The 2 big families of conflict are probably more economic capped vs. uncapped systems
I highly disagree - nothing has caused more noise than SC's centralized position.
Even Bitcoin (i think) can remove the cap if there were a majority who felt that way (up to the theoretical limit). GG didn't have a cap and there was little noise concerning GG. But under a centralized system, it's up to only a select few what to be done.
You can't have a centralized system and yet be categorized due to it's economic position - a position, which due to the centralization, can be changed at any time.
edit: I can't really think of any other way outside of centralized/decentralized. It specifically addresses the frame of which discussions inside take place, whether they be of economic model, hashing algorithm, or block subsidy. It's the difference between pleading your case to an 'board', and discussing options with your peers. Two entirely different frames of discussion.
In SolidCoins case, they should be proud of setting that precedent. 'centralized' means that sweet sweet 51% protection, right? Solidcoin is centralized until there are enough legitimate 'SC Millionaires' who operate enough control accounts to override CoinHunters initial 10 account/12m premine