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.
@aral I see the need for terminology that can be used to communicate these ideas.
I think it's a good idea to educate people about these concerns, and I appreciate and acknowledge that the job of a communicator such as the role you sometimes take can be hard work.
But I don't believe that using terms that mean something else clarifies things in layman's terms, I think they confuse things.
What's wrong with saying that more people are equivalent, or better connected in a network?
@aral All I'm saying is maybe the concepts of equality, connectedness, and equivalence are fundamentally distinct and they shouldn't be confused.