But you still have not explained why a peer in a peer to peer network when talking to a computer querying the P2P network for data is not then a server??? No one else calls it a server but you alone are calling a peer a server in that case. And you agree that vaults are just peers in a peer to peer network.
P2P network == Peers talking to each other and computers that query the P2P network
SAFE == vaults talking to each other and computers that query the safenetwork.
Because they are no longer equals.
Nobody has disagreed with this. The network as a whole acts like a huge server. A vault acts like a piece of a server but a vault is not a server in the usual definition of a server it is a part of a network that acts like a server.
I donāt know, but I think you want somebody to say you are correct, so I am saying here you are in part correct. I hope that helps.
This is not the portrayal you depicted, so do stop that, please. It is just a matter of courtesy and strength to stay polite and engage as an equal, regardless of who knows who.
Buzzzz wrong answer. You have not explained why you are the only one that does call the peer a server. P2P peers are not referred to as servers, sorry to say. It is the usual terminology not to refer to them as servers. Yes they can be serving data to a client computer, but they are not referred to as servers. Do you understand?
If you though I was portraying something different, I apologise, hands up, Iām sorry.
I donāt want someone to say iām correct, I just want an acknowledgement that fundamental 15, even with āin the usual definition of a serverā, could be seen as misleading to a wider audience.
You have proved that it ācouldā so that is fine.
There we go, weāre done. 
there are people who think the Earth is flat ā¦ There are a lot of crazy people out thereā¦ But hardly a lot will argue that a program that can work on a home computer turns it into a server āin the usual definition of a serverā, but the Earth is flat right?
after over 100 posts, my opinion about you is that you are not stupid, just you are from people who can not admit their mistakeā¦ itās sad if Iām right 
Thank God for that!
Can we get back to making the serverless Internet now? 
This entire discourse has mostly been a never-ending argument over semantics. Sometimes phrases included in parentheses get glossed over by readers but, really, if you put just as much emphasis on āin the usual definition of a serverā as you do the preceding phrase, it is very much a correct statement, taken in totality. Extracting, and then attacking, the ādoes not need serversā without giving the following phrase its due is not a fair representation of the authorās intent which, after all, is the main point of communication.
Also, one could probably nitpick the literal interpretation of words in many places of almost any treatise. That would not be constructive to the understanding of the body of work though and should, IMO, be avoided if what you are truly aiming at is comprehension.
So in conclusion I agree with:
Not use servers in the usual definition of a server.
Just not this:
Not have servers (in the usual definition of a server).
ā
As the above discussion highlights I view the safenetwork as having many servers.
Enjoy building the rest of the 
āserverlessā internet.
Sounds like a fair compromise.
Unless it promotes
Which is, as we now all know (I hope), incorrect.
Thats my perspective at least, I do wonder how everyone else sees the āBrowser to Safenetworkā aspect.
That is not your point though. Clients of all kinds will access what looks like a huge server, as stated here
This is again my earlier point. A brain is made up of (amongst others) neurons. A neuron is not considered a brain, but you could argue for infinity that a single neuron is a brain, however, you likely wonāt get far in science class or in any peer collaboration. You can then argue a subset of neurons is a brain and so on, this is analogous to saying a section or a group of vaults is a network. It is just confusing and incorrect.
I understand how you can see the network in this way. I still think my way is simpler (even if Iām the one in the world is flat end of the spectrum here), and keeps the essence of the network. So I can only go as far ask saying the network is made up of a collection of mini-brains. And clients will use this collective of brains as a single federation (not in the usual definition of a federation) 
.
you understand that no vault makes a decision on its own? The decisions to do something are done by consensus? Ie. the smallest independent particle is the Sectionā¦
Thats only because the software has defined such a limitation. If there was no-one else to contest my decision, then my decision is final. If youāre the only one in a group, and you canāt find any peers. You (in my mind) are the network.
However, the network is not designed to work that way, so the point is mute.
This is 100% correct, that limitation exists due to the software design, in fact without that limitation the network would collapse and not operate. That is the SafeNetwork