I've seen many arguments against double-blind which were very unconvincing, and they were all from the people that already had a big name, the ones that decide

I've seen many arguments against double-blind which were very unconvincing, and they were all from the people that already had a big name, the ones that decide how journals operate. In any case, this is the tip of the iceberg. The entire structure surrounding academic publication is absolutely ill-designed and few people in that world are even remotely interesting in safeguarding veracity. The overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific results is infotainment for other scientists with no party having any material stake in the veracity of it, which is almost no one bothers to replicate because accuracy is irrelevant so long it be interesting to read. The moment a company has bet a sizable stake on it's accuracy, then they suddenly check, and double check and have another party independently verify it because they do not want to loose money, obviously. But most science is nothing like that.