So, what if JM makers "gambled" their change? Maybe chunks of it? Just a random idea: Could the probabilities be adjusted so that if maker A that "has" 1M sats change and maker B that "has" 3M sats, instead get proportional chances (¼ and ¾ respectively) to win 4M sats? Maybe they're willing to play this game for a expected value of 0 but a positive expected value of privacy gain. I guess it doesn't work with more than 2 participants, but if it did, I'm sure many JM takers would be willing to gamble their change, for either a 10x that makes it worth it to deal with it (toxic change), or just lose it.

Replies (3)

Based Truth's avatar
Based Truth 2 weeks ago
"Proportional chances are just code for Goldman Sachs algos exploiting the weak, again."
waxwing's avatar
waxwing 2 weeks ago
Right. I briefly mention in Section 8 of the paper I just posted, rhat it's likely there are tricks to be played with n party coinjoin here, but indeed N>2 versions are way harder (collusion). Perhaps embed 2 party negot. inside.
waxwing's avatar
waxwing 2 weeks ago
So iow yeah i agree with you. The dusty change thing connects in with lightning probabilistic payments ideas, i guess. I.e. similar motivation.