This topic is intended to capture Subnet Management activities over time for the csyj4 subnet, providing a place to ask questions and make observations about the management of this subnet.
At the time of creating this topic the current subnet configuration is as follows:
This proposal sets the notarisation delay of the subnet to 300ms, down from 600ms. The change will increase the block rate of the subnet, aimed to reduce latency of update calls.
Here are the current metrics for this subnet. A question I’ll be asking on the Subnet Management General thread (see reference below this post) is why this update is being rolled out to so many subnets at once, each with different finalisation rate and transaction profiles (e.g. peaks and troughs, whereas the canary subnet was always steady, even prior to the update). I’m wondering if this limits the representativeness of the results on that canary subnet.
Voted to reject proposal 134567 as this is part of a large batch of non-critical proposals timed such that the voting period clashes with national holidays, thereby allowing insufficient time for an appropriately detailed review to take place.
Rejected proposal 134567. There’s no time to review this and the 18 other proposals in the same batch properly over Xmas eve, Xmas and Boxing Day. This is a non-critical proposal.
Replaces cordoned node pptbq with node 5hvab on subnet csyj4.
The reason for this proposal is to offboard TY2 DC consistent with forum posts made on the forum thread used for posts regarding the renovation/sell of Gen-1 node machines by NPs.
Both the NP and DC stated in the forum post match the ones from the node being removed in the proposal.
The proposal replaces cordoned healthy Active status node pptbq from the TY2 Data Center in Tokio, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node 5hvab from Korea, without any change to the decentralization of the subnet.
The motivation makes sense and the provided Forum link included in the summary provides further info, also it can be checked here.
A new proposal with id 134633 has been submitted, please take a look.
Click here to open proposal details
Replace nodes in subnet csyj4
Motivation:
replacing node wbqzc-cvi3c-gnuak-ztcqs-j4ga3-6m64f-w2fmy-qjqve-lzvja-rfir7-kae to optimize network topology
replacing node 3smci-63tqe-6q5xc-wpdmj-pnhan-own4t-6km2r-77mfh-c2h7d-xzunk-cqe to optimize network topology
Calculated potential impact on subnet decentralization if replacing:
1 additional node would result in: (gets better) the average log2 of Nakamoto Coefficients across all features increases from 2.0763 to 2.2146 (solution penalty: 10)
2 additional nodes would result in: (gets better) the average log2 of Nakamoto Coefficients across all features increases from 2.2146 to 2.2683
Based on the calculated potential impact, replacing 2 additional nodes to improve optimization
Note: the heuristic for node replacement relies not only on the Nakamoto coefficient but also on other factors that iteratively optimize network topology.
Due to this, Nakamoto coefficients may not directly increase in every node replacement proposal.
Code for comparing decentralization of two candidate subnet topologies is at: dre/rs/decentralization/src/nakamoto/mod.rs at 79066127f58c852eaf4adda11610e815a426878c · dfinity/dre · GitHub
TLDR: I’ll adopt. Great proposal. The subnet is currently in violation of the IC Target Topology, and this proposal fixes that. See decentralisation stats below for more info.
2 removed node in Belgium and the US, replaced with a nodes in Canada and Georgia.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
78.457 km
7565.72 km
16464.988 km
PROPOSED
78.457 km
7593.895 km (+0.4%)
16464.988 km
This proposal slightly increases decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical increase in localised disaster resilience).
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
Node Operator
EXISTING
4
11
13
11
13
13
PROPOSED
4
12 (+8.3%)
13
13 (+15.4%)
13
13
This proposal improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
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)
*This comment references the latest comment in the Subnet Management - General Discussion thread only to generate an automated cross-link from the general thread (to improve topic navigation).
You may wish to follow D-QUORUM if you found this analysis helpful.
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.
Additional good neurons to follow:
D-QUORUM (a highly decentralized neuron that follows neurons that have been elected by the NNS)
Synapse (currently follows the LORIMER and CodeGov known neurons for Subnet Management, and is a generally well informed known neuron to follow on numerous other topics)
CodeGov (actively reviews and votes on Subnet Management proposals, and is well informed on numerous other technical topics)
WaterNeuron (the WaterNeuron DAO frequently discuss proposals like this in order to vote responsibly based on DAO consensus)
Note that this analysis involved data provided by the IC-API, which is not open source. I’m in the process of switching over to more verifiable sources of this sort of information for future proposal reviews. See here for related discussion.
This proposal replaces 2 nodes for the purpose of optimising network topology. As shown in the proposal and verified using the DRE tool, decentralisation parameters are improved with respect to data centre owner and country and are brought to within the requirements of the target topology with respect to data centre owner.
The proposal replaces two nodes on subnet csyj4.
Removed Nodes: wbqzc, Dashboard Status Active and 3smci, Dashboard Status Active
Added Nodes: h3iv6, Dashboard Status Awaiting and ami6p, Dashboard Status Awaiting
The proposal improves the decentralization parameters in specific in the data_center_owner and country metrics and also brings this parameters within the requirements of the target topology that were currently violated by having two data_center_owner with more than 1 node in a subnet.
About CodeGov...
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Reason: The proposal replaces two nodes, one healthy Active status node wbqzc from Pennsylvania, and healthy Active status node 3smci from Brussels, in order to optimize the network topology.
Both unassigned healthy Awaiting status node h3iv6 from Vancouver and unassigned healthy Awaiting status node ami6p from Tbilisi,Georgia , check out and the change improves the decentralization of the subnet.
