Hi,
> On 12 Jan 2019, at 01:44, Ilka Schulz wrote:
>
> Is there actually any detailed documentation on how consensus weight is
> calculated?
Consensus weight is calculated using a relay's self-reported peak bandwidth
usage, and measurements from ~6 bandwidth authorities around the world.
The
> On 12 Jan 2019, at 21:54, nusenu wrote:
>
> Forwarded Message
> Subject: [tor-project] community team highlights -- November and December
> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 18:15:00 +
> From: Alison Macrina
> To: tor-proj...@lists.torproject.org
>
> Relay Advocacy
>
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 11:54:00 +
nusenu wrote:
> communicating with OVH regarding relays without contactinfo added to the
> network.
Is it *really* a good idea to poke OVH over this?
Basically it's trying to imply that running Tor should be OK, but running Tor
"improperly" (per your own
FYI
Forwarded Message
Subject: [tor-project] community team highlights -- November and December
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 18:15:00 +
From: Alison Macrina
Reply-To: tor-proj...@lists.torproject.org
To: tor-proj...@lists.torproject.org
Relay Advocacy
Toralf Förster:
> Just FWIW this is incremented to snap270:
the number in the relay nickname is just the $SNAP_REVISION
https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~privacy-squad/+junk/tor-middle-relay-snap/revision/87#daemon
--
https://twitter.com/nusenu_
https://mastodon.social/@nusenu
signature.asc
Argo2:
> I was intrigued by the high number of consumer IP's that these relay
> are supposed to be running on while seemingly automated updating the
> relay version. The nickname made me look into Ubuntu Snaps as a
> possible tor distribution which led me to this snap:
>
On 1/12/19 11:08 AM, Argo2 wrote:
> It was last updated the 9th of January and when you download the stable
> snap it is actually named 'snap269'.
Just FWIW this is incremented to snap270:
https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/93156A27C9B035C488678E98FE4156F7B593872F
--
Toralf
PGP
I was intrigued by the high number of consumer IP's that these relay are
supposed to be running on while seemingly automated updating the relay
version. The nickname made me look into Ubuntu Snaps as a possible tor
distribution which led me to this snap:
https://snapcraft.io/tor-middle-relay.
> Assuming those relays get a weight of 20 (or zero?) I do wonder if
> there's a metrics graph (option) showing the number of relays having
> a significant weight?
their consensus weight is non-zero (they make up ~0.3% of the tor network
capacity)
On 1/12/19 9:07 AM, nusenu wrote:
> I guess I somehow expected that: the maintainer patched tor 0.3.4.10 to added
> this
> feature again and here we go again with the flood of relays using that
> version of tor:
>
> 79 relays from 2019-01-11:
Assuming those relays get a weight of 20 (or zero?)
> this occurred when these relays upgraded from tor 0.3.3.10 to 0.3.4.9
> (package maintainer update)
>
> All these relays were behind NAT devices and they relied on a tor
> feature that got removed between these two versions:
>
>> o Removed features:
>> - The PortForwarding and
11 matches
Mail list logo
