A Challenge:
To anyone who feels that what XS has done in using the optimised files has so tainted the credit system and to make the standings meaningless

...

Lets have my suggestion instead, something to shoot for that both sides want.
This is a simple back up your opinions with your equipment.
Thanks for reading,
Movieman

I've been for the new credit system, with re-assessment of all results, from the start as you know. I haven't used the optimised versions of BOINC. I also haven't suggested anyone who does is a cheat. I want to seperate the two issues here: the suggestion for backdating credits (which isn't going to happen - I know), and that of suggesting anyone using an optimised client is cheating.

I want to make sure everyone's clear that these are two seperate issues, and requesting the first isn't the same as acussing of the second! Reassessment wouldn't have been aimed at anyone or any team- it was for re-assessment on an even basis.

Just want to make sure everyone's clear on that!

However, without wanting to be controversial (difficult around here recently!) I don't see how someone's opinions are more valid if they have more computer power...

cheers
Danny

---

Responding is only going to make things worse and is pretty futile now. I'm reporting every post I see from the few from now on I have hit the red "X" on 3 of saenger's posts today and I advise all to do the same, they must take notice now...

Can you tell me why you have quoted me there?

I have been trying to avoid getting into these flame wars because as i said even in that post you quoted its futile even trying and responding is only going to make things worse whats wrong about that? anyways quit flame baiting because you will succeed.

---

There are projects outside of BOINC...

Against me? or with me?<BG>
I can see a problem developing. My challenge was to the "vocal" group here that campaigned against the optimised files and used the "C" word in relation ot XS.
The point was to show that I as one person was producing more than the entire group of them.Orginally I named these people but was asked by Ethan not to so the issue is being clouded.
Something else that needs to be said here: WE have a problem with children playing games with the + and - boxes below each post in an effort to elininate posts from the forum. That's dirty pool gentlemen and if it isn't stopped I will bring 200 people here in a heartbeat and destroy this voting system before you can blink. That is no threat, that is a statement of fact. If we're going to get down and dirty here, I'm more than willing to do so..
It's your decision on how this is played. Clean or dirty.

Planning a minus attack? That's dirty. And yes, I have noticed the minusings of mine and other's posts here.
*************

Now dont complaint if you get angry responses. You want a fight , you are going to get it.

Ethan

This post by Fuzzy is a clear flame. Of course you will see nothing wrong in it as it is an attack on my team.

Responding is only going to make things worse and is pretty futile now. I'm reporting every post I see from the few from now on I have hit the red "X" on 3 of saenger's posts today and I advise all to do the same, they must take notice now...

Can you tell me why you have quoted me there?

I have been trying to avoid getting into these flame wars because as i said even in that post you quoted its futile even trying and responding is only going to make things worse whats wrong about that? anyways quit flame baiting because you will succeed.

He is quoting you here because he feels protected by the Moderator , whose Bias gainst our team is clear and patent.

Mel I told you not to expect fairness here.. you in your youth and idealism did nit want to believe . Hope you grow now.

It takes a -25 rating to make a post disappear (by default, and I doubt very many people override that in their settings). I haven't seen a post lower than -3 or so. Has any post gotten near -25?

I voted against some posts that were just mindless attacks on Ethan. I was once a mod (on another forum) so I know what a difficult job he has, and what a great job he's doing.

He is not doing a great job. Once his bias against a team is clear any moderating he does looses credibility.

Jose,

Ethan closed almost any thread dealing with backdating, which is something XS vehemently opposes. I think this is more like protecting XS than opposing it. He can't delete any post you disagree with.

---

I take it that all means you are staying here at Rosetta now Movieman and Jose ?

Jose will not crunch for a BOINC Project again.

Since BOINC open source is the reason modifications can be done and as I have been able to prove even people that use standard clients cheat under BOINC . I have concluded the only way to have a cheat free DC project is by not using BOINC.

