Ozziecoin, Your pump and dump dance would probably be more effective if you were less transparently dishonest in your approach. I'm normally happy to ignore the nonsense in the altcoin subform, but since you saw fit to go distrupt the coinjoin thread with some offtopic insult hurling I thought I'd bring the extensive response back here where its topical.
CoinJoin is trustless which is orthogonal with centralized or decentralized, it could be implemented several ways (though trustlessness is usually a prerequisite to a decenteralized implementation). Post 5 in the CoinJoin thread writes in depth about implementing it in a decenteralized way, none of which appears to have been implemented by the darkcoin developers as far as I can tell from what I've heard it seems that they're not even able to understand it. (This is a disappointment to me, since I was trying to describe these ideas clearly so others could understand them.)
More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess it's impossible to review due to it being closed though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users.
As I've said before CoinJoin is interesting because it's inherently part of Bitcoin already it just needed better tools (and now there are some, e.g. darkwallet) to make it available to people. It's a privacy improvement over not having it, but it isn't perfect, but it also didn't require any changes to Bitcoin (much less a whole altcoin) to deploy it. In an incompatible system much better is possible as is proposed by ZeroCash and much better is actually _realized_ by Bytecoin (and its forks... Monero, Fantomcoin, etc.), the later are actually working (if immature, due reinventing many wheels) implementations of much stronger privacy, decenteralized in their implementation, all released under a good open source license.
Now who is doing the pumping for his coin? As I see it coinjoin as it stands is highly centralised and subject to being co-opted. So, until I see many coinjoin services being setup and used randomly by people, all of the time, I'm going to ignore your theoretical BS; such as "which is orthogonal with centralized or decentralized". Basically, you have not demonstrated a workable, random, anonymous system in reality.
Why would you attack Darkcoin? Afterall, the devs themselves have said they will make the code available soon. It seems to me you are prejudiced against Darkcoin. Why? I cannot fathom nor am I interested. However, I am interested in using a system of random Masternodes performing coin mixing services rather than your 1 centralised coinmixing server.
As for you saying that CoinJoin is inherently part of Bitcoin; how so? It is not part of the protocol. I do not see many people use it on a day to day basis. It is not part of computer wallets. Which part of it is actually "inherent". Why cannot Litecoin use it "inherently" tomorrow if they wanted to? I see nothing inherent about it at all.
Please, Zerocash is totally closed source right now so how would you know it is better? And bytecoin and its various forks have problems with blockchain bloat.
So, I think you should do some research before offering baseless opinion about Darkcoin.