HBO’s Satoshi Documentary ‘Money Electric’ Is An Insult to Bitcoin

CAUTION: SPOILERS AHEAD.

Some say we live in the golden age of documentaries – certainly they are being created at a volume far higher than at any point in history, but for every “My Octopus Teacher,” a genuinely inspiring and unusual human story, there’s the opposite: cynical trash like “Money Electric.”

Let’s start by acknowledging that “Money Electric” upped its own stakes, mounting a week-long hype cycle with the promise of a big reveal – that the world would at last know the identity of Bitcoin’s anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto.

Maybe let’s also put aside the historical baggage there. Sure, many journalists have died on this hill, but surely “Money Electric” might have something to add to the conversation? After all, from the trailer, they seemingly spent millions of dollars paying for Samson Mow’s dinners as he evangelized Bitcoin around the world. (It’s always great to subsidize education!)

There were even hints that maybe there would be something inspired here, a still shot showing a progression of cypherpunks, all of whom have interesting stories. Maybe the “big reveal” was just a ruse to keep our attention, and maybe there’d be a series of reveals (none taken too seriously) that added up to a compelling story about what Bitcoin is and could be.

Sadly, not. For most of its runtime, “Money Electric” hides its motives, following its star (director Cullen Hoback) as he dives into the Bitcoin world. But it’s clear as the film unfolds that the creators had no other motive than outing someone as Satoshi.

How else does a big budget film end up indulging in straight conspiracy theory, dredging up the alternative history of the “Block Size Wars” as a way to introduce accusations that are almost entirely uninteresting? 

Hint: The impetus for the big reveal here is that Peter Todd may have worked with a covert government agent to promote his ideas for the Bitcoin roadmap.

It’s here where things go off the rails (or start going to the master plan). After making us suffer his own misdirection, Hoback and Co. finally play their cards, unearthing a series of purported evidences that show Adam Back and Peter Todd (as well as Greg Maxwell for some reason) were all secretly Satoshi. 

Truly, the most banal and oft-repeated of theories.

From there, we see a series of “gotchas” that would have all been easily disproved if the directors did basic follow-up research.

Let’s review:

Peter Todd and Adam Back corresponded on the cryptography mailing list when he was young. This is true, and widely known. It’s something Peter and Adam comment on publicly and doesn’t really say much of anything, besides the fact that the cryptography list was open to the public, and included possibly hundreds of members.

Peter Todd’s first BitcoinTalk post occurred around the time Satoshi left – Again, another known. In fact, the post is written in Todd’s snarky style, but we’re supposed to believe this was him misremembering that he was actually Satoshi and responding to himself. (Or so the director thinks). Nevermind that his forum name at the time was “retep,” and being that no one knew who he was, he could have easily deleted it.

Peter Todd once made a joke about deleting Bitcoin. This is used to support the idea that he burned Satoshi’s keys. 

Adam Back discussed Bitcoin on the cryptography mailing list after Bitcoin was launched – Giving credit where credit is due, this is also something I didn’t actually know. But again, once looking at the archive we can see the material supports Back’s claim he wasn’t yet interested in Bitcoin. In the emails, Back is passively reacting to the hype around Bitcoin (then surging above $30), and there’s even a reply where he makes a complaint about why Satoshi (whose name he misspelled) didn’t add some feature he thought would be beneficial. Again, 5 minutes of Googling.

Todd and Back were in cahoots, involved in a cover-up to mask the fact that they created Bitcoin. Ta-da. That’s why he never joined Blockstream! (Seriously this is stated, actually, by the director in the film.)

Taking a step back, it’s hard to know what to say about this sequence except that it’s both a marvel of creativity and cynicism, and in saying this, know that’s in no way a compliment.

To start, Hoback makes no legitimate attempt to engage Back or Todd on his finding. He merely presents the material as he found it, films them reacting, and closes up shop. It makes sense, even to someone like me who will admit there’s a non-zero chance either Back or Todd was Satoshi. There aren’t many people you can’t rule out entirely, and they are among them.

Sadly, a non-zero chance is not a smoking gun. It’s not proof.

Todd and Back’s internet presence, while scrubbed from the web, is accessible. I’ve read it. No, they weren’t the only ones involved in digital cash who erased things. 

Of course, with the Magic of editing, and by exposing the “findings” to no criticism, I’m sure many viewers will walk away thinking they’ve been shown a clever and well-researched theory.

All Hoback proved to me is that he understands the shortcuts you can take when making a documentary. It alone among creative works allows you to hide all your errors behind editing, while making baseless and dangerous accusations. 

And to be clear, claiming that someone is Satoshi without evidence is exactly that.

Let’s hope no one gets hurt because of his idiocy.

Note: I interviewed a producer for “Electric Money” at one point in 2021. It was not recorded. I had no subsequent contact with the documentary team.