Weaponized Money: Thoughts on the Creation and Control of Bitcoin

Some tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists believe government devised and built bitcoin as weaponized money to enslave the people. They think Big Brother made the technology to subjugate everyone, and that politicians are somehow benefiting from the technology. In an odd twist of logic, these people believe bitcoin represents a state-sponsored tool for control.

Also read: Regulations Roundup: Shenzhen Court Recognizes Bitcoin, Coinbase Lawsuit Dismissed

Bitcoin Was Built by Crypto-Anarchists

Government did not create bitcoin as weaponized money. The opposite is true. Crypto-anarchists constructed bitcoin to undermine and destabilize governments. The exact creator of bitcoin is unknown. The individual’s pseudonym is Satoshi Nakamoto but it could also be a group of people. No one knows.

However, we are intimately acquainted with the people who fleshed out the original blueprint for bitcoin. Cypherpunks like David Chaum, Timothy May, Eric Hughes, and Whitfield Diffie are responsible for declaring the vision for crypto. None of these people cared for governments. They were mainly anarchists who wanted to use dissident tech to uphold freedom, privacy, and anonymity.

In A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto, written in 1993, Eric Hughes said, “We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.”

Hughes continued: “Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can’t get privacy unless we all do, we’re going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don’t much care if you don’t approve of the software we write. We know that software can’t be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can’t be shut down.”

Characteristics of Bitcoin

The characteristics of bitcoin are imbued with the aforesaid cypherpunk features. The fact governments cannot manipulate the circulating supply of bitcoin means they can’t defraud people through arbitrary hyperinflation. The fact bitcoin is peer-to-peer and censorship-resistant implies governments can’t freeze accounts, halt transactions, or steal money. These features attest to the purpose of the tech. Bitcoin’s characteristics are not something governments would purposely build into a currency to control people. Its features are antithetical to control. Why would government make a decentralized currency that does not support its agenda? Governments Could Be Co-Opting Bitcoin However, there is a major caveat. Governments did not build bitcoin or develop its features, but they may be trying to co-opt it. For instance, Bitcoin Core developers have neutered many of bitcoin’s anti-government features. They have striped away bitcoin’s digital signature architecture, and failed to scale the block size of bitcoin, turning it into a milquetoast technology. The Core development team and the company Blockstream initiated this questionable maneuver. Some people believe they are being funded by “globalists” and other big government cronies. One article claimed, “Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group – seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream’s $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group – whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.” Jeff Berwick also commented on this issue in an older Dollar Vigilante article called “Bitcoin War Begins – Bitcoin Cash Rises 50% While Bitcoin Drops $1,000 In 24 Hours,” writing: Who owns Blockstream? Well, one of the main shareholders is insurance giant AXA. CEO and Chairman of both the Bilderberg Group and AXA are the same person, Henri de Castries. Yes, essentially, the person most in control of bitcoin development is the Chairman of Bilderberg; the place that I have gone for the last three years to expose from the outside! And, even one time, briefly, from the inside. I am not making any statements regarding the veracity of the above claims, as they hint at conspiracy themselves. What matters is that bitcoin’s cypherpunk features have been eroded for the purpose of control. Fact: central bankers put money into bitcoin. Then the code began to change, making transaction fees soar and confirmation times slow to a snail’s pace in late 2017. Satoshi’s Vision: Bitcoin Cash to the Rescue I still believe freedom-lovers can win. No one can stop the signal. The genie is out of the bottle and there is now a competing market of alternative coins. People can choose the money they love. This means Fedcoin is just another token in a vast market of currencies, and no one will consciously use coins that are inefficient or engender slavery. The more honest version of bitcoin — bitcoin cash — is now widely available for use. It is Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision. It has expanded block size and super low fees. If cryptocurrency connoisseurs are going to succeed in their mission to thwart government, tools like bitcoin cash are going to be what they use to win. These are the crypto-anarchist tools that the early cypherpunks envisioned. So no. Government certainly did not build bitcoin. But if the community forgets its cypherpunk origins, politicians may subvert the tech and use it against us. Eternal vigilance in this ecosystem is mandatory for the preservation of privacy and freedom. Who do you think created bitcoin? Did the cypherpunks or government build it? Images courtesy of Shutterstock OP-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.