-snip-
Incidentally, the other problem with masternodes that nobody seems to have thought of is that the limited number of them will mean they're in direct competition with each other. It is in a masternode operator's financial interests to make life difficult for the rest of them - DDoS attacks, reporting the box to the datacenter, anything that can knock a single competitor off the masternode network means more fees for the remaining masternodes. This is different to PoW mining where, for instance, knocking the pools offline doesn't mean you'll get more transaction fees, as miners always have backup pools. I'm not sure how sustainable this is as a system if it unmistakably pitches operators against each other to fight for fees. Given the cost and capital required to own a masternode, it's appreciable that this will happen as a natural result of wanting to maximise masternode profits.
No, I'm definitely not considering this as an attack or something similar. At least you are not: a) ignoring my questions (for stupid reasons like blind followers tend to); b) do not spread FUD about competing coins. I've took some time re-reading this, and it's obviously that your knowledge exceeds mine (well you're a developer after all). I'll get some input elsewhere and respond afterwards (!) accordingly.
Well the issue is that the IP and port of the MNs are known to the network and thus making them vulnerable. Well I don't think that all MNs will be able to get knocked down by this, surely there will be a few individuals to host a few MNs with high security. Don't you think so?
Yeah I think it is limited to 2000(?). Well your concerns are based on the MNs not being good enough (either concept/current implementation).
I also did not know the extend of NTP nor SNMP application, this is knowledge that I will have to hold onto.