“ However, DHTs are still vulnerable to routing attacks . Instead of trying to mess with the key/value pairs, an attacker can add and remove nodes in order to take control of individual hash buckets. These nodes can simply deny requests for data, censoring keys. If they take over all nodes with a copy of a key/value pair, they can simply discard it, leading to permanent zone file loss. This is a fundamental challenge to using structured overlay networks for decentralized storage (DHTs being one example). Since nodes do not store a full replica of the state, they have to route data requests to each other. Since anyone can add nodes to these networks, attackers can take control of routes to deny service and destroy data.”
So they moved to an architecture where every node stores everything.
I realize SAFE Network has node ageing, churn and being kicked around, but an attacker can inject sleeper nodes and so on. If SAFE Network is permissionless then anyone can join and eventually take over large sections.
This was analyzed in many threads, including “the google attack” as well as a few days ago.
I think the key is in figuring out how TWO or more malicious actors would cancel each other out, in the same way that if someone invented a new proof of work ASIC with a huge improvement in hash rate, as long as they sold it to multiple parties, then overall the hashrate of the network would catch up again. In the language of SAFE, it would dilute the attacker.