<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"><html lang="de" xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /><title></title><style type="text/css">html,body{background-color:#fff;color:#333;line-height:1.4;font-family:sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,Trebuchet MS;}</style></head><body><p> </p>
<div ></div>
<p>Peter Fairbrother schrieb am 29.07.2026 14:12 (GMT +02:00):</p>
<blockquote cite="mid:fe1360ed-9205-480c-a745-2e4d9d853d59@tsto.co.uk">
<pre>On 29/07/2026 08:44, Roland Ionas Bialke wrote:
> Peter Fairbrother schrieb am 27.07.2026 15:15 (GMT +02:00):
> While we all admire CGHQ^H^H^H^H Satoshi's coding style, I sometimes
> wonder whether Bitcoin was a spoiler attack against the development of a
> truly anonymous online currency.
>
> Peter Fairbrother
>
> I would love, if you could explain the last part of your posting.
> What is you theory here? Always I thought SN would be a former
> McDonalds employee, went to Germany to do weird kinky stuff there.
?!
SN remains remarkably successful in remaining anonymous (unlike
Bitcoin). So he is a world-class security guy (or maybe has a team to
help him remain anonymous).
He appears to be a world-class cryptographer, to the extent that maybe
he had a team to help him create Bitcoin.
He appears to be a world-class coder, to the extent that maybe he had a
team to help him write Bitcoin.
He doesn't seem to want to (or to be able to, or to be allowed to)
profit from Bitcoin.
SN is a Londoner.
Speculating about a person like that, an employee of GCHQ ticks all the
boxes.
Aha, you ask, but why would GCHQ want to develop an "anonymous currency"?
On a related note, why did the US Navy develop TOR? And why did NSA
allow them to?
In the TOR case there are public reasons, but I find them unconvincing.
In the Bitcoin case, if GCHQ did develop it, we can only speculate as to
why.
As a spoiler attack, or for encouraging the widespread deployment of
something (only) they can break, or even only just having some control -
maybe.
Peter Fairbrother
Zeroth law - It's all about control
(initially suggested by SN, as it happens)
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
<a href="https://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography">https://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Sir,<br><br>first, sorry for not quoting you the right way. It is difficult for me to use mailing lists + I have to learn the etiquette of mailing lists! <br><br>I was not talking about McDonalds by accident. There are very few and shallow sources about companies - like McDonalds (the hamburger seller) - which tried to implement blockchain-a-like technology before Satoshi Nakamoto. I know a lot about the topic is speculation, but yes: I see the adventages for intelligence to "sell" a non-anonymous technology/currency sold as anonymous.<br><br>The look on GCHQ is new for me - So I am glad you explained it a little bit + dropped the name! <br><br>What I watched in the years around 2009/10 was, that some persons(?) tried to push BTC on grassroot activity webpages - like Indymedia. But I guess it was the same with other interesting technology like Truecrypt, GnuGPG and Discord.<br><br>Next to break or control technology, I guess, another reason is to disguise the own activity. I think Tor and I2P is not so great and secure with just a few users. And there is the old doxxing trick: Is your adress public against your will, just publish a thousend fake adresses.<br><br>My opinion is, SN was not that good in economics. But with a big interest in these thinks and some compagnons - and a talent to activate and delegate. <br><br>Okay, the final back-to-topic question would be: Is it possible to make BTC and blockcain technology anonymous?<br><br><br>.</p></body></html>