Karsten Loesing, 04.05.2012 12:31:
On 5/3/12 7:22 PM, Sebastian G. <bastik.tor> wrote:
The safest way is to ensure that bridge and relay operators are aware of the fact that their naming scheme should avoid correlations, wherever both are actually located. The question here is on how to ensure it?!
This is a usability question. Telling bridge operators that they should use a very different nickname for their bridge than what they used for their relays could be useful. But it's yet one more thing to tell them. We should also tell them not to run their bridge on the same IP address where they ran a relay before. Or they shouldn't re-use their relay identity key for running a bridge. And we could even test these cases automatically. But my sense is that we'd only confuse potential bridge operators, either by telling them these things in a howto or by notifying them when they do one of these things. We'd probably overload poor Runa who has to answer the support questions coming out of this. Probably not worth it.
I agree, that it's already enough information an operator would have to consider.
[...]
All I could do is look through the list manually and compare them with the list of relays. I don't think I'm going to do this as I don't believe that I'm going to find anything.
Sounds like a fine approach. Want to do it (when the 2008 tarball is available)? It would be interesting to see a) what fraction of bridges you think you can derive IP addresses for and b) how accurate your guesses are.
Since it will be released in two weeks and the next wave is released in two weeks after that I think there's enough time in which I can do that.
When you think it's useful I'm at least going to try. We should take this "off list" and then can post the results on it.
I encourage anyone to try the same. It might be interesting to see different results (What's similar). In the case that's useful.
Best, Karsten
Regards, Sebastian