Maybe then you can categorize them, each group into specific title.
2 Likes
Weak opinion: I would guess that most users are only/mostly interested in hosting providers that fulfill as much as possible of your criteria. Only crypto support is not very interesting and might even be a distraction. Unless, you like to list them for the purpose of others not loosing time with providers that support crypto but fail at other criteria. The first post can probably just be an introduction text and link to our mediawiki.
In any case, as you prefer.
1 Like
This plan requires more time due to redundant entries across multiple countries on the Tor Project’s Good Bad ISPs page, which means it requires overhauling its primary sorting method to individual web hosting providers instead, among other column changes. Here is an example entry with my planned contributions (subject to further revisions):
| Company/ISP | ASN | Location(s) | Bandwidth | DDoS Protection | IPv6 | ToS/AUP | Bridges | Guard/Middle | Exit | Payment Method(s) | KYC/AML | Comments | Last Updated | Consensus Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hetzner | AS24940 | Germany, Finland, Singapore, US | 1 Gbps unmetered on dedicated servers | Yes | Yes (/64) | ToC | Yes | Yes | No | Credit card, SEPA, bank/wire transfer, PayPal, and UnionPay | Yes (passport) | 05/2025 | 11.68% |
Current workload suggests this task will be completed in two months, so I will link a merge request from the Tor Project’s GitLab repository for the next monthly update.
IncogNET is no longer blocking the Tor Browser from accessing its website, so it has been added to the wiki. Cockbox and Ukrainian Data Network remain unverified due to lack of servers and/or “contact-walls”, but otherwise all entries from this topic and KYCNOT.ME have been thoroughly verified. Any web hosting providers with cryptocurrency payment support failing to meet the criteria established on the wiki have been (re)added to this topic’s wiki post instead.