Add to that, my trying to do something for this project has left a very sour taste in my mouth. My trust in some people here has been betrayed . If I am at this board is to make sure no more lies about my team are spread. And to make sure that Bakers word of no Backdating is kept. Since I was one of the ones that pushed the hardest for the new work system, I owe it to those who beleieved me when I said it was going to be fair to make sure it is fair.

Once I am sure of that...again in honesty, and given one moderator/developer obvious bias against my team Iam here to keep things even.

Jose,

Ethan closed almost any thread dealing with backdating, which is something XS vehemently opposes. I think this is more like protecting XS than opposing it. He can't delete any post you disagree with.

He can hide them and he has allowed to stand without moderation many of the most inflamatory postings again to moderate out our teams responses.

Once the backdating issue was closed by David Baker ANY AND ALL new backdating threads were flames and should have been hidden. No if or buts.

It sounds like an uneven contest for a prize that isn't worth winning.

Just like suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, the issues at stake should be temporary as well.

What it is interesting is that none of the great even field because optimizers are evil club have responded to the challenge. Of course they wont. The challenge will show them for what they are non producers who boudmouth those who can.

Jose,

Ethan closed almost any thread dealing with backdating, which is something XS vehemently opposes. I think this is more like protecting XS than opposing it. He can't delete any post you disagree with.

He can hide them and he has allowed to stand without moderation many of the most inflamatory postings again to moderate out our teams responses.

Once the backdating issue was closed by David Baker ANY AND ALL new backdating threads were flames and should have been hidden. No if or buts.

That is your opinion but not mine. The issue of backdating has been closed but that does not mean nobody is allowed to state his opinion about that. If there is any posts accusing you or any member of cheating it will be hidden/deleted. If there is any post insulting you or other people it will be hidden/deleted. But you want even to hide/delete posts where the poster say I'm not happy with the decision not to backdate since... Someone is not happy and said so - well he might do so. As you said the issue is closed the only way to reopen it - as I see it - is if you insist on hiding all mentioning about that.

P.S.: A private messaging system on this board would be really helpful.

---

What it is interesting is that none of the great even field because optimizers are evil club have responded to the challenge. Of course they wont. The challenge will show them for what they are non producers who boudmouth those who can.

IMO any post threatening (promising) to take control of any part of the boards is out of order. Would you not agree if it were another team threatening to do the same?

You shout about non-producers airing their opinions - pot/kettle? It has no relation to how valid someone's opinion is.

As for the backdating debate - I don't believe any subject should be banned from rational discussion. The ONLY reason is because it has been the subject of many flames. If there were no flame wars and a rational debate was possible then it's a valid subject to discuss. As a subject it's as valid as any!

As MM requested, lets keep this thread civil ;)
[edit] that last bit isn't just to Jose!

---

Since BOINC open source is the reason modifications can be done and as I have been able to prove even people that use standard clients cheat under BOINC . I have concluded the only way to have a cheat free DC project is by not using BOINC.

Hmm, can you please explain to me how anyone is cheating in the 3 different CPDN-projects that all uses BOINC?

Or for that matter, how will anyone cheat in the Folding/BOINC-application if it finally makes it out of closed testing, since
BOINC-credit = Folding-points * constant

Both, just like Rosetta@home, relies on a quorum of 1, but does not have the same credit-issues as Rosetta@home has been having, and is finally trying to fix...

Since BOINC open source is the reason modifications can be done and as I have been able to prove even people that use standard clients cheat under BOINC . I have concluded the only way to have a cheat free DC project is by not using BOINC.

Hmm, can you please explain to me how anyone is cheating in the 3 different CPDN-projects that all uses BOINC?

Or for that matter, how will anyone cheat in the Folding/BOINC-application if it finally makes it out of closed testing, since
BOINC-credit = Folding-points * constant

Both, just like Rosetta@home, relies on a quorum of 1, but does not have the same credit-issues as Rosetta@home has been having, and is finally trying to fix...

Latter edit for clarity:

I am speaking using my experience with Rosetta Claimed Credits.

