I think criticism is valid in regards to TPS. But for storage it's misguided. The blockchain is meant for consensus, storing reddit comments or cat pictures is an expensive and inefficient misuse of the blockchain.
Hashes in the blockchain, when necessary, and then markets which will sell you a file when presented with the hash. Storage technology can be whatever.
That's the smart plan, I think. I really want to take a crack at those storage markets in-browser, use a distributed hash table and WebRTC to pay people for leaving a browser open and allowing us to store stuff on their hard drives!
36 cents will get you a gigabyte stored for a year with 99.999999999% durability and 99.99% availability at S3, accessible at multiple gigabits per second.
When gigabit class connections are pervasive, the idea of paying people to store data in an open web browser is maybe feasible, but certainly not profitable for any involved party.
Ethereum doesn't aim to store massive data within the blockchain itself. Instead, we're building an additional component into the network, Swarm, which essentially acts as a DHT/DFS. There are already experimental branches within the main repos, they function, but probably at a POC state.
Furthermore, a 1Gbit DL/200Mbit UL link costs $13.70/month where I live, so I think it it is already very much viable, but maybe the distribution will be skewed towards more internet friendly countries :)
True it might be misguided for Ethereum, but I meant my comment to be taken in the context of other distributed crypto tech being worked out. It was more a criticism of the blockchain. Surely we can find some middle ground for a "web-of-trust" between a few nodes and everyone. I think maidsafe settled on 32...I forget, and I don't know enough to know the dangers there.
But yes, I realize that for storage it is ideal to use another service, I just fear normal developers inability to tie the two safely...frameworks like Embark do seem help there (though I find IPFS too slow for my stateful needs).
