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.
I like this in theory but all nodes are not equal
maybe "exploded" is a better term? but it's too close to 'explosive' which is a loaded term :/ so not that then
dunno, unsure
@sydneyfalk Thanks! I do mean using it only for networks where all nodes are equal. In other words, a peer-to-peer network where there are no incentives for any of the nodes to scale vertically, where there is no proprietary lock-in/centres and where the interaction model is peer to peer. (e.g., I would not use it to describe Mastodon if the norm was instances of many – I think “federated“ describes that well – but I would if the norm was instances of one.)
@sydneyfalk @aral I agree that it does not describe what is done with this kind of network topology.
I heard about the term "acephalic" to describe this kind of relation of power in this network topology. I like this one.