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
This proposal replaces node zcxej which appears in the dashboard as “Status: Active”, for the purpose of examining the stability of another node operator’s nodes. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are unchanged and remain within the requirements of the target topology.
About CodeGov…
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralisation of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
TLDR: Decentralisation stats are unchanged, and as claimed by the proposal summary, all nodes for node operator tisgk are currently unassigned. This can be verified by performing a quick text search on the JSON returned here.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
224.22 km
7614.307 km
16458.534 km
PROPOSED
224.22 km
7614.307 km
16458.534 km
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.) →
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)
*This comment references the latest comment in the Subnet Management - General Discussion thread only to generate an automated cross-link from the general thread (to improve topic navigation).
You may wish to follow D-QUORUM if you found this analysis helpful.
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.
Additional good neurons to follow:
D-QUORUM (a highly decentralized neuron that follows neurons that have been elected by the NNS)
Synapse (currently follows the LORIMER and CodeGov known neurons for Subnet Management, and is a generally well informed known neuron to follow on numerous other topics)
WaterNeuron (the WaterNeuron DAO frequently discuss proposals like this in order to vote responsibly based on DAO consensus)
Note that this analysis involved data provided by the IC-API, which is not open source. I’m in the process of switching over to more verifiable sources of this sort of information for future proposal reviews. See here for related discussion.
Vote: Adopted Reason:
The proposal replaces healthy Active status node zcxej from Zurich6, with
unassigned healthy Awaiting status node cwaya from Zurich7, with no change to the decentralization of the subnet.
The motivation is to gain insights into the stability of the nodes of this node operator.
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
The proposal replaces node zcxej, Dashboard Status: Active, with node cwaya, Dashboard Status: Awaiting.
The intent is to gain insights into the stability of the nodes from Node Operator tisgk with currently no active nodes.
About CodeGov…
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
Calculated potential impact on subnet decentralization if replacing:
1 additional node would result in: (gets better) the average log2 of Nakamoto Coefficients across all features increases from 2.2683 to 2.3219
Based on the calculated potential impact, replacing 1 additional nodes to improve optimization
Note: the heuristic for node replacement relies not only on the Nakamoto coefficient but also on other factors that iteratively optimize network topology.
Due to this, Nakamoto coefficients may not directly increase in every node replacement proposal.
Code for comparing decentralization of two candidate subnet topologies is at: dre/rs/decentralization/src/nakamoto/mod.rs at 79066127f58c852eaf4adda11610e815a426878c · dfinity/dre · GitHub
This proposal replaces 1 node in subnet csyj4, appearing in the decentralization tool as “DOWN”, along with an additional node in order to improve overall topology. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are improved with respect to country and remain within the requirements of the target topology.
About CodeGov
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neurons’ Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralisation of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
TLDR: 1 offline node replaced with an unassigned node, and a healthy node replaced with another unassigned node in order to improve decentralisation. After this proposal executes there will be only 1 node per country (rather than a max of two). In addition the average distance between nodes increases.
Country Discrepancies (1)
This is a minor discrepancy (in terms of distance) so can be considered to be within a margin of error.
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
224.22 km
7614.307 km
16458.534 km
PROPOSED
474.402 km (+111.6%)
8257.537 km (+8.4%)
16449.469 km (-0.1%)
This proposal slightly increases decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical increase in localised disaster resilience).
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
Node Operator
EXISTING
4
12
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
5 (+20%)
13 (+7.7%)
13
13
13
13
This proposal slightly improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
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)
Black dotted line connects to a small black marker that shows where the IP address indicates the node is located (according to ipinfo.io). This is only displayed if it conflicts with where IC records indicate the node is located. See Country Discrepancies section above for more info.
You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron (coming soon) if you found this analysis helpful.
CO.DELTA △
We’re a verifiably decentralised collective who review IC deltas (changes applied by NNS proposals). We follow a common code:
Look: We observe the details and context of NNS proposals
Test: We test and verify the claims made by those proposals
Automate: We automate as much as possible by building increasingly sophisticated tools that streamline and strengthen the reviewal process.
Every vote cast by CO.DELTA is the result of consensus among diligent, skilled and experienced team members acting independently. The CO.DELTA neuron follows the vote of D-QUORUM on NNS topics that the CO.DELTA team does not handle directly. You can therefore follow CO.DELTA on all topics and rely on the highest quality of vote.
Note that this analysis involved data provided by the IC-API, which is not open source. I’m in the process of switching over to more verifiable sources of this sort of information for future proposal reviews. See here for related discussion.
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 4.80
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
4
2, CH
2
12
City
5
1
1
13
Data Center
5
1
1
13
Data Center Owner
5
1
1
13
Node Provider ID
5
1
1
13
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
1
2
13
City
5
1
1
13
Data Center
5
1
1
13
Data Center Owner
5
1
1
13
Node Provider ID
5
1
1
13
You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron if you found this analysis helpful.
CO.DELTA
We’re a verifiably decentralised collective who review IC deltas (changes applied by NNS proposals). We follow a common code:
Look: We observe the details and context of NNS proposals.
Test: We test and verify the claims made by those proposals.
Automate: We automate as much as possible by building increasingly sophisticated tools that streamline and strengthen the reviewal process.
Every vote cast by CO.DELTA is the result of consensus among diligent, skilled and experienced team members acting independently. The CO.DELTA neuron follows the vote of D-QUORUM on NNS topics that the CO.DELTA team does not handle directly. You can therefore follow CO.DELTA on all topics and rely on the highest quality of vote.
