remove iroh from IPFS implementations list :(

[b5]

I really don't want to file this PR, but after this exchange on the iroh discord it's clear that having iroh listed as an IPFS implementation is a source of confusion, and ultimately we owe it to users to cut down on confusion.

I still very much believe that iroh is an IPFS system, but that distinction isn't helping end users. So we have two options to cut down on confusion

1. Commit to doing the work to make iroh & kubo interop.
2. Adjust documentation until user expectations align with what's possible in practical terms.

Our team doesn't have the resources to take on option 1 right now.

cc @mishmosh, @lidel

[vercel[bot]]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
ipfs-website	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	May 1, 2024 1:05pm

[mishmosh]

this exchange on the iroh discord

Despite being in the Discord, that link is giving me an error. What's the channel name and date of the conversation?

[b5]

Ugh deep linking is hard. It was in the #general channel of the Iroh discord, roughly 2 hours ago.

[mishmosh]

Ah, I was in the N0 discord. Thanks for the second link.

I think we should leave the entry in, but amended for accuracy: Iroh: (Rust) An efficiency-focused system for syncing bytes across devices. Iroh is IPFS-based and uses CIDs, but it is not a full, interoperable implementation. Read more in the [Iroh docs](https://iroh.computer/docs/ipfs).

[mishmosh]

#313 is an alternative PR that applies the suggestion from above.