Proposal 136733 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △
VOTE: NO
TLDR: The proposed subnet topology contains 2 nodes from the rbn2y+g7dkt+acqus cluster (more than 1 breaks the ‘independent parties’ imperative that each subnet needs to adhere to). The nodes involved are:
For more information about why there’s reasonable cause to consider these node providers clustered see here. Related discussion is also in a Transparent Node Providers thread.
Note that the proposal mentions →
Business rules check results before the membership change:
- Node provider cluster 1 (6sq7t, vegae, eatbv) has 2 nodes in the subnet
This refers to the George Bassadone, GeoNodes, Geeta, Tina cluster. By proposing to move txh2c out of the subnet it attempts to resolve this issue, but it proposes to do so by introducing a new clustering problem.
More importantly, one of the nodes that it proposes to swap into this subnet is down (offline), while all 3 nodes it’s trying to take out of the subnet are up (online).
Country Discrepancies (2)
Both discrepancies are within fairly reasonable error tolerances in terms of distance.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 0 km | 7214.907 km | 19461.421 km |
| PROPOSED | 0 km | 7057.569 km (-2.2%) | 19461.421 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 | 6 | 26 | 39 | 39 | 38 | 40 |
| PROPOSED | 6 | 26 | 39 | 39 | 38 | 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 | 17 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| PROPOSED | 19 (+11.76%) | 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.
As a side note, this proposal leads to worse decentralisation in terms of clustering within Europe, which can be seen visually on the map above. Continent isn’t a formal part of the IC Target Topology, but it probably should be. See Decentralisation Stats above for the effect on subnet limits.
Node Changes
| Action | Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remove |  |
||||||||
| Remove | |
||||||||
| Remove | |
||||||||
| Add | xll74 | UNASSIGNED | |
Europe | Belgium | Antwerp (an1) | Datacenter United | NODAO | k4aor |
| Add | vc3nr | DOWN | |
Europe | Isle of Man | Douglas 1 (im1) | Manx Telecom | Blue Ant LLC | 4isre |
| Add | txayu | UNASSIGNED | |
Asia | Singapore | Singapore 3 (sg3) | Racks Central | Protocol16 | vicvb |
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.
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.