I don't buy a "genuine inexperienced coder" postulate. I would only agree with "experienced coder with no experience in C++". I extensively reviewed early Bitcoin code and I see patterns of writing style and design that aren't congruent with a genuine lack of experience in coding.
I hold no opinion on who Satoshi is, but my professional opinion about the code base is (either, equiprobable):
1) experienced programmer or manager from an organization that used older languages (like COBOL, MUMPS, FORTRAN, SIMSCRIPT, etc. ) doing his/her first project in C++;
I hold no opinion on who Satoshi is, but my professional opinion about the code base is (either, equiprobable):
1) experienced programmer or manager from an organization that used older languages (like COBOL, MUMPS, FORTRAN, SIMSCRIPT, etc. ) doing his/her first project in C++;
Nash was proficient coding Mathematica and presumably he learned Fortran in college. And presumably he was programming at RAND.
But afaik, all his programs were small.
But I also have my doubts about Nash coding a large scale application in C++ (something which he had obviously never done), which is why I never put much weight in the theory, but I was shocked to find the other strongly corroborating evidence I explained.
Why did Nash disappear from publishing and public touring from 2004 to 2006? And again from 2008 to 2010. Why does he never get a detailed response or account of how Bitcoin relates to his ideal money?
oh.. i dunno.. maybe because someone in their late 70s/80s with severe schizophrenia needs to take a break once in a while?
