>math and code were nearly perfect with zero peer review
Bitcoin had to be forked in the early years due to critical errors in the original code. There was nothing perfect about it.
Bitcoin had to be forked in the early years due to critical errors in the original code. There was nothing perfect about it.
https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2018/09/21/the-latest-bitco...
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-history-part-10-the-184-bil...
It's not a statement about such things being impossible, just unlikely to come from a single individual working in complete isolation up until the bitcion whitepaper release.
Additionally this alone would be merely peculiar on it's own, coupled with the lack of retrospective investigations uncovering -anything at all- significant about the person moves it to suspicious. Adding in the subject matter of cryptography + pseudo anonymous money and it strains credulity not to consider
Respectfully, I believe you are looking at Bitcoin through rose colored glasses.
There is nothing special about Bitcoin's theory or underlying mathematics.
Maybe the most unusual primitive selection in Bitcoin is secp256k1 for ECDSA, instead of one of the more common NIST curves. But even that is understandable, given that Nakamoto was active in the cypherpunk community and concern around the constants used in the NIST curves was a common discussion item at the time.
Are you thinking of Dual EC?