As part of this nonymity business on G+, the name/pseudonym distinction is getting entangled with the persistent/transient label distinction in ways that annoy me.
Google themselves started it by defending a no-pseudonym policy by pointing to the benefits of persistent labels. But now users seem to be compounding the error by adopting transient labels, ostensibly in support of pseudonymity. I don't really approve.
Here's the thing. I value persistent relationships far more than I do transient relationships, so I respond far more positively to relationship overtures using persistent labels. I don't care if it's a government-authorized name or not, but I care that it's framed as a potential long-term relationship.
Having said that, let me reiterate that support for pseudonymity is an important feature of both real-life and online social networks, and that eliminating the option of it (by, for example, demanding that everyone use their government-authorized labels for all interactions) creates a nuisance for many and a significant cost or even a risk of injury for some and therefore at best excludes those people, and at worst includes them to their detriment, and is consequently a bad thing.
I'm just saying I personally prefer relationships via nontransient labels.