zlacker

>>wslh+(OP)
I’ve always assumed it was a state actor such as the NSA that invented it. Seems like the obvious step for such an organisation to take, even just for shits and giggles. There was an awful lot of talk about electronic gold and financial/crypto-havens in the 90s (see also Cryptonomicon) so it was brewing for a long time. Plus such an actor is one of the few who could keep quiet about it all this time - it’s part of the job. One would expect that we’d all know who Satoshi was by now, unless Satoshi was a state-sponsored collective effort.

>>gizajo+04
> Seems like the obvious step for such an organisation to take, even just for shits and giggles

I don't understand this. What does the NSA get out of it? Developing it to study cryptography? Why not, but then why release it publicly? The fact that Bitcoin didn't replace fiat currency is something we know now, but recall that it was considered a possibility at the time. In the end, it just cost a lot of people a lot of money. Say what you want about the NSA, I don't think they would create something with a huge downside and no upside for them into the public for shits and giggles.

>>karate+xa
In no particular order:

Pushes entities of interest towards using this new currency as part of sanctions evasion.

Creates downstream effects in tech for expanding the technology. Promising parts can be used to obtain budget for things that are even more off the books.

To this day one of the more prominent use cases of bitcoin/cryptocurrencies has been to turn USD into sanctioned currencies.

>>wyldbe+ui
But hasn't it made it easier to get around sanctions, not harder?