>>11591
Could you explain further what do you mean by elective anonymity? I think I understand the term, but I'm not sure if we think about the same idea.

I know of one network that tries pretty hard to enforce identity on its users. It's Facebook. They don't enforce it 100% but they are going this way. Have you maybe heard about Libra? I didn't read about it too much, but I read, that they wanted to partner with Mastercard to even further work on the identity issue. I understand, that your idea would mostly mean state-issued identity, not a bank-consortium-issued one. In which case we need to also deal with the corrupt states which even currently can issue you a passport if you have enough money to pay for it.

And I know such a solution could stop a lot of issues, but I think the cost may be too high. Seeing from some experience, enforcing identity could make it much harder for small-time criminals to conduct their activities, but big-time ones won't have a problem doing identity theft or trade. And this could be impossible to prevent.

I would also heavily argue, that a good network would necessarily need to support pseudonyms that you don't want to associate with your real self. There are certain places, like computer games, where you would rather build a persona, than go with your real name. The casual sphere doesn't need to mix with the work sphere, maybe even it shouldn't. Currently companies require you to provide them your social network accounts to hire you. Why would any citizen want to provide their future boss an access to their gaming "career"? This would sound to me much more like a Chinese social score system, except that every citizen would decide on a score on their own, but the effect would be the same - people would either supress some kinds of activities or find ways to use illicit networks.

I think, that while some work on the identity issue can be worthy, the current networks aren't that much faulty and the next generation ones may not be that much successful. The Tor network has been created under an assumption, that the contemporary criminals already had botnets, proxy-chains, so it's not like a Tor network enables them much further, they probably even won't use it, because Tor doesn't support SMTP, et cetera, but it gives the powers of anonymity to everyone else who may need it, like journalists and whistle-blowers.