I'm running on a generally voluntaryist track here, so I'm not convinced that people should make efforts to unmask "identities" (whatever those might be, whether they are given at birth or something else adopted thereafter). In fact, there is some evidence that decentralization of identity is already well underway and that such decentralization has been expanding for some time. However, to address your question which is, essentially, "What if you wanted to decrease anonymity?" ~ I submit that the simplest answer to that question is this:
Provide people with a means to disclose their identity (whatever they claim it to be), and people will do so - irrespective of whether or not the technology (client, wallet technology, bitcoin service, etc.) readily reveals an individual's identity (as established from birth record or subsequent legal name change). (Note: In the United States, at least, the legal system does not currently recognize an IP address as equivalent to personal identity.)
The progress of decentralization of systems of trust, example(s) of which can be found in proposals similar to the bitcoin-otc concept, I submit here that credit scores as we understand them today is increasingly irrelevant, and even if developed using data freely available off the blockchain, such "credit scoring" systems will be generally disregarded in favor of decentralized reputation systems. Note that recent proposals from Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, and other core developers, in a recent CoinDesk article covering Merge Avoidance, Address Reuse, and other concepts, suggest that multiple addresses will be the norm, further complicating this issue. This does not preclude or eliminate the possibility that addresses could individually or collectively develop "reputations" (in whatever context one imagines the term) over time. Hearn's recent statements indicate his aversion to CoinJoin, which has already been implemented by blockchain.info and is likely to grow in use. It should be understood while examining these discussions that "privacy" in the bitcoin space is currently marginal at best and is in a dynamic process of development, with certain wallets and various proposals changing 'privacy potential' over time, depending on what is developed or adopted. However, part of the power of bitcoin (and decentralization generally) is that a central authority will not be able to be relied upon for such determinations (whether these be privacy-oriented, credit-oriented, or focused on anything else at all relative to bitcoin). The notion of "choice" (and the extent to which various systems enable the process of choice as we understand it in transactional contexts) is critical to an understanding of how to approach these issues.
The ABIS protocol contains, in part, a proposal that people should be able to decide whether or not they disclose an identity (indicating that people should be able to decide what, if any, identity they wish to disclose) in connection with any particular transaction.
You can link to the ABIS protocol (currently in a "pre-release" alpha stage here: