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.
Look, people host MNs on VPS cos it's easy to do and the workload is lightweight (presently). You think if Guv started going after VPS people would still host on there? No, they'd host in just the same places that Monero workloads are hosted, meaning the challenge of finding the nodes would be equitable.
Anyway, the point is that guv/TLA is an unassailable adversary - they're going to win whatever you do.
The real-world, fit-for-purpose debate has to be around lesser adversaries, so give me just one example of such an adversary who could mount a successful attack on a 2,400 strong network of nodes spread across 30+ countries.
I know, I'm saying that you cannot compare these coins equally,
since taking down a coin's anonymity with masternodes like Dash is much easier than taking down a coin that doesn't use masternodes like Monero.. Thats it. If a scenario came where the government was banning all use of cryptocurrencies etc, you can expect masternodes on coins to be one of the first things taken down by the government.
The challenge of finding the nodes? The ip's of all masternodes are in the open.
I gave an example of someone finding another flaw in darksends code and being able to deanonymize transactions, or finding a flaw in the masternodes themselves.
Prove your claim, otherwise its conjecture.
Anyone can spout anything they want, without evidence its just bullshit.