Forking the Safe Network is different from Forking blockchain technology. When a blockchain is forked, all assets are copied and transfered via the ledger over to the forked network. When a Safe Network is forked no assets are transfered and the forked network is forced to start from scratch.
What are the pros and cons?
The biggest con would be the risk of not having devs to maintain it… or trusted ones for that matter.
I can’t see a huge advantage in forking, aside from the obvious potential for corporate images that are identical… and likely those would want to subscribe to support and updates direct from the source.
Example: Ethereum was forked and it’s ledger transfered with it. I would argue that some of Ethereum’s value transferred when it was forked, because the ledger it brought with it had value.
What advantage if any, would there be in Forking a Safe Network?
There would have to be a dam good reason to fork and start from scratch.
Testing a radical new feature… avoid the politics like BTC had by evidencing additional stability.
I’m not sure what reason there would be to see another become the principal instance.
You can do either with a blockchain fork - forkers tend to copy the chain because their intention is to carry existing assets to the new chain. But there is no technical need to do so.
With Safecoin I suspect that datachains will make it possible to replicate the data, and therefore Safecoin holdings, on a new fork so again it would technically possible to do either.
As the size of SAFEnetwork grows it becomes harder and harder to bootstrap a network that replicates SAFEnetwork in all respects, but still feasible to carry across Safecoin and other selected data types because the space needed to store these will be relatively insignificant (less than a blockchain with years of transactions for example).
This doesn’t invalidate your question, other than to say I don’t believe it discriminates between blockchain and Safecoin, or other SAFE cryptocurrencies. But since it is just a choice which would be made based on circumstances, I’m not sure the answer is useful without a specific case to consider.
Would it be possible to fork the Safe Network and only transfer Safecoin and selected data?
Example: Safe Network is cluttered with garbage and abandoned data. The idea is to fork to a new network only transferring over desired data.
I should imagine people will have a choice of clients to use and a breaking change would require people to be convinced it is preferable over the incumbent client. Likewise, the incumbent may sway influence back in the future.
I suppose it is a bit like a hostile take over. If you have a suffient stake of farming nodes using your version of the software, you are better able to shape future changes.
I suspect there would be a lot of churn of incompatible nodes were isolated in such a way though.
You cannot replicate the data because you simply do not know where all of it is. To try and trawl all the possible addresses and tag types to find the private data, the MDs , the coins and other data would be impossible. Un like a blockchain the data is NOT in one location copied every where but rather the data is scattered everywhere.
Selected public data yes, because you can access it and copy it. Unlike the blockchain the data is scattered and only the holder of the datamap (which is scattered too) knows where the data is.
The coins are in MDs and only the coin holders know the addresses of the coins. Even previous owners of a coin cannot be sure if it still exists since it may have been spent. They would have to read the coin MD to know and multiply that by 4 billion - just too much to hope to replicate coins, and many coins may have changed hands before you get to the end. Blockchain - just take a snapshot and its done.
SAFE fork
Who might fork
… or removing a radical feature … (radical is of course a subjective term) … e.g. PtP and/or PtD
I think you’re right 
it occurred to me afterwards that you couldn’t really replicate just parts of the data (eg all coins), but I’m still curious as to what data chains would allow.
Perhaps not a replicated fork, but since they allow all data to be restored after an outage, there is yet possibility of this or similar capability.
I understood that datachains allow the nodes/group handling a vault to authenticate the data the vault claims to have.
If this is right then I cannot see how chains would help much a person trying to replicate a safenetwork.
Just a thought experiment exercise. If anyone could fork the network and use chains (or whatever) to replicate the/parts of the network (private parts if you will 
) then who is to stop the government bad guys from doing so. Not a very safe and secure network then.
Being able to replicate doesn’t mean you can read anything - you’d just be replicating encrypted chunks - which I guess confirms that you couldn’t be selective as you pointed out. So all or nothing, which means that as the network grows this quickly becomes infeasible.
“radical” “feature”… that doesn’t make sense. If it works and doesn’t conflict with other capabilities, then just stop using that feature you don’t like. The dull thud that is conservative mind, likes to tell others what to do but if a feature is working, then leave it be. If it’s not a feature then it’s a bug… leave the features be.
I would say that once someone is capable of back working the chains and chunks then the datamaps would be there. Thus all decryptable. In order to replicate what the groups are doing so you can retrieve the vault’s data in a way to restore them then means you have access to a global network map which defeats a lot of the security. Datamaps are the only hurdle and while tricky should be in the realms of the supercomputers of the NSA to start piecing back together the maps - its just a jigsaw puzzle once you have them all. The reasons they cannot do it to the network is that they could never hope to get a global network map and thus the job becomes a nightmare for them to even attempt even for small part of the network.
I believe the network is not replicable (once its past baby size) period for the following reasons
Is that enough reasons, there are more. 
I did say radical was subjective … in this case it is radicial economically speaking … and you can’t opt out of PtP or PtD … as if you support the network in any way, you are supporting these economic incentives.
Notice that I didn’t insult you when I replied … that’s because ad-hominem attacks are logically fallacies and their use by definition means the user is working to manipulate opinion (or deter speech on the particular matter) with bad technique instead of rational thought and facts.
BTW, a fork is not telling others what to do – it is giving people a choice.
Even if someone could get a hold of a datamap, they would have to decrypt said data map. And if by some miracle they managed to decrypt that datamap, they would have the impossible task of decrypting every chuck the datamap points to.
Obsufcation + Encryption is a hell of a security paradigm.
Data map allows you to decrypt. Remember immutable data is self encrypted and decryptable by anyone with the datamap.[quote=“betterthantrav, post:19, topic:13065”]
And if by some miracle they managed to decrypt that datamap,
[/quote]
[Deleted some theory that is just that and requires good array processing]
As David has mentioned SAFE requires network size to become practically completely secure.
BUT of course if you encrypt your data before giving it to SAFE to self-encrypt and store then its “safe”
REMEMBER this analysis only applies if it was possible to actually replicate the whole of the SAFE network in order to include it in a hard fork