<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi,
<br />
<div>
<div>On Sunday, July 5, 2020 at 8:45 PM, Imre Jonk <imre@imrejonk.nl> wrote:
<br />
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Hi nusenu,
<br />
<br />
On Sun, 2020-07-05 at 18:35 +0200, nusenu wrote:</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>[...]</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">b) require a verified physical address for large operators (>=0.5%
<br />
exit or guard probability)
<br />
(manual verification, low number of operators).
<br />
It is not required that the address is public or stored after it got
<br />
verified.
<br />
For details see bellow [2].
<br />
<br />
0.5% exit probability is currently about 500-600 Mbit/s of advertised
<br />
bandwidth.</blockquote>
<br />
That seems reasonable. I currently co-run an exit relay that has just
<br />
under 0.1% probability and would be okay with sharing my physical
<br />
address with the directory authorities, especially if my probability
<br />
would be higher.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
This is a great point. Independent of the measures that will be chosen,
<br />
they should impact the traffic a relay gets.
<br />
Most relay operators want their relays to be useful
<br />
and are willing to do put a lot of work into increasing their traffic.
<br />
And they should be "rewarded" with flags so that it is obvious
<br />
to relay operators that they have an interest in actually
<br />
fulfilling the new requirements.
<br />
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>[...]</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>