user7619: The section "Verifying Downloaded Files' at http://bitcoinarmory.com/download/ says that I should see the following output after running GPG:
$ gpg --recv-keys --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com 98832223
gpg: requesting key 98832223 from hkp server keyserver.ubuntu.com
gpg: key 98832223: public key "Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key) <alan.reiner@gmail.com>"

However when I ran it, I got:
gpg: key 98832223: public key "Alan C. Reiner (Offline Signing Key) <alan@bitcoinarmory.com>" imported 

instead. A link I found on btcarmory.org (http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Armory+Signing) has a result that implies that these two outputs are acceptable, but can someone please confirm that this is true?
Is the difference in the GPG output a concern? I only ask because of how intensely it is suggested to do this stuff! Thanks.

user1409: The output is fine. The key fingerprint is the same. Alan merely has several uid records in this key.
See for yourself:
$ gpg --list-key 98832223
pub   4096R/98832223 2012-02-28
uid                  Alan C. Reiner (Offline Signing Key) <alan@bitcoinarmory.com>
uid                  Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key) <etotheipi@gmail.com>
uid                  Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key) <alan.reiner@gmail.com>
sub   4096R/DE6B2D74 2012-02-28

GnuPG simply chose to show you one of the other, completely valid uids for this key. 

7619: <p>The section "Verifying Downloaded Files' at <a href="http://bitcoinarmory.com/download/" rel="nofollow">http://bitcoinarmory.com/download/</a> says that I should see the following output after running GPG:</p>

<pre><code>$ gpg --recv-keys --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com 98832223
gpg: requesting key 98832223 from hkp server keyserver.ubuntu.com
gpg: key 98832223: public key "Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key) &lt;alan.reiner@gmail.com&gt;"
</code></pre>

<p>However when I ran it, I got:</p>

<pre><code>gpg: key 98832223: public key "Alan C. Reiner (Offline Signing Key) &lt;alan@bitcoinarmory.com&gt;" imported 
</code></pre>

<p>instead. A link I found on btcarmory.org (<a href="http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Armory+Signing" rel="nofollow">http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Armory+Signing</a>) has a result that implies that these two outputs are acceptable, but can someone please confirm that this is true?</p>

<p>Is the difference in the GPG output a concern? I only ask because of how intensely it is suggested to do this stuff! Thanks.</p>
 1409: <p>The output is fine. The key fingerprint is the same. Alan merely has several uid records in this key.</p>

<p>See for yourself:</p>

<pre><code>$ gpg --list-key 98832223
pub   4096R/98832223 2012-02-28
uid                  Alan C. Reiner (Offline Signing Key) &lt;alan@bitcoinarmory.com&gt;
uid                  Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key) &lt;etotheipi@gmail.com&gt;
uid                  Alan C. Reiner (Armory Signing Key) &lt;alan.reiner@gmail.com&gt;
sub   4096R/DE6B2D74 2012-02-28
</code></pre>

<p>GnuPG simply chose to show you one of the other, completely valid uids for this key. </p>
