Quoting the original text:
Was this transaction really intended to be secret? "Leaking" the identity seems like a positive PR move for the exchange
I don't think the poster was intending to imply that BTC transactions are anonymous. In reply to his/her post, reiterating the oft-missed point that the protocol has no design attributes intended to enforce anonymity isn't splitting hairs; it's more a conversational response referencing the GP above that post. Also, an entity doesn't have to directly link itself to BTC transactions to be revealed as a participant, given sufficient analysis of all transactions. 1-1 transactions don't do much to frustrate traffic analysis, either. These are points that other posters have made, and you have missed.