> you still need to handle dynamic behaviour and that's most of the work.
I'm not sure what you think would be difficult exactly. You've said that archive.org has already done the programming needed to ensure dynamic resources are discovered, and now those resources are content ids rather than URLs. Nothing's really changed on this point.
> Relying on volunteers means that you need far more copies because nobody has a commitment to provide resources or even tell you if they decide to stop
Yes, but you would also have many more volunteers. Many people who wouldn't donate financially would donate CPU and storage. We saw this with SETI@home and folding@home, for instance.
> nobody has a commitment to provide resources or even tell you if they decide to stop
Why not? If you provide a client to participate as a storage node for archive.org, like SETI@home, then they would know your online/offline status and how much storage you're willing to donate. If you increase/decrease the quota, it could notify the network of this change.