Quote from: majamina on March 27, 2015, 10:03:36 PM

Quote from: Joshuar on March 27, 2015, 10:01:30 PM

Quote from: majamina on March 27, 2015, 09:59:21 PM

Quote from: Joshuar on March 27, 2015, 09:53:39 PM

Dash is far, far more susceptible in that analogy. For Cryptonote coins i.e Monero, you need no external nodes to mix transactions/provide privacy/anonymity. With Dash, the government(s) can take control of the servers the masternodes are hosted on, threaten with jailtime for masternodes owners, etc etc.

We went through this stuff in quite some detail. The conclusion, correct me if I'm wrong, was that versus guv/TLA all coins are fucked, so any argument about that is obsolete.

Not equally though. While it may be possible to force users of any coin no matter how anon to reveal themselves through force or w/e, coins that utilize an external source to provide anonymity are far, far more susceptible, such as Dash, than coins that do not, such as Monero or future Zerocash.

we're into re-iteration territory here, but one more quick go won't hurt.

- if the adversary is guv/TLA then Monero & DASH are both dead in the water.

- if the adversary is not guv/TLA then who is it exactly, and how do you propose that they compromise the MN network?

As I said earlier, not equally. The government will have a hell of a easier time forcing masternode owners to give themselves in or just taking down the servers the masternodes are hosted on, than forcing users of Monero or Zerocash to do the same. It's a hell of a lot harder for the gov to do that to users of coins that dont utilize external masternodes to provide anonymity(monero).

For non gov entities, I suppose finding another flaw in darksends rounds, or a flaw in masternodes themselves would be much more plausible.