[Joker_vD]

> But why do you need to verify a name? Why not take someone at their word, and allow them to choose what name they want to use? Why do all actions need to be linked to a single persistent physical identity?

Why indeed.

There is an adventure novel "The Count of Monte Cristo" in which, as a small subplot, two ex-convicts are made to pose as Italian nobility in the Parisian upper society. Of course, nobody would believe such claims just on their own word for obvious reasons, which is why an "introduction to the society" was a custom. It still could be faked, of course, which is exactly what happened.

Also, why link it all to a single persistent physical identity? Because, no matter how many digital identities you use, you are still a single physical person, and it's actually noticeable.

[ggm]

The count gives both of them a significant line of credit: money overcomes much suspicion of this pair. Their assumed identities are a weapon, and I do not think the scam they are parties to helps your case.

[Joker_vD]

Well, "their assumed identities are a weapon" is precisely my case, and I don't even argue that G.I. identification is actually that great of a solution.

The con tricks are as old as humanity, even if they take different forms in different eras, but the ground problem is the same: if someone approcaches you and claims to be e.g. an important noble named such and such from the overseas, they could very well be telling truth—or they could be lying, and there is almost no way to tell for certain, even though there are some good heuristics (their wealth is one, as you allude to).

[ggm]

People believe in them because the count backs them. It's totally facilitated by the count. He's like a corrupt CA signing the diginotar certificate

[Joker_vD]

Byt why did people believe the count? IIRC, he had pulled some quite elaborate scheme to get the recognition and respect in the Paris, and he was also introduced there by Albert de Morcerf.