Mon 11th February 2008, 2:02am
QUOTE(One @ Sun 10th February 2008, 7:34pm)
I don't think there's ever been an example of someone proving their identity this way later on, has there?
Personally, I'd assume that if someone is clever enough to understand the necessary encryption and decryption concepts involved, that person is also clever enough not to use the words "password," "secret," or his/her own username spelled backwards as a password. Thereby making the act of impersonation vastly more difficult
So the only useful purpose of a "committed identity" would probably be to allow others to successfully challenge someone who claims to be that person later on, but actually isn't. And (presumably) to prove that you are the proper account-holder when that happens. It doesn't necessarily mean anything in this context, though I could always be missing some vital concept here... Either way, I haven't heard of such an incident ever occuring on WP.
It's difficult to say what the deal is with User:Bentheadvocate
... In this edit
, he seems to show no ability at all to creatively deal with the classic "non-concurrency problem," which of course could be easily dealt with by having two computers, a remote-control session, or a single computer with a virtual machine that has a separate IP address, among many other possibilities. But you can't draw any conclusions from the naivete of the statement, can you? He could always be trying to deceive people by pretending to be naive.
Ultimately though, it's likely he's exactly who and what he says he is... but that's probably not going to help him much if he's going up against the cabalistas.