I see no reasons to restrict freedom of expression, but I see some for privacy. A small example: let's say you've done some work for someone and they haven't paid you. You go to court and win your case: who can force them to pay what is owed, and how?

I can imagine using escrow, sure, but it's not straightforward because, depending on the type of work, locking up the full funds upfront isn't that easy. Likewise, it's not always easy to estimate the total cost in advance, and in other cases, it's hard to define when the work has been completed correctly so that the funds can be released. How do you manage all that while remaining completely anonymous?

If we play with our cards relatively open on the table, the issue of information asymmetry doesn't arise; if everyone knows everything about everyone else, or if no one knows anything about anyone else, it isn't a major social problem. The problem occurs when some people know almost everything, while others know almost nothing about those who know almost everything.

If we eliminate that asymmetry, I don't see much in the way of "limits" to privacy. There's obviously a long way to go from here to having cameras even in the bathroom as Larry Ellison wants, and in that case, what he wants is clearly asymmetrical, because some people have the cameras and access to the videos while everyone else has to wear them. Where the game is played, rules as code, public blockchain, well, I don't see it as being that problematic.