Read again. I showed how masternodes could be compromised by using gleaned information from the hosting company, not by compromising the servers themselves.
No you didn't, you showed how a hosting account's owner could be identified, not how a masternode could be compromised.
Furthermore, I showed you how having access to a masternode does not "compromise" the network in any way, shape or form because the public already has access to them without needing to hack a single account and they in fact do nothing but support the network. Unlike mining, access to a majority of masternodes doesn't mean jack unless you're prepared to push the price to kingdom come and turn all existing holders into billionaires.
Furthermore I showed you how public blockchain, functionally decentralised, pre-emptive mixing is an electronic monetary model that blows Cryptonote back to the dark ages with its fiat based, impoverished trust architecture that wouldn't have lasted 1 of the five years of public pounding that bitcoin took, even with a decent wallet.
If you compromise a masternode, you can trace part of the mixing. And the more masternodes you compromise the more you can trace.
Really ? Maybe you should write a white paper quantifying that theory. If I take a piss in the Atlantic I'm sure I could make a persuasive a case on bitcointalk that I've toxified an Ocean.
If you use the criteria of a cryptographic messaging system to measure monetary fungibility -two things that have jack sh*t to do with each other- then you've obviously created a self fulfilling prophecy and are going to draw conclusions that are practically meaningless as you have done.