Dash and idea of masternodes is terrible. The idea that I have to trust some strengers running masternodes controlling my privacy and aninimity is rubbish. And if I want to have my own musternode, I have to pay for it? This is stupid. I may just trust and pay bitcoin mixing services.
Anonimity and privacy should be obtained without any third parties. The idea of masternodes is oposite to what decentrallization mean. ANd the 1000 DASH fee is only blocking more poeple running musternodes, and leaving only those who can affort it anyway. As far as I am concerned, all masternodes can be run by NSA. Because why wouldnt they, if the only way to have privcacy and anonimity with dash is to use masternodes. Regular dash users cant afford it.
Avoid any centralization and pay-walls if you care about privacy and aninimity. If you dont care about these, than just use bitcoin or litecoin.
At the moment you have to trust that no one is controlling 99%+ or something of the masternodes spread across the globe in different countries to be able to follow the mixing process.
Incorrect. One round of darksend uses a single masternode. If that masternode is compromised then that round is worthless. You can do multiple rounds, which takes a lot of time and adds resource usage (and probably direct cost in terms of fees, but I'm not really sure what Dash does with fees), and if some of those masternodes used by the multiple rounds are not compromised, then you have some real privacy, but it may not be much. (One round of darksend doesn't really obscure things that much on the blockchain, and if N-1 of the masternodes that you happened to use are compromised, that's all you end up with.)
And yes, in the long term that is not ideal. But development is not over, eventually masternodes won't be able to link inputs to outputs i.e. they will be effectively "blinded" (I think Evan mentioned this is coming in V13), so then you don't have to trust even that 99%+ case not happening.
Now you have the problem that these same protocols (e.g coinshuffle) can be used directly on Bitcoin. The idea of darksend was to provide a safe(r) way to do coinjoin with some protection from the intermediaries being Sybil attacked by someone wanting to spy (where 99% of the masternodes could be compromised if there were no cost to creating more of them). I doubt whether the economics of it actually work effectively, as I've stated elsewhere, but that's another story. In any case, with the intermediaries being oblivious using blinded coinjoin or coinshuffle, there is no longer such a risk, you can just rendezvous on any communications channel (joinmarket uses IRC, but that is just one example). So the whole thing becomes even more pointless.
Finally none of these systems offer useful Sybil protection
against other users (only, possibly, against Sybil masternodes). When you darksend you are mixing only with other users who are darksending
at the same time. If all or most of those are an attacker, you are screwed, blinding or no blinding. Again you are likely worse off here than something built on Bitcoin, simply because Bitcoin has far more users, which raises the cost of such a Sybil attack (it is still problem there though).