What can one do if one has 99% of the elder nodes

ok, can I request a moderator to delete all the troll messages? I want serious answer… :confused:

What troll messages. I’m serious. Are you saying it’s not possible


Ummm… #1: @Cryptoskeptic is anything but a troll. #2: The title of this topic had me thinking its creator is probably trolling, to be honest because #3: as @neo has already said, to takeover 99% of Network resources would be a frighteningly expensive proposition, and there are many topics threads that speak to this. To help get you started (assuming you’re not trolling), read: Massive scale maidsafe farm & Analysing the google attack


how does your replies answer the question or helps me find the answer?

@Sotros25 ty mate! I will read those and if it answers my question I will ask for a lock on this thread/ deletion


@Sotros25 I tried to find the answer but either too technical or too old and doesnt have an asnwer or isnt the same question as mine.

what I want is an ELI5 style answer to the question: some party makes a plan once the safe network live launch and manages to have 99% elder.

please note: I want to beg you to undestand the power of US inteligence, they have the biggest data center in the world and they store ALL public and any info they get their hands on. Also their budget is unlimited so they can dominate the information dominance.

so a party that controls 99% of the elders, what impact does it have on the safe network.

example given:

  1. the network starts with 5000 nodes
  2. the inteligence agency knows that more nodes are accepted when there is more PUTS on the network leading to less available storage, so they upload tbs of junk (they pay the price)
  3. they make nodes/vaults that are random IP location and random storage size, these nodes and vaults wait for approval
  4. once the safe network needs more nodes/vaults/storage space it accepts one by one all the agency’s nodes/vaults
  5. lets say users continue to join so 10.000 safe nodes, but at the same time 1.000.000 malicious nodes have been approved
  6. now from the 1.000.000 malicious nodes/vaults and from the 10.000 safe nodes/vaults we get after some time (through the safe network algorithm) 100 elders from the safe nodes/vaults and 10.000 elders from the malicious nodes/vaults
  7. here comes my question: what the malicous elders can do to the network because the malicious elders are 99% of all the elders

about me cause @Sotros25 thought maybe I am troll

I have been interested to the project over a month now and have read lots of threads and I have contributed some of my thoughts but after searching more about it I got the question what if there are more malicious and I did the math (an agency with unlimited resources and will to win the information dominance, cause safe network is a threat to them in my opinion) and I really want to learn in such a senario what can they do to the network or to the people or any other possible negative thing


First of all, no agency or government entity has unlimited resources. It’s a big part of the reason why, for example, the US sphere of military influence in Asia is waning. Every empire eventually stretches itself too thin.

What you’re proposing/questioning could either be called a 51% attack or Sybil attack. Once again, so much has been written on these topics (as well as node aging and management) that I implore you to use this forum’s search function to do more research. Here’s another useful thread for you to read: Step-by-step: the road to Fleming, 3: Sybil resilience simulations.

There is no way for any entity other than the Network itself to know how many nodes are on the Network, and the number of nodes isn’t fixed. Why does it matter that there are 5000 nodes to start? Moreover, what do you think these malicious nodes would do? If the malicious nodes are filled with junk and can’t store more data (would be) users request to upload, that would drive up the value of Safecoin, which would entice more farmers to join the Network until the laws supply and demand restored balance.

I suppose theoretically, a government could choose to keep trying to keep pace with Network growth by adding more compromised notes but, once again, that would be incredibly expensive both in terms of fiat spent and human capital deployed. Plus there’s no way for said government, as already noted, to be sure if they have x% of nodes (which would still need to age). I also think you’re taking for granted how difficult it is to generate the coordinated and collective action within a government for something like this. Every dollar spent waging war against SAFE would be a dollar many other parties would have wanted for their pet project.

