They believe that somehow reducing how many computers watch a file or token etc. will “decrease security” by the same factor.
An interesting list of assertions and ideas. What would you say about their convictions? After all a close consensus group is far smaller than the entire network.
When dealing with the volume of data that SAFE will be then there is no such thing as “entire network” consensus. Entire network consensus is only “proven” because it has not yet been broken, as it does not have a exact mathematical proof.
The ability of “entire network” consensus to deal with millions or billions of events occurring across the network per minute or even per second when we have a few million nodes and millions and millions of clients accessing the network is impossible. So “entire network” consensus has no security when trying to do what SAFE will be doing. No security because it cannot come to consensus when falling over itself trying to keep up. Or else everyone takes a ticket and waits weeks/months for their requests to finally be done and each node on the network keeps buying disks to store the blockchain as it grows and grows and grows.
I mean also what do you think of their various sharding attempts, as discussed in that wiki?
Oh I took your first sentence to be that safe’s security is weak.
I am not the best person to answer this as I would have to read the whole wiki article to know what they are saying. My overview thought is that its a blockchain and and safe is different. Sharding for them is different to safe’s section mechanism.
Sharding will reduce their security, I agree.
They have no mathematical proofs for their sharding methods and as such can only have full confidence by selecting the best method and trying it for a period of time.
But again as to specific methods I cannot intelligently comment so sorry have to leave it there and maybe someone else can help here.
I agree with @neo. There’s no reason to take snippets from a very different architecture and apply them to SAFE which is vastly different (ie small group concensus being insecure because Ethereum concensus involves more nodes in each decision). I don’t have time to analyse their wiki, but it would seem pointless anyway because it isn’t addressing how SAFE achieves its security (I’m assuming that’s the case - I haven’t looked!)
Actually he isn’t aiming at that and that is where I got it wrong. He wanted opinions of the wiki to help decide things for his project which is coming out before SAFE will be ready. If I understand correctly from another topic.