Protocols must be open and decentralized.
Specially bitcoin collaborative transactions.
Joinmarkets is an interesting one.
Discussion
I would love to see someone fork JM and remove fidelity bonds to make it more accessible for plebs.
you can use JAM wallet without a fidelity bond
Right, but you barely get any coinjoins as a maker without a significant bond.
true, but still an option. the fidelity bond does serve a purpose after all.
I know it is sybil protection, but I also know quite a few people that would be makers if it didn't exist. Now we have sybil protection but it's like PoS since the biggest bonds get most coinjoins. What good is sybil protection if we just end up with a small centralized group of makers doing most joins?
i hear that. guess its kinda chicken or egg: removing fidelity bonds brings the liquidity ( dont think it will) or liquidity comes to joinmarket and fidelity bond requirement is not so stifling to mix participation.
Totally. That's why I'd like to see them both exist and find out where it goes.
You can run a version older than 0.9.0 which is when they added fidelity bonds. But why would you when fidelity bonds are optional? It's up to the taker how much they value fidelity bonds in their CJ. I specifically remember JM pre fidelity bonds and some makers would run many different offers using the same coins to increase their chances of getting selected for a CJ.
Users aren't changing defaults on fidelity bonds (or anything else for that matter) 99% of the time. There have been a lot of improvements since 0.9.0. That is why I said someone should fork it, remove fidelity bond stuff or change all defaults, and let people run it that way.
I also remember JM before FB, and yes people might make multiple offers on the same coins but it's not a problem. They can't fulfill the taker without all the coins they claim to have so they'll get dropped from the join and they don't learn anything about your utxos (IIRC).
The sybil problem might also be solved enough for practical use by simply increasing the default number for makercount. But users have always been encouraged to do multiple joins spread out over random times in part to avoid sybils anyway.
I think many people would accept this trade off in order to get paid for coinjoining.
What makes you think users aren't changing the defaults on fidelity bonds if they want to? JM has always been a bit technical and I'd argue most of the active users know how to configure it. It's 1 setting in the config file that's part of all the other parameters that they need to set. Without the FB, a single maker can make as many offers as they have UTXOs for. An offer with a large bond is going to be more valuable to a taker than a offer without. Perhaps it may be helpful to allow easier configuration in JAM for less savvy users but I don't think forking it is necessary since it is ultimately up to the taker anyway.
It’s not enough for the protocol to be open and decentralized.
If the rails on which the protocol rides are compromised then the protocol is compromised as well.