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.
Tsatnosk
@aral Dammit, this undermines the double meaning in my decentweb.eu * project name. But you have good arguments.
*) even though I have a bit of content on the domain, the project is far from finished.
@zatnosk I like that double meaning also ;) I’m not saying we have to stop using the existing terms; only that I feel “egalitarian” describes a p2p topology in an accessible and expressive manner :)
(Best of luck with your project, by the way. Please feel free to ping me updates any time if you like.)
@aral Ah, that's a good angle.
I personally use decentralized as an umbrella term for anything not-centralized, and then specify federated or p2p when applicable.
In your terms, can a p2p network be non-egalitarian? If so, is it an overlapping definition or subset?
(Thanks! I'd love to have your feedback once I get it filled out somewhat - it'll probably take a while, though. Life can be demanding regarding time.)
@zatnosk I’d say p2p and egalitarian are synonymous. I feel “egalitarian” would be easier for a person without technical knowledge to understand and it puts the focus on the aspect of the topology that I feel is most important for social reasons.
@Concerned_Commy @zatnosk Indeed. And yet, language isn’t a static construct either. You throw something out there and either it sticks or it slips off into the ether of could-have-beens :)