I think a definition of "Decentralized web" should mean is in order. The Internet/Arpa net was created to be decentralized from the beginning. If a node, or m

I think a definition of "Decentralized web" should mean is in order. The Internet/Arpa net was created to be decentralized from the beginning. If a node, or more nodes went down, the rest of the network may be able to keep working. If you, and me and all of our friends and all of their friends all ran out own web servers from our homes it would be decentralized to the extent that if a server disconnected all the others would keep working. The information on that server may be gone for all time. The prevalence of enormously centralized monopolies on the internet is not a result of its technical architecture, but rather narrow business interests and a terminal lack of regulation. Now we are all using AOL v3. (Facebook, Twitter, Google etc). It can get semantically confusing. Facebook is massively distributed in some ways. Datacenters in several locations, CDNs all over the place. It would take a hell of a lot (I think) to blow Facebook off the web. Or maybe some servers centrally will shut everything off it they are blown up. IPFS is weird when taking about decentralized. Storage is not on one big server located somewhere. It is distributed among many. In theory if one goes down, the data is still available. but only if the server/nodes that make up the IFPS network are reliable and dependable. If a lot of nodes are run from laptops that that are shutdown at the end of the day that would become a significant problem. Since more and more and more data would need to be stored in IPFS the need for dependable storage servers will increase rapidly. I would like a simpler approach more in line with the original architecture, lots and lots of independent small servers. The people who run them can mirror each other in some fashion to persist data. Like FTP used to be (and maybe still is), like NNTP used to be (and maybe still is)