Subnet Management - tdb26 (NNS)

[aligatorr89]

Proposal 135664 Review | aligatorr - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR : Replaces 3 healthy nodes and makes decentralization slightly worse. For the sake of provider collusion agenda, I will vote to adopt.

• 4 Nakamoto parameters city: Seoul,dc_id: zh2,owner: Everyware,node_provider_id: bvcsg-3od6r-jnydw-eysln-aql7w-td5zn-ay5m6-sibd2-jzojt-anwag-mqe above max identical count!!!
• Proposed topology Nakamoto Coefficient is worse than current!!!

Node Changes 3 removed, 3 added

Node ID	Status	Country	City	Node Provider	Data Center	Data Center Owner
74qsa-j6jno-nmxmb-7jpf5-u6nig-g7hgo-thvjm-6f6zu-c2ugp-krple-qae → daawl-5c7hb-iltb3-rkphn-d272x-kkpu4-vb5nr-4qxzp-azreg-47okd-gqe	UP → UNASSIGNED	PT → HK	Barreiro → HongKong	Maksym Ishchenko → Wancloud limited	ba1 → hk1	Online → Unicom
ltzjy-54bkf-bwynr-rcqst-ncpe6-qlg4x-tvhmp-73bm5-75e7u-t7c7s-eae → ulhxy-qlokv-5iual-yizlo-dtlmi-aavz5-bi7ez-kjwqz-la64z-cxjuk-fae	UP → UNASSIGNED	CR → BE	San Jose → Brussels Capital	GeoNodes LLC → Allusion	cr1 → br2	Navegalo → AtlasEdge
swzzz-nct4o-kgh2s-fezeh-luamk-chexm-jsk4r-ks2qa-au63y-jtc7r-pae → vysyd-tlwq5-f5vfi-kw2jc-ziylz-di2s5-sf4p3-iflm7-vyvjv-hz3b3-pae	UP → UNASSIGNED	BE → KR	Brussels Capital → Seoul	Allusion → Web3game	br1 → kr2	Digital Realty → Gasan

Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.40

Attribute	Nakamoto Coefficient	Identical attribute values	Max allowed identical values	Unique Counts
Country	6		3	27
City	10	2->Seoul, 2->HongKong, 2->Zurich, 2->Gauteng	1	36
Data Center	13	2->zh2	1	39
Data Center Owner	12	2->Digital Realty, 2->Everyware	1	38
Node Provider ID	11	3->bvcsg-3od6r-jnydw-eysln-aql7w-td5zn-ay5m6-sibd2-jzojt-anwag-mqe	1	37

Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.20

Attribute	Nakamoto Coefficient	Identical attribute values	Max allowed identical values	Unique Counts
Country	5		3	26
City	8	3->Seoul, 3->HongKong	1	34
Data Center	13	2->zh2	1	39
Data Center Owner	13	2->Everyware	1	39
Node Provider ID	12	3->bvcsg-3od6r-jnydw-eysln-aql7w-td5zn-ay5m6-sibd2-jzojt-anwag-mqe	1	38

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.

[LaCosta]

SYBILing nodes! Exploiting IC Network... Community Attention Required!

Proposals 135664, 135665 & 135666 – LaCosta | CodeGov Vote: REJECT There has been no evidence for colluding nodes other than speculation. I don’t think decentralization should be ruled by conspiracy and as I stated in a previous review I think this has been proved correct. Even with clarifications from NPs such as pictures, videos and bills, there are some people in the community that don’t seem satisfied and I doubt they will ever be. I think the best solution lies in third party audits do…

[borovan]

It’s all the Frank Family.

Kontrapunt (Johan Frank) - 6 nodes, 4 critical subnets
Karel Frank (and Joey Frank) - 18 nodes, 2 critical subnets
Illusions in Art (Susan Frank) - 6 nodes, 1 critical subnet
Honeycomb Capital - 12 nodes,. 3 critical subnets.

Total between them = 42.

This is Karel’s registered address to HoneyComb Capital Pty’s registrered address. What a coincidence!

[wpb]

Hey @borovan have you come across the forum usernames form any of these node providers? Will you please tag them so they can respond?

It looks a group like this would qualify as a relationship cluster as proposed by DFINITY here, which could be used in the DRE tooling when deciding how to allocate nodes to subnets. I would really like to see that kind of idea materialize so we can more formally identify these kinds of relationships in acceptable ways. There is nothing that currently prohibits families or business associates from owning and operating nodes under different names, but there is a lot of utility in making sure the relationships are known and accounted for in the DRE tooling. It would help CodeGov and other reviewers a lot if we had a place to go to see these relationships so we can account for them in our reviews. Do you have a plan or suggestion for how node providers can announce their relationships or how the community can easily see these relationships?