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.
....a good example of how Dash devs are open to finding and fixing problems quickly. When I raised concerns about origins of CryptoNote with links to NSA and Cicada in Bytecoin, the response was 'that was ages ago, anything would have been found by now' whilst the devs are trolling on forums all day....which one would you trust your $ with?