What is particularly interesting about the case is that "the Plaintiffs [Kleiman] allege in the Second Amended Complaint that David Kleiman and Dr. Wright were partners in the creation of the Bitcoin cybercurrency and that they “mined” (i.e.,acquired) a substantial amount of that currency together."
Thus Kleiman & Wright are Satoshi Nakamoto.
While the Judge explicitly does not rule on this issue, he accepts the basic premises of the Plaintiff's claim.
The Judge finds that Craig Wright is not a credible witness (meaning the Judge thinks he's a big liar) and thus does not accept ANY of his convoluted story about how he split his Bitcoin keys and put them into a "blind trust" and doesn't have access to the 8th key shard so cannot move his Bitcoin or identify his public keys.
However, I suspect that there is some truth amongst Craig Wright's lies.
Some of the seemingly crazy behaviour of Wright that the Judge finds "incredible" actually rings true as the way crypto true believers behave. Especially one as mentally unstable as Wright.
Craig Wright has been caught between the legal and factual positions he put in relation to ATO investigations, his own lies and deceptions over the years and this case.