You are using a non-standard definition of "verify". For the purposes of this discussion, we don't care whether a political speaker accurately predicts how many undocumented immigrants will steal old ladies' purses in the next year. We only care that e.g. the radical dissidents we hear from today are the same ones that we heard from last week. This has nothing to do with CP.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure we're all responding to your invocation of Satoshi Nakamoto. If anonymity wasn't important to that person or persons, why don't we know who she or they are?
I'm pretty sure that's not what why-el meant by "verifiable". What you're talking about is identity-binding, the value of which I explicitly acknowledged in my original comment.
Depends on the context really. You can verify something as either correct and incorrect, depending on what data you choose and how you interpret a statement. That's not a problem of verification, that's a problem of vague statements though.
