Whatever you decide, I think you should have this mentioned in the setup docs for bridges.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. -------- Original Message -------- On February 8, 2018 6:53 AM, Karsten Loesing <[email protected]> wrote: >On 2018-02-08 12:19, nusenu wrote: >> >>>Possible advantages are: >>>another advantage I can come up with: >> we will be able to analyze bridge shares (if most have contactInfo set), >> meaning >> is one or two entity running all bridges? How many operators are there? >>Obviously you could also see this as disadvantage. >> > Makes sense. I'd count that as advantage. We're not trying to hide who's > running a bridge. We're just trying to hide where bridges are located, > so that they're harder to block. > >>When discussing bridge IP:port secrecy it is probably worth noting >> that IP:port information of about 2k bridges (that is most bridges) got >> published >> last Sept. 2017 (see metrics-team mailing list post from Oct. 2017). >> I'm not saying that we should not try to keep hiding that information. >> > Just to give enough context for folks on this list, it wasn't us who > published that information, it was a group of researchers. > >https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/metrics-team/2017-October/000489.html > > All the best, > Karsten > > >tor-relays mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
