Proposal 135838 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △
VOTE: YES! 
TLDR: This looks like a good proposal to me. The node that’s claimed to be offline has recovered (thanks for the detailed explanation @MalithHatananchchige!). Despite this there are some good reasons to adopt this proposal:
- George Bassadone and GeoNodes LLC are essentially the same NP. The fact that this isn’t currently explicitly captured is a known problem and a solution is being worked on. That doesn’t mean we need to wait to consider NPs like this as not belonging in the same subnet (see Node Changes section below to see these two NPs being removed)
- Despite the fact that theirs a slight reduction in the average nakamoto coefficient across all dimensions, the IC Target Topology is not violated, and in fact is strengthened by this proposal (if you consider the known NP relation described above). The IC Target Topology is specified in terms of limits, and these thresholds are respected by this proposal
- Rejecting this proposal means charging the proposer 25 ICP for their efforts (I personally think they made sensible decisions, particularly at the time the proposal was raised, and shouldn’t be punished for this)
- The average distance between nodes is actually increased on average by this proposal (not that this is a formal metric of decentralisation)
3 removed nodes replaced with nodes in Sri Lanka, China, Portugal.
Country Discrepancies (4)
The distances involved in these discrepancies are within a margin of error, so I expect can be discounted.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 104.032 km | 7750.565 km | 19325.937 km |
| PROPOSED | 0.054 km (-99.9%) | 7905.954 km (+2%) | 19325.937 km |
This proposal slightly increases decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance, on average at least (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 | 25 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 34 |
| PROPOSED | 6 | 23 (-8.7%) | 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.) →
| Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 14 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| PROPOSED | 15 (+7.14%) | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 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 | dtf67 | UNASSIGNED | |
Asia | Hong Kong | HongKong 4 (hk4) | hkntt | Web3game | dg7of |
| Add | bv2x3 | UNASSIGNED | |
Asia | Sri Lanka | Colombo 1 (cm1) | OrionStellar | Geodd Pvt Ltd | ywjtr |
| Add | u3ahx | UNASSIGNED | |
Europe | Portugal | Lisbon 1 (li1) | Dotsi | Artem Horodyskyi | y2spu |
Other Nodes
| Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hrhn3 | UP | |
Oceania | Australia | Melbourne 2 (mn2) | NEXTDC | Icaria Systems Pty Ltd | l5lhp |
| j3pcf | UP | |
Oceania | Australia | New South Wales 1 (ns1) | Latitude.sh | Conic Ventures | h6fpp |
| xnraq | UP | |
Europe | Belgium | Brussels (br1) | Digital Realty | Allusion | mjeqs |
| f7hyn | UP | |
North America | Canada | Quebec l1 (mtl1) | Leaseweb | Marvelous Web3 | ueggl |
| m6pbx | UP | |
North America | Canada | Vancouver (bc1) | Cyxtera | Blockchain Development Labs | feb2q |
| wwwxf | UP | |
Europe | Switzerland | Geneva 2 (ge2) | SafeHost | Extragone SA | 5atxd |
| y7vmg | UP | |
Europe | Switzerland | Zurich 2 (zh2) | Everyware | DFINITY Stiftung | rzskv |
| 7pvxh | UP | |
South America | Colombia | Bogota 1 (bg1) | EdgeUno | Geeta Kalwani | 74vhn |
| 5irn3 | UP | |
Europe | Czechia | Praha 2 (pa2) | Coolhousing | Vladyslav Popov | 6hl6v |
| izmdg | UP | |
Europe | Czechia | South Moravian Region 1 (bn1) | Master Internet | Lukas Helebrandt | zc635 |
| yyjdt | UP | |
Europe | Estonia | Tallinn 1 (ta1) | InfonetDC | Maksym Ishchenko | z7r2x |
| pbva7 | UP | |
Europe | Spain | Madrid 1 (ma1) | Ginernet | Bohatyrov Volodymyr | wzrq6 |
| oobdg | UP | |
Europe | France | Paris 1 (pr1) | Celeste | Carbon Twelve | g3nqx |
| phgey | UP | |
Asia | Hong Kong | HongKong 1 (hk1) | Unicom | Pindar Technology Limited | vzsx4 |
| efnid | UP | |
Asia | India | Greater Noida 1 (gn1) | Yotta | ACCUSET SOLUTIONS | slaxf |
| dnt7y | UP | |
Asia | India | Navi Mumbai 1 (nm1) | Rivram | Rivram Inc | mpmyf |
| qnn43 | UP | |
Asia | Japan | Tokyo (ty1) | Equinix | Starbase | cqjev |
| 7pch3 | UP | |
Asia | Korea (the Republic of) | Seoul 1 (sl1) | Megazone Cloud | Neptune Partners | ukji3 |
| zk7wk | UP | |
Europe | Lithuania | Vilnius 1 (bt1) | Baltneta | MB Patrankos šūvis | mbnsu |
| 2xph2 | UP | |
North America | Panama | Panama City 1 (pc1) | Navegalo | Bianca-Martina Rohner | qaes5 |
| catzb | UP | |
Europe | Poland | Warszawa 3 (wa3) | DataHouse | Ivanov Oleksandr | rhuve |
| 6hqi5 | UP | |
Europe | Portugal | Lisbon 2 (li2) | Edgoo Networks | Bitmoon | nvocp |
| r7few | UP | |
Europe | Romania | Bucharest (bu1) | M247 | Iancu Aurel | c5ssg |
| i5xgw | UP | |
Asia | Singapore | Singapore 2 (sg2) | Telin | OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital | qffmn |
| pm6hc | UP | |
Europe | Slovenia | Ljubljana 2 (lj2) | Anonstake | Anonstake | eu5wc |
| vcl5k | UP | |
Europe | Slovenia | Maribor (mb1) | Posita.si | Fractal Labs AG | 3xiew |
| dwcjo | UP | |
North America | United States of America (the) | Jacksonville (jv1) | Tierpoint | Rivonia Holdings LLC | stqij |
| oh5wh | UP | |
North America | United States of America (the) | Las Vegas (lv1) | Flexential | 87m Neuron, LLC | gsps3 |
| ct3c3 | UP | |
North America | United States of America (the) | Utah 1 (dr1) | FiberState | Privoxy Solutions, LLC | nhr3z |
| nxeqo | UP | |
Africa | South Africa | Cape Town 1 (ct1) | Africa Data Centres | Illusions In Art (Pty) Ltd | 2aemz |
| 5osj4 | UP | |
Africa | South Africa | Gauteng 3 (jb3) | Xneelo | Wolkboer (Pty) Ltd | ymenq |
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.