Someone recently asked about making an anonymous social network in order to allow for less tribal and partisan discussions but the incentive structures for such networks never work out as expected. Most anonymous networks usually turn into troll farms (unless there is some heavy moderation to curtail troll behavior).So one way around this I think is to require "signatures" for a post where a signature means taking the text content, appending some random string that only the original poster knows about, appending it to the message and then calculating the hash. This way there is an "identity" associated with the post but it is up to the original poster to reveal ownership of the random string that verifies they wrote the post.Does anyone know if there is something wrong with this scheme? I can't think of any but I'm not a cryptography expert. So in essence, if a user keeps track of the content and the random string then no one else can claim to be the writer of the post but if someone wants to reveal they are the writer then they can do so by revealing the random string that validates the signature of the post.This avoids the issue of permanent online identities but also gives people the option of "unmasking" anonymous posts.