I read the article. What are you finding to be inconsistent? I'm thinking of a "server" as a dedicated computer connected to the network. With IPFS, if you wa

I read the article. What are you finding to be inconsistent? I'm thinking of a "server" as a dedicated computer connected to the network. With IPFS, if you want to ensure your data is available, seed it with one or more dedicated computers, like you would now. Seed it on digital ocean or amazon even, if you want. Nothing prevents you from doing this. In the future, there will be new ways of incentivizing groups of people to seed data that isn't naturally viral. But nothing is stopping people from using the time tested, old fashioned ways in the meantime. I don't buy the idea that IPFS stuff is inherently permanent, but I don't care. Even the way that IPFS handles broken links is way better than how they're handled now. With IPFS you at least get a hash of what you're looking for. That's a lot more useful than what you get now. The only thing you get now is "404". I'm seeing a specific disconnect between the people who are into it and people who don't get it: they have ways of answering the question "why would someone want to host your content?" The people who are into this idea realize that the content itself often carries its own incentive to share. Given the right infrastructure, a lot of stuff will host itself because people will want to share it. That's how bittorrent works. Also, there will likely be stuff that falls out of fashion. The test of time will not disappear, but these technologies make it much easier for people who care about preservation.