Also, the Network would be aware, I would think, that a bunch of Nodes have many PUTS but almost no GET requests. I’d assume that would be earmarked as weird behavior.


consider that he read how it works and he sets up many private websites on the safe network where he shares the “junk” (it maybe a 4gb movie) and from other accounts he accesses/downloads it,


  1. fills the storage
  2. gets more nodes in
  3. accesses the “junk” that he uploaded from other accounts
  4. nodes get all the time more in quantity and more age by work done
  5. ends up with more 99% elders

and still my question is not how to do that or if its possible cause we cannot forsee everything

my question is still what one with 99% elders can do to the network, to the people, or any negative thing

1 Like

@Sotros25 ok sry I didnt put a correct title

No decentralized solution maintains stability+security under a 99% attack lolz. Even blockchain solutions (which arguably do better than the 2/3rd required non-malicious here w SAFE @ w the usual 51% miner attacks) can’t handle 99% hostile takeover of nodes my dude. Bitcoin and all the likes of them. Your point isn’t super relevant because decentralized solutions after their somewhat vulnerable state early on become quite robust when user uptake occurs in a few given weeks. And there is a common desire generally for these networks to succeed, especially early on when driven by community members under the radar, a malicious entity does not really gain much by harming SAFE, the coins would become worthless due to compromised security, people would stop using the network and move to something else or a fresh net copy. Once the network is decently sized its a non-issue.


I think yes it would be compromised, but what would they want to / be able to do?

The attacker could

  • delete chunks
  • change safecoin ownership / amounts
  • add data to the network for free
  • expel nodes
  • prevent nodes from joining
  • prevent or control relocation of vaults
  • adjust node age
  • control the consensus algorithms
  • probably a lot more

What can’t they do?

  • Change the content of immutable data, since the content and the name are intertwined.
  • Pretend to be someone (eg transfer their coins in their name), since they can’t sign without the private key of the other person
  • Maybe some other things too

So they can do enough that you’d have to say the network would not survive.

The more important question is not ‘if’ they can but ‘how expensive is it’ and ‘does the benefit justify the cost’? There’s no perfect security, only secure enough. I think the topic should be asking ‘is SAFE secure enough’ or ‘what is the cost to control X% of the network’ or ‘can others prevent control’ or ‘can others detect impending control and stop it before it happens’. Important questions for sure.

Jumping straight to ‘if they control X%’ is stepping too far ahead in the chain of logic imo.


Also, if the network does die, a new one can just be started again. Are they going to attack that one too and literally keep throwing good money after bad?


Wouldn’t the MAID hodlers all be filthy rich before the network collapsed though?


Filthier than filthy I reckon


restart the network, rinse and repeat?


If the network used some proof of stake for vaults to join, then probably since the attackers would need to acquire coins to implement the attack. This isn’t currently in the plans though, so what would drive demand for the coins in the early stages of the attack?


Keep it up @dreamerchris, I’m enjoying reading the answers to your questions here. I encourage you along with the others to read around, but rehashing an old question a little obstinately isn’t always bad, can bring clearer answers to light. Also welcome aboard :slight_smile:


Or to continue reading around, I should say

I can’t think of any advantage they would get by infiltrating the BT “network”. There’s no consensus algorithm in BT. And you double check all received files by hashing everything you get from another peer. Maybe by DoSing the DHT, so no one can find other peers decentrally.

Why aren’t they just taking over BTC? That should be easy for them with “unlimited resources”, cause BTC isn’t a treat to them?

the “network” is a conceptual thing, it’s not a “real” entity, does that mean no one is able to tell the total number of nodes on the network?

that’s always the main thing in IT security. Nothing is fully secure, eventually everything can be hacked.


Well, these are kinda old reference points, so things may have changed; however, see below:

I think how and whether farmers/users can check the total number of nodes will be dependent on the ultimate design of the Network. To allow for this (and at what stage to allow for this, whether it’s searchable by geography etc.) all have its own risks. There are, of course, risks to keeping the info concealed. I guess we’ll see.


I think you miss the huge reason that drives a whole sector of government involvement on the control of the internet. That is the huge donations given by the various media companies to various governments (USA AU UK and so on) to draft laws to control the internet and change the copyright laws. There were leaked videos of meetings where the media companies told the government representatives to use other criminal activity to aid in convincing the public the laws are needed. Back then it was abuse crimes, then terrorism, and now bulling

The point is that BitTorrent allows people to share copyrighted material that the media companies claim are losing them huge amounts of income.

Now look at the government response to BitTorrent. crickets and a few domain names removed.

Now the government is slow to act and to visualise any government department spending huge amounts of money to attack what is essentially a file storing network is hard to do. Add in safesites and ho hum. Add in privacy and we still basically have BitTorrent and TOR.

It will take a lot of time for the safenetwork to demonstrate that it will be a lot more than bittorrent+TOR+Sites. And that is the point of the BitTorrent example