Spam cannot be dealt with. Illicit material sticking around is a feature. There is an economic incentive for material that creates a liability for the “seeders” to not be kept around.
To give it as much credit as I can: individual peers could do their own content moderation, deciding what they do and don't want to be around, and if enough people decide something shouldn't be there, it'll basically drop out of availability. But that goes against the whole “market forces” philosophy that it's supposedly based on, and also goes against some of the claims that the proponents of these systems keep making.
It's just a bad system, not even taking into account the pointless CPU cycle wastage. Blockchains sort of make sense for something where each block is based on the previous, but for arbitrary pieces of data? Chaining them like that is faddish unless it brings real concrete benefits over just doing the same thing without blockchain.
To give it as much credit as I can: individual peers could do their own content moderation, deciding what they do and don't want to be around, and if enough people decide something shouldn't be there, it'll basically drop out of availability. But that goes against the whole “market forces” philosophy that it's supposedly based on, and also goes against some of the claims that the proponents of these systems keep making.
It's just a bad system, not even taking into account the pointless CPU cycle wastage. Blockchains sort of make sense for something where each block is based on the previous, but for arbitrary pieces of data? Chaining them like that is faddish unless it brings real concrete benefits over just doing the same thing without blockchain.