On the other hand, the misleading portrayal of events like the Blocksize War and the relentless search for a conspiracy to destroy Bitcoin—both tainted by the biased opinions of individuals defeated by history, like Roger Ver and Gavin Andresen—undermines the solid foundations initially laid with the description of the technology.
Lastly, such a blatant ad hominem accusation, supported by such flimsy evidence, is ridiculous. Just for the sake of creating a sensationalistic product and selling a few more subscriptions, HBO has endangered @Peter Todd : this is unacceptable.
On October 8th, the American production company HBO—owned by Warner Bros. Discovery—released Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery. The documentary, directed by Cullen Hoback and currently available only to the U.S. audience, was immediately shared via P2P file-sharing platforms and can thus be easily found online.
Considering all the elements presented in the hour-and-a-half-long documentary, my personal judgment swings between two feelings:
- Satisfaction for having witnessed a thorough explanation of Bitcoin’s origins, its cultural roots, the reasons behind its creation, and the intrinsic problems of the traditional financial system.
- Frustration over a conspiracy theory—claiming that Bitcoin was sabotaged by U.S. government agents infiltrating the Bitcoin community to prevent it from functioning as a medium of exchange—and a baseless hunt for Satoshi Nakamoto, which is especially dangerous for the man identified: Peter Todd.
The Negative Aspects
The Surreal Conspiracy Around Replace-By-Fee (RBF)
One of the documentary’s central issues is the inclusion of conspiracy theories aimed at explaining Bitcoin’s evolution through external interventions, mainly by government actors, who allegedly tried to manipulate the technology to prevent it from scaling in terms of processed transactions. The goal, it is claimed, was to keep Bitcoin as a store of value and technically render it impossible for it to function as a medium of exchange.
The ultimate reason for this, according to the theory, is that everyday transactions could only occur through intermediaries and, as a result, would be easily controllable by authorities. The U.S. government’s goal, therefore, would have been to negatively influence Bitcoin’s development. This idea is not unrealistic in itself, but this is where things get absurd.
Hoback, spurred on by Roger Ver, resurrects a story about an email allegedly sent to Peter Todd in 2013 by someone named John Dillon. Dillon, claiming to hold a “high-level” role in intelligence, supposedly requested the development of Replace-By-Fee (RBF) for the paltry sum of $500.
RBF is a function that allows an unconfirmed transaction to be replaced with a different version of the transaction that pays a higher fee, with the goal of achieving quicker confirmation. And here, Roger Ver provides the narrative hook: RBF would have driven transaction fees through the roof, making it uneconomical to use Bitcoin for everyday transactions, thereby fulfilling the U.S. government’s objective.
History has shown that this theory was baseless—fees didn’t skyrocket with RBF—but the fact that Todd actually contributed to developing RBF convinced the documentary’s author that this was a credible hypothesis. The theory that Todd collaborated with the government is presented with alarming carelessness, despite a lack of concrete evidence, and Todd, understandably, denies everything. This conspiracy also contains a fundamental inconsistency: why would Satoshi Nakamoto have wanted to collaborate with the government to prevent Bitcoin from becoming digital cash?
The Blocksize War: Misunderstood and Poorly Told
The documentary presents a distorted view of the so-called Blocksize War. The thesis reflects the exact opposite of what actually happened. Again misled by Roger Ver’s words, Hoback hypothesizes that the failed attempt to increase Bitcoin’s block size led to a centralization of the network around the Blockstream team. The truth is the opposite: had the blockspace been increased, the network would have faced inevitable centralization, as the unfortunate fate of Bitcoin Cash demonstrated.
According to the documentary, the outcome of the war even allowed everyday Bitcoin transactions to occur “only through tools provided by Blockstream.” No names are mentioned, although it’s suspected that the reference is to Liquid. What reveals the documentary’s evident bad faith is that there isn’t a single mention of the Lightning Network, which allows low-cost transactions, doesn’t necessarily require intermediaries, and is certainly not controlled by Blockstream.
In general, Hoback gives too much screen time to controversial figures like Roger Ver and Gavin Andresen, whose opinions, while representative of a certain point in Bitcoin’s history, are distorted by the context in which they are presented.
The Baseless Manhunt
The hunt for Peter Todd is perhaps the most problematic aspect of the documentary. The narrative focuses on seemingly irrelevant details, weaving a sensationalist plot to make viewers believe that Todd might be Satoshi Nakamoto. This attempt poses a serious risk to Todd’s personal safety, which should not be underestimated. The narrative, while effective in capturing the attention of an uninformed audience, is highly dangerous.
