> On 9 Mar 2017, at 22:24, David Fifield <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In November 2016 there was a discussion on the tor-team list about > adding some new default obfs4 bridges (Subject: Coordinating to run high > capacity obfs4 bridges). The thread turned into a discussion about the > same entity running both bridges and exits, and didn't go anywhere. > > We haven't added any new obfs4 bridges, or changed the port number of > any existing bridges, since January 2017 (Tor Browser 6.5 and 7.0a1). I > suspect that the 20 existing default bridges are still under high load > and we could stand to have some more bridges to help share it. Are we > still interested in adding new obfs4 bridges? If so, do we have any > leads on who could run them? Hi Mart, Sacha, Would GreenHost be interested in running some of the default Tor Browser obfs4 bridges? If so, please reply to this thread. (GreenHost already runs the default Tor bridge authority, but since the default Tor Browser bridges don't use the bridge authority, I can't see any technical or trust issues here.) T -- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ tor-project mailing list tor-project@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-project