If banks were so worried about bitcoin they would not be supporting it so often. Hell, bloomberg even gave away free bitcoin as a promotion. If they are bein disgenuous then that is some next level anti-intelligence campaign. The mainstream media has shilled bitcoin 100 times better than the small bitcoin community ever could have.

None of those articles are "pro-bitcoin".
They are scared of encryption, look at the Obama video. Bitcoin is encrypted money.
Again, I don't care about they are doing, I look at the code and the great job that is being done, the rest are normie distractions. I don't care if Bitcoin never reaches mainstream level of usage, no one uses gold to pay for shit, doesn't mean it isn't valuable.

>The mainstream media has shilled bitcoin 100 times better than the small bitcoin community ever could have.

I agree with this. The only reason that Bitcoin reached the level of hype it did a couple years ago is because of mainstream media picking up on it. At one point my grandma even asked me if I knew what bitcoin was. It doesn't seem like they were trying to kill Bitcoin at all. If they were they had a really funny way of showing it.

There are hundreds of pro-bitcoin articles published by major media outlets if you would care to look for them. They outnumber the slam pieces by a huge percentage. Would you like me to start linking them or are you capable of Googling them yourself?

Would they still be afraid of encryption if the encryption was broken and they had backdoors to the private keys? If that were the case it would explain why they have overwhelmingly embraced bitcoin and brought it to the forefront of public awareness.

They can't break shit you autist
also most of the banking stuff is using sha256 too
If bitcoin ever gets backdoored (impossible anyway) the banking industry would be fucked too.
We can keep smoothly changing algorithm to anything we want anyway.

Difference is that btc keys are public, while banking are not.

QC is said to be able to break btc encryption and steal the buttcoins from wallets. Anyone know how true this is?

>btc keys are public
Do you even know Bitcoin works?
Tons of banks have been victim of inside jobs, with huge loses, over the past 7 years, meanwhile, not a single key has ever been broken in Bitcoin. What does this mean? Well simple, building a bunker around your data doesn't make it more secure when you have to trust some guys which ultimately own access to your money and control the whole thing) will not pull an inside job.
Bitcoin is inmune to this scenario due its decentralized and open source nature. You own the money.

If you control your private keys, no one can access your money. If you are autist tier paranoid that in the future someone will build a quantum computer, then don't even show the public keys to anyone, or do it temporarily.

My private cold storage keys have never seen the internet, are not connected to any device with capibilities to connect to the internet = unhackable.

ECDSA is known to be entirely broken if a sufficiently large quantum computer is created, but it seems that no one is anywhere near doing this, it's sci-fi today. And Bitcoin has some innate protection here because you can't attack ECDSA without knowing someone's public key, and if you don't reuse addresses (as has always been strongly recommended), then there is only ever a very small window of time in which anyone knows and can attack your public key.

QC-resistant crypto can be added to Bitcoin easily with a softfork. AFAIK, the current plan is to use Lamport signatures, probably modified for key reuse and smaller public keys. QC doesn't look like a realistic threat right now, so there's been no rush to complete this. Also, all common QC-resistant crypto produces way larger signatures (several kB), which should probably be avoided as long as safely possible.

To sum it up: Bitcoin remains the safest way to store value in the digital era. It will keep adapting to any problems that may arise, so there will never be a fatal scenario that knocks it out.

Bitcoin addresses aren't purely ECDSA public keys. The address format is a double hash of the public key using two different hash functions: SHA256 and RIPEMD-160. This means that to spend Bitcoins at a given address requires knowing the public key before hand as finding a flaw that effects two separate hash functions to reveal the public key is infeasible, but it gets even harder than that.

If the address is a pay-to-script-hash address then this means that you quite literally need to figure out the redeem conditions to redeem the Bitcoins, meaning that you need to figure out a hash of a hash of an ECDSA public key that produces a particular p2sh hash together with any OP_CODES that might have been used. So why am I saying all this: because theoretically, any unspent Bitcoins in these addresses are quantum computer safe and can also be switched to different algorithms in the future. Not only that: but it's possible to construct a p2sh address that requires multiple factors and signatures to redeem the coins while keeping these measures entirely secret.

