3 ms·

> Might be a good idea to finish the paper now ;). I did read the entire paper and it was interesting. You're more specific meaning of the word should have be

by mchahn 8y ago

> Might be a good idea to finish the paper now ;). I did read the entire paper and it was interesting. You're more specific meaning of the word should have been spelled out before the claim. The meaning that I read was perfectly valid and shared by many others.

craigching 8y ago
Again, it wasn’t my use of the term “decentralized”, it was the use of the term in the paper. I read past the phrase for which you claimed to have dismissed the paper and understood their use of “decentralized” pretty clearly, as you should have if you understand distributed computing. Having taken advanced distributed computing courses, I, honestly, never interpreted the use of “decentralized” as you did. But, yeah, in practice, I can see your confusion. Nevertheless, dismissing a paper on such pedantic terms as you originally did is probably not worth commenting unless you really have a good reason for doing so. And, then, it’s probably best to comment only after you have read the paper and then formed an informed response. Anyway, you keep escalating this, so I keep responding in kind to help you. At some point I have to be done with it. I honestly thought that you might have something useful to contribute due to your terse response, but I was clearly wrong ;).
- mchahn 8y ago
  > it wasn’t my use of the term “decentralized” I apologize. I have a serious problem in forum discussions of not paying attention to who writes each post. I absorb all replies and then reply to the group. My bad. (Edit: And I thought you were the author). >dismissing a paper on such pedantic terms as you originally did I never dismissed the paper. Read my first post carefully. I enjoyed it and did read it before commenting. I was just pointing out my shock at the claim, which seemed ridiculous given my understanding. > you keep escalating this I thought I was participating in an argument about the meaning of the term "decentralized". I was defending my understanding to multiple people telling me I didn't know what I was talking about. > Having taken advanced distributed computing courses I have been working with databases for over 45 years. Most of that time decentralized meant lack of a centralized (single point of failure) computer, not a person or organization. It is only recently (10 to 15 yrs?) that the user meaning has appeared. Please forgive my classic interpretation.

by mchahn 8y ago

craigching 8y ago

Again, it wasn’t my use of the term “decentralized”, it was the use of the term in the paper. I read past the phrase for which you claimed to have dismissed the paper and understood their use of “decentralized” pretty clearly, as you should have if you understand distributed computing. Having taken advanced distributed computing courses, I, honestly, never interpreted the use of “decentralized” as you did. But, yeah, in practice, I can see your confusion. Nevertheless, dismissing a paper on such pedantic terms as you originally did is probably not worth commenting unless you really have a good reason for doing so. And, then, it’s probably best to comment only after you have read the paper and then formed an informed response. Anyway, you keep escalating this, so I keep responding in kind to help you. At some point I have to be done with it. I honestly thought that you might have something useful to contribute due to your terse response, but I was clearly wrong ;).

mchahn 8y ago
> it wasn’t my use of the term “decentralized” I apologize. I have a serious problem in forum discussions of not paying attention to who writes each post. I absorb all replies and then reply to the group. My bad. (Edit: And I thought you were the author). >dismissing a paper on such pedantic terms as you originally did I never dismissed the paper. Read my first post carefully. I enjoyed it and did read it before commenting. I was just pointing out my shock at the claim, which seemed ridiculous given my understanding. > you keep escalating this I thought I was participating in an argument about the meaning of the term "decentralized". I was defending my understanding to multiple people telling me I didn't know what I was talking about. > Having taken advanced distributed computing courses I have been working with databases for over 45 years. Most of that time decentralized meant lack of a centralized (single point of failure) computer, not a person or organization. It is only recently (10 to 15 yrs?) that the user meaning has appeared. Please forgive my classic interpretation.