Isn't it rather, that the judge confirmed CSW as Satoshi Nakamoto, because CSW has to pay half of Satoshi's Bitcoins?
Was it declared that he was Satoshi?
From some comments on Twitter, Craig Wright lost because he was abusive of the judicial process, proven not credible, and a liar who commited perjury. But the BitcoinCashSV hodlers will tell you, "Satoshi is brilliant for proving to the world that he is not Satoshi, protecting his identity, but he is Satoshi because look".
what i have read on news sites the judge actually explicitly have declared that the court was not to even decide whether he is Satoshi or not, the court was not even supposed to estimate how much bitcoin he may or may not own.
this last part is actually part of my confusion specially since the court's decision was to order him to give "half" of what he owned but at the same time they don't specify how much is the total to give half of it!
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/28/australian-who-says-he-invented-bitcoin-ordered-to-hand-over-up-to-5bn
classic scammer's attitude:
Quote
During his testimony, Dr. Wrights demeanor did not impress me as someone who was telling the truth. When it was favorable to him, Dr. Wright appeared to have an excellent memory and a scrupulous attention to detail. Otherwise, Dr. Wright was belligerent and evasive, Reinhart said.