Chinese Theory Sparks Fresh Debate On Bitcoin Creator

A statement from Beijing revives the debate about the origin of bitcoin. Educator Jiang Xueqin proposes a sensitive hypothesis: the first crypto could be linked to American intelligence agencies. This stance questions both the genesis of the protocol and the interests it might serve. In response to this theory, the crypto ecosystem presents technical arguments, reviving a subject as old as it is controversial.

A controversial hypothesis about the origin of bitcoin

Jiang Xueqin revives the debate by proposing a theory that challenges the traditional narrative around Satoshi Nakamoto. During a podcast, he questions the very foundations of bitcoin, asking three central questions: who had the technical capabilities to create it, who actually benefits from it, and why its creator remained anonymous.

According to him, a game theory analysis reveals an inconsistency between the development effort and the apparent lack of direct financial motivation.

He also mentions the hypothesis of institutional support, citing agencies like the CIA or DARPA. In his reasoning, the protocol’s complexity and its free availability on a global scale do not match the usual logics of an independent developer.

He also indicates that the blockchain could come from environments similar to those that allowed innovations like the Internet or GPS to emerge, while serving purposes related to surveillance or discreet financial activities. According to him, several elements raise questions and challenge the idea of an individual creation :

• The persistent anonymity of bitcoin’s creator ;
• The technical sophistication level of the protocol ;
• Its free dissemination worldwide.

The technical response of the crypto ecosystem

In response to these claims, sector analysts recall fundamental elements of bitcoin’s operation. Contrary to the idea of a centralized infrastructure, the network relies on about 97,000 nodes spread across 164 countries.

Such a distributed architecture prevents any single entity from controlling the system or becoming a point of failure. Critics of Jiang Xueqin emphasize that the focus on physical servers reflects a misunderstanding of decentralized systems. The network’s operation relies on distributed validation, where each participant can independently verify transactions.

This debate fits into a controversy surrounding the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. A recent investigation mentioned by the American press suggested that Adam Back could be the originator of bitcoin, based on writing similarities and his early involvement in cryptography.

The person concerned has publicly rejected this hypothesis, stating he is not the protocol’s creator. He also noted that maintaining anonymity could strengthen trust in the network, whereas a revelation of government involvement might instead hinder adoption.

These exchanges illustrate the persistence of a dual narrative around bitcoin: that of a radically decentralized innovation, and that of a tool potentially linked to state logics. As long as its creator’s identity remains unknown, these theories will continue to fuel the debate, at the risk of influencing public and investor perception regarding the very nature of the protocol.