FYI: if there is a person outside the developers that has checked and rechecked the credit data in this project to check for blatant overclaiming/cheating it has been me. The BOINC source can be tampred without using optimized clients. It can be tampered directly while keeping the appearence of being a standard client. In the case of Rosetta It has.

Since I have not reported the cases in question where I detected the cheating in ( I was in the rechecking part of my tracking) to the developers. And since I am no longer working on tracking part project, releasing the data to you is not ethical.

What it is interesting is that none of the great even field because optimizers are evil club have responded to the challenge. Of course they wont. The challenge will show them for what they are non producers who boudmouth those who can.

IMO any post threatening (promising) to take control of any part of the boards is out of order. Would you not agree if it were another team threatening to do the same?

You shout about non-producers airing their opinions - pot/kettle? It has no relation to how valid someone's opinion is.

As for the backdating debate - I don't believe any subject should be banned from rational discussion. The ONLY reason is because it has been the subject of many flames. If there were no flame wars and a rational debate was possible then it's a valid subject to discuss. As a subject it's as valid as any!

As MM requested, lets keep this thread civil ;)
[edit] that last bit isn't just to Jose!

I have a very slow P4. For many weeks my machine was the poster child for everything that could go wrong with a downloaded work unit and it got the rightful name of sloth.
If I have the credits I have it was because a friend tested his water cooled, ocd opty system using my account.

See, I know my contribution number wise is small. I accept that and until recently kept crunching . I dont accuse peope that can crunch more than I because they have more and better equipment than me of cheats. Nor I claim the world is unfair.

I dont produce high numbers because the physical limitations of my system not because I am spread thin in gazzillion projects. I dont claim a conspiracy aginst my sloth as many here claim against their machines.

Right now, I am not producing numbers because I stoped crunching for Rosetta so my numbers are going to drop more in relation to others.

Jose,

Ethan closed almost any thread dealing with backdating, which is something XS vehemently opposes. I think this is more like protecting XS than opposing it. He can't delete any post you disagree with.

He can hide them and he has allowed to stand without moderation many of the most inflamatory postings again to moderate out our teams responses.

Once the backdating issue was closed by David Baker ANY AND ALL new backdating threads were flames and should have been hidden. No if or buts.

That is your opinion but not mine. The issue of backdating has been closed but that does not mean nobody is allowed to state his opinion about that. If there is any posts accusing you or any member of cheating it will be hidden/deleted. If there is any post insulting you or other people it will be hidden/deleted. But you want even to hide/delete posts where the poster say I'm not happy with the decision not to backdate since... Someone is not happy and said so - well he might do so. As you said the issue is closed the only way to reopen it - as I see it - is if you insist on hiding all mentioning about that.

P.S.: A private messaging system on this board would be really helpful.

They have not been hidden or deleted. Many attacks were left there and were protected from response by the moderator.

Since BOINC open source is the reason modifications can be done and as I have been able to prove even people that use standard clients cheat under BOINC . I have concluded the only way to have a cheat free DC project is by not using BOINC.

Hmm, can you please explain to me how anyone is cheating in the 3 different CPDN-projects that all uses BOINC?

Or for that matter, how will anyone cheat in the Folding/BOINC-application if it finally makes it out of closed testing, since
BOINC-credit = Folding-points * constant

Both, just like Rosetta@home, relies on a quorum of 1, but does not have the same credit-issues as Rosetta@home has been having, and is finally trying to fix...

FYI: if there is a person outside the developers that has checked and rechecked the credit data in this project to check for blatant overclaiming/cheating it has been me. The BOINC source can be tampred without using optimized clients. It can be tampered directly while keeping the appearence of being a standard client. It has.

Since I have not reported the cases in question where I detected the cheating in ( I was in the rechecking part of my tracking) to the developers. And since I am no longer working on tracking part project, releasing the data to you is not ethical.

I think Ingleside's point is that it is possible to use the BOINC platform for a project that makes it very difficult to cheat.

