replacing zgtrt, zgeaf, y7bml, uouxk: We have found no evidence that justifies the offboarding of node providers. However, as a precautionary measure, and to allow more time for discussion around potential node provider collusion, we are submitting a selected set of node swap proposals for critical subnets. Please note that this may slightly reduce the Nakamoto coefficients.
VOTE: YES (note that this proposal has already executed)
TLDR: This proposal was 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 II subnet while further discussion takes place.
4 healthy nodes replaced with 4 unassigned healthy nodes. IC Target Topology metrics are not effected (in terms of shared node characteristic limits).
Country Discrepancies (4)
Most discrepancies are minor in terms of distance, but the Canada-US one is huge, which is surprising given hat ipinfo.io utilises probe networks for better geolocation accuracy. The node in question isn’t directly affected by this proposal though. Something to revisit…
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
2.071 km
7577.732 km
19461.143 km
PROPOSED
0.495 km (-76.1%)
7833.684 km (+3.4%)
19461.143 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
Node Operator
EXISTING
6
27
34
34
34
34
PROPOSED
6
24 (-12.5%)
34
34
34
34
This proposal slightly reduces decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
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.
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.
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.
TLDR:
As there is an ongoing investigation in regard to collusion, safely removing from the essential subnets. This, however, does not mean NPs are colluding; I would rather take it as an audit. Voted to be adopted
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.
Vote: REJECTED Reason:
This creates a bad precedent, also how can we be sure that the nodes that are picked to replace the “flagged” ones by Adam this time won’t turn up in the following days as “flagged” as well, he is still working hard on the list. What then, remove all nodes and just have Dfinity owned ones that meet the criteria of safe ?
" We have found no evidence that justifies the offboarding of node providers. "
The MOTIVATION : "as a precautionary measure, and to allow more time for discussion around potential node provider collusion, we are submitting a selected set of node swap proposals for critical subnets. Please note that this may slightly reduce the Nakamoto coefficients. "
The proposal replaces 4 healthy Active status nodes with the 4 listed nodes.
About CodeGov
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.40
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
3
27
City
11
2->Zurich
1
33
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
34
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 9.60
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
4
3
24
City
8
2->Zurich, 2->Gauteng, 2->HongKong, 2->Seoul
1
30
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
34
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.
Just a quick follow-up on the latest proposal 135918. This proposal replaces two dead nodes (one of which is Dfinity owned) and it replaces one healthy node in order to preserve target topology. We would like to adopt this proposal by Friday afternoon to ensure quick recovery in an unlikely case a subnet experiences a critical failure.
TLDR: 2 offline nodes replaced with unassigned nodes, and a healthy node replace with an unassigned node to reduce the impact on decentralisation coefficients. LGTM.
There’s a slight reduction in decentralisation in terms of average distance between nodes, and diversity of countries, but this is within the limits of the IC Target Topology.
The reason that some urgency has been placed on this subnet membership proposal is that one of the offline nodes is the DFINITY-owned node of the subnet, meaning there is currently no online DFINITY-owned node (which is necessary for speedy attendance during disaster recovery scenarios). The II subnet is obviously a critical subnet. cc @aligatorr89, @MalithHatananchchige
Country Discrepancies (4)
Still need to revisit that massive distance discrepancy regarding the Canada/US node (however it’s not affected by this specific proposal). The other discrepancies are relatively small distance-wise, and so can be considered to be within a margin of error.
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
0.495 km
7833.684 km
19461.143 km
PROPOSED
0.495 km (+0.1%)
7620.658 km (-2.7%)
19325.937 km (-0.7%)
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
24
34
34
34
34
PROPOSED
6
23 (-4.3%)
34
34
34
34
This proposal slightly reduces decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
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.
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.
There is a slight decrease on the decetralization coefficient area increasing the number of node in HongKong from 2 to 3.
There is also an increment in the number of nodes controlled by country Switzerland from 2 to 3 although this didn’t affect the nakamoto coefficient for this metric and remains within the IC Target Topology.
The change was necessary in order to replace a dead node from DFINITY.
About CodeGov
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
Reason:
This is urgent as per the rule to have at least one Dfinity owned node online in the subnet for case of speedy recovery.
The proposal replaces dead Offline status node v27at from Caba,Argentina
and dead Offline status node vgfnl from Stockholm, owned by Dfinity.
While the third one healthy Active status node v2pkj from Zurich owned by NP TomahawkVC that is flagged by Adam, with a slight worse overall impact to decentralization.
About CodeGov
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
TLDR: Replaces 2 unhealthy nodes, 1 of which is Dfinity owned. Zurich node is replaced with HongKong node which increases to 3 in that city. Otherwise Zurich would have 3 nodes. HongKong is much wider area, LGTM.
Multiple nodes in the same city
Proposed topology Nakamoto Coefficient is worse than current!!!
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 9.60
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
4
3
24
City
8
2->HongKong, 2->Seoul, 2->Zurich, 2->Gauteng
/
30
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
34
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 9.40
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
4
3
23
City
7
3->HongKong
/
29
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
34
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.
TLDR:
The proposal replaces offline nodes in CABA, Stockholm, and Zurich. While one node is taken down to make decentralization better compared to just swapping two nodes that are offline.
No issues were found in the nodes or locations proposed. I vote to adopt
Node v27at…: Health check passed. Node v27at…: Remove from Subnet check passed. Node vgfnl…: Health check passed. Node vgfnl…: Remove from Subnet check passed. Node v2pkj…: Remove from Subnet check passed. Node tpz2t…: Replacement Status check passed. Node 74qsa…: Replacement Status check passed. Node hlc73…: Replacement Status check passed.
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.
This proposal replaces 2 nodes which appear in the dashboard as “Status: Offline”, along with an additional node in order to improve overall topology. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation is slightly worsened with respect to country but remains within the requirements of the target topology. This change has some urgency given that one of the offline nodes is the sole Dfinity-owned node on this subnet, but I see that Dfinity has not yet voted on this proposal. @sat@alexu@nikola-milosa
About CodeGov
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neurons’ Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralisation of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
