Key Insights:
- A whistleblower flags potential Bitcoin (BTC) risks, citing funding linked to Jeffrey Epstein and tied to Bitcoin Core development.
- As per Patrick Riley, the Bitcoin code had about 12,000 commits when the letter was written, compared with 47,583 today.
- Riley also mentioned the $850,000 Epstein donations to MIT.
In the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein files, a whistleblower insisted Bitcoin (BTC) has built-in backdoors. He said he was certain about it. To back up the claim, he pointed to Bitcoin Core’s commit history and argued the timeline tells its own story. He said the codebase had roughly 12,000 commits when the letter was written.
Since then, he noted, the total has risen to 47,583. From that jump, he calculated that about 74.79% of the development landed after Jeffrey Epstein allegedly took on what he described as a de facto senior management role as a benefactor.
From there, the whistleblower pushed the accusation much further. He argued Epstein did not need to be Satoshi to influence outcomes. Instead, he alleged Epstein steered Bitcoin’s executive direction on behalf of Mossad.
Whistleblower Sounds Alarm on Bitcoin Code After Jeffrey Epstein Allegations
A self-proclaimed whistleblower spotlighted a letter dated April 2015. He said that the letter offered a telling snapshot of who had influence around Bitcoin’s inner circle.
In the document, an email sent from a Gmail address signed as jeffrey E to Joichi Ito carried the subject line Digital Currency Initiative. The note flagged that gift funds had been used to underwrite the effort, which the writer said helped the team move fast and win the round.
The forwarded text then laid out how Bitcoin’s development worked at the time. It described a small group at the top, with five core developers and a wider base of contributors. It also names key figures in that structure, including a lead developer, Vladimir, and a chief scientist, Gavin, while noting Cory as a major contributor.
Next, the message turned to money and control. It said those developers had been paid through the Bitcoin Foundation, before internal turmoil reportedly left the foundation effectively broken.
From there, the email claimed outside groups rushed to fill the vacuum and gain influence. In that scramble, the note said the MIT Media Lab moved quickly, spoke with stakeholders, and brought three developers into its orbit, describing the outcome as a major win.
Riley argued the sender was Jeffrey Epstein and claimed Epstein had assumed a de facto senior management role as a benefactor.
He then leaned on commit counts to make his case, saying Bitcoin’s code had about 12,000 commits when the letter was written, compared with 47,583 today. Using that gap, he calculated that 74.79% of Bitcoin Core development happened after the point when he believed Epstein started steering outcomes
Bitcoin Survived Two Infinite-Mint Flaws
Bitcoin has already survived two serious software flaws. They, in theory, could let an attacker mint infinite free BTC coins, according to Patrick L Riley.
He first pointed to the 2010 value overflow incident, later tracked as CVE-2010-5139. He said the bug surfaced on August 15, 2010, when a single block created roughly 184 billion BTC out of thin air. In his telling, the network only contained the damage by pushing a fix and rolling back the chain to erase the invalid coins.
Next, Riley highlighted the 2018 inflation vulnerability known as CVE-2018-17144. He said the issue became public in mid-September 2018. He stressed that it mattered because it was not just a crash risk. It also carried a path to supply inflation under certain conditions.
From there, he argued the takeaway was simple: this kind of failure mode is not new. He compared it to old-market games like naked shorting and paper metals. Moreover, he framed Bitcoin as another version of a financial printing press.
Bitcoin Early Software Bugs Were Corrected, Says Marmara Chain Founder
Bitcoin did have early software bugs, but that part is not in dispute, according to Prof. Dr. B. Gültekin Çetiner, founder of Marmara Chain. He argued that the mistake comes when people stretch those bugs into a story about money printing or systemic fraud.
In his view, that jump takes a real technical issue and turns it into a catchy headline that doesn’t match the facts. As per his response on X, there was no hidden switch to secretly create coins and no ongoing trick buried in the code. Instead, he framed BTC as a system with no central issuer, no “print button,” and a supply anyone can verify.
Yes, he said, Bitcoin had two serious inflation-related vulnerabilities across its history. But no, he argued, that does not transform it into a personal money printer for Jeffrey Epstein.
He described the first case as a value-overflow bug that briefly created an absurd number of coins on-chain. In his account, the network moved quickly, reversed the invalid event, and patched the flaw.
Then he pointed to the 2018 incident and said it created inflation risk alongside denial-of-service danger. Still, he noted it was responsibly disclosed and fixed. He also emphasized that claims of magical infinite free coins being widely exploited were not supported by confirmed evidence in the public record.
Finally, Çetiner argued that calling these events a backdoor plays games with language. If someone wants to debate capture, they should look at where influence actually concentrates today. That means exchanges, custody providers, fiat on-ramps, and narrative control, not a secret line of code from 2010.