torjoy: > The making of a bridge authority desire is from the observation that > here in South America we haven't any authority and I think this can > help tor to improve the network metrics on South America side. Also > maybe in another countries too. Of course, all the current > authorities are good but maybe we can improve it inserting more > bridges online. I'm operating 3 bridges and one middle-relay for now > and all have good metrics but the bandwidth measured is lower than > i've set, maybe putting some authority here we can improve the > metrics of all relays here in South America.
I believe there is a misunderstanding about bridge authority, tor directory authorities (for relays) and bandwidth authorities. There is currently only one bridge authority AFAIK and I have doubts that adding one in South America benefits what you are trying to achieve. If we look at the available bridges over time [1] we can see that the tor network never recovered from the hard and somewhat unplanned switch from the previous bridge authority even though it is more than a year ago. So yes, I believe it would be beneficial for redundancy reasons to have more than one bridge authority but that is probably a big task. [1] https://metrics.torproject.org/networksize.html?start=2017-01-27&end=2019-07-26 -- https://twitter.com/nusenu_ https://mastodon.social/@nusenu
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
