Yes, I own bitcoins right now (no idea about my co-author.) We are not journalists, just technical book writers. Of course we are probably biased, in the same way that someone writing a stock market book invests in the stock market, or someone that writes about vegetarianism is probably a vegetarian.

When I write newspaper opinion pieces on bitcoin (only one so far) I make sure it says in there that I own bitcoins.

I definitely agree though that bitcoin raises new questions about conflict of interest when writing about technology.

Are people who instead hold USD, EUR, or CNY unbiased when writing about those currencies or BTC?

I would agree authors should disclose their participation, but I think disinterest/divestment on such matters is an unrealistic goal. Any stake or non-stake implies some personal preferences, and some personal stake is practically a prerequisite for motivating enough attention to understand and explain.

(Or as VC John Doerr has said: "No conflict, no interest".)

Co-author writing here. Although we think Bitcoin has (probably) a bright future, the book is really just about explaining how it works (the protocol and the cryptography behind it).

Question to both authors - The Cicada 3301 group has been linked to BTC (suggestions that Satoshi is a pseudonym for the group), their most recent puzzle had a key code around The Book of Law by Crowley. Just coincidence that your character is also named this, or by design?

Cicada 3301 is fascinating. Taken at face value (and that's a huge assumption to make) it appears to be a self-styled "cypherpunk freemasonry" of sorts. Care to cite or summarize the evidence and case for a satoshi/cicada link (other than "hey wouldn't that be so awesome if...")?