Tor & IPFS are opposites

Tor Onions are famous for "No JavaScript" since JavaScript can be used to fingerprint your browser and identify you.  While most darkweb markets completely avoid JS, many other sites such as WordPress can achieve this same trick.  Our team did it a year ago by moving the WooCommerce code to the SERVER side, so the client's browser does NOT have to do it.

IPFS is the opposite.  There is no server, and IPFS nodes share copies of static files.  The word "static" doesn't mean it doesn't have JavaScript, it means the code is pre-defined and known to the client in advance (so it’s more truly open source).  With IPFS, clients are running all code locally.

In summary,
Tor Onions do it all server-side, hide where the server is, and who is connecting to it.
While as IPFS does it all client-side, turns your local PC into a node, which publicly broadcasts you are sharing it (like a torrent).

Both are difficult to do complex apps with, and that's why they both are not that popular.  However, it is possible.  And as long as it’s possible, there’s hope. 

 I spent years trying to use IPFS in a truly decentralized manner.

Not going to happen

Nostr is the way 

 I agree IPFS is flawed and Nostr is more useful/better, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
For example Nostr doesn’t do images/video, and IPFS could do that for Nostr.  The reason that’s unlikely to happen is cultural, not technical. 

 I2P > IPFS

😎  

 do you find i2p even slower than tor? 

 I can't say.

I only set up I2P to see what was required to get it running.  I didn't test speeds.

My conclusion was that I2P is a superior Privacy technology, but not ready for widespread adoption like Monero is.  

Clearnet beats IPFS because IPFS offers no privacy advantage, but  *is* way more difficult to use.  The benefit of "uncensorable" can be achieved way cheaper by Registrar hopping like Weev does.