It's like you guys posting cryptographic proofs that ring signatures work--yes, I don't think anyone is arguing that (at least I'm not), but I also know that 99% of the people on here and those that will ultimately use the currency won't know what they even mean. You guys posting cryptographic proofs would be no different than Dash posting statistical probabilities of the odds of tracing a DS transaction (with the odds easier to understand than cryptography). At least in my jurisdiction, with proving things without reasonable of doubt, I'll take odds such as those even if you didn't calculate them appropriately.
The problem with calculating probabilities without a model is you have unstated assumptions and assume all things to be equal.
For eg.: in Megges example of 50 Darksend rounds with 1500 out of 2000 Masternodes compromised it's easy to calculate the probability as 0.75^50 = 0.000000566321656, but that's the probability of a complete deanonymisation of a specific event at a specific point in time, and that has astronomical odds. That's typical gambler / poker player mentality (and also explains why gamblers make poor cryptographers) - no offence to any gamblers present.
Instead, you have to consider that, in actuality, the malicious attacker observed ~37 of those Darksend rounds. That means that they only need to extrapolate data for 13 rounds, and since there is a great probability they controlled the MasterNodes on either side of each of those unknown rounds, the extrapolation is a lot easier.
Right now I have asked the same question 5 times as a response to your proposition: why is the masternode network unsecure because there are no failovers.
I never said that, at all, you're taking unrelated statements out of context. I have qualified my all-or-nothing statement, and I've even given you a little research task you can do to understand the problem better. At this juncture it is clear that you are goading me instead of making an earnest effort to understand antifragility or assumed malice, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue to answer questions I've already answered.
Conclusion:Look, you don't have to agree with me, at all. You're welcome to write off what I say as bias, overly cautious, paranoid, or whatever. I have stated before, and I will state it one more time for the record: I, along with a number of Bitcoin core developers and cryptography researchers, are of the opinion that Darkcoin/Dash is cryptographically unsound, and that the MasterNode infrastructure will, at worst, collapse in on itself, and at best lead to copious problems.
I do believe I've stated my conclusions with efficacy in this thread, and I have stuck around and spent hours expounding on statements and explaining conclusions, despite the constant badgering and vitriol from certain members. I do appreciate the engagement from those who have remained measured and interested in talking, I have definitely learnt some things I didn't know about Darkcoin before.
I bid this thread farewell.