sybil attack & parallel reputations for real identity

[bitcoinsSG]

parallel reputations: arguably, one of the most important features of a passport is its uniqueness in validity and connection to its inactive prior issuances in order to provide a wholistically sound reputation system for any holder. If this is not a desired functionality it should be made explicit that the system does not concern itself with reputation verification of the individual. In its current state one person may create several active passports for themselves, allowing them to have several parallel reputations both good and bad and the freedom to jump from one to the other arbitrarily. sybil attack: the current algorithm, specifically step 1(A determined group of forward thinking cypherpunks setup a meet up in their local town using a service like meetup.com), provides an easy way for someone to perfom a sybil attack, this probably should be addressed. If the system cannot ward off parallel reputations for real identities and allow for conjured ones, it can be argued that the title terminology should be modified. Even if these limitations are not limitations but rather features, one could argue that passport(i.e. something that enables in the passing/moving between ports) and citizenship of unreal identities can serve as troubling misnomers down the road.

Ps:- a previous version of the protocol mentioned something about keybase.io, where a PGP key is consricted to unique social networking accounts. Although that system would provide a barrier for a sybil attack it places the trust on one central point which is under no control of any passport holder(unless they work for keybase.io). If multiple keybase.io type websites are considered fair game, then you run into the previously mentioned issues contained in the title.

[dharmocracy]

I use two (or more identities). I use dharmocracy / acharn for my secular work and crypto etc while i use Citta Dhammo / Phra Lewis for my monastic work ... when visiting prisoners etc these Identities may crossover ... not for fraud but just to keep Buddhism off the crypto sites and other material off sites where people contact me about buddhism. I do have occasions where i create another ID to make a public shout if i am not sure which capacity the subject will fall under... not everybody who uses a different ID is up to no good. A blogger in Iran or China may need to create a valid ID but remain hidden .... even the IRA had codewords for bombings which they shared with GOV to prove who they were and the threat was real.

[bitcoinsSG]

I agree with your rationale, not only in the logic but also in spirit. My concern is that if the moniker stands it may cause confusion, specifically because passports are usually accepted as useful documents because they tie all aspects of a person legal history into a cohesive amalgamation such that one's " legal character" can be evaluated. Based on the evaluation, the holder is then allowed/not allowed to pass a port. I find it unlikely that a passport that allows for multiple orchestrated histories would serve the afore mentioned function. This is STILL a valuable protocol, and I want to see it succeed, however, in my personal opinion, I would b more comfortable naming it something like ik; identifying keystone, rather than passport.

[bitcoinsSG]

Blockchain ID as a moniker is apt and limits exposure to the above challenges unlike a passport.