Building on go-ipfs, c-ipfs: C/CGo extensions

Would the maintainers be averse to doing this the (easier) way of building on C (I'm thinking kenCode's implementation) or CGo extensions?

The main con would probably be the loss of (some, perhaps not all) of the feedback on the spec, and the need to publish wheels. Pros would be implementation time, execution time (by a huge margin initially) and faster updates (in the case of C/Go internals).

No files, tests, or entry points are named. Start by reviewing the proposed kenCode implementation and the project's current Python implementation, then determine whether a C or CGo extension is desired and how publishing wheels would fit; done requires an agreed implementation direction rather than a defined code change.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.