So I read the full ruling and posted my analysis of it on here piece by piece. I think it was about 30 -50 separate posts written in length over 1 or 2 days after the ruling was published.

From memory, I didn't get any indication that the ruling allows for Craig to claim he is Satoshi under any circumstances.

However, I'm not prepared to go through my notes or even try to find the posted thread here to see if I made a mistake.

I'm not sure anybody else did this kind of deep dive into the ruling and so unless I am shown any first hand evidence that contradicts this, I am not going to change my opinion on this.

Because I don't have the time or inclination to revisit the analysis, I am in no position to argue my side and so I do not wish to contradict your view.

I do, however respect it.