Remove 32 Node Providers

[Severin]

Yeah, I flagged that message @Phasma. I’m letting a lot slide around this topic at the moment since I think it’s worth discussing. But since this thread is devolving into namecalling again I’ll try the soft-mute button again

[wpb]

Interesting. @borovan has used his 7% total voting power in the NNS to adopt this proposal 135750, which suggests that the NNS should take control of a neuron from one person and give it to someone else. Should this be considered an abuse of power? Anyway, I wonder how Adam, or the community, would react if someone proposed to divide up his 1.5M ICP neuron that we saw him use recently to submit the 35 proposals that would change the network.

Let’s use this proposal as a learning opportunity for how liquid democracy works. I’ll voluntarily give that neuron, and the internet identity that controls it, to Adam if he is willing the donate his next 25 ICP proposal rejection fee to charity instead of wasting everyone’s time. Then we can get back to legitimate governance like nothing happened.

By the way, the CodeGov known neuron has voted to reject this proposal. You can also see the whopping 2.5% total voting power that we triggered in the voting history.

[borovan]

Thank you CodeGov for protecting the network against this dangerous motion proposal!

[infu]

Since a few days ago, I started following Adam’s neuron with the 0.000000000001% VP my known neuron has, pretty much for moral support. A proposal like that will never really be accepted.

[wpb]

@borovan

I don’t even collect the rewards, I either restake them into maturity or I take them out and help SNS projects.

…Who else is doing that sort of work in the community?

Umm, me, actually. Plus all my spare time is spent passionately advocating for advancing the decentralization of the network. So, no, you are not the only one who has a lot invested in this network even if you are the biggest financial investor.

[hydraerozine]

There should not be muting allowed if we truly are decentralized and believe in freedom of speech tbh…

[infu]

@wpb

Agreed and I get it, but I guess your name is now on it as a supporter though. Kind of hard to take back.

I’m not worried about that. I trust that whatever proposals my followee votes on - no matter how obscure they may seem- are for the betterment of the IC. I did follow CodeGov for years, until it rejected Dfinity’s proposal few days ago to move nodes away from critical subnets. Reject based on geographical coefficient decrease

@timk11

The Nakamoto coefficient is the minimum number of entities (such as countries, node providers or data centres) who would need to collude in order to launch a successful attack. In each of these proposals the regional and country Nakamoto coefficients decrease, and the number of countries containing 3 nodes for each subnet increases, thereby leaving the network more susceptible to attack than before.

And also…

@wpb

I also know that he can jump to conclusions and sensationalize reality with conspiracy theories

Instead of trying to discredit Adam and leave the network in a vulnerable state, CodeGov could have helped the NPs prove that IC is decentralized if it is already. If the NPs net can’t prove that, their rewards ~1.8mil$ a month (estimated) is a bit too much for the service provided. In crypto everything is considered insecure and centralized until someone proves it is not and others verify it. The defense I’ve observed the last couple of days has it flipped, stating between the lines - “We are decentralized until Adam brings evidence we aren’t”

It’s probably not a coincidence: (1325 node providers × node cost ) / 3 ~= DEX TVL. In other words, DEXes are holding as much value as it would cost 1/3 of the node providers to carry out an attack. Attackers would loose as much as they would gain. Instead of that, our canisters should be protected by the value locked in 8y ICP neurons, I believe that was the original goal. The value the ecosystem can hold will be a lot higher. So something has to change. I am sorry if Adam & my comments disturb the peace. Adam so far seems to be the only one who can move things forward on that front. That’s why I am following his neuron.

[wpb]

@infu

I did follow CodeGov for years, until it rejected Dfinity’s proposal few days ago to move nodes away from critical subnets.

@bjoernek

In our view, there is no substantial evidence to justify the offboarding of any node provider.

@infu
There is no evidence that justifies the change as stated by DFINITY in each of the proposals (135664, 135665, 135666). Doing so implies guilt and sets a bad precedent. If evidence existed of bad actors, we certainly would adopt the proposal. Each of those proposals resulted in a less safe network.

---

@infu

Instead of trying to discredit Adam and leave the network in a vulnerable state, CodeGov could have helped the NPs prove that IC is decentralized if it is already.

CodeGov did try to help. Some Node Providers even responded. It was all ignored or mocked. There are numerous examples.

