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

2015-07-02 Thread Karsten Loesing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Moving this discussion here from another list with Virgil's permission. On 02/07/15 08:42, Virgil Griffith wrote: Big issues right now are: * Bugs (?) in Onionoo --- Onionoo doesn't sanitize its data. For example, there's a lack of

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

2015-07-02 Thread Aaron Gibson
On 2015-07-02 08:12, Karsten Loesing wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Moving this discussion here from another list with Virgil's permission. On 02/07/15 08:42, Virgil Griffith wrote: Big issues right now are: * Bugs (?) in Onionoo --- Onionoo doesn't sanitize its data.

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

2015-07-02 Thread l.m
The major problem with ticket 16276 is that it isn't a fix (as you seek here). It just moves the current implementation into the details document rather than being done in the node index. I don't think you *can* fix it as you seek. Bi-directionality isn't an enforceable property. The spec makes no

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

2015-07-02 Thread l.m
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

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

2015-07-02 Thread Karsten Loesing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi leeroy and Virgil, I'm replying inline. On 02/07/15 14:06, Virgil Griffith wrote: 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

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

2015-07-02 Thread Virgil Griffith
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. I think right now the proposals are to either: (1) move forward using

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

2015-07-02 Thread Karsten Loesing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/07/15 15:07, l.m wrote: 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

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

2015-07-02 Thread l.m
So I guess I should go back to the original issue posted in this thread. It hasn't been addressed if the (bi-directional family) concern is actually data from Onionoo or operators that just don't declare families. The view from Onionoo--based on consensus, taking into consideration caching and