the case has NOT proved "satoshi"

it has just proved thats dave K was not part of a company Wright set up in 2013.
that is all.. moving on

I don't understand why he waited so long then. He could have signed a message, couldn't he? He didn't need to move them. If he really moves them, will he have done that to create expectation?

the jurys verdict is nothing to do with "satoshi"
again for emphasis. the jury did not give wright any coin or say that wright is the owner of the coin.
its purely about business ownership of a company set up in 2013

wright is not satoshi and thus does not have the private keys to move any coins from 2009. and so there is going to be no coin drama involving the 2009 stash..

calm down folks. its a meaningless verdict thats about business ownership nothing more.

the funny thing is by having a verdict that wright owns the company. now the australian tax office can sue wright for all the tax grant scamming.

im guessing wrights next game is to say he cant move the coins (his excuse) as it would then prove he owns the company(instead of linda(ex wife)) which would lead to the australian tax office lawsuit, so will (his excuse) not move coins to prevent being sued (lame excuse, but what do you expect from wright)

but overall remember
wright is, nor ever has been satoshi. wright never had the private keys. the coins wont move due to wright. so calm down folks. .. wright is still insignificant

edit for below post:
doesnt happen much but i agree with doomad on this one so lets reward him for it

I don't know if the jury is to be blamed here but some articles writer are funny sometimes because the content of the news illustrates that Craig Wright won a case against the David Kleiman family while the article topic was saying Craig Wright is Satoshi whereas he has provided tangible proof of him to be the Bitcoin creator.

from the start, CW's goal of claiming to be a satoshi was just to steal people's attention in order to market its shitcoin called "Bitcoin SV".  i still remember very well how a correspondent almost hit him when he insisted that he was the real satoshi.  the jury does the right thing, the truth will always be revealed.

Only wanted to inform the community.

Edited first post and changed topic to: Bitcoin creator? Craig Wright 100% Satoshi Nakamoto?

The amount of misinformation on this is truly astounding.

Wright was accused a dozen different forms of liability.  None of the questions to the jury had *anything* to do with Wright being Satoshi.

Bitcoin experts agree that it is well established that Wright didn't have anything to do with the creation of Bitcoin.

The jury found wright civilly liable for stealing $100 million dollars from his dead's friend's business.

(Likely because wright essentially impersonated the business in an Australian court, playing as both the plaintiff and the defendant and then agreed with himself to hand over tens of millions in fictional assets, as part of his effort to get away with tax fraud)

So a correct title would be something like "$100 million dollar civil judgement against Satoshi imposter for stealing".

For those of you who think wright's fraud is benign or only hurts people foolish enough to fall for it, I have bad news.  Wright is engaging in a dozen other lawsuits against Bitcoin community members, journalists, and developers.

E.g. Wright is demanding a dozen former and current Bitcoin developers-- including myself-- to publish backdoored bitcoin software to enable him to take control of a huge pile of old bitcoins (which obviously belong to other people) because Wright claims to have lost the private keys, and if they fail to help him, he demands they pay him 111k BTC in damages.  He's also bankrupted Bitcoin podcaster Peter McCormack with legal fees defending an obviously spurious defamation claim which hasn't even made it to trial yet.

Even though he'll ultimately fail in his vexatious litigation that won't stop him from causing people millions of dollars in expenses, countless wasted hours, and immeasurable amounts of stress -- and if that's the cost of participating then many reasonable people will choose to not expose themselves to it.

So you also fell for this crap? Come on @mynonce

There's only one much more legit way for CW to prove his claims and he has failed to do so. Given how malicious and greedy CW is, If he had access to the satoshi era addresses, don't you think he would have already signed the much needed message spent all the Bitcoins in there to fund his shitcoin since he nolonger believes in Bitcoin?

What I meant was, why is the court not saying: Before we discuss if or how much you owe other people, you have to prove that you are the owner of these Bitcoin.