Advantages:
* Better comment quality: verified users would think twice if they wanted a curse words to show up when someone googled their name.
* Connectivity: If you like someone's reasoning and thinking, it would be easier to check out more about what they do online (accomplishments, blogs, twitter, etc).
Disadvantages, anyone?
Disadvantages?
It's hard to do- how do you verify the names? Some people will post more insightful things under their pseudonym.
Take my example; I'm quite happy to discuss my work openly if it is interesting (which it has proven in the past). My pseudonym is very open and you can find out who I am in about 2 minutes; but if I had to use my real name directly I'm not sure I would post so openly about those topics.
There are certain things that I'd like to comment on at times, but don't, because I post under my real name. I hold some controversial opinions on things, but I refuse to have them permanently associated with my name on the internet in an easily abusable way. Any statement can be taken out of context.
For example, I thought long and hard before making this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1314757
I only lurked on /r/anarchism for a long time, and didn't post there. Now I do.
There are a few other things that I just can't talk about in a public forum. I would contribute meaningful and thoughtful discussion if my account was anonymous.
Okay then, there should be an option to mask your identity as anonymous, if you're not totally comfortable with a subject and post it like that. But those who would comment under their (real) name could get a higher priority for that given comment.
EDIT: an algorithm to verify identity (far from perfect and not necessarily for HN)
1) Give 1 person a verified account (linked to facebook) who the admins know personally. 2) Let that person invite her _facebook friends_ to the system. ... and so on
Under your scheme, I can elect to comment pseudo-anonymously but, I'm not really anonymous. I've given my anonymity to HN (and the OP indirectly).
If I give something away I want to feel equally compensated. I wouldn't in this case.
I'm not opposed to using real names but, reject being compelled to do so.
2) There are some really batsh*t-crazy people in the world. I prefer to be somewhat isolated from them.
3) How do you verify a real name from a real-sounding name?
I would also like to see some evidence that "Real Name" = "better comments".
That said, I don't think this is necessarily something where solid evidence matters. It seems to me that requiring real names is much more about making bloggers and journalists who consistently have their real names attached to postings feel more on an even footing with their commentariat. See, for example, this post on crosscut where Ted Van Dyk argues that he feels more comfortable with a critic that has a real name attached: http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/19530/Should-online-commen... Is that about categorical differences in comment quality, or personal comfort within a newsroom?
Mr. Van Dyk makes a valid point but doesn't take it to the conclusion that comments aren't created equal. I would prefer to only see comments that improve the overall quality of the article -- just like the old days when you had to write a letter to the editor to augment or rebut an article (as he mentions).
Even Certificate Authorities these days don't do a whole lot of verification of your identity when getting a personal certificate - it's usually at the level of checking that you have access to an email account.