I bet IPFS could have gotten by with mirroring system. Sites publishes list of files that they want mirrored, and supporters could copy and host the files. I th

I bet IPFS could have gotten by with mirroring system. Sites publishes list of files that they want mirrored, and supporters could copy and host the files. I think IPFS could be more useful for software, and mirroring or caches would work well. Also, IPFS was supposed to have clients host the file like Bittorrent does. My impression is that most users don't host, they just download. It is quite possible that adding money to system reduces people's desire to contribute. I also got the impression that flaws in client make it harder to host.