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.

I am saying that if you are spread thin in other projects and if your commitment to Rosetta as measured by time and in percentage of effort when compared to other projects you better take a deep breath before you start accusing people that are commited close to 100% Rosetta , if not 100% as cheats. That is what some f the zero racers I have attacked have done: attac as cheats people who have dedicated 100% their superior hardware. That is unfair. I for one, will not accept those baseless attacks ad I will complaint accordingly.

Whomever libels good people whose only sin is heavy dedication to the project will get a strong respose from me.

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.

My opinion is not the only one. But everytime I tried to enter in a dialogue , the same backdating issue that was closed is reopened and the cheat libel gets restarted. So I have concluded that you and others dont really want to engage in the dialogue you claim you want.

Saenger the posibility of an issue was closed by the developers : Backdating is closed. What do YOU and I mean you gain in reopening it? Sorry , for me that is an indication that you are provocking a negative reaction and you got that negative reaction. You got what you asked for.

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.

My opinion is not the only one. But everytime I tried to enter in a dialogue , the same backdating closed issue that was closed is reopened and the cheat libel gets restarted. So I have concluded that you and others dont really want to engage in the dialogue you claim you want.

Saenger the posibility of an issue was closed by the developers : Backdating is closed. What do YOU and I mean you gain in reopening it? Sorry , for me that is an indication that you are provocking a negative reaction and you got that negative reaction. You got what you asked for.

It's Saenger's prerogative to talk about backdating even if it's closed. It's a subject like the other. If you don't like the subject or if you don't like Saenger or both, don't answer him. That's all.

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.

You are complaining about insults and imputations against you and your team. This is one of your such posts.

---

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

But Danny: The Boinc Purits dont want that. When I proposed that very simple solution all I got was ..."BOINC is open source, end of discussion"

And even the science can be compromised. It was claimed here by some of the Boinc Purists that in SETI the science was tampered with. I have to take their word as valid or were they lying?

BTW I am going to be away from the computer for a while . Jury Duty Summons . So If I dont answer you it is not becase im not interested in engaging in a dialogu with you. It is becasue there is a good chance Toay I will be sequestered. Okes I dont want any clebrations on that :) ( Yes the rablerouser has a sense of humor)

O.k. guys...Positive input only. That means no tearing the other guys post.

One post each on how to overcome recent points problems. You have one go to make David Baker see it your way excluding the fact of the decisions already made of "no backdating" of the NEW system.

What do you want implemented ? Take your time and no interrupting the post`s make sure you cover it all.

One go only, like a presentation to David Baker. No mention of individuals or teams allowed.

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

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.

My opinion is not the only one. But everytime I tried to enter in a dialogue , the same backdating closed issue that was closed is reopened and the cheat libel gets restarted. So I have concluded that you and others dont really want to engage in the dialogue you claim you want.

Saenger the posibility of an issue was closed by the developers : Backdating is closed. What do YOU and I mean you gain in reopening it? Sorry , for me that is an indication that you are provocking a negative reaction and you got that negative reaction. You got what you asked for.

It's Saenger's prerogative to talk about backdating even if it's closed. It's a subject like the other. If you don't like the subject or if you don't like Saenger or both, don't answer him. That's all.

It is my pretrogative to remind him the issue is CLOSED. You dont like to hear the issue is closed dont re-raise it. That is all :)

Why do all these threads become entrenched in BS. Its like walking/wading through a field after 6inches of rain! I ask the contributors this.... What did this thread gain? What progress was made? None to my eyes!

---

I love Mr. Smith. He keeps us safe from Alien Scum. He's probably good a Rosetta too.

Why do all these threads become entrenched in BS. Its like walking/wading through a field after 6inches of rain! I ask the contributors this.... What did this thread gain? What progress was made? None to my eyes!

That's right.
But every time someone dares to have a different opinion as Jose, he floods the board with flaming posts.
There is no discussion possible with someone who refuses to listen and doesn't let others have different opinions.

Why do all these threads become entrenched in BS. Its like walking/wading through a field after 6inches of rain! I ask the contributors this.... What did this thread gain? What progress was made? None to my eyes!

That's right.
But every time someone dares to have a different opinion as Jose, he floods the board with flaming posts.
There is no discussion possible with someone who refuses to listen and doesn't let others have different opinions.

Well... i can see some sense in the idea that taking up forum space with issues that have been boxed away can get irritating after a while but in terms of flames etc I just see everybody fighting fire with fire. (Read flame with flame.)

---

I love Mr. Smith. He keeps us safe from Alien Scum. He's probably good a Rosetta too.

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.

