On February 1, 2015 10:48:25 PM Markus Hitter mah@jump-ing.de wrote:
Am 01.02.2015 um 20:02 schrieb Sebastian Urbach:
I would like to provide a good service for everyone, even at the end of the month. That's getting harder the more systems are not present at the end of the month.
I could understand the discussion if it were about providing 500 kBit continuously vs. 1 Mbit for 2 of 4 >weeks. But the particular case was about providing no >less than 6 Mbit continuously, which is easily >enough to comfortably browse the web, for doing large >downloads and probably exhausts most internet >connections in unfree countries. Accordingly it's
unlikely a single connection is hobbled by such a >bandwidth limitation.
Ah, thats a misunderstanding. This is not part 2 of the discussion from a few days ago. I brought it up because i see this for quite a while right now and observed it again within the last days. I thought it was time for a broader discussion.
Would it be too obvious to point out that such patterns are likely already observed, known to adversaries and that they could be in a position to take advantage of the situation to increase the likelihood of being selected as exit relays during these periods? And, if I understand correctly, it also increases the likelihood of their being selected as entry points as well because these same reasons for exits going offline are the same reasons entries may go offline.
dj
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
-
dewaj＠garlic.com -
Sebastian Urbach