Great post, but I'm not sure wether your tens of thousands comment is correct. All the experts quoted in this* article mention a deep knowledge of crytography was needed to develop BTC. Stuart Haber even throws around the 300 number. I tend to go with that number honestly. Not because of any cognitive bias, but because the experts seem pretty clear about this.
As someone who understands bitcoin quite well I have to disagree with their assessment. 300 is just a wild guess from the top of their head, there is no scientific basis to it. There is no new cryptography in bitcoin, it uses an existing hashing algorithm and an existing elliptic curve signature scheme. Obviously he was a skilled programmer with a decent knowledge of cryptography but he didn't need to have top notch cryptography skills in order to create bitcoin. He simply used existing ideas and combined them to create something new, his real skill was innovative thinking and creative use of existing technology. He didn't need to be a trained professional, there are unknown hobbyists and open source programmers who have just as much if not more knowledge than the trained programmers because they have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and teach themselves everything they need to know. Even if your guy is considered by many to be in the top 300 that still doesn't prove anything.