we covered this already too didn't we?
even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:
1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction
2) 0.0% of making any money
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001642.msg10900308#msg10900308
so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right?
even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:
1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction
2) 0.0% of making any money
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001642.msg10900308#msg10900308
so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right?
This is not a good argument.
If you gain 51% of the Monero nodes you would have 0% of both. With Bitcoin maybe you could argue that being able to link a node to a transaction will let you follow the blockchain trail and figure out stuff that node has been involved in, but I also guess that it's a harder link to prove.
So therefore 51% attack for deanonimization is pointless for BOTH Dash and Monero.
The problem with Monero for me, is that during DASH anonimization, the info isn't recoverable. In Monero it is, with a viewkey, or if someone found a backdoor......so you have to ask, how anonymous do you want?
(are you really not from XMR?
)Again not true, just hours after Dash was open sourced, an amateur coder found an exploit in darksend. Ring Signatures has been around for over a decade. Also having the viewkey gives you nothing, all you would see is the amount of moneroj in the wallet, there would be no way of telling who sent you moneroj or who you sent moneroj to, so that "attack" would only work for Dash and not Monero.