> using a browser extension only serves to create an unreliable solution for a few using the extension. Cheaper sure but it's also doing a whole lot less. This

> using a browser extension only serves to create an unreliable solution for a few using the extension. Cheaper sure but it's also doing a whole lot less. This is rather pessimistic thinking. The same money that goes into buying up domains could go into lobbying browsers to add this functionality be default. > bulk of the problem space is in guaranteeing active hosting in a way viewable to viewers of the age will be available for many years not addressing the content. You're moving the goal posts. I am not saying "IPFS means we don't need the internet archive". We absolute do need the internet archive. Content addressing helps by making archiving transparent, so the archival copy is not worse than the original. Fundamentally, consumers producers or archivists may be the party most interested in the continued existence of some information at different moments in the lifespan of that information. Location-based addressing forces the producers to shoulder the burden of hosting, but content-based addressing allows the work to be distributed among those 3 however we see fit. Of course the burdened must still be barred! That doesn't mean the flexibility isn't extremely useful. > On top of hosting and addressing the Internet Archive offers the ability to view old content on modern browsers even if modern browsers have 0 support for such content anymore (or if browsers ever had support at all even). Forward compatibility isn't something solved by a protocol. Yeah that's great too, and again not something I am arguing is not good, or not necessary.