At 20:54 1/31/2015 +0100, you wrote:
Consensus weight of my relays and those of others
is still near zero, and not improving. . .
I read the earlier discussion around this
issue with interest. Have no specific
ideas about resolving the problem, but
I can recommend pulling the raw text
data files
All,
Consensus weight of my relays and those of others is still near zero, and
not improving. For a network that attempts to break censorship, it is
peculiar that this is getting so little attention.
Apparently a few malfunctioning bwauth systems is enough to censor
specific Tor relays. Endless
This has already been done. And I was under the impression that things
would be changing soon. I still find it weird that the network is
ignoring several nodes.
On 31.01.2015 09:23 PM, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote:
At 20:54 1/31/2015 +0100, you wrote:
Consensus weight of my relays and
2)
This link has been posted:
http://freehaven.net/~arma/moria1-v3-status-votes
which is a collection of all 9 BWauth nodes. Currently there is nothing
a node operator can do bar deleting his keys. Atleast no other solution
has been posted in this thread.
On 31.01.2015 10:23 PM,
Hello List,
at this point I want to thank Bram de Boer for spending an unmetered
server. Dediacted servers with unmetered network is not cheap and should
be treated differently as a virtual server at OVH.
I can totally agree why he is disappointed about that.
Just deleting the identity is not a
At 22:35 1/31/2015 +0100, Network Operations Center wrote:
This link has been posted:
http://freehaven.net/~arma/moria1-v3-status-votes
which is a collection of all 9 BWauth nodes.
This looks like the data from just
one BWauth, 'moria1'.
The full time series for the _four_ BWauth
votes is
What if one were to shut down the node for several days and then restart
it. Wouldnt that maybe prompt the network to rescan the node?
On 31.01.2015 10:48 PM, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
Hello List,
at this point I want to thank Bram de Boer for spending an unmetered
server. Dediacted
Karsten Loesing kars...@torproject.org wrote
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:22:25 +0100:
| But here's another graph, specifically for your relay schokomilch:
|
| https://people.torproject.org/~karsten/volatile/schokomilch-cw-2015-01-21.png
|
| 14C1 is tor26, 4901 is maatuska, and D586 is moria1. It looks
Thank you all for looking into this.
Karsten wrote:
You could start a second relay on the same physical machine on a
different port and see whether the bandwidth scanners pick that up.
Give it a day or two, and see if only tor26 and moria1 measure it.
In fact, both the
My dropping consensus overlaps exactly with the blue line on that graph
time-wise. The 1 Month Graph shows this pretty well.
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/3D7E274A87D9A89AF064C13D1EE4CA1F184F2600
It feels as if I am almost completely dependent on that blue node,
although since one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21/01/15 06:03, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 05:10, eric gisse jowr...@gmail.com wrote:
Holy crap, 40%? And that's been historically acceptable?
I don't think it was historically like that.
Actually, it's not that bad:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21/01/15 11:54, Network Operations Center wrote:
My dropping consensus overlaps exactly with the blue line on that
graph time-wise. The 1 Month Graph shows this pretty well.
Ah I see, thanks for taking the time investigating this. If there is
something I need to do to help, please let me know.
On 21.01.2015 01:22 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21/01/15 11:54, Network Operations Center wrote:
My dropping consensus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21/01/15 13:35, Network Operations Center wrote:
Ah I see, thanks for taking the time investigating this. If there
is something I need to do to help, please let me know.
You could start a second relay on the same physical machine on a
different
Karsten wrote:
Did you check whether the consensus weight *fraction* also
dropped?
Yes, it dropped from 0.193553% to 0.00%
Please post your relay fingerprint(s) here, and I'll investigate this.
These are the fingerprints of the relays I operate:
Holy crap, 40%? And that's been historically acceptable?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Sebastian Hahn m...@sebastianhahn.net wrote:
On 20 Jan 2015, at 22:58, Roger Dingledine a...@mit.edu wrote:
We've already known about this in the context of the bandwidth
authority scripts are very
On 21 Jan 2015, at 05:10, eric gisse jowr...@gmail.com wrote:
Holy crap, 40%? And that's been historically acceptable?
I don't think it was historically like that.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
Very thorough explanation, thanks. I assume that there is nothing I can
do except wait until
a.) a new BWauth script is being introduced
or b.) hope that a third node rediscovers me and once I have 3 votes in
the bag I'm back on track.
What still confuses me is why several nodes were being
On 20.01.2015 23:38, Network Operations Center wrote:
Very thorough explanation, thanks. I assume that there is nothing I
can do except wait until
a.) a new BWauth script is being introduced
or b.) hope that a third node rediscovers me and once I have 3 votes
in the bag I'm back on track.
This is roughly consistent with what I've been seeing on my own node.
Weird.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Bram de Boer list-tor-rel...@nosur.com wrote:
Update: generation of the http://nosur.com/consensus.txt list has
completed now, and contains 3683 relays that exist half a year or more.
Hey there,
On 19 Jan 2015, at 10:03, eric gisse jowr...@gmail.com wrote:
This is roughly consistent with what I've been seeing on my own node.
Weird.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Bram de Boer list-tor-rel...@nosur.com
wrote:
Update: generation of the http://nosur.com/consensus.txt
Sebastian wrote:
One theory might be that the addition of a new bwauth has shifted
which vote gets picked for the consensus. It's conceivable that
bwauths rate relays which are placed topologically close higher
than others.
Thank you for your suggestion. I hope that is not the case and the
I concur. Maybe it's worth to also post to the bugtracker?
On 19.01.2015 08:14 PM, Bram de Boer wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
One theory might be that the addition of a new bwauth has shifted
which vote gets picked for the consensus. It's conceivable that
bwauths rate relays which are placed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19/01/15 20:14, Bram de Boer wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
One theory might be that the addition of a new bwauth has
shifted which vote gets picked for the consensus. It's
conceivable that bwauths rate relays which are placed
topologically close
Yes, fraction dropped from 0,2% to 0.72%
On 19.01.2015 08:45 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19/01/15 20:14, Bram de Boer wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
One theory might be that the addition of a new bwauth has
shifted which vote gets picked for the
Karsten wrote:
Did you check whether the consensus weight *fraction* also
dropped?
Yes, it dropped from 0.193553% to 0.00%
If all consensus weights dropped by a certain factor,
there's no change in the probability of clients choosing
your relay at all.
My relay used to push 80 Mbps,
Update: generation of the http://nosur.com/consensus.txt list has
completed now, and contains 3683 relays that exist half a year or more.
Again the relays at the top of the list show the sharp drop in consensus
weight end of december and a short spike around January 6th.
Hello,
You are not alone with this issue (
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2015-January/006055.html
). The weirdest part is, that consensus is fixed to exactly 20 and on
Jan 06, on both nodes yours and mine the weight spiked up for a short
amount and then dropped back to
All,
In December consensus weight of both my nosurveillance Tor exits dropped:
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/7C3AE76BB9E9E6E4F2AE9270FD824DF54A944127
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E6D740ABFFAAAD8052EDF95B2C8DC4059763F365
I assumed this to be related to the directory authorities
There is a similar issue with some other relays:
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/3D7E274A87D9A89AF064C13D1EE4CA1F184F2600
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/6911888F83565892FE23F1B03EB501D80E1E8780
There was a thread about it but nobody found out why
30 matches
Mail list logo
