> Looks like SG.GS stopped their guard relays. They had >3% guard probability.
>
> +---++--+
> | Con5 | lastseen | fingerprint |
> +---++--+
> | SG.GS | 2
> On 28 Feb 2016, at 15:46, SuperSluether wrote:
>
> From what I understand, the 3% that was lost should eventually be distributed
> to the remaining relays, correct?
Within a very short period of time, clients will use other guards.
They'll try guards they have previously chosen, and try new
From what I understand, the 3% that was lost should eventually be
distributed to the remaining relays, correct?
On 02/28/2016 08:39 AM, Kurt Besig wrote:
On 2/28/2016 5:00 AM, nusenu wrote:
Looks like SG.GS stopped their guard relays. They had >3% guard probability.
+---++
On 2/28/2016 5:00 AM, nusenu wrote:
> Looks like SG.GS stopped their guard relays. They had >3% guard probability.
>
> +---++--+
> | Con5 | lastseen | fingerprint |
> +---++-
Looks like SG.GS stopped their guard relays. They had >3% guard probability.
+---++--+
| Con5 | lastseen | fingerprint |
+---++--+
| SG.GS | 2016-02-22 |
