Proposal 132179
TLDR: I’ve adopted this proposal.
- Replaces one offline node with an up node
- Performs 5 other node swaps in order to improve decentralisation coefficients
Note that this security-critical subnet will still be in violation of the IC target topology even after this proposal passes, both in terms of the country limit and data center limit. More info here → Adjustment of IC Target Topology to Increase Subnet Size of Fiduciary and II subnets - Governance - Internet Computer Developer Forum (dfinity.org))
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 0 km | 8030.675 km | 19445.845 km |
| PROPOSED | 0 km (NaN%) | 8201.969 km (+2.1%) | 19445.845 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 5 | 22 | 39 | 34 | 37 |
| PROPOSED | 5 | 24 (+8.3%) | 39 | 37 (+8.1%) | 37 |
This proposal improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction and data center ownership diversity.
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
| Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 13 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| PROPOSED | 13 | 7 (-12.5%) | 2 | 2 (-33.33333333333333%) | 2 |
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)
UPDATE Having switched to a more up-to-date IP address location provider (https://www.ip2location.io/ instead of https://ip-api.com/), the mapping results are somewhat different. Interesting that there can be such significant differences. I still have questions about how the IC obtains accurate, verified, and up-to-date geolocation data for node machines - @Dylan?
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.
Other good neurons to follow:
-
CodeGov (will soon be committed to actively reviewing and voting on Subnet Management proposals based on those reviews)
-
WaterNeuron (the WaterNeuron DAO frequently discuss proposals like this in order to vote responsibly based on DAO consensus)