Seems like a nothing burger. There's lots of prior art to Bitcoin - why should we scrutinize this paper in particular (as opposed to say, the work of Finney or Szabo)? The article gestures at a Japanese researcher being involved but that is a huge stretch. It also implies RSA "leaked" from GCHQ but I've never heard it suggested that that was a "leak" rather than an independent discovery (something that happens all the time in science[1], calculus being a popular example).

Whereas the suggestion that say, Robert T. Morris writing one of the first worms at a time when buffer overflows weren't widely understood was related to his father's position as a chief scientist at NSA - that has some legs to it, as far as "leaks" from NSA are concerned. (I neither believe nor disbelieve this, it's just as believable to me that he learned it from hacker lore or even independently discovered it. Afaict he's never given an interview about it [other than to law enforcement and Cornell staff], unfortunately. If you're reading this RTM or someone who knows RTM, please consider giving an interview or oral history on this incredibly historic topic. I think 'rtm is actually RTM but they haven't commented in a decade. And I can't be the first person to ask this of them, they must have their reasons.).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries

I dont support this theory.

I do, however, think that BTC is a useful construct for intelligence agencies. Esp. in the time where people thought it was anonymous and untraceable, and thus, used for illicit purchases and transfers.

There are limits to how much a tumbler can help you if you have just gotten. ransomware payment of a few million USD.

The eventual centralized giant crypto trading, buying selling sites make it even better for intelligence agencies.

Who could operate large minting farms and tumblers and sites for sell, buy, trade etc.

Personally think there’s a lot of weight behind the notion it was Paul LeRoux

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux

See https://archive.ph/MTbIT

> No. But the theory is spreading online

Great so the economist is telling us with certainty something about the origin of Bitcoin.

This seems to be a disingenuous, agenda-riddled article. Declaring a conclusion up front with certainty, on a topic still not well understood, is anti-intellectual and has no business on hn.

It's an open secret that based on many crypto experts and the ones who knew Hal Finney personally that he's the original author or one of the original authors of Bitcoin [1],[2],[3]. Apparently coding has certain style and signature, and everyone coding style is different especially C program where freestyle is the norm, in which the original Bitcoin codes was originally written in C. It's also claimed by some experts that the original coding for Bitcoin code released by the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto has Hal's "fingerprint" all over it [3],[4].

[1] Hal Finney and Bitcoin's Earliest Days:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-MBB-26228

[2] Remembering Hal Finney on the 14th Anniversary of the First Bitcoin Transaction:

https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/01/12/remem...

[3] The Developer Who Discovered Bitcoin's Original Codebase, Jim Blasko:

https://hackernoon.com/the-developer-who-discovered-bitcoins...

[4] Uncovering Satoshi Nakamoto? A Look into the Techniques Used to Search for Bitcoins Creator:

https://blockchainindustrygroup.org/uncovering-satoshi-nakam...

Conspiracy theorists appear not that creative