Using “egalitarian“ instead of “decentralised“ to refer to a network topology without centres
I don’t like the term “decentralised” (which sucks, given how often I use it). For one thing, it’s ambiguous (see, for example, the eternal debate of whether or not to use “decentralised“ or “distributed” when you mean “no centres”). For another, it defines itself in relation to its inverse. I’m going to start using “egalitarian“ to describe the network topology where every node is equal.
@aral "Egalitarian" is kind of orthogonal.
A centralised network can be egalitarian if it guarantees the rights of its members.
A decentralised network can be not egalitarian if the power of some nodes prevails over the rest. (think the prominent position of miners in the Bitcoin network)
Sure, as a marketing newspeak term, it may work.
It's orthogonal at best, and potentially not true.
It's really down to a personal ethical decision.
@h I do mean to limit it to node abilities and not node popularity. Within that context, a centralised network cannot be egalitarian (even if it guarantees the rights of its members) because, by design, those running the central node will have rights that the other nodes do not have (including the right to decide what their rights are). In a network where every node has the same capabilities/abilities some nodes may be more “popular” – more connections – but will not be privileged.
@h Can you think of one practical example that is? :) It’s a spectrum, isn’t it? While we may never a network comprised entirely of equally-weighted nodes, I do believe it is important to have an accessible term to describe it so that we know where the “x” is on the map – so we know what we’re aiming at and can communicate that as accessibly as possible.