I did verify
Peanutswar had a correct message.
This is Peanutswar, OCT 2 2020, bc1qh45r8qdp5zqf5cux77sq0k3gmjdljv4jdac0n0
![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.postimg.cc%2FHk1FjC0x%2Fw.jpg&t=666&c=YqBSjliUsEMITw)
This means he owns the key. but I recommending he remakes using a common format.
No, you didn't verify anything and it doesn't mean he owns the key... Your image is telling you what "address" that message+signature combo would need to be "valid"... however, as the address being "staked" is obviously "bc1qh45r8qdp5zqf5cux77sq0k3gmjdljv4jdac0n0", the screenshot you took is proof of nothing.
![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
You can test this yourself... Once you have a "signature", you can put whatever message you want and it will tell you what the "expected" address is...
For instance... here is the "demo" address+message+signature:
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is an example of a signed message.
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1HZwkjkeaoZfTSaJxDw6aKkxp45agDiEzN
HHXLKIFZ7LWR5YZ2rbScJ7IMkbPEz58dAVGc38uyGfSEX2mR/tm82QVqSNjcSrgR3MVGhyztU8lTFBgXjmQCDPQ=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
permalinkNow, I can take that signature, remove the address... and then use
any message I like and it will give an address... However, this does NOT "verify" anything.