Option B is now the only option really, simulations have been done and shown it to work. I personally feel it's way better and uses eventual consistency, which is what the network is (and so is real life ). I did not wish to say too much previously but locking sequential solutions like option A are very unnatural and have way too many edge effects in real life, sounds great in papers as it's easier to reason about, however "easy to reason about" is not maidsafe The code used to simulate should be the code we use in routing, we are not certain how much will be able to cut across, but hope that a lot can.
It's gonna cause confusion soon though as Alpha 3 will be datachains part 1, that means the network secures, however not data (that's part 2), so alpha 3 will be showing the network, but not the data, so will likely run parallel to alpha 2. Alpha 4 will have data chains part 2 and be pretty much vaults from home, secured and hopefully resistant to spam, however we do need to consider initial network size. When safecoin is in place this spam nonsense will be to costly in most situations though. It's caused us too much extra effort to try and keep the community involved while building the network. Without al the bit's it cannot be secured and stable while resistant to attack. We do the extra work though as we feel it's worth it, but it's a terrible pity we have to take these side tracks from just launch. All in all it's worth the hassle though.