First of all, I don't think Utopia is a very apt description for the system. That being said, I am not sure whether there's a NEED for the platform described. Yes, the platform in and of itself is theoretically sound on the macro level in terms of technology: There are already various p2p protocols that we can latch on to or possibly modify and apply towards building this system. However, similar centrally forums are already in place, most notably the various -chan forums in Japan and US, where anonymity is prioritized and administration is kept to bare minimum. I am not sure whether this system will differentiate itself enough to carve a niche market out of the ever blooming internet community.
In addition, there are still problems with a p2p-based discussion platform. As the platform grows, the data size will only grow, not shrink. Once you hit a population ceiling, the platform will simply slow to a crawl until it can no longer sustain itself. Database will only grow larger,and the same cannot be said for population size. Furthermore, while there is a trend towards info storage over the cloud, I do not think that the market is ready for the shift, nor the technology mature enough for it to happen for another 5 or 10 years. As far as I know, Google is the only company that comes anywhere nears this approach for permanent data warehousing, and even then they have multiple duplicate backbone servers around the globe. Let us not forget the 13 root servers located around a globe. Unless you decide to build a competing network infrastructure from the grounds up, there is no way to eliminate the reliance on those servers. However, it is not impossible to coincide the launch of such platform with the switchover to ipv6. The key, as I have said, is still how much of a need there is for this extremely niche market as for the majority of the population, general forums will suffice.
There are also ideological loopholes with this system as well. First of all, the complete lack of administration will never be possible. It has been tried both on virtualized platforms and in politics. You could say that you can turn the other way when someone tries to shoot you, but it's not going to prevent you from getting shot. Yes, there is no harm in not viewing an anonymous message, but what about hackers? Business intelligence? With the scope of the platform you have in mind, it's a goldmine for data mining and warehousing.
Even if you completely ignore the client side administration, you still have to invest a significant amount into developing and administering the platform. There's an awfully thin line between utopia and anarchy, and realistically, there is none. It is due to the impossibility of utopia that it is conceptualized in the first place. The relationship and evolution of marxism, socialism, and communism will probably reflect the development of such platform; in fact, it is most likely why forums are created in the first place.
I agree with what Wittenfield said towards the end of his post. You are trying to address a fundamental flaw in human nature with technology. Yes, believe in the general public. However, there are those that will fail your expectations or my expectations. Hell, even all of us in KFC have very different sets of ideologies. This is why we have a judicial system in place. Instead of blindly believing that everyone will do good, it's safer and more sound to establish a set of norms and laws, and punish those who crosses that line. It's two very simple concepts that have gradually evolved, almost instinctively, over the development of human civilization.
This system is impractical and unrealistic. Yes, it is stating the obvious: the more ambitious the scope, the more unrealistic it becomes. I believe your concept of virtual Utopia stems from the desire to eliminate administration and central management altogether and have the system operate totally independent of human influence. However, many technological and sociological factors, a few of which were pointed out by Wittenfield and me, essentially renders such platform improbable if not outright impossible at the current time. User reliance (which, in my opinion, is even worse than central governance from a bureaucracy standpoint), anonymity structuring, physical limitations, and stability are just a few among many of the issues that needs to be panned out. Like the original utopia, the idea itself is an oxymoron: In order to eliminate database administration, you need to get rid of the database itself. However, if the database never existed in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for database administration.
Developing a p2p platform simply places this reliance on every user instead of the selected few and does not solve this what is fundamentally a chicken and egg problem. No matter how descriptive and lifelike Tolkien and Herbert shape their worlds, we still know they are fiction: it's a lot easier to describe a facet of a whole. Get 10 blind men to describe an elephant, and you'd get 10 different answers. Same concept here. A more viable approach is to modify, in your mind, the closest thing to your virtual utopia and gather a team to direct it towards the direction you desire as outlined above. The end result will probably look nothing like what we have discussed in this post, but then again, it wouldn't have anyways even if you develop it from the grounds up.
