I don't think it was really "meant to be anonymous". The original whitepaper at https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf has a section on privacy, which mentions that public keys can be kept anonymous but acknowledges that all transactions are announced publicly:
> The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity to announce all transactions publicly precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someone is sending an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone. This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were.
> As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to keep them from being linked to a common owner. Some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner. The risk is that if the owner of a key is revealed, linking could reveal other transactions that belonged to the same owner.
Recently there are newer cryptocurrencies like Monero and ZCash that focus specifically on anonymity/privacy.
I think you're missing the point, of course the bargain doesn't reflect reality -- but many people choosing the startup over the other job given this bargain thought experiment where all else is equal implies that there is motivation other than money, i.e., freedom of direction, ownership, etc.
But what do you call a new business that a founder is fully committed to (so, not a side business) but without an aim to grow to a huge valuation (just enough profit to live)? I think that's what the parent comment is suggesting, not a side business. I'd just call it a small business though, rather than a "startup".
She says regarding her quote, "And it is true, because we like to be our own bosses. And so if you're one of those people, you want to quit your day job, you don't want to punch a clock, you want to have freedom and also be freedom of your own destiny." [1]
It seems that your interpretation of her quote doesn't match Greiner's own interpretation. I think the point she's making is simply that entrepreneurs are willing to work more hours on their own business to avoid working for someone else. Whether the business grows exponentially or organically doesn't matter.
I also didn't quite follow your interpretation, why does avoiding working 40 hours a week lead to spending more man hours to pursue an opportunity? (edit: thanks for explaining)