I think our main contention is that you seem to be operating from a perspective in which you ASSUME, and therefore act, everyone wants their data/information to be gathered, so you use the most linear approach to said goal: in this case, weight. When it was was clearly stated that some people felt uncomfortable divulging that information when asked.

Whereas I'm coming form a position in which a middle ground can be met by all participants given the parameters; gathering what is deemed 'useful information' while understanding that it can and has been misused continuously to create a vastly dystopic industry that relies on such practices.

So to counteract said potential problem do so with the least amount of identifiable variables in the equation and have privacy an absolute.

Again, you can discount the need for privacy all you want; the FAANG types usually do and make billions from it: that's the playbook until you're sitting a testimony in front of congress (mainly for theatrics) and another billion dollar fine for misuse of private information.

> Use blockchain to solve problems that have requirements around the value it provides.

Agreed, which is why I referenced the voting usecase and how that would be a more apt use of this solution.

To put this into context, I think of your argument as: Why are you asking for these silly seatbelts and these overly complicated airbag balloons into this design, we were just asked for a box with 4 wheels!