As the network stands now, all nodes are treated equally. Why should this always be the case?

There is nothing currently stopping anyone from running multiple nodes, which is fine, provided no significantly large number of nodes falls under any particular entities control (colluding nodes are viewed as an entity).

My point is that if I (or any entity) wishes to support the network with multiple nodes (even over tor) I should be allowed to. What is required is a disincentive to be dishonest. Requiring proof of passport doesn't remove the incentive for dishonesty. It merely creates an artificial and arbitrary limit on node creation.

Proof of stake requires economic commitment to the Bitcoin ecosystem, much like proof of work does. This makes it prohibitively expensive to build nodes to create a Sybil attack, exactly like proof of burn would, but without the cost. It's impossible to fake and can (if required) have a strictly enforceable 1-1 relationship with a node.

It also provides a powerful disincentive to generate dishonest nodes. Coins in addresses used in a proof of stake by cheating nodes may be voluntarily neglected by miners. The opposite is also true, and co-operative nodes with honest and reliable reputations may receive donations or prioritised transactions.

Agreed, having private keys on a remote node with a large balance isn't a good idea. But there are solutions to this. For example: A large balance offline wallet could be used to publicly authorise an empty address as a proxy for the offline wallet.

We all know Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralised, but just as importantly: It's supposed to be a free market solution. It's the reason Satoshi ultimately wanted artificial and arbitrary limits removed from the system.

Surely "Proof of Stake" would be optimal instead of "Proof of Burn" or "Proof of Passport"? It costs nothing and is intrinsic to the network itself.

Proof of Stake would allow for verifiable proof of coin controlled and is impossible to duplicate without being noticed. Stake size for anonymous nodes would be a good measure of a nodes trust-ability.

It's nearly a week later, and although I have has some communication from Bitstamp support, the issue currently appears no closer to being resolved..

Same as others here except there's been a severe delay and no support response even confirming the problem exists or is being looked into.

The deposit was made on 02 April 2013. I've been waiting for Bitstamp to assign it to my trade account for more than two weeks.
•   I submitted ticket #503 in the first week of April querying it, support has not followed up..
•   I sent a detailed email on 09 April requesting support to follow up, no response from Bitstamp support..
•   I submitted another ticket #2264 on 15 April requesting follow up, no response from Bitstamp even acknowledging the issue..

Bitstamp Customer ID: 20559

All other concerns I've had have been well and promptly addressed by Bitstamp, but the silence on this issue is infuriating. For me, it's been a big black stain on the quality of Bitstamp customer support.