@wpb

Sure, I can help you find the information by pointing you in the right direction. All Node Providers in your list own Gen-1 nodes. The work process for Gen-1 Node onboarding after 48 months can be found documented here. This work process requires that they all create two posts (in the two forum threads linked below) as well as provide signed self-declaration documents that are posted here on the internet computer wiki.

@wpb

The AT1, TP1, SJ1, and FM1 data centers had special arrangements that went something along the lines of:

• DFINITY owns the node machines
• a second party owns the storage drives
• a third party owns the data center contract
• a fourth party collect the payout

These were special contracts that were in effect for the first 4 years. This probably explains a lot of your observations in your spreadsheet.

@wpb

Hey @borovan are you aware that many of these node providers were onboarded with Participant Management proposals that included their email addresses? Here is a link to a filtered list of proposals on the dashboard (just scroll to the bottom and look for the names).

@wpb

@borovan here are recent onboarding statements from earlier this year for each of the node providers that you have listed in the OP that have active nodes in subnets. Hopefully everyone will see this an reply to your concerns before you submit proposals to remove them as Node Providers.

@wpb

As indicated @borovan, I have reached out to all of the Node Providers listed above. Hopefully some of them will join the conversation.

@wpb

What you have been able to observe about these proposals within this short time frame that causes you to recommend to your friends to reject them and why do they follow your recommendation? It could be helpful information for other community members who are actively researching these proposals and it could be helpful for DFINITY as well to know your justification.

@wpb

I would love to see you turn your power and influence into an active contributor on the serious side of ICP governance that would help advance decentralization. If nothing else, you could actually afford to pay a group of developers to actively review proposals and cast informed votes. So far, only DFINITY has been willing to offer grants for this purpose. Why don’t you collaborate with other whales and do the same in order to help protect your interests?

[infu]

@wpb

There is no evidence that justifies the change as stated by DFINITY in each of the proposals (135664, 135665, 135666). Doing so implies guilt and sets a bad precedent.

So CodeGov rejected it because it would imply guilt in NPs. Dfinity made the proposal, which implied there may be something wrong.

As you can see, all my posts on the subject aren’t targeting anyone in particular, but instead focusing on understanding the situation and improving the IC. Let’s assume everyone is a good actor. It still doesn’t prove IC node ownership is decentralized and the network is secure. Let’s focus on that or just do whatever we can to move to secure enclave nodes faster. By that I mean a system where physical access to the node has zero control over it and the IC subnets. Only the NNS can change the code of these nodes thought proposals and decide what memory read access admins have. Would CodeGov accept that?

[wpb]

@infu

Let’s stop implying things? I am not trying to pick a fight. As you can see, all my posts on the subject aren’t targeting anyone in particular, but instead focusing on understanding the situation and improving the IC

Your right. I shouldn’t have added you to the conversation. It was unnecessary. I don’t at all think you support that proposal. I don’t even think @borovan really supports the proposal. My main point was that he is responsible for a lot of voting power and he should exercise it responsibly. In this case he voted to take a neuron from one person and give it to another. He knew this isn’t possible with a motion proposal and that others like Dfinity, synapse, codegov, and most other known neurons and whales would reject. However, he carries a lot of weight and apparently quite a few whales follow him too. I just want to see more credible evidence that justifies the kind of disruption he is trying to create with the node providers. He hasn’t been very convincing so far. My apologies for bringing you into it. I’ll go back and edit that out.

@infu

Let’s focus on that or just do whatever we can to move to secure enclave nodes faster. By that I mean a system where physical access to the node has zero control over it and the IC subnets. Only the NNS can change the code of these nodes thought proposals and decide what memory read access admins have. Would CodeGov accept that?

Personally, I think that sounds like a great idea. I’ve heard the term secure enclave discussed in the past, but don’t recall the details. I’ll do some research.

[Severin]

I am closing this thread. Here’s why:

• The original topic (the proposals to remove node providers) have been discussed and it looks like the discussion has moved on
• The thread has derailed multiple times and I’m tired of trying to get it back on track. I didn’t ask other mods but I trust they feel the same
• While there are still open discussions I do not think the context of everything that went down here helps us stay productive

I am not banning discussion of the topics in this thread. If there are discussions to be continued, please open new threads, cite the posts relevant to the discussion, and keep on discussing.

To the (surprisingly?) few people screaming CENSORSHIP!!11!!:
Yes, we do censor some things. Most notably the 10-30 daily posts in Indonesian that try to get you to call some phone number in order to get free money. This is a moderated forum and we will keep moderating to the best of our abilities. If that ability is not good enough for you: sorry.