10% of Ethereum nodes at risk of being booted from Hetzner

Unfortunately I don't have much to say about Hetzner or ETH, but I feel like there may be some similar minds reading this thread, so here goes..

This is a thought experiment:

hypothetical scenario, pretend our fictitious p2p network is in a vacuum and all peers are speaking over ipv4.

How would it affect peer diversity if each peer refused to add an other remote peer that shares any of its IP octets? Obviously ip6 would break this to an extent. What if there were other stipulations, for example where nodes will not peer-exchange with a peer that is under X latency, or sharing any octets, or under N number of hops, rejecting signs of being geo-proximal?

Kademlia, Tapestry and other p2p schemes don't really address this as much as one might hope to. I know the practice of maintaining node diversity/non-diversity is there in the industry, but it seems as a practice to have faded out when the last of the good malware and p2p devs retired.

> "16% of all hosting nodes (a category that makes up 62% of all nodes by network type) are hosted with Hetzner—10% of all nodes. If 10% of all Ethereum nodes being supported by one company sounds awfully centralized to you, wait til you hear that 30% run on Amazon services."

A real problem for decentralization proponents: there's always a positive return to scale somewhere, which will tend to suck everything back into a center. So you get "decentralization" which is just labels over AWS. Or Bitcoin converging on a shrinking number of pools.

I didn't realize that crypto mining was allowed on AWS either. I guess it is allowed but it wasn't profitable until earlier this year.