Proposal 134038
TLDR: I’ve adopted this proposal. An offline node in South Korea and a US node that’s currently up replaced with unassigned nodes in Singapore and Belgium. Note that although the US node is currently up, the proposal replaces it to improve decentralisation metrics.
Initially it appeared to me that the country coefficient is not improved as suggested by the proposal. The map and stats below are based on IP address geolocation that I now release is inconsistent with what the IC has on record for this node. The node appeared to me to be in Canada, but on further investigation just now I see that the true location is more likely to be the US.
- ip-api.com places it in the US
- api.ip2location.io places it in Canada
- domain WHOIS lookup places it in the US
- IC records consider this node to be in the US
Assuming the node is located in the US (and not Canada), then I agree that decentralisation is improved by this proposal in terms of country limits. I’ll look into improving my tooling when I get a chance.
@sat, @SvenF, are you aware of any plans to implement a means of IC protocol + device level geolocation, to help verify the current location of a node (rather than trusting a third party service)?
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 0 km | 7116.246 km | 14698.952 km |
| PROPOSED | 0 km | 6519.78 km (-8.4%) | 15062.77 km (+2.5%) |
This proposal slightly reduces decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical reduction in localised disaster resilience). 
Subnet characteristic counts →
| Continents | Countries | Data Centers | Owners | Node Providers | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 4 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
| PROPOSED | 4 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
| Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| PROPOSED | 7 (+16.67%) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
See here for acceptable limits → Motion 132136
The above subnet information is illustrated below, followed by a node reference table:
Map Description
- Red marker represents a removed node (transparent center for overlap visibility)
- Green marker represents an added node
- Blue marker represents an unchanged node
- Highlighted patches represent the country the above nodes sit within (red if the country is removed, green if added, otherwise grey)
- Light grey markers with yellow borders are examples of unassigned nodes that would be viable candidates for joining the subnet according to formal decentralisation coefficients (so this proposal can be viewed in the context of alternative solutions that are not being used)
Table
Known Neurons to follow if you're too busy to keep on top of things like this
If you found this analysis helpful and would like to follow the vote of the LORIMER known neuron in the future, consider configuring LORIMER as a followee for the Subnet Management topic.
Another good neuron to follow is Synapse (follows the LORIMER and CodeGov known neurons for Subnet Management, and is a generally well informed known neuron to follow on numerous other topics)