Edit: I just finished watching your talk where you mention that https://github.com/feross/webtorrent is already doing that.
mafintosh showed how wikipedia could be shared without a central server(s), and instead rely on a network of peers.
subtack did something similar, peermaps, which is a showcase on how you can share geo data over bittorrent. Imagine a google maps without a google servers. https://github.com/substack/peermaps
Of course there's many unsolved questions, like "how do you update?", "how do you manage the data?", etc. But the examples are pretty solid.
I think Bittorrent is also working on a similar project for the whole web, called Maelstrom:
Just my drive by judgement.
And in these NSA times it's even more important.
In practice there would be a few "popular" branches, and one would likely dominate, so that it would be trivial to identify it by relying on a social consensus.
Using a blockchain when what you need is a distributed database is overkill.
You could have different branches with different admin teams, but in a sense we have that technology already: anybody can download an XML dump of the Wikipedia database and set up their own Wikipedia clone with minimal effort.
It's when you need to merge branches back together that things tend to get messy - with currency or an encyclopedia, and everyone being on the same branch all the time is better, for both cases.
I can just imagine what the 'popular' branch for an encyclopedia would look like if 4chan set their sites on causing problems for it.
2) Same thing that happens currently on Wikipedia. There's a set of rules that determine what edits are valid and which aren't, and a local client can applies those rules (or not) to determine the HEAD version. There's nothing that prevents a Sybil attack on Wikipedia, but there doesn't seem to be the need for it.
Decentralising the internet is generally a great idea.
Well, this cuts the server cost by decentralizing their content.