Proposal 135664 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △
VOTE: YES (note that this proposal has already executed)
TLDR: Motivated by unsubstantiated concerns of collusion risk. Note that while the motion mentions me and links to a post that I created - I was not personally responsible for the primary claims in this motion. This Subnet Membership proposal errs on the side of caution by moving a few of the mentioned NPs out of the NNS subnet while further discussion takes place. It’s unclear why an Allusion node is replaced by another Allusion node (but I see no harm in that).
This subnet is currently in violation of the IC Target Topology (at most 3 nodes belonging to the same NP, 2 to the same node operator, and 2 in the same data centre, whereas the limit in all cases should be 1). This proposal does not worsen limits (note that the formal IC Target Topology is specified in terms of characteristic limits, and not nakamoto coefficients). Some nakamoto coefficients are slightly worsened, while clustering within the same continent is slightly improved.
3 healthy nodes replaced with 3 unassigned healthy nodes.
Country Discrepancies (5)
These discrepancies are minor in terms of distance, and so can be considered to be within a margin of error
| Node | Data Center | Claimed Country | According to ipinfo.io |
|---|---|---|---|
| jmuoq | Vancouver | Canada | United States of America (the) |
| mae7q | South Moravian Region 1 | Czechia | Austria |
| rg2yy | Geneva 2 | Switzerland | Germany |
| ulhxy | Brussels 2 | Belgium | United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the) |
| ulhxy | Brussels 2 | Belgium | United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the) |
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 0 km | 7238.582 km | 19461.421 km |
| PROPOSED | 0 km | 7214.907 km (-0.3%) | 19461.421 km |
Minor reduction
Subnet characteristic counts →
| Continents | Countries | Data Centers | Owners | Node Providers | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 6 | 27 | 39 | 38 | 37 | 40 |
| PROPOSED | 6 | 26 (-3.8%) | 39 | 39 (+2.6%) | 38 (+2.6%) | 40 |
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 | 18 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| PROPOSED | 17 (-5.56%) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
See here for acceptable limits → Motion 135700
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.
Node Changes
| Action | Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remove |  |
||||||||
| Remove | |
||||||||
| Remove | |
||||||||
| Add | ulhxy | UNASSIGNED | |
Europe | Belgium | Brussels 2 (br2) | AtlasEdge | Allusion | oorkg |
| Add | daawl | UNASSIGNED | |
Asia | Hong Kong | HongKong 1 (hk1) | Unicom | Wancloud limited | z6cfb |
| Add | vysyd | UNASSIGNED | |
Asia | Korea (the Republic of) | Seoul 2 (kr2) | Gasan | Web3game | 5dwhe |
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.