Re: [tor-dev] Bi-directional families in Onionoo and consensus weight as measure of relayed bandwidth

["l.m" <ter.one.leeboi@xxxxxxxx>]

>> One proposal I've liked is to socially discourage asymmetrical
>> families by giving them with bad badges on Roster.  If A says B is
>> part of their family but B doesn't reciprocate, A gets a penalty to
>> their bandwidth points.

> Maybe don't go as far as penalizing relay operators for attempting to
> configure a relay family and not succeeding at it.  Keeping family
> configurations updated is not exactly trivial.  And if the effect is
> that relay operators stop configuring families at all, that's not what
> we wanted, either.

> It would be good to point out configuration problems with family
> settings and help operators debug them easily.

If my understanding of this is correct, doesn't this also have problems with proof-of-operator? That is, exactly as the current case, there's no inherently reliable way to prove that if A declares B and B doesn't declare A, that there *should* be a bi-directional relation. Other properties of a node/relay only go so far in proof-of-relation. The existence of a bi-directional relation is only taken as a hint for path selection. Given X and Y are chosen and have a bi-directional relation, discard one based on the first chosen.

> I started implementing something here and will report back on the
> ticket as soon as I'm more convinced that it works.

No hints?

Regards
--leeroy
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev