[nairteashop]

On the surface, yes, I suppose if you use your real name you may be tempted to tone down your opinion a bit (presumably the reason why youtube switched to G+ commenting with real names, etc).

But on HN, I've actually seen the exact opposite - people with handles derived from their real names seem to make more serious, well thought-out comments. I don't know about "most controversial", but certainly the most useful, which to me is more important. (I have a made-up handle, so I'm not one of these people :)

You'll see this reflected on the HN leader board as well; I assume that - like any online discussion board - made-up handles are the majority on HN, but real-name based handles figure quite prominently there. Not sure why.

[return0]

> real-name based handles figure quite prominently

My ( controversial) idea is that people often upvote persons, not their opinions. Many of HN top have curated well known internet personas with separate blogs (either by their real names or nicknames). A familiar handle (either real or famous nick) is downvoted less frequently than an anonymous handle.

[twobits]

HN is technical. You yourself put "most controversial" in quotes. Worst case, you are wrong. It's measurable and it's done. Try saying controversial things about politics or social or theological issues, and you can get killed, mobbed, thrown to jail, your life totally destroyed. "Reputation" for technical things is nice. "Reputation" on political things can be "the 10th anniversary since his execution".