The problem with your statement is, that it was closed-source SETI "classic", that back in the v2-days had the 1st. big cheating-scandal, there a couple of users "helped" Ars Technica to reach #1, for so jumping to another team and AFAIK "helped" them to #1, before they themselves announced they was cheating. The cheat was to download wu, and return a result with no detected signals, since back in the v2-days 10% or something of results was returned with no reported signals, this was an easy "cheat".

Now, in the later validation-step it's very easy to spot these bogus results, but one of the many weaknesses is that SETI "classic" credited all results, that they 6 months or so later failed validation didn't influence the crediting...

v3 and later seti-clients started to include best-spike and so on, meaning even if no signal strong enough to report, there was still 1-4 reported signals in all results. This stopped the v2-cheat from working, but there AFAIK was made another cheating client, there a result with bogus signals was returned-back...

Not sure if this was widely used, since the most "popular" cheat was also detected, due to a weakness in server-backend the same user could return the same result many times and get credit for each time returned. A variation of this cheat was to crunch result to 99%, copy the progress, and just change user-id and finish crunching and return the same result under multiple user-accounts...


SETI/BOINC on the other hand is much harder to cheat, since here only results that passes the validation-step gets any credit. Since validation is a neccessary step for SETI@home, stopping anyone trying to cheat at the same time is a "free" bonus, due to the normal credit-rules.

At the time wu is validated, credit for wu is decided based on how many of the results passed validation:
1; If only 2 passed validation, lowest claimed to all.
2; If 3 or more, remove highest and lowest claimed, and average the rest.
Any later-returned results that also passes validation gets the same credit, no re-evaluation of credit is done.

Now, this doesn't stop anyone from trying to cheat by claiming 1000 or something, but, as long as not 2 users crunching the same wu tries to cheat, the 1000-claim is discarded and has little or no effect on the granted credit.

While the BOINC-benchmark can give atleast 5x variation in claims, and someone trying to cheat possibly could get a small advantage, for Seti_Enhanced it's much harder. This since Seti_Enhanced "counts flops", and I've seen 1% variation in claims between results for same wu, but in majority of instances the variance is below 0.1%... Meaning, even if someone does increase their claims with 2%, it can be detected server-side.

Well, the "flops-counting" only works with BOINC-client v5.2.6 or later, meaning as long as older clients isn't stopped from returning work you'll still ocassionally have 2 benchmark-claims deciding granted credit. This is really the same for someone trying to cheat, you need 2 cheaters crunching the same wu to really influence the granted credit.


This basically means, as long as not over 50% of the users is trying to cheat, the quorum-system will stop the cheaters from getting any big advantage from their cheating-attempts. But, if 50% is cheating, you've got a problem regardless...


Looking on BOINC total production, Einstein@home and CPDN uses server-side crediting, meaning for these projects it doesn't matter if user is trying to cheat on the credit or not. Seti_Enhanced "counts flops", and stops cheating-attempts by the quorum-system. A quick look on BoincStats reveals these projects accounts for 84% of last days production.

Rosetta@home accounts for 9.8% of the production, and is now also switching to fairly cheat-resistant crediting.

This leaves many smaller BOINC-projects that relies on the BOINC-benchmark, these has together less than 6% of production. Of these again, majority relies on the quorum-system for deciding crediting, meaning anyone trying to cheat is at a disadvantage...

---

"I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might."

I'm so glad that everyone can work together for such a worthy goal!

Even if a team is #1, you can still invent new games to play, new goals to achieve. Or you can just smile knowing that you are making a difference for some of the leading science in protein prediction which could lead to many different medical discoveries!

-Bradford

O.k. guys...Positive input only. That means no tearing the other guys post.

One post each on how to overcome recent points problems. You have one go to make David Baker see it your way excluding the fact of the decisions already made of "no backdating" of the NEW system.

What do you want implemented ? Take your time and no interrupting the post`s make sure you cover it all.

One go only, like a presentation to David Baker. No mention of individuals or teams allowed.

So no one so far has a presentation for David ? Just the fruitless squabbles ?

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

O.k. guys...Positive input only. That means no tearing the other guys post.

One post each on how to overcome recent points problems. You have one go to make David Baker see it your way excluding the fact of the decisions already made of "no backdating" of the NEW system.

What do you want implemented ? Take your time and no interrupting the post`s make sure you cover it all.

One go only, like a presentation to David Baker. No mention of individuals or teams allowed.

So no one so far has a presentation for David ? Just the fruitless squabbles ?

Carl, don't you think that we all have enough said what each position is?

True Thierry but one post each of the main contenders now the debate has gone a long way, should make their position clear and could possibly be put to Dr.Baker as a presentation to what they think. The arguments certainly cannot !

I apologise if the