So the new accusation is: "I don't trust them because they lost access to an empty wallet and pgp key cannot sign a message proving their identity"?
I can't help with that, but as MZ offered a proof of knowledge. Would that be acceptable? I can think of a question only they should be able to answer based on our past exchange of encrypted messages.
FTFYI can't help with that, but as MZ offered a proof of knowledge. Would that be acceptable? I can think of a question only they should be able to answer based on our past exchange of encrypted messages.
It seems like Muhammed Zakir is well aware that a signed message is needed to prove identity:
His own demands to require a signed message are being honored.
CORRUPTION AT ITS FINEST.
Base your trust on FACTS! A trust rating should NEVER include "possibly" or "likely" in it!
Stop abusing your trust! SOMETHING NEEDS TO CHANGE!
Nice to see another account waking up to defend this woken up account. Base your trust on FACTS! A trust rating should NEVER include "possibly" or "likely" in it!
Stop abusing your trust! SOMETHING NEEDS TO CHANGE!
