-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/25/2015 7:13 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 01:35:10 +0000 Yawning Angel > <yawn...@schwanenlied.me> wrote: > >> The relay identity key is sensitive cryptographic material. >> Sharing it means the private key is compromised and is an attempt >> to subvert: > >> * The bandwidth scanning process. The consensus weight is the >> relay's capacity relative to other nodes in the network which >> will change and should be reset if the location of the relay >> changes. > > Yeah perhaps I should have mentioned that people should request one > if they are absolutely certain that their server is capable of > handling at least 50+50 Mbit of bandwidth. > >> * The flag assignment process. A random person should not get >> the Guard or Stable flag quickly. > > ...and that they expect it to have a certain degree of stability. > :) > > Sure this is a shortcut of sorts, and it's one that you should take > if you believe you can "vouch" for things like stability and b/w > capacity you can provide, and want to "skip the formalities" a bit > so to say, and start contributing to the maximum extent possible > immediately; surely nobody likes paying for idle servers. > > Either way you won't do much damage even if any of this ends up > being false, as the consensus weight and the stable status will > drop more rapidly than they are gathered if your node can't > maintain them. > >> Yes, in an ideal world the bwauths will scan new relays faster. > > Meanwhile in reality the outcome is often [1]. > >> A fun task for someone who likes messing with consensus documents >> and descriptors would be to write a script to measure IP address >> churn for relays while the relay identity remains constant >> (either legitimately eg: being on a dynamic IP, person had to >> move the rack the relay was on, or through key compromise/derp). > > I do this extensively on my relays, as one VPS or dedicated server > expires, gets terminated or canceled for various reasons, a > different one takes its place, inheriting the same identity. If I > had to always wait for new relays to spin up from scratch in each > case, a lot of the time I probably wouldn't even bother. > > Running 20 relays in a declared family at the moment, together > comprising about 1.8% of aggregate Tor bandwidth, however due to > financial reasons I will have to shut down most of these over the > coming weeks and months; so I see little difference if the next > machine inheriting a particular identity this time will be managed > and paid for by someone else and not by me. Just throwing these > away seemed like a waste. > > [1] > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2015-June/007203.htm l > > > > > _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing > list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > Have a great life....bye. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVtFe4AAoJEJQqkaGlFNDPtU8H/3UIFfTTE9ME/IESQ/rQnpDR VW3CBGW+00r9IyK/dGy0B07R27ksr+6WwAhfJnHvzrRJxkmViNUNyW7RD6ah32jI PuWyUPfR0eVYLNUBRVs2VJQQcoPP/GJkKTEto7y3OBwBqKgo9Ubt43YC8DH4X0Vb +qybBb0/jkQGc7rgre8EYbWXW8qkSVUVOKhVF1lNJW1XrcaWnFnJgT9/af4ATarS 87rUr2Jf6wnx2R4y6ksK3si/Rc/TolXILIDbYywwSxoZfLjarJQDDPTREGX7z4rM Nk6NpJM7x34hPUdNkW9b0dGdrH2he+3MffsJDRHl0CZm7LMFcKDTjxs7UZtBt9Y= =4ibD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
