Throttling—capping total CRS traffic at Fab and withholding surplus—strictly dominates dumping surplus traffic onto a sacrificial protocol that will subsequently be blocked. Table 2 shows that at CTP = Fab·1.05 the circumventor's relative utility drops to 0.88 of the Fab baseline when dumping, while throttling preserves all open protocols; under a censor flooding attack dumping additionally loses protocol n entirely, making throttling the dominant strategy in both attack and no-attack conditions.
From 2016-elahi-framework — A Framework for the Game-theoretic Analysis of Censorship Resistance
· §5.1.3, Table 2
· 2016
· Privacy Enhancing Technologies
Implications
CRS implementations should enforce a hard throughput ceiling (throttle) rather than shedding excess load over a sacrificial channel; dumping provides no throughput advantage over throttling and permanently sacrifices a usable protocol.
Build CTP control as a rate-limiter at CRS ingress, not a burst-and-dump pattern—the sacrificial protocol retained by throttling has measurable residual value under a censor flooding attack.