That is remarkably inexplicable to me.  JM is very actively developed by a community of developers. It was created with basically no anti-DOS mechanisms, though the original CJ post (technically the "appendix" post I made right below it) went over several different anti-DOS mechanisms, because it's perfectly reasonable to get something working before making it strong-- especially since JM's main motivation is gumming up automated analysis more than itself providing strong privacy.

But it's quite straight-forward to add in strong anti-DOS and better privacy, on top of a working and vibrant system; doubly so in that the coinshuffle description provides no special structural immunity to those dos attacks: the same anti-dos mechanisms are needed.  You shouldn't let that fact that a single person in the JM space is advocating one anti-dos method that would harm casual usage as at all indicative of ... well, anything.