Decentralized doesn't capture what you want it to mean anyways. When crypto people say decentralized, they don't mean AWS edge locations or The Federal Reserve Central Bank which are both decentralized. How about we start saying exactly what we mean?

"Non-excludable" captures the important aspect. It doesn't matter if your network is decentralized if it can't maintain this feature. Bitcoin being non-excludable implies that it is secure in terms of consensus control - even if a powerful agent is out to exclude you from the network, they would fail. That is the core property and it leaves no room to hide behind as a buzzword; it means exactly what it means.

The real problem is decentralized is too ambigious. There are a billion different ways something can be decentralized. The term is meaningless.

Pier to pier is what we always called it, or shortly, P2P. It's how the internet was designed. Now, all piers are equal, but some piers are more equal than others.

On a side note, the Napster model was almost perfect, its downfall was centralized indexing. I wonder if a blockchain could be used for distributed indexing using the same P2P communication model of Napster.

Its not as bad as "democratizing" something

Permissionless