No problem! I hear you about Tor/I2P integration -- I've been following that bug/issue since it was first raised, and speaking personally, I've been an advocate

No problem! I hear you about Tor/I2P integration -- I've been following that bug/issue since it was first raised, and speaking personally, I've been an advocate for building a privacy-protective "stack" that uses existing tooling for a long time (see https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/tahoe-and-tor-building-privacy-strong-foundations https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/tahoe-and-tor-building... , which was intended to be a discussion of composing existing tools together, though in retrospect seems much more Tahoe-LAFS than I meant it to be.) It does seem harder to pull off than it at first seems though, which I think is why numerous people have bounced off it on both the IPFS and Tor sides. I have a general theory that this is true of a lot of interoperability initiatives: they are by their nature tasks that sit on the edge of "nice to have" periphery of an existing project. Plus they often require dev unicorns -- people who are able to understand the architecture and cultures of two different development spaces. One thing I've been talking to a few people about informally as part of my work at FFDW is to work out an institution or funding initiative that would be a wrapper around these kind of interoperability ventures more generally. Dan Lynch's INTEROP was a vital part of the early Internet's success, and I think we miss something occupying that space in our new decentralized world. We have so many amazing tools, but have so little time to make them work well together.