Proposal 133078
3 removed nodes replaced with nodes in the US, India and Germany.
The reason for one of the replaced nodes is because it’s offline (1 out of 40 nodes, so nothing imminently serious). The other two node replacements are to try and take advantage of the opportunity presented by this proposal, and have a go at further optimising subnet topology to bring it closer to the IC target topology.
I don’t believe this proposal actually achieves its secondary goal, and I respect @timk11’s decision to reject this proposal. Also it sounds like he did a great job in evaluating the other options.
This subnet is already meeting the 3 nodes per country limit, and it’s currently violating all other characteristic limits (2 nodes per every other characteristic). These ‘2 nodes per characteristic’ stats are not actually affected by this proposal. However it does bring the subnet closer a ‘node provider characteristic’ of 1. On the other hand, it also takes the ‘owner’ characteristic even further away from reaching 1.
I would have preferred to see a simple proposal that just solves the problem at hand, which is the offline node. I’ve also rejected this proposal.
Context and Further Explanation
The fact that we’re bumping up against these seemingly unimprovable IC Target Topology metrics is in direct contradiction with the statement made (and adopted) in the latest motion proposal.
There are evidently not enough spare node machine (with sufficient diversity) to meet the IC Target Topology that the above statement refers to. I called for that motion to be rejected. I’ve also called for it to be replaced or suspended if DFINITY would like the community to vote in favour of proposals like this one.
The latest discussion on this that I recall was →
This was more than 3 weeks ago, and I haven’t seen any more on this issue.
I want to make it clear that I respect and appreciate everything DFINITY does to improve the Internet Computer. I’m acting in a way that I believe is in the best interests of the IC. We need a discerning community that takes proposals very seriously (if the idea of the NNS is to make any sense).
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 0 km | 7578.945 km | 19448.574 km |
| PROPOSED | 0 km | 7269.941 km (-4.1%) | 19448.574 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 5 | 27 | 39 | 38 | 37 |
| PROPOSED | 5 | 28 (+3.6%) | 39 | 37 (-2.7%) | 38 (+2.6%) |
This proposal slightly improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction and node provider diversity 
, but diversity of data centre owners is reduced
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
| Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 17 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| PROPOSED | 18 (+5.9%) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 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)
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:
-
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)
-
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)