Sebastian wrote:
One theory might be that the addition of a new bwauth has shifted
which vote gets picked for the consensus. It's conceivable that
bwauths rate relays which are placed topologically close higher
than others.
Thank you for your suggestion. I hope that is not the case and the drop
in
consensus weight is just a temporary glitch. I will post to the
development mailing list to see if the techies can comment on this.
Paying hundreds of dollars of my hard earned money for a relay that is
not
being used by the network is not something I will keep doing for long.
I
support the goals and ideology of Tor, but the project will lose me as
a
volunteer if consensus weight does not restore soon.
Thanks,
Bram
Hey there,
On 19 Jan 2015, at 10:03, eric gisse <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is roughly consistent with what I've been seeing on my own node.
Weird.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Bram de Boer
<list-tor-relays@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Update: generation of the http://nosur.com/consensus.txt list has
completed now, and contains 3683 relays that exist half a year or
more.
Again the relays at the top of the list show the sharp drop in
consensus
weight end of december and a short spike around January 6th.
figuring out what happened will likely involve looking at the
directory
authority votes to see if anything specific happened. One theory might
be that the addition of a new bwauth has shifted which vote gets
picked
for the consensus. It's conceivable that bwauths rate relays which are
placed topologically close higher than others. I'm looking forward to
any analysis someone might do on this.
Cheers
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays