[tor-relays] DFRI is running two sponsored exits
arma at mit.edu
Mon Nov 26 16:40:24 UTC 2012
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:22:23PM +0100, Linus Nordberg wrote:
> Andreas Krey <a.krey at gmx.de> wrote
> Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:16:16 +0100:
> | > We could technically run bridges too but we would have to discuss this
> | > internally some more first. Do we really want to take money for running
> | > entry _and_ exit relays? Isn't that exactly how you'd attack Tor users
> | > if you had the power, by controlling entry and exit?
> | You'd be doing so by running entries and exits, and not telling the world
> | about it, like by putting in the family list. So, I don't see a point in
> | a single entity not running entries & exits as long as they are declared.
> The sponsor wants bridges. You're not supposed to set MyFamily for
> bridges. Supposedly because they'd show up in the descriptors of the
> other family members.
I can simplify your dilemma by saying that we're not currently reimbursing
people for operating bridges. The sponsor does want bridges, but for
now we have enough, and they're not going through them very quickly. So
we're saving the funding for a time when they do (and in the mean time,
we're working on better bridge address distribution strategies and
better blocking-resistance approaches).
More information about the tor-relays