The Bitcoin experiment, which made MIT students rich

In 2014, MIT’s Dan Elitzer and Jeremy Rubin ran an experiment in which they gave each interested student $100 worth of Bitcoin. That’s about $300 per coin. The $100 worth of Bitcoin that the lucky students received today would be worth more than $14,000

Rubin, a sophomore majoring in computer science, came up with the idea for the project after being involved in a legal battle against the New Jersey attorney general. Rubin recalls Rubin’s creation of Tidbit, a cryptocurrency mining program. However, the state believed that Rubin was actually “installing malicious software on people’s computers”.

He was awarded an innovation prize for his project, but cryptocurrency was still very young in 2014. Bitcoin’s popularity as a payment system for illegal transactions via the dark web was particularly problematic.

How two MIT students brought Bitcoin into the mainstream

Rubin teamed up with Dan Elitzer of MIT’s Sloan School of Management, an MBA student. Within a few months, the couple had collected half a million dollars in donations from MIT alumni as well as other interested supporters. Rubin and Eitzer used the funds as a way to give $100 worth of Bitcoin to any MIT student who was interested. It involved 3,108 students.

Rubin stated that “we wanted Bitcoin to be more out in the wider world and spread technology.” “We also wanted the opportunity to investigate what it would take to deploy an entirely new resource.”

To receive Bitcoin, participants had to fill out a questionnaire. Setting up your crypto wallet was more complicated in 2014 and many students offered their help.

Van Phu, a former student, and the co-founder of crypto broker FloatingPoint, offered the service for students who were unable to open their own wallets. Phu said, “Many students would pay the rest of the Bitcoin if they set it up for them.”

But the bitcoin Phu accumulated with his labor was quickly lost at a local sushi place. It was the only restaurant at the time to accept digital currency. “I spent most of my crypto on sushi.”

Bitcoin’s Mysterious Early Days

Rubin was interested in starting the Bitcoin experiment at MIT due to frustration with the lack of knowledge about cryptocurrency and Bitcoin in general. Cryptocurrency has come to the fore in finance in just the last few years. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general, in particular, were still poorly understood just ten years ago.

Bitcoin’s early adopters were described by the research paper helper as a “cypherpunk”, a neo-anarchist bent. Many of them used their deep knowledge of computer science to pursue their own goals. The token’s frightening reputation for anonymity and avoiding traceability, as well as its complicated transaction system created an aura of fear that repelled many technology users.

This sentiment is evident in Rubin’s New Jersey attorney general. He was accused of hacking for his passion for developing cryptocurrency software.

Bitcoin’s early mysteries were also ignited by one crucial fact. There was no identifiable face or name that could be linked to the coin’s creation. Bitcoin enthusiasts and developers could only point to a false identity, a pseudonymous person as the originator of the token. “Satoshi Nakamoto” was that identity.

Although the name “Satoshi Nakamoto” is generally credited as the founder of Bitcoin, further investigation revealed that there was no biography or personal information.

Satoshi Nagmoto became associated with Bitcoin in 2008 after an article titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System was published. The newspaper laid the foundation for cryptocurrency. It explained the basics of how digital currency would work. Bitcoin’s website says that Nakamoto invented Bitcoin from Wei Dai’s idea.

The Bitcoin website claims that Bitcoin is the first to implement a concept called Cryptocurrency. It was first described by Wei Dai, a cypherpunks member, in 1998. He proposed the idea of ​​an innovative form of money that relies on cryptography to manage its creation and transactions instead of a central authority.