On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner@certimix.com> wrote:
Hi Tim,
 It's clear from the paper that the second party in the protocol can de-anonymize the first party. So it's seems that dishonest shufflers would prefer to be in that position in the queue.

That's not clear to me. The 2nd party doesn't know how the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. parties shuffled the outputs, since it doesn't have their decryption keys.