Thanks for the invitation. I'd be interested in joining, though as far as I'm aware the SuperNET folks don't seem very positively disposed toward me for some reason. Do you think they'd actually welcome me?
I agree that there's some irony in calling blockchain-based tech centralised, though in this context - which is the networking of chains - the distinctions do apply, and without ambiguity.
(That said, I also agree that there's a lack of marketing-friendly terminology to talk about this stuff. With so many layers, each of which can be centralised or decentralised, it's a complex landscape. Once we move from developing the core components onto marketing it to customers, we will need a good set of ways to present the differences. For the time being, I'm just using technical though confusing language.)
By the same token, could you call Blocknet centralised around... Blocknet? It seems like a very strange distinction to make.
Re: Slack, I'm not saying it would be welcome with open arms, but there are already other Blocknetters there and they haven't been tarred and feathered yet.
Well, no. The Blocknet is a network. If its architecture is decentralized, then it's foggy. If it's centralized, then it's cloudy.
Maybe an analogy will help me express myself. The fact that the Blocknet is a network of networks is equivalent to the fact that the internet is (partly) a network of LANs. Now if every LAN was decentralised but the internet was centralised, then the internet would still be centralised. But if the internet was decentralised, then it would still be so even if every LAN was centralised.
The bottom line: if a network-of-networks is centralised, this property is unaffected by nature of the sub-networks. That's why I've said earlier that I think Multigateway renders SuperNET a cloud service bus.
Anyway...
Sign me up for the SuperNET Slack! It sounds like it's worth a try.