[seanp2k2]

If an IP hosts multiple sites, you'd need to figure out the correct http HOST header to send it, unless you're use a static IP for every site. Most web hosts are using name-based virtualhosts: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/vhosts/

We implement both name- and ip-based vhosts, but only for sites with dedicated IPs (read: sites that need a dedicated IP for SSL.) You can do SSL on a shared IP, but it gets more complicated. Cloudflare does it by using a cert with multiple "certificate subject alt names", but security / site spoofing would still be an issue if you're ditching SSL at the same time (which would be a good idea).

This is the /real/ web 2.0...maybe even web 3.0: peer-to-peer hosting without ICANN or Verisign and co. We can do it, and people are working on building it right now. Reddit has Meshnet and NameCoin seems like a good idea. Now we just need a similar solution for SSL and a good way to host/update things. The future looks bleak for ISPs, CAs, registrars, and non-free countries.

[listening]

There is a solution for SSL. Of course it's not SSL, it's more secure and it's faster.

You can set several "domain names" (hostnames) for a server.

There is a working prototype.

Seek with open mind and ye shall find.

I agree what you allude to is the real web 3.0 but, imo, it's not accurate to call it "web 3.0" because it's more than just "the web". Lots more than just web servers will run on a properly constructed peer-to-peer platform.

The public "web" is for Google and Facebook, their marketers and massive surveillance.

The internet is for users.

[daeken]

Err, perhaps I'm missing something, but what does this comment mean? Anything?

You're new to Hacker News, so I'm not going to downvote this, but a piece of advice: this sort of vague, useless-without-context comment adds nothing to the dialogue and will be driven down before you can blink.