Did valarauca1 claim that anyone should defer to his crypto-expertise and detailed analysis? He basically said, "The behaviour of this developer makes me not want to trust his work." His assessment isn't definitive, but he seems to be aware of that; note the phrases "sounds like" and "makes me inclined to believe".
And I'd say he has a point. Laying aside your expertise for a moment, and without going all the way to declaring it fundamentally broken, don't you think there's something a little fishy in all this?
"There is something fishy" is true because projects don't normally shut down so suddenly. But a lot of TC has always been usual, from its license to the hidden identity of its developer[1].
For whatever reason, he[1]'s done with the project. Maybe the wife and kids are more interesting these days. Maybe he got offended at auditors being paid and not him. Maybe he feels a responsibility towards his users and since he cannot actively defend them he wants them to move inside someone else's castle. Maybe he died and his brother took over the account long enough to say "we're done" and his brother really doesn't want to talk about it no matter how weird you think it is that his brother doesn't want a bunch of people on the Internet on his lawn like they were on Satoshi's.
It's like a bunch of blind cryptographers trying to describe an elephant.
[1] Assuming a heterosexual singular male just for convention.
A person experts involved in the TC audit have reason to believe is involved in the TC project sent an email, which I read, which said (paraphrased) "We started TC to get Windows disk encryption. Windows now has better disk encryption. We're done."
I know that's shocking to OSS developers, but not everyone cares (at all) about Linux.
i hope you know that bitlocker is not available to all windows users[1]. These TrueCrypt developers seem to not be aware of this apparently and hence their reason for stopping development is flawed.
Why was this down-voted? He is right, bitlocker is available only for some versions. Plus, there is no way to know whether bitlocker is better or worst and there is no way to audit it.
I didn't downvote, but saying the developer doesn't know what he's talking about and that his reasons for deciding to stop working on a project are flawed are each likely to be downvote magnets.
I may refer to this thread the next time someone asks "why don't companies give explanations to candidates they don't hire?" The answer is that the candidates feel compelled to prove that the company's reasons are flawed. Look how they react to someone deciding to stop working on a project.
And I'd say he has a point. Laying aside your expertise for a moment, and without going all the way to declaring it fundamentally broken, don't you think there's something a little fishy in all this?