In social networks there often are conflicting goals with regard to the identification of an author and the integrity of the contents. Maybe an author wants to be identified as author by his name and wants to ensure that the article cannot be modified by the operator of the infrastructure. A different author does not want to be named and desires publication under a pseudonym in such a manner that he cannot later be identified as author. In a variant of this situation he would like to remain anonymous towards third parties but reserve the right and possibility to prove his authorship at a later moment. Moreover there is a distinction between a person known by name (Jane Doe, born 9. 9. 1999 in New York) and a pseudonym (DonaldDuck23, owner of the private key matching to a certain known public key). Society might be interested to identify the author of controversial topics. Persons named in an article want to know whom they can address regarding to erroneous content (which only requires a possibility of communication, not necessarily of identification). In yet another scenario they want to identify the author to sue him in court (which requires a legal identification but could also be implemented by time and address of IP access).

Existing systems usually are built around only one of these use cases and the details of the mechanism are not known to the user.

The tasks comprises the following aspects. Since the number of questions is considerable, working in a group or only on certain aspects is a possibility.

1. Classification of the different use cases and requirements. Identification of contradictory aspects (eg. responsibility for contents and anonymous or pseudonymous publication).
2. Identification of possible solutions.
3. Mapping individual use cases to procedures and algorithms.
4. Securing integrity of the implementation by blockchain technologies to prevent tampering by the operator of the systems.