I’ve vote to adopt proposal 134405. The decentralisation coefficients were unchanged by the proposal. As can be observed using the IC-API, the qaes5 node operator has 4 nodes (as stated in the proposal summary). Now that this proposal has executed, one of those nodes is unassigned (2xph2).
Note that the IC-API is not open source. Since learning this, I’m in the process of switching over to verifiable sources of this sort of information (rejecting because I’ve not had time to do this yet would be too harsh - even for me ).
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.
The proposal replaces two cordoned healthy Active status node 2ajl7 from the SG3 Data Center in Singapore, and cordoned healthy Active status node 7pwy2 from the TY2 Data Center in Tokyo 2, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node nyo3z from Tokyo 1 and with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node y6mus from Singapore 1, 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.
This proposal replaces 2 nodes, due to offboarding SG3 and TY2 data centres. Decentralisation parameters are unchanged and remain within the requirements of the target topology. Data centre details are consistent with the links provided in the proposal.
Replaces cordoned nodes 2ajl7 and 7pwy2 with nodes nyo3z and y6mus on subnet io67a.
The reason for this proposal is to offboard SG3 and TY2 DCs 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.
1 removed US DFINITY node replaced with a DFINITY node in Switzerland.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
489.837 km
8257.864 km
16748.078 km
PROPOSED
95.554 km (-80.5%)
7756.762 km (-6.1%)
16748.078 km
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
5
13
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
5
12 (-8.3%)
13
13
13
13
This proposal slightly reduces 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 node q2ucv which appears in the dashboard as “Status: Active”, for the stated reason of “offboarding BO1 DC after 48 months”. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are worsened with respect to country but remain within the requirements of the target topology. I also note that the post linked in the proposal does not clearly specify which data centre is involved, but have voted to adopt as the information can be reasonably verified by additional searching.
Replaces cordoned node q2ucv with node a2e7m on subnet io67a.
The reason for this proposal is to offboard BO1 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 and forum post match the ones from the node being removed in the proposal. There is a worsening of the decentralization parameteres specifically the country metric but it remains within the requirements established in 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 decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Reason:
The proposal replaces cordoned healthy Active status node q2ucv from the BO1 Data Center in Boston, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node a2e7m from Switzerland, with slight worsening 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.
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.
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 2.2146 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
TLDR: 1 offline node replaced with an unassigned node, and another node replaced in order to improve decentralisation. The number of nodes per country reduces to 1 with this proposal, which is great. The average distance between nodes also increases (spreading them out more).
There are a couple of country discrepancies, but the distances involved are fairly small, so could be considered to be within a reasonable margin of error.
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
1.636 km
7807.59 km
16474.251 km
PROPOSED
475.773 km (+28981.5%)
8426.999 km (+7.9%)
16474.251 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
5
12
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
5
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.
This proposal replaces 1 node in subnet io67a, 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.
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 4.60
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
4
2, CH
2
12
City
4
2, Zurich
1
12
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.
TLDR:
The proposal replaces one offline node in HongKong Asia and one Healthy node in Zurich Europe. Decentralization stats increase to a positive level. I vote to ADOPT
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.
Vote: Adopted Reason:
The proposal replaces 2 nodes: one dead Offline status node tkdjq from the HK4 DC in Hong Kong,
and one healthy additional node to improve optimization, j63cj from the ZH4 DC in Zurich,
with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node 5qw6d from Dallas and unassigned healthy Awaiting status node xexdo from Hong Kong, with slight improvement to decentralization.
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 & Neuron’s 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 decentralization 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.
dead node tkdjqDashboard Status: Active and node j63cjDashboard Status: Active
with nodes:
node 5qw6dDashboard Status: Awaiting and node xexdoDashboard Status: Awaiting
Although at the time of this post the dead node shows in the dashboard as Active, it can be seen through the Node Provider Rewards that this node has been having inconsistent behaviour through the past 5 days.
The node j63cj is replaced in order to improve the country coefficient, reducing the number of nodes in CH from 2 to 1. The replacement of the dead node tkdjq also improved decentralization by reducing the number of nodes in Zurich from 2 to 1 improving the area coefficient.
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 & Neuron’s 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 decentralization 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.
).
