This is true in any corporation. I can get myself and a slate of friends voted on to the board of IBM then tank the company. It's much easier to do with lower valuation, as anyone can buy up a sizable stake and take over. Of course, that meant they just bought the company they intend to destroy...
Yes, but in a corporation there is no anonymity and there are high levels trust and accountability. If you try to apply the same principles to an anonymous environment you invite problems.
I don't think that standard is going to last very long with 2.0.. I think we are going to see a new standard set for delegates where anonymity is not an option anymore.
I don't know if you mean delegates specifically or generally. We were discussing a similar sentiment for witnesses, and I don't believe we need to tie real world ID to witnesses or workers. I take a different view towards delegates however. The reason for the distinction is in the nature of the role. For delegates it is much more broad in it's scope and thus I would argue in it's power. Workers and delegates have a much narrower function definition. However, I am open to it not being mandatory for any of the elected positions.
I actually believe the network is more secure without a real world identity on all of the people that contribute to security.
It concerns me greatly when I hear this being discussed, b/c it tells me people have not learned from the mistakes made in the past.
What is essential to know about witnesses is how well they do their job. Their reputation and expertise is key. Reliability, understanding what to do to keep a node producing blocks, how to switch over to a redundant server if theirs is compromised and having a clear picture of where in the world witnesses operate. They need to maintain communication with other witnesses to stay informed and defend against attackers, such as DDOS.
If they do that well and do so consistently I could care less what their real name or residence address is. Making that info public just exposes witnesses to unnecessary risk under the mistaken guise of "Safety & Security". It totally reminds me of the montra I hear from the mainstream media used to justify all kinds of tyrannical "laws" like the Patriot Act. "You need to give us the power to spy on you in case a terrorist tries to do something harmful to you" - - please! What about the harm you can count on the gov to do to you if you give your blind obedience to their agents?
People need to develop a defensive posture towards the gov rather than a posture of blind submission to unjust / unconstitutional / arbitrary rules & regulations that inflict violence and coercion on people, that extend the empire of evil and war. Just stop it already! Stop participating, stop helping it stop being ignorant of the importance of these things.