IPFS solves this problem far better. It marries content addressing, DHT+bittorrent-style distribution, and public key cryptography. In the low level ipfs name

IPFS solves this problem far better. It marries content addressing, DHT+bittorrent-style distribution, and public key cryptography. In the low level ipfs namespace content is identified with its hash. Content may be either a file or a directory, which is a map of names to hashes. In the higher level ipns namespace content is associated with the hash of its current content and the public key of the agent that's allowed to update this hash. A hypothetical that I found motivational: The New York Times writes an article that includes a link to a source, say a scientific paper. As an organization, they make the decision to care about their articles being available with necessary context, so they link to the paper's hash within IPFS and configure their servers to maintain and serve all IPFS content that they ever link to. In this way, even when the original host of the report goes offline the New York Times is able to ensure that their article's links continue to work.