The “evidence” provided is completely inconsistent. Consider that the most damning proof is a 2010 BitcoinTalk post in response to Satoshi Nakamoto, which Hoback claims was accidentally posted using Todd’s profile. That is, according to the author, Satoshi himself completed his post through a response but mistakenly logged in with his personal profile: Todd’s.
This is a groundless hypothesis and, moreover, not a new revelation. It’s also important to note that Peter Todd’s nickname at the time was “retep,” and no one knew who he was. If it had been Satoshi Nakamoto, he could have easily deleted the post without leaving any unwanted traces.
The Myth of Satoshi’s One Million Bitcoins
The documentary repeatedly claims that Satoshi Nakamoto accumulated one million bitcoins and that a massive sale of these coins could “break the system.” This, too, is a misleading statement, as there is no certainty regarding the exact number of bitcoins Nakamoto possesses, and the idea that the sale of this alleged fortune could destroy Bitcoin is completely unfounded. In fact, it is never explained.
The Positive Aspects
The Roots of Bitcoin
Money Electric does have some merits, particularly in the first part, where it focuses on an accurate explanation of Bitcoin’s origins and the historical context in which it emerged. The documentary effectively recounts how earlier attempts to create digital currencies, like E-Gold, failed and how E-Gold’s founder, Douglas Jackson, was arrested for his activities. The author understands and communicates a key concept: if you build a product that can compete with the U.S. dollar, the government will come after you. Therefore, the decision to remain anonymous makes perfect sense. One is left to wonder: why did you try to reveal Satoshi’s identity?
The description of Bitcoin’s founding values, linked to the cypherpunk movement, is one of the most successful parts. The crypto wars of the 1990s and the battle for the use of cryptography, portrayed as a sort of weapon by the U.S. government, are explained in an accessible way, even to those unfamiliar with the topic, offering valuable historical context for understanding Bitcoin’s birth.
Mining and Energy
Mining is described as a lottery, finally breaking away from the common narrative that portrays it as an activity based on “complex calculations” or “advanced algorithms.” The simplified approach is well-executed and makes one of Bitcoin’s most misunderstood aspects comprehensible to the general public.
Another positive aspect is the documentary’s exploration of the relationship between Bitcoin and energy consumption. Rather than demonizing the energy link, it smartly compares it to the relationship between the dollar and oil, presenting this connection as inevitable for any form of money with intrinsic value. Money, it is specified, must evidently be tied to something that people consider valuable, like an energy source.
Traditional Financial System and CBDCs
The portrayal of the 2008 financial crisis and the parallel with the current fragility of the global monetary system is well done, showing how Bitcoin emerged in response to a failing system. In this sense, the documentary raises a warning about the future use of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which are described as dystopian tools of control, with a particular focus on the Chinese e-yuan, which is literally called a “government-backed shitcoin.”
The author casts doubt on the stability of the U.S. dollar itself, suggesting that even the American currency could face collapses similar to those of hyperinflated currencies. While not a definitive claim, this perspective introduces an important question about the future of the global financial system, undermining the steadfast beliefs of a large portion of the market that sees the dollar as an indestructible fortress.
Cold Judgment
Money Electric is a documentary that, perhaps for the first time, effectively explains several aspects of Bitcoin in a way that is both compelling and easily understandable. The fact that such a product comes from a major production house should be considered a success.
On the other hand, the misleading portrayal of events like the Blocksize War and the relentless search for a conspiracy to destroy Bitcoin—both tainted by the biased opinions of individuals defeated by history, like Roger Ver and Gavin Andresen—undermines the solid foundations initially laid with the description of the technology.
Lastly, such a blatant ad hominem accusation, supported by such flimsy evidence, is unacceptable. Identifying someone as Satoshi Nakamoto is, for the same reasons acknowledged by the author at the beginning of the documentary, extremely dangerous for that individual’s personal safety. How many people, swayed by HBO’s gripping editing, could now believe that Peter Todd is truly Satoshi? And how many of these could be willing to physically attack him for the fortune Bitcoin’s creator supposedly accumulated? Too many hypotheticals to draw a plausible conclusion and to place such a risk on a person.
Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery is a decent product, fatally marred by bad faith.
https://highlighter.com/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx67uaxlruf7hpw4f5mtcxdyrq85fn56em4696s3p7020xa34tnwqyd8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnrv4exxct5wfhhvcfwd4jj7qptf35kw6r5wvkkzmny94fksctydamhxtt0vck56mmwv4uj63tvv43hgunfvvkhs6r4xd58ymv6e0m