[mmjaa]

>And why would they?

Because they're reading the blog, and are interested in the content - i.e. because next generation IPFS-friendly browsers participate in the pinning, as they should.

I mean, think about it: there is already a copy of this web page out there, multiply redundant, in the form of our browser cache. All it really needs for IPFS to be viable is for the browser vendors to give the user the means to make those cached files part of their contribution to the Internet...

[sterlind]

That would be beautiful, and hopefully realizable with a browser extension, which would get glommed into the browser core (a la Brave and Firefox) once the technology is proven.

But how do you solve NAT? Most end-user devices can't expose ports, and IPs are increasingly shared. Skype was uniquely successful there, but I doubt IPFS in its current form could make use of those tricks.

[nybble41]

> But how do you solve NAT?

The solution to NAT is IPv6.