HTH
Danny

---

Since BOINC open source is the reason modifications can be done and as I have been able to prove even people that use standard clients cheat under BOINC . I have concluded the only way to have a cheat free DC project is by not using BOINC.

Hmm, can you please explain to me how anyone is cheating in the 3 different CPDN-projects that all uses BOINC?

Or for that matter, how will anyone cheat in the Folding/BOINC-application if it finally makes it out of closed testing, since
BOINC-credit = Folding-points * constant

Both, just like Rosetta@home, relies on a quorum of 1, but does not have the same credit-issues as Rosetta@home has been having, and is finally trying to fix...

FYI: if there is a person outside the developers that has checked and rechecked the credit data in this project to check for blatant overclaiming/cheating it has been me. The BOINC source can be tampred without using optimized clients. It can be tampered directly while keeping the appearence of being a standard client. It has.

Since I have not reported the cases in question where I detected the cheating in ( I was in the rechecking part of my tracking) to the developers. And since I am no longer working on tracking part project, releasing the data to you is not ethical.

I think Ingleside's point is that it is possible to use the BOINC platform for a project that makes it very difficult to cheat.

HTH
Danny

Dannny: it can be done. I know I can be done. I have seen it done.
By the way, even some of the strongest Boinc suppportes have claimed here that in SETI even the science part ( science , not the credits) was tampered with. So under open source the science can be tampered.

So that is one of the reasons why I am so in favor of close coding. The credit aspects as well as the science aspects of the application has to be closed.

What it is interesting is that none of the great even field because optimizers are evil club have responded to the challenge. Of course they wont. The challenge will show them for what they are non producers who boudmouth those who can.

IMO any post threatening (promising) to take control of any part of the boards is out of order. Would you not agree if it were another team threatening to do the same?

You shout about non-producers airing their opinions - pot/kettle? It has no relation to how valid someone's opinion is.

As for the backdating debate - I don't believe any subject should be banned from rational discussion. The ONLY reason is because it has been the subject of many flames. If there were no flame wars and a rational debate was possible then it's a valid subject to discuss. As a subject it's as valid as any!

As MM requested, lets keep this thread civil ;)
[edit] that last bit isn't just to Jose!

I have a very slow P4. For many weeks my machine was the poster child for everything that could go wrong with a work unit and it got the rightfull name of sloth.
If I have the credits I have it was because a friend tested his water cooled, ocd opty system using my account.

Se I know my contribution number wise is small. I accept that , I dont accuse peope that can crunch more than I because the have more and better equipmeny than me of cheats. Nor I claim the world is unfair.

I dont produce high numbers because the physical limitations of my system not because I am spread thin in gazzillion projects. I dont claim a conspiracy aginst my sloth as many here claim against their machines.

Right now, I am not producing numbers becasuse I stoped crunching for Rosetta so my numbers are going to drop more in relation to others.

You missed my point Jose- whether I agree with your opinions or not, I accept that you put a lot of effort into this project. You're not the biggest producer, but your production is beneficial to the project all the same. The way your previous posts read to me is that you're belitteling others based on their production rates, and yet from my point of view you're doing exactly what you accuse them of, from the same position.

---

Jose,
you scream, fume, shout as soon as anybody dares to differ with your opinion and doesn't doesn't immediately apologize for having another opinion, as it is the only one, the right one per definition, not to be contested.

Why don't you like an open discussion?
What do you have to lose that you contsantly overreact so much?

And, btw, most of your "comments" are not modded, dispite its flamebait-only content.

The credit aspects as well as the science aspects of the application has to be closed.

I agree with that, but it's just a case of moving any benchmark/credit system out of the open BOINC app and into the closed science one. (Maybe we're getting confused over what we refer to as 'BOINC'?) There is no reason why a system using BOINC can't be made secure - as you say, it just requires any credit calculation to be removed from the open source bit (ok- there's a bit more to it than that as the current thread at Ralph is discussing, but in principal it's as stated).

cheers
Danny

---