You’ve taken my comments personally rather than in the way they were meant.
You haven’t established the parameters of this attack. You’ve started a discussion and some people think its a valid attack, and some don’t. I don’t see it as something worth mitigating against in its current state because I don’t see from what you have said, either how feasible it is (analysis) nor how if some (unquantified) amount of (specific or random - I’m not clear here either) was to be lost, how impactful that would be.
It is easy to say things like “if the network were to start losing data I’d…” etc, but it doesn’t make it true. If statements like this are going to determine the design of the network, they need to be set out in detail, quantified where possible, and reasoned clearly all the way through.
I made the point about hard disks not because they are the same as SAFE, but to illustrate the need for sound analysis, along with complete, and clear reasoning. This hasn’t been presented to my mind. You may not have time to do this (which is what I meant by you’re finding it hard, not that you are stupid or something personal about you), but it needs to be done if it is to be of value in strengthening the network. See for example the work @erick is doing: Open questions on the security properties offered by the XOR Space closeness relationship. Before anything is going to be done to mitigate a potential threat, it has to be based on something rigorous and that can be considered in order to assess its seriousness and decide what if anything to do about it. If you don’t do this, someone else will need to do it before it will go anywhere.