Heh, I saw the "able to remove modules" under Problems Trying to Solve in https://github.com/EverythingStays/EverythingStays https://github.com/EverythingStays/

Heh, I saw the "able to remove modules" under Problems Trying to Solve in https://github.com/EverythingStays/EverythingStays https://github.com/EverythingStays/EverythingStays and thought you meant that was a feature not a bug. I was definitely referring to control as opposed to removing a single version (impossible by design in IPFS). Conceptually though, the use case of remove is important, at least in the sense that an author wants to formally call out when a version contains breaking code, etc. I am wondering how an author can signal that the latest version is malware or should be ignored, or that the whole namespace, or even the author is no longer valid. Without human intermediaries (the primary benefit of centralized systems), we lose the ability to mitigate or moderate when things go awry -- e.g. an author loses control over the "keys to the house". As this concept gets developed, it would be good to develop protocols for identity management, release validation, module namespace registration, etc. Perhaps if not in IPFS, it can be implemented in blockchain tech like ethereum.