> How can they claim 'it is secure as long as one person forgets their secret' and 'we need to protect against sybil attacks (so sign in with your github account)' ? If the first claim was true, why should they care if the same person takes part multiple times.

> 'it is secure as long as one person forgets their secret'

This is from the 1-of-N security assumption of the cryptographic procedure, wherein at least 1 person is actually honest and destroys their own secret to ensure its security. With a large enough N, this security assumption is made guaranteed due to the non-zero probability of human nature for deviant behavior from the rest of the group, wherein at least 1 person will be honest and perform as specified.

> 'we need to protect against sybil attacks (so sign in with your github account)'

...this claim ignores the large visible button right above the 'or unlock with Github' link, that prompts the user to sign in with their Ethereum address.

https://imgur.com/a/FkjcEQN

Aside from this, this is meant as one of the 2 methods of preventing bot spam, the other one being the sign in using an Ethereum address.

> More doublespeak from crypto fetishists.

Doublespeak is not present, joosters, as the two claims address different issues (1-of-N security of the KZG ceremony & bot spam).

The reason to provide some sibyl protection/spam protection mechanism is so that every one that wants to contribute can do so. The ceremony is secure if there is 1 out of N that correctly destroyed its secret. You individually, may not trust any one else, but then you should be allowed to contribute a secret and delete it, in order for you to trust the ceremony output. If you are prevented from contributing because there are bots filling up the queue then you won't be able to trust the ceremony. I think it's a sensible constraint from the crypto fetishists.

There is an upperbound to the amount of contributions due to how slow adding one is because of the computation needed. The goal of the ceremony is to have as many different people contribute as possible. Without protecting against Sybil attacks an attacker can reduce the number of contributors by hogging the limited number of contribution slots that are available during the ceremony.

You can imagine an extreme case of a ceremony only allowing for 5 contributions. Wouldn't you want to have some sort of protection against all 5 of those contributions being from the same person?