Thanks for the clarification @oetyng.
Just to be absolutely clear as per David´s post above specifying why, this is not technically correct:
The correct word is “Can´t”, in that the Safe Network consensus algorithm can´t do this - and it is not a case of not wanting. Do you agree?
When you say “too few” will control it I take it you mean too few sections, not individuals.
Under Method1 a few (very brave) people will be centrally responsible for 100% of SNT supply existing outside of the decentralised Safe Network, at least until it can be mostly distributed. This distribution process may take many, many years so the attack surface may be long in time. I understand the loose plan is to have “many” distribution scripts running on servers outside of the Safe Network consensus algorithm but connected to it in order to do the job of distribution. Each one of these scripts under the responsibility of the few brave and trustworthy people selected to do the job. Lets call this group “Script Network Maintainers”.
@mav has documented how astonishingly fast data networks related to Safe have grown over on this thread.
On day 1 the Script Network Maintainers instead of worrying about their distribution scripts and related traditional server security could instead be running/responsible for many standard Safe Network nodes. Given their initial advantage they would be guaranteed to have a high proportion of elder nodes under their control. This number could easily be made to match or exceed the “many” distribution scripts/maintainers considered secure for Method1. Then the community is allowed in. If the Safe network grows at even a fraction of the pace of similar data networks, the amount of sections would grow to dwarf any initial number of distribution scripts/maintainers chosen for Method1.
Considering this, please help us understand how centralised Method1 is considered more secure than Method2(B) ? I am assuming there are other technical and perhaps political factors involved that we are not aware of yet.