I couldn't figure out which post to reply to because there have been a few that touched on aspects of this, so I will just start clean... Only my opinions in this post from here forward.
If we're talking about (unproven) theories that the ransom note came from the same party or parties who are seen on camera, I really think that we shouldn't over-index on the "bitcoin" aspect of this whole thing.
Two reasons:
First, I fundamentally disagree that the bitcoin wallet address in the ransom note is a sign of sophistication. I think we (mostly) all agree that it would take sophistication to successfully pull of a bitcoin ransom, but that is not what has happened here. I personally find it entirely plausible that someone basically googled how to get money anonymously, saw "bitcoin" referenced, learned just enough to create a wallet, and used that in the letter. And similarly Googled how to hide their origin on the internet, and used one of those more shady VPN services or Tor (which may not obscure the origin forever, but can make it take much longer to track down).
Maybe they are one of those people who are just good at getting out of sticky situations, so they assume that they'll be able to successfully deal with laundering the bitcoin later (probably wrong if they don't already know how to do it). Or maybe they're too clueless to even know that that will be an issue. Maybe they haven't given it any thought at all.
I just don't think that we can conclude that the person who wrote those letters knows what they are doing technically, because the only things they have demonstrated so far are things that many if not most people could do after a bit of googling. The hard parts (laundering the bitcoin, and keeping the internet origin hidden forever) are not things that they have demonstrated an ability to do yet. Time will tell, I suppose.
Second, even if we do assume that the person who wrote the notes is technically sophisticated, I don't really think that says much about their skills in terms of real-world breaking and entering and kidnapping. It's a trope at this point that people who are "good at computers" are geniuses, but as someone who IS good at computers, I assure you that there are countless things that I am an absolute idiot at. Technology is just a skill (or talent, if you want) like any other, and I don't think that being good at it really has any correlation with being good at other stuff.
Yeah, you could argue that being technical implies being detail-oriented, and you could say that the person on camera doesn't appear to be detail-oriented. But I'm not really sure the generalization applies. I think of myself as a detail-oriented person (maybe not demonstrated by the number of mistakes and typos I make here while trying to keep up with the thread...), and I'm pretty sure that if I tried to pull off something like this, there would be many "real world" considerations I didn't think of until I encountered them in the wild.
Anyway, all that to say, I don't think that we can conclude that the person on the camera is not the person who wrote the notes simply based on any assumption of sophistication either technically or real-world criminally.
I'm not trying to say "it could be anyone!!!" (has anyone heard if I have been cleared yet?!) but I just don't want us to incorrectly narrow our profile of who it could be based on assumptions that may not hold up.
And, just to state it plainly: I am not convinced that the ransom note writer and the person on camera are in any way related. I'm just saying that I don't think the evidence we have disproves it conclusively, so we shouldn't close that door completely.
All JMO of course.