[hobofan]

> Finally, even once a node is assigned into a particular section, it will be reassigned to another random section at some interval, further decreasing your ability to take over a particular section.

Doesn't that on the flipside also mean that given enough time your malicious nodes will end up in the same section, allowing for a take over of that section?

[ktorn]

As the network grows it becomes increasingly harder to do so, especially since you need to add increasing amounts of resources (bandwidth, disk space, and some cpu, for the proof-of-resource) to your attack.

This is not too dissimilar to what happens with CPU-only PoW consensus networks. Easy to attack in the beginning but less so as the network grows.

It will be interesting to see how the SAFE network will be bootstrapped. I'm sure there will be a significant number of malicious players waiting in line to disrupt it early on.

If it works, and I believe it can, IMHO this network will be one of the most important developments in decentralised systems in the past decade.

[pdx]

Yes, I believe that there is a non-zero probability that could happen, just as there is a non-zero probability that all the air molecules in the room you are in, which are bouncing around randomly, may all end up in the other corner of the room and suffocate you.

Since all nodes change sections randomly, like air molecules, they should remain randomly distributed, provided the network size is large enough. For a small network though, one can imagine you could get lucky eventually. Like other decentralized networks, security and size are related.