"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win!"
I think we've already been through a lot of those first two phases in SAFE's evolution. It seems quite likely to me that the fight will come before they accept that they need robust security even more than we do . Any early success and technical vindication for SAFE forces attackers to get more creative imo.
If there are no central points of failure to apply pressure to then it would seem the only obvious path to attack SAFE would be by attacking the 'whole' in some way.
I'm wondering how SAFEnetwork will handle things like false-flag rumours that can't be clearly disproved due to the anonymity features?
What if the-powers-that-be simply create hundreds of false-flag stories about SAFE being hacked, people losing their money or data etc? Even with independently verifiable, open source code, if it's too difficult for the average person to verify then it's easy to create mistrust. Technical supporters can easily be labelled conspiracy theorists if there's a storm of false-flag stories that defies 'rational' explanation (except covert ops that most people still believe only happens in films and paranoid, delusional minds).
It seems to me that bitcoin has been protected from this attack vector by the blockchain's transparency (it's also not nearly as disruptive ofc). Without this kind of transparency, do you think SAFE is at all vulnerable to this sort of attack? I'd appreciate the perspectives of people with deeper technical understanding about what can and can't be verified and how, it would be great if some of you could share your insights