i just update the original proposal according to this procedure if you add one node on an existing
https://wiki.internetcomputer.org/wiki/Node_Provider_Onboarding
IMHO it’s fair to adjust the adjust the node operator rewards if you run more nodes. However, I don’t see more nodes in this DC. There is only 1 active node at the time, as others pointed out.
So @bitmoon IMHO the process should be as follows:
- onboard (deploy and register) more nodes, and only then
- update the node rewards to match the onboarded nodes
1 Like
@bitmoon I see from the wiki administration (Bitmoon - Internet Computer Wiki) that you bought 3 nodes before 1st Dec 2023, so according to the approach agreed with the community you are allowed to set up these 3 nodes (2 in Lisbon, 1 in Barreiro). But as @sat clarifies, you need to submit a proposal to increase the node allowance for the Lisbon Node Operator by 1, onboard the extra node machine, and after that proposal is approved, submit the proposal to adjust the rewardable nodes from 1 to 2.
1 Like
Thanks for the clarification.
So i need to do step 10 only on the following link:
https://wiki.internetcomputer.org/wiki/Node_Provider_Onboarding
And after i can update the rewards.
Thx
Yes, note that the node_allowance is the number of additional nodes that you can onboard, so in your proposal, you need to set the node_allowance = 1 (not 2) as you already have 1 node live in Lisbon.
1 Like
Ok thx.
The actual proposal will be rejected anyway ?
Or if i submit the new one it can works ?
Thx
1 Like
@bitmoon I think it’s fair to follow the process and reject the existing proposal. Let’s first submit the proposal to update the node allowance, get that approved, and then submit a second proposal to set the number of rewardable nodes to 2. The minting data is still about 2 weeks away, so there is time enough to complete these two proposals and do the onboarding of the node before the minting in December.
1 Like
Fine and agreed.
Thx for your help.
2 Likes
Hi everyone 
Proposal #134333 Review — Louise | Aviate Labs
Vote: REJECT
Review:
The second node id (l7jrv-cork3-yugm-545hs-bn3sa-sedzb-y4w2t-kbfyn-5ughu-ccr32-nqe) in proposal 13433 does not exist.
Also inline with the replies from @SvenF and @bitmoon in the thread above, I will vote to reject this proposal.
3 Likes
A new proposal 134343 to Add mhkja as a Node Operator of Node Provider: mjnyf is live.
1 Like
I added new proposal according to our last discussion.
https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/134343
1 Like
Voted to reject proposal 134333, as the node provider first needs to increase the allowance for the existing node operator and onboard the new node machine prior to adjusting the rewardable nodes.
Voted to reject proposal 134343, as the proposal adds a new node operator principal to a data centre in which the node provider already has a node machine. This is an unnecessary step (by my understanding) as the node operator principal usually applies to all nodes owned by a node provider in the same data centre.
1 Like
Hi community
Proposal #134343 Review — Louise | Aviate Labs
Vote: REJECT
Review:
- The target topology has been reached.
- However, @bitmoon is allowed to onboard three nodes as this aligns with the approach agreed upon by the community - since the nodes were purchased before December 1, 2023, they may be onboarded despite the fact that the target topolgy has been reached.
- The proposal to add the node operator ID is accurate in that it matches the NP ID of Bitmoon (
mjnyf-lzqq6-s7fzb-62rqm-xzvge-5oa26-humwp-dvwxp-jxxkf-hoel7-fqe) and the correct DC ID (Li2). So according to this criteria, it wouldn’t be wrong to adopt this proposal. - However, adhering to convention and in an effort to maintain a standard within the registry, I believe that if the same node provider is onboarding nodes in the same data center, these nodes should fall under the same node operator ID. For this reason, I am voting to reject this proposal.
Recommendation to @bitmoon :
If the proposal does get rejected, please submit a new proposal to update the node operator configuration for the Li2 data center (node operator ID: nvocp-jlbys-d44wi-od3pv-iws4n-2nll3-73hqk-koh72-3obvg-kt5v3-fae). You can refer to a similar proposal previously submitted by @C12:
Apologies for the inconvenience. To avoid this in the future, you may also want to open a discussion with the community either via this forum, or the Matrix chat to double check your proposal before submitting.
4 Likes
Hi, yes you can open a matrix chat to double check the proposal please.
thx
1 Like
Voted to reject Proposal #134343.
Really think that someone should just type it out so it can be copy pasted. Either that or rewrite the steps in a non technical way.
Also this should be made an example for future proposals in order to avoid loosing the rejection fee and time, when in doubt just post here or in the NP Matrix channel, so it can be reviewed BEFORE submitting the actual proposal.
2 Likes
yes, that should be great.
1 Like
Hi all
Proposal #134343 Review — Quint | Aviate Labs
Vote: REJECT
Review:
The proposal meets the technical criteria, but it diverges from the standard convention of consolidating nodes from the same provider and data center under a single node operator ID. To maintain consistency in the registry, I agree with rejecting this proposal.
1 Like
So anyone can help on what would be the proposal to post ?
Dear All,
I hope this message finds you all in good health. I am writing to formally register as a Node Provider under Philip Hur (Protocol16). I would like to add 28 nodes in Singapore.
You can find my new proposal to join the network by clicking on this link: 134358
My self-declaration documents are also uploaded to the Internet Computer Wiki under Philip Hur (Protocol16).
Should you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. I am grateful for your support and votes in favor of accepting my proposal!
Best regards,
Philip
2 Likes
Voted to reject proposal 134333. The proposal intends to set rewards for the nodes 6hqi5 and l7jrv, but the latter doesn’t exist and first needs to be onboarded before making this proposal.
Voted to reject proposal 134343. The proposal aims to add a new node on DC Li2 under the node operator mhkja. The only problem is that the NP is trying to add this new node on a subnet in which he already has a node but using a different Node Operator.