Bitcoin, the world’s first decentralized digital currency, has long been shrouded in mystery, especially regarding the identity of its creator, known only by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Many have tried, and failed, to uncover Nakamoto, offering up theories about who this elusive figure could be.
However, with each attempt to “unmask” Satoshi, we are left with sensationalized speculation rather than cold, hard facts. HBO’s latest documentary, Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery, directed by Cullen Hoback, is no exception, with its speculative narrative reminiscent of the infamous 2014 Newsweek debacle, where another individual was falsely identified as Satoshi, leading to a media circus and personal turmoil for the wrongly accused.
This latest documentary follows the same playbook as countless other attempts to reveal the identity of Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator: lots of intrigue, plenty of theories, but no real proof. From Dorian Nakamoto to Nick Szabo, various individuals have been dragged into the public spotlight under the guise of investigative journalism, only for these claims to fall apart under scrutiny.
This time, the documentary zeroes in on Peter Todd, a well-known Bitcoin Core developer, as the supposed mastermind behind the revolutionary currency. But once you peel back the glossy cinematography and engaging interviews, it becomes clear that the film offers little more than weak conjecture wrapped in a sensational narrative.
What Money Electric relies on is weak connections, confirmation bias, and dramatic storytelling to build a case that, in the end, doesn’t hold water. The film attempts to weave together bits of history, coding critiques, and speculative pseudonym theories into a narrative that might entertain casual viewers, but falls flat for anyone with a deeper understanding of Bitcoin’s origins.
The Peter Todd Theory
At the center of the documentary’s hypothesis is a claim that Peter Todd is actually Satoshi Nakamoto. Hoback’s key piece of evidence? A Bitcoin Talk post by Todd responding to Satoshi during the early days of Bitcoin. Hoback suggests that Todd and Satoshi may actually be the same person, allegedly continuing a conversation under two different pseudonyms.
For those deeply entrenched in the Bitcoin space, this claim is highly speculative at best. Bitcoin has a long history of developers interacting with Satoshi Nakamoto—Todd included—and this interaction hardly raises eyebrows for anyone familiar with the early days of Bitcoin’s development. The documentary’s argument that their writing styles are “similar” is weak. Anyone active in tech forums can tell you that shared ideas and similar technical language do not equate to shared identities. Trying to link these two individuals based on writing style is a significant leap in logic.
Hoback also references Todd’s teenage efforts to work on Hashcash, a precursor to Bitcoin’s proof-of-work system, as though this early involvement automatically makes him a prime suspect. Again, Bitcoin enthusiasts know that many individuals were exploring similar cryptographic technologies at the time—cryptography was a burgeoning field, and numerous developers, including Adam Back and the late Hal Finney, played essential roles in Bitcoin’s creation. To single out Todd based on this is somewhat irresponsible.
The C++ Code Critique
Another point Hoback tries to make is that the Bitcoin protocol’s original code was written in a way that’s not reflective of a “professional” C++ developer. He suggests that Todd, also not a formally trained C++ coder during his teenage years, could have written Bitcoin’s foundational code. This is an oversimplified take on both the technology and the people behind it.
The groundbreaking nature of Bitcoin wasn’t the code itself, but the architecture and the game theory behind its decentralized system. The suggestion that Bitcoin’s code is amateurish, and therefore could have been written by a young Peter Todd, misses the broader brilliance of Satoshi’s design.
Bitcoin’s early contributors, from Hal Finney to Gavin Andresen, all recognized that Satoshi’s genius lay in conceptual innovation rather than pristine coding skills. This is a point that Money Electric completely glosses over in favor of dramatizing the narrative.
The Pseudonym Theory
The documentary floats another tired theory: that Satoshi Nakamoto was a pseudonym deliberately created to lend credibility to Bitcoin, so that people would take it seriously. Hoback implies that Todd, if he were Satoshi, might have used this pseudonym to mask his age and credentials, ensuring that Bitcoin gained the trust of the broader public.
This theory, while interesting in a fictional sense, fails to hold up when you look at the ethos behind Bitcoin. Bitcoin was designed to be decentralized, to be leaderless, and to exist outside the control of any one person. Satoshi’s anonymity was not a marketing ploy—it was a philosophical choice, allowing Bitcoin to thrive without relying on the reputation of any one person. For those who have followed Bitcoin’s journey, this decentralization is the key to its survival. The idea that Bitcoin’s success hinged on Satoshi’s identity being a carefully crafted pseudonym completely disregards the core principles of the technology.
Peter Todd’s Denial
Ahead of its official release, Money Electric faced controversy when clips from the documentary were leaked online. Among the footage, Peter Todd himself wasted no time in responding to the documentary’s claims, taking to Twitter (X) to directly address the speculation. “I’m not Satoshi,” he said, dismissing the idea outright.
I’m not Satoshi.
— Peter Todd (@peterktodd) October 8, 2024
In an email to CoinDesk, Todd also blasted filmmaker Cullen Hoback, accusing him of “grasping at straws.”
“Of course, I’m not Satoshi,” Todd stated . “It’s ironic that a director who is also known for a documentary on QAnon has resorted to QAnon-style, coincidence-based conspiracy thinking here too.”
Andrew Chow, a correspondent for TIME Magazine, shared an email from Todd where the developer was equally dismissive of the documentary’s claims. “I discovered Bitcoin first from reading the whitepaper, as I’ve said publicly many times,” Todd wrote. “As far as I can tell, Cullen didn’t even bother to try to contact any of my classmates or work colleagues at that time to fact-check whether or not I even had spare time to do that.”
Todd, unsurprisingly, denied that he’s Satoshi in an email pic.twitter.com/kAvZ3PUE5u
— Andrew Chow (@andrewrchow) October 9, 2024
The Real Legacy of Bitcoin
For those who understand the philosophy behind Bitcoin, Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery is just another in a long line of shallow investigations that rely more on entertaining conspiracy than on verifiable truth.
What the documentary misses is the bigger picture. Bitcoin’s strength lies in its decentralization. It doesn’t really matter who Satoshi Nakamoto is—or was. What matters is that Bitcoin now operates independently of its creator, upheld by a global network of miners, developers, and users who believe in its potential to reshape the financial world. Peter Todd, like many others, has made significant contributions to Bitcoin’s development, but to suggest he is Satoshi is nothing more than a distraction from the true genius of this revolutionary technology.
As Bitcoin supporters, we should remain focused on what matters: Bitcoin’s resilience, its independence from central authority, and its potential to disrupt traditional financial systems. Documentaries like Money Electric are nothing more than sensationalized attempts to solve a mystery that doesn’t need solving. Satoshi’s identity is irrelevant. What matters is the legacy of the technology they left behind—and that’s a story no documentary has been able to fully capture.
Andrew Asmakov, BitcoinOnly Events