In short: Bitcoin's security is very good. If you're interested in the full technical details behind the choices Satoshi made there's quite a good article on this here: bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/satoshis-genius-unexpected-ways-in-which-bitcoin-dodged-some-cryptographic-bullet-1382996984

Didn't read this. A wild Bitcoin expert appears.

Are you Peter Todd in disguise?

The notion that such a bloated and in general inept entity as the government would be able to come up with something as innovative, useful and elegant as bitcoin is in my opinion of no merit. I mean, just in general government programs tend to achieve the opposite of the stated goal. War on drugs? Drugs are everywhere. War on poverty? Killed the middle class and enabled the rise of the single mom. War on terrorism? Europe is kill.

>was a totally anonymous thing created to keep tabs on people

God you're fucking retarded. How is this even Veeky Forums related? Its an open source thing, there's no 'hidden' anything you cretin.

Also

>Why the shroud of mystery around Satoshi?

Gee I dunno, maybe if you've made this groundbreaking new tech that will help a lot of people, potentially destabilize economies and piss off a lot of governments you may want to remain anonymous. Ever heard of silent pride? If governments ever knew who this guy was he'd disappear off the face of the earth after they extract some information out of him.

I see where the confusion lies on your end. There is actually 2 levels of encryption for bitcoin. First there is Sha-2 which was developed by the NSA and most of the government/businesses use this to encrypt sensitive data. Then there is another level of encryption used to create the random number generation for public and private keys. This is not Sha-2 but ECC (elliptical curve cryptography). The NSA has had known back doors to ECC in the past, in fact they paid the NIST (an agency which determines the standards for safe use cryptogrpahy) $10 million dollars to knowingly push ECC that had known backdoors as standard use. They have a high motivation for businesses/governments to use cryptography that they have already broken because it allows them to spy and infiltrate on any unsecure technology in the world. This is not the first time the NSA has tried to undermine security standards across the globe. The problem with this is that if they do have a backdoor to the ECC which bitcoin uses (entirely plausible), this means they have access to every single public and private key.

>The notion that such a bloated and in general inept entity as the government would be able to come up with something as innovative, useful and elegant as bitcoin is in my opinion of no merit.
Why? The NSA created every modern day cryptographic standard that exists. Thats like saying that the NSA was the first ones to design a car, create all the pieces for it, explain how it would be assembled and then are too inept to actually assemble it, needing some random student of their work to do it for them. There are NSA whitepapers out there that show they have been designing an anonymous form of money since the 90s. They developed both Sha-2 and ECC which are the main components for bitcoin. You can say there is a possibility that someone may have beat them to actually creating anonymous money (unlikely) but to go further and say they were too inept to do so? No. Every single top cryptographer in the world has been recruited by intelligence agencies throughout their careers and has performed at least some government work since the NSA has always been on the cutting edge of the field. The NIST has blatantly said they are not qualified to test and qualify cryptographic standards coming out of the NSA because they have nowhere near the same expertise.

>If governments ever knew who this guy was he'd disappear off the face of the earth after they extract some information out of him.
Tinfoil. If there ever was a single rogue individual capable of creating bitcoin, I think the NSA would be looking to recruit him more than anything.

See

All of your points have already been addressed, I don't know what you are trying to do in this thread other than spam asian chicks at this point.

>backdoor

Already addressed and everything is under control. Its reasonable to worry about ECC since there are techniques for DLP solving which have scalability more like modern factoring but which (currently) only apply to supersingular curves. If someone figures out how to apply them to ordinary curves, i.e by solving a related problem on extension fields, we'd need to use ECC with more RSA like key sizes to obtain comparable security.

Fortunately none of this is fundamental to Bitcoin. Bitcoin could add another checksig operator very quickly if there apeared to be an urgent need... and addresses which are not reused only have their public keys exposed to a hypothetical ECC cracker for a brief time between a spend announcement and confirmation. There is no fatal scenario, Bitcoin will survive and adapt.
But again, 7+years and not a single sign of anything of this nature being anything more than paranoia.

>why is Satoshi anonymous
Again, I pointed at how the creator of Liberty Reserve is in jail:

cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-predecessor-liberty-reserve-founder-receives-20-year-prison-sentence

If I was Satoshi, I would be anonymous for life too, yet you would be here making theories about me all day.

Sure, you fucking idiot. Just like the people behind TrueCrypt. The NSA doesn't need to recruit anyone. They want to shut everything else down. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>Fortunately none of this is fundamental to Bitcoin. Bitcoin could add another checksig operator very quickly if there apeared to be an urgent need... and addresses which are not reused only have their public keys exposed to a hypothetical ECC cracker for a brief time between a spend announcement and confirmation
Bitcoin could bolster the strength of its security and close the vulnerabilities with ECC, yes. My guess is that it will never happen though because the key players are acting in tandem with "Satoshi". If one of the very purposes of Bitcoin is to act as a false flag to monitor and track money launderers and drug traffickers, the core bitcoin devs are likely serving those aims in some capacity and are there to ensure that the NSA maintains total control at all times.

>But again, 7+years and not a single sign of anything of this nature being anything more than paranoia.
If they have the ability to trace every transaction, why would they willingly let on that they have that capability? Plus, is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?

>creator of Liberty Reserve is in jail
I dismissed this because it really is kind of silly isn't it? This guy was convicted for money laundering a huge amount of money in which he pled guilty to. It wasnt like he was an innocent. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Satoshi was not trying to launder money. This is a really bad example and I really can't even understand what point you are trying to make.

Truecrypt failed to to internal legal problems. In all likelihood the FBI was able to decrypt the seized files in the Glenn case because of a backdoor. There was no evidence that Glenn divulged the password in his plea-bargain. Yet another instance of government agencies magically being able to decrypt supposedly "unbreakable" cryptography.

>due to

>Bitcoin could bolster the strength of its security and close the vulnerabilities with ECC, yes. My guess is that it will never happen though because the key players are acting in tandem with "Satoshi". If one of the very purposes of Bitcoin is to act as a false flag to monitor and track money launderers and drug traffickers, the core bitcoin devs are likely serving those aims in some capacity and are there to ensure that the NSA maintains total control at all times.

Tinfoil and retarded. As soon as a backdoor event happens, it would be known all across the globe in seconds, Core devs would fix it inmediately as described in other posts. If they don't, they would get expossed for not making the appropiate changes and a hard fork would ensue.
No one is getting caugh due Bitcoins getting tracked, everyone that gets caugh in the deep web doing illegal shit, gets caugh because they do some stupid PSYOPs mistake, they do some stupid TOR related mistake.. it's always the same shit. No one ever got caugh due Bitcoins getting tracked in an odd way that wouldn't have an explaination and you would think a backdoor is a reasonable one.

extremetech.com/computing/168139-fbi-unable-to-seize-600000-bitcoins-from-silk-road-operator

If they have a backdoor, I guess they don't care about all those millions.
Get real, they can't do shit and are struggling to crack iPhones. Have fun with cracking Bitcoin.

>I dismissed this because it really is kind of silly isn't it?

It's as silly as Core devs (which are hundreds of people contributing) making an open source project to control people's money, all bribed the FBI to not disclose a backdoor. Get real.

>Satoshi
Satoshi has millions of dollars of untaxed money.
Again, if I was Satoshi, I would be anonymous too, and you would still be here shitposting about me.

Everything you are talking about has already been addressed and you are not bringing anything of value so im done with this thread.

>As soon as a backdoor event happens, it would be known all across the globe in seconds
This is where you are mistaken and why every statement after it is tainted by that innacurracy. I'm not sure why you think using a backdoor to access someones private keys would trigger a global event. It would look just as if a user accessed their own wallet. If you want I can pull up some sources where you can research this more thouroughly and gain a better understanding of cryptography? I would be happy to do so.

>If they have a backdoor, I guess they don't care about all those millions.
Don't believe everything you hear in the media.

>It's as silly as Core devs (which are hundreds of people contributing) making an open source project to control people's money, all bribed the FBI to not disclose a backdoor.
A couple of the lead core devs might know something, or they might be just following the guidance of "Satoshi". I am not sure why you think the FBI would need to be bribed though. That logic is confusing me. First, it wouldnt be the FBI that has the backdoor, it would be the NSA and there is no gaurantee there is cooperation between the agencies on this. Second, the NSA is obviously not against bribery or coercion since there was the slip with the NIST.

>Satoshi has millions of dollars of untaxed money
He didn't in the beginning. He had a few bucks worth. There was really no reason for that level of secrecy at that point.

>Don't believe everything you hear in the media.
You don't need to believe the media, you can publicly look in the blockchain for movements on those coins, same goes for the millions of dollars known to be owned by satoshi and so on. They are there after years, the funds never moved, because they can't do shit nothing about it.
Jesus you are fucking retarded, kys.

NSA leaked papers by Edward Snowden show their frustration at trying to crack TOR and you could say they created it (DARPA)

Anyway, this guy is literally:
>what you say is tinfoil and silly
>what I say isn't tinfol and silly
Don't bother replying to a troll.

You totally missed my point. When I said "don't believe everything you hear in the media", I meant exactly that. You jumped the gun on me and ended up with a strawman. There are many alternative explanations. It is interesting that the FBI reported to the media that they could not seize control of that particular bitcoin stash. What would they gain from making that public? One possible theory is that if bitcoin is a false flag they didn't want to give away their position so early in the game, if ever. I dont think they need the money or they would have began to liquidate "satoshi"s stash. A more simple explanation is that the FBI wasnt given the go ahead by the NSA.

Now we are getting in to highly speculative territory, though. We should probably stick to the more concrete facts like Sha-2 being created by the NSA, elliptical curve cryptography having known backdoors that the NSA has exploited in the past then bribing the NIST, the veil of secrecy around who satoshi is, and the massive busts and honeypots set up through the online drugtrade using darkmarkets, tor, and coin mixers that are supposed to be secure.

>kys
I know you are upset. I'm not sure why but please lets keep this discussion on topic.

Opps forgot the pic. Defintely related.

Satoshi Nakamoto is the pseudonym of Nick Szabo, hungarian academic. Who invented bitcoin with the help of hal finney and wei dai.
All your theories are dust and hot air.

Nick Szabo also helped to write the ethereum white paper.

The most regurgitated theory is not always the right one. Nick Szabo would never have called it e-cash considering his involvement with David Chaum. You would have to understand the cypherphunk movement of the 80's to fully grasp this, though. I can't personally pinpoint who Satoshi is but I can rule out Nick Szabo for 100 different reasons. I can compile a list later tonight to remove any doubt if you would like me to?

Please do, and give reasons for your choices!
It would make for interesting reading, also Good thread so far!

>Tinfoil.
Exactly every post you are making.
Indeed, we should stick to the facts, facts being: Edward Snowned leaked documents on NSA's frustration in trying to crack TOR, and failing misserably, having created TOR themselves.

its like Schrodinger's Cat. But with dicks.

He won't

>b-b-but Nick denied it

Lame

L
I
S
K

Is destroying BTC and ETH

I feel like OP got whacked....

He was just a shitposter.

That would require lots of new money flowing into coins and its not

Idk that seems like a ton of effort and research for your average run of the mill shitposter. OP come back this was actually an interesting thread.

If I was satoshi nakamoto id want to remain anonymous too ,since we know what coins belong to him he's unable to use his coins without drawing attention to himself ,even if the government left him alone he would be a massive target for ransom demands.

>massive target for ransom demands
Is this really a thing, though? There are tons of millionaires / billionaires out there and they dont really worry about ransom demands. You guys are acting like he is the richest guy in the world or something. There are basketball players worth more.

>The most regurgitated theory is not always the right one. Nick Szabo would never have called it e-cash considering his involvement with David Chaum. You would have to understand the cypherphunk movement of the 80's to fully grasp this, though. I can't personally pinpoint who Satoshi is but I can rule out Nick Szabo for 100 different reasons. I can compile a list later tonight to remove any doubt if you would like me to?

YES YES !! pleasE !

and guess who wrote that ? Powrful Vitalik B!

Not really, he got BTFO.