I have to admit I only skimmed a lot of this extremely long winded rant and didn't get to the end, but AFAICT they're claiming the only "benefit" is a "little verified tick" and that one of the cons is <i>accepting responsibility</i> for previous commits.<p>I don't think either of those is a fair or accurate assessment.<p>A signed commit tells you exactly one thing: the person who made the commit is who they say they are, according to the signing key used.<p>That's it. It's essentially a defence against the nature of git where commits are decoupled from centralised authentication, and thus anyone can make a commit with anyone's name on it.<p>Signing doesn't prevent you making the commit in the name of someone else (unless you reject unsigned commits) but it stands out as being unsigned.