Really interesting view happybeing,
Short follow up:
If a malicious section blocks access to a data piece - considering every data will have 4 copies, would the network simply fetch another copy from some other section so that user trying to access the data is not inconvenienced? And would the network assume that the malicious section copy is lost, so make another copy to be controlled by some other section?
Similarly if malicious section deletes data, would it be safe to assume 3 remaining copies would still be there and network would simply make another copy at some other section to make up for the loss?
So if that is the case then a malicious section is severely limited in the level of disruption they can cause - even if access to data is blocked, data is deleted, data is corrupted - the network has copies outside the section - and obviously the data is itself useless to malicious actor as its encrypted and all.
I guess the only profitable scenario that is of benefit according to your reply is stealing a safecoin by intercepting and modifying a transaction by the section.
If we stick with Mav’s simulation (ageing not counted) results that 20% of nodes in the network are needed to capture one section - I would say it would be unfair to equate cost of 51% attack on a decent currency with that of 20% of Safe Net - but nevertheless, it would be a sizeable expense - and as you stated, it would be irrational to incur such a big cost for very little financial gain, as compared with complete dominance of blockchain system at 51% gain.
It does surprise me though, that the data at most risk of being compromised if a malicious actor takes control of a section is that of Safecoins - I was actually under the impression that they’d be the hardest to manipulate.
Wouldn’t it really bad PR and just a bad impression if a user of Safe Net has their transactions manipulated and lose their safe coins? Granted the system as a whole won’t be compromised and the amount hacked may be low, but in the world of crypto where transactions are holy and immutable - Safe Net would suffer from bad rep if people are told any person may lose their coins if a malicious entity gains 20% of nodes.
And if an entity can short Safecoin prices, they may try to spread fear and uncertainity by carrying out such an attack and heavily publicising the ‘fatal flaw’ of safe net - so benefiting not from the safecoins they stole, but from the resulting fall in safecoin prices from the fear in the market.