David Goulet:
>> - removal reason
> Proximity of fingerprint indicates a clear attempt at insertion in the
> hashring for an (some) onion address.
Are you also trying to find the matching onion address(es) that the
given relay IDs would become HSDirs due to their position on the ring?
Out of
On 28 Feb (02:09:00), nusenu wrote:
>
>
> Donncha O'Cearbhaill:
> > nusenu:
> >> This group is still growing.
> >>
> >> Note that the following table is _not_ sorted by FP.
> >>
> >> The FP links these relays even across ISP, and given the FP column
> >> pattern it might be obvious what they are
Donncha O'Cearbhaill:
> nusenu:
>> This group is still growing.
>>
>> Note that the following table is _not_ sorted by FP.
>>
>> The FP links these relays even across ISP, and given the FP column
>> pattern it might be obvious what they are after.
>>
>> They do not have the hsdir flag yet.
>>
>>
nusenu:
> This group is still growing.
>
> Note that the following table is _not_ sorted by FP.
>
> The FP links these relays even across ISP, and given the FP column
> pattern it might be obvious what they are after.
>
> They do not have the hsdir flag yet.
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2017, at 23:48, nusenu wrote:
>
> This group is still growing.
>
> Note that the following table is _not_ sorted by FP.
>
> The FP links these relays even across ISP, and given the FP column
> pattern it might be obvious what they are after.
>
> They do
This group is still growing.
Note that the following table is _not_ sorted by FP.
The FP links these relays even across ISP, and given the FP column
pattern it might be obvious what they are after.
They do not have the hsdir flag yet.