The practice of having to create and share one-byte-different copies of files would be enough to kill this service for the users that Dotcom professes to be ena

The practice of having to create and share one-byte-different copies of files would be enough to kill this service for the users that Dotcom professes to be enabling, in thumbing his nose at the authorities. The biggest user-facing problem with torrents today is that it takes too long to find 'the right' or 'good' files. Ones that aren't loaded up with malware, or mislabeled, or encoded poorly, etc. Having to push various one-byte-difference copies of files is going to explode the search problem for users. And, once found, 'good' files couldn't be popularized, lest they be pulled down. And once one user scored a 'good' file, they wouldn't be able to share it directly through the service to even known associates due that same universal blacklist. The usability on such a system sounds like a wet-dream for driving people into the arms of for-pay alternatives. Further, having a fingerprint on every file you upload is a direct violation of the marketing pitch of security and anonymity that Dotcom's making to the 'legit' crowd. Consider if there were a security breach at a popular online service and a text file of compromised accounts released. The FBI could upload a copy and then subpoena Mega for information on every user who had that same copy. Sure, people could alter their files themselves, but who wants to put up with that kind of cognitive overhead to prevent malicious prosecution/persecution?