Many of the problems you talk about are off topic. --- The trust problem still applies to HTTP. We still download viruses on the web, and we still lose our c

Many of the problems you talk about are off topic. --- The trust problem still applies to HTTP. We still download viruses on the web, and we still lose our credit card numbers to con artists. The only reason there's more malware on current P2P network is because those networks are disproportionately used to infringe copyright. The risk doesn't come from the distributed nature of the network, but from the lack of legality of the content. Securing peer to peer communications to current web levels is trivially easy: just sign the damn data, and have a certificate authority ascertain the identity of the signer. For static content such as YouTube videos, you can also use a content addressable system. While that would require some level of centralisation, it woulndn't exceed that of DNS, and would definitely solve the bandwidth issue. > What happens if you need more bandwidth than your usernet can give? I won't happen, because we enjoy symmetric bandwidth, thanks to our regulators being sensible, competent people. (At least that's the case in my rainbows & unicorns world). Seriously, though, symmetric bandwidth is the ultimate and only solution to many problems: it ensures total upload keeps up with total download, so we get the equilibrium we want.