Hi All,
On 02/05/2019 21:15, Paul Syverson wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 04:01:52PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
Node location, payment, OS, ISP, uptimes, anon / nym / PGP / GovID, workplace, politic, blogs, whatever else you can imagine, including incorporating what's already in the consensus, contact, MyFamily, nickname, both real world and virtual infos, operator to operator p2p Web of Trust...
Note that we created a research system for gathering such data, reasoning about the trust implications, and applying it to routing decisions. we wrote a paper on it that we presented at PETS 2015. "20,000 In League Under the Sea: Anonymous Communication, Trust, MLATs,and Undersea Cables" https://www.petsymposium.org/2015/papers/04_Jaggard.pdf
This reminds me of the Contact Info Sharing Specification.
There are details on the specification at:
https://github.com/nusenu/ContactInfo-Information-Sharing-Specification
You can also automatically generate the Contact Info string using this tool (I've not checked this out yet):
https://torcontactinfogenerator.netlify.com/
Currently Tor Metrics doesn't do anything with this data (except archive it) because not that many relay operators are using it, but if more operators were sharing the information using this specification then it would help Metrics understand the network better, and help with research projects that want to better understand the network to improve path selection too.
I've just set the Contact Info on my two relays to conform to this specification (might take an hour or two to show up on Relay Search).
Just checking now, only 70 relays use this specification, which is approx 1% of the running relays. If we can get this up to 4-5% then Tor Metrics may look more closely at this.
Thanks, Iain.