Really, this is the question I'm being asked on Hacker News? Are we at the point where an average user here never heard of BitTorrent, Tor and other similar systems? Or is it a way to demand for me to post a complete description of the protocol that would support the feature above? It doesn't matter what the specific protocol is. What matters is that this is not even a goal and it should be.
> Are we at the point where an average user here never heard of BitTorrent, Tor and other similar systems?
Tor hidden services don't provide permanent storage. It's just a routing protocol.
BitTorrent doesn't guarantee storage, either. A popular site will remain de facto stable, but the long tail is a different story.
Every. Single. Time. This idea comes up, and it always fails because the economics just don't work out. Someone needs to take care of all those terabytes of data. Routing is pretty cheap, and can basically be thought of as solved by Tor, I2P, IPFS, BitTorrent, etc. If you're willing to keep your PC on 24/7, it's easy, but nobody can expect that.
The closest you can get is FreeNet. Kinda. It's better than BitTorrent, but still worse than S3, because of course it is, it's free.
Yes, I am interested in your idea. I agree it is something should happen. However, who would host these sites? I don’t see the solution yet. Maybe you have put more thought into it.
Edit: you sound a bit rattled. I didn’t mean to instigate.
