This still does not prove anything. If you were trying to make a point then you would want the signature/message combination to be reversed. The person controlling the campaign's funds could always sign the message that you tell them to sign.
Not only that but you should not have "your own personal address" that threatens the fungibility of bitcoin by reducing privacy of both yourself and anyone that ever trades with you
It goes both ways. If someone else is truly controlling the campaign funds (which isn't the case but let's imagine), I could tell them to sign any message (with the campaign funds address) made initially with my personal address. The key here is trust, I would not sign a message which says I control an address if I don't.
If someone was going to trust you then why would they not take your word from it when you posted that you have sufficient money?
My personal address allows people to verify it is really me that they are dealing with not an imposter/hacker/scammer, by making me sign a message with this personal address. If I used new addresses for each transactions, those doing trades with me would have to assume that they are dealing with the right person (since no single address has been reused consistently enough to link it to the account) and would have to assume that my account has not been breached by a imposter/hacker/scammer. Now I'm sure you'll have me know about PGP signatures, but at the moment I don't see their use (for me) nor do I even know about them.
You could use an address that you posted a long time ago that you still have the private key to.
Signing a message with your PGP key is similar to signing a bitcoin message, however PGP keys are designed to be reused and permanently associated with your identity.
Marco, could you please reserve me a spot still?
