> You are proposing a system based on financial rewards for hosting. No, I'm not. You are incorrectly assuming that blockchains are necessarily financial or t

> You are proposing a system based on financial rewards for hosting. No, I'm not. You are incorrectly assuming that blockchains are necessarily financial or that cryptoeconomic incentive structure involves net pay to someone. > If you propose that people currently abusing the free service of archive.org, to the point of bringing it down, would pay a fee per download, you must be joking. I'm not proposing that. People "pay" for hosting by participating in some amount of upload to offset their download, in order to be granted higher download rates. That is the same principle as BitTorrent has used since its inception: Upload is measured and download is traded for upload to ensure users choose to upload for a while. The difference is that information is split and diffused in a different way, which ensure that some amount of upload bandwidth and temporary storage is available for less popular data as long as there are people participating in the network, mostly when they are downloading something more popular and providing some upload in exchange. The network power law helps by ensuring the long tail of less popular content needs relatively little "extra" bandwidth so it is not onerous on the users who, most of the time, are downloading and storing popular data. No money needs to be involved. Probably some financial things will emerge much like paid Torrent sites do at the moment for enhanced access which some people prefer. You can't prevent them, but they are not required for the network's operation nor required to access it.