A recent appearance by Professor Jiang on the Jack Neel Podcast has fueled fresh controversy over Bitcoin’s origin, following his claim that game theory analysis suggests the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) could be behind the world’s first cryptocurrency. The suggestion quickly spread on social media and drew critical responses from across the digital asset community.
Professor Jiang’s claims and reasoning
Professor Jiang is a Beijing-based academic known for his YouTube channel Predictive History, which has over 2.3 million subscribers and covers topics ranging from geopolitics to advanced technology. He also frequently comments on major shifts in global technology trends.
During the podcast, Jiang challenged the mainstream narrative around Bitcoin’s mysterious creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. He put forward three core questions: which organizations had the technical capability to create Bitcoin, who benefited from its existence, and why its creator has remained anonymous.
Jiang suggested that game theory favors a “deep state” origin, specifically pointing to the CIA, drawing parallels between the development of blockchain and earlier technologies like the internet and GPS, both of which had roots in government research.
He argued that blockchain technology could serve dual purposes. On one hand, it offers global financial freedom; on the other, it might enable extensive financial surveillance and provide infrastructure for covert transactions.
Jiang also contended that secrecy around Bitcoin’s creator is essential to maintain trust, claiming transparency about government involvement would likely undermine confidence in the project.
“When you do game theory analysis, you look at all possibilities, you end up with a deep state, the American deep state. You end up with a CIA,” Jiang argued in the interview.
Community response and critique
Jiang’s remarks prompted immediate reactions from prominent figures within the Bitcoin community, many of whom disputed his technical assertions and the plausibility of his theory.
A key critique targeted his question regarding blockchain’s physical location. Community members explained that Bitcoin’s ledger is not hosted on centralized servers but operates on tens of thousands of independent nodes worldwide, making it resistant to single-point control.
“Bitcoin is ultimately an IQ test and this ‘Professor’ has failed. It’s been 17 years and they still fail to understand the basics. It’s okay to say ‘I don’t know’ sometimes, you know,” a well-known Bitcoin advocate commented in response.
Investor and author Lyn Alden pointed out that debates on Bitcoin’s origin have little relevance to its security and transparency, emphasizing its open-source and decentralized character.
“People with this view don’t truly understand the open source aspect or the proof of work aspect fully. A strong point about Bitcoin is that it literally doesn’t matter who created it. It can be assessed on its own merits since it’s transparent and decentralized,” Alden noted.
Others, like Ansel Lindner, linked such theories to fundamental misunderstandings about decentralized networks and open-source governance. The discussion also highlighted ongoing confusion among those comparing Bitcoin to traditional assets such as gold, or to more centralized digital currencies.
Origins debate remains unresolved
Speculation around Satoshi Nakamoto’s true identity continues to fuel debate more than a decade after Bitcoin’s launch. Recent reports, including one by The New York Times, have suggested Blockstream CEO Adam Back as a possible candidate, though Back has rejected these claims.
To date, no concrete evidence has emerged linking Bitcoin’s creation to the CIA, Pentagon, or other intelligence agencies. Previous investigations conducted by media and blockchain research firms have not substantiated any official involvement.
The episode underscores ongoing fascination with the mystery of Bitcoin’s origin, but the consensus among industry experts remains unchanged: the true identity of its creator is still unknown, and Bitcoin’s decentralized structure has taken on a life of its own.
