This proposal replaces node jiy6l which appears in the dashboard as “Status: Active” for the stated reason “offboarding ZH5 DC after 48 months”. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are unchanged and remain within the requirements of the target topology.
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 topics and Synapse on most other 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 and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
TLDR: Decentralisation stats are unchanged and there is a clear public declaration for the cordoned node which is referred to in the proposal summary. 1 cordoned node replaced with another node belonging to the same NP at a nearby data centre.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
452.505 km
8883.905 km
18499.629 km
PROPOSED
452.505 km
8883.905 km
18499.629 km
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
Node Operator
EXISTING
5
13
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
5
13
13
13
13
13
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)
*This comment references the latest comment in the Subnet Management - General Discussion thread only to generate an automated cross-link from the general thread (to improve topic navigation).
You may wish to follow D-QUORUM if you found this analysis helpful.
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.
Additional good neurons to follow:
D-QUORUM (a highly decentralized neuron that follows neurons that have been elected by the NNS)
Synapse (currently follows the LORIMER and CodeGov known neurons for Subnet Management, and is a generally well informed known neuron to follow on numerous other topics)
WaterNeuron (the WaterNeuron DAO frequently discuss proposals like this in order to vote responsibly based on DAO consensus)
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.
Vote: Adopted Reason:
The proposal replaces cordoned healthy Active status node jiy6l in the ZH5 DC from Zurich5, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node udlch from Zurich6, without any chnge to decentralization.
Motivation is offboarding of nodes in the ZH5 DC after 48 months, in line with the forum post.
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 topics and Synapse on most other 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 and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
Replaces cordoned node jiy6l with node udlch on subnet w4rem.
The reason for this proposal is to offboard the second rack of nodes from the MB1 DC consistent with forum posts made on the forum thread used for posts regarding the renovation/sell of Gen-1 node machines by NPs.
Both the NP and DC stated in the forum post match the ones from the node being removed in the proposal.
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 topics and Synapse on most other 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 and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
Calculated potential impact on subnet decentralization if replacing:
1 additional node would result in: equal decentralization across all features
2 additional nodes would result in: equal decentralization across all features
Based on the calculated potential impact, replacing 1 additional nodes to improve optimization
Note: the heuristic for node replacement relies not only on the Nakamoto coefficient but also on other factors that iteratively optimize network topology.
Due to this, Nakamoto coefficients may not directly increase in every node replacement proposal.
Code for comparing decentralization of two candidate subnet topologies is at: dre/rs/decentralization/src/nakamoto/mod.rs at 79066127f58c852eaf4adda11610e815a426878c · dfinity/dre · GitHub
This proposal replaces one healthy node in subnet w4rem with no change to decentralisation parameters. No reason is given for this change and “Motivation:” at the start of the proposal text has been left blank. A “node provider cluster” is mentioned at the end of the proposal text, implying that this might be the reason for the change. Discussion of this concept is scattered through various parts of the forum but as yet there has been no NNS vote to endorse this concept or to recognise any specific clusters. More significantly, there is no further explanation in the proposal text or in any of the links within it about the reason for this change.
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.
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
3
13
City
5
1
13
Data Center
5
1
13
Data Center Owner
5
1
13
Node Provider ID
5
1
13
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
3
13
City
5
1
13
Data Center
5
1
13
Data Center Owner
5
1
13
Node Provider ID
5
1
13
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:
This proposal addresses an important business rule as per NP cluster that is currently ongoing audit (6sq7t, vegae, eatbv) has two nodes in one system subnet, which is valid. Due to this reason, I vote to adopt, that being said not too happy about clustering into EU region. In future proposals I plan to suggest on best replacement increasing the decentralisation.
Node 7r7go…: Remove from Subnet check passed. Node lkq7d…: 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.
Reason:
Missing motivation, we all agreed that this would be important to have as clear as possible so that everyone could understand these proposals.
While some of us are aware of the ONE cluster, this needs to be specified as motive.
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: Removes a node belonging to the ‘George Bassadone’ NP, because he already has control over another node in this subnet (63rak, under his GeoNodes LLC NP)
Ideally in future proposals the reason will be placed in the ‘Motivation’ section (currently blank in this proposal summary). However the reason is given by the business rules statement →
Business rules check results before the membership change:
Node provider cluster 1 (6sq7t, vegae, eatbv) has 2 nodes in the subnet
Context for this can be found in this thread, which received lots of discussion (particularly after @borovan started shaking the community into action). I don’t think there’s any need for a motion proposal to start separating known clusters (there’s no reason not to).
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
452.505 km
8883.905 km
18499.629 km
PROPOSED
452.505 km
8850.634 km (-0.4%)
18499.629 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
5
13
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
5
13
13
13
13
13
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)
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.
Regarding business rules with the inclusion of Node provider Clusters in the dre tool, it shows up as a collusion of Node Providers that control 2 nodes in the subnet. I particularly don’t like this approach but worse was that I can’t find no Governance Proposal regarding making this cluster official. Even more there is no justification/explanation on the motivation of the proposal.
For this reasons I have voted to reject.
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.
