Replace master/slave terminology

[Stezido]

We should remove the master/slave terminology.

Alternatives could be following:

Master/Replica
Primary/Replica

I think Replica is a good alternative to slave because a node of a blockchain network is a Replica of other nodes in the network.
We could keep Master to not confuse Trubudget admins used to the master/slave terminology too much.
Primary is another alternative for master

What's the Community thinking about it?

[jzakotnik]

Here we go, some ideas. Replica is nice, but it sounds like "fake art"?

• A and B
• Alpha and Beta (or Omikron :-)
• Chief and Participant
• Tree and Leaf

The advantage of Alpha and Beta is that it would enable also more complex hierarchies in the future (Gamma etc).

[dancingbenji]

• Base and Outpost
• Main and Dependent
• Origin and Manifestation
• Foundation and Characteristic

[Stezido]

I like the idea of the extendability of alpha beta omicron^^

[jzakotnik]

From others:
Root/Leave
Main/Replicated
Planet/Satellite

[jzakotnik]

Conductor/follower
Primary/Secondary
Source/Sink

[jzakotnik]

Captain und Jack

[jzakotnik]

Head and Limb

[mathiashoeld]

i'm trying to capture my thought process, bare with me.
first "level": talking about one node per organization
the first node has some kind of "unique power" since it creates the first blocks on the chain, right? so in that sense, i'd call it the "origin node".
if another node tries to join the network, it has to be approved by a majority of all the nodes in the network. until then i'd call it a "requestor" or something similar.
once the requestor is part of the network, it has the same rights as any other node, correct? if so, then i'd call every node on the network just "node", but then comes the second level.

second "level": talking about multiple nodes per organization
each organization can have multiple nodes, correct? but adding one node to the network for one organization should not increase the organization's voting power on the net. therefore we should differentiate between "primary" and "secondary" nodes for an organization.

in conclusion that would mean:

• origin node: creator of the network -> should be renamed to primary node after another organization joins
• requestor: asks to join the network -> should be renamed as soon as request is granted
• primary node: regular node with full voting power
• secondary node: n-th node for each organization with no additional voting power

[Stezido]

Good thoughts!
Origin and requestor could be an alternative, but I wouldn't divide into primary and secondary nodes, because the voting power is not binded to a specific node just to the organization.
The origin/requestor division is more important because it changes it's behavior and configuration.
I would keep it short and simple 😚^^

[jzakotnik]

Thinking about this, I think we shouldn't connect the functionality to a particular naming. Sounds counter-intuitive, but if you have "lead + replica" or "origin + requester" or whatever, it gives room for misunderstanding of what it actually is. People won't read the description. Therefore I think I favor something like alpha and beta, which you simply use and if you need more info, you look it up.

[Stezido]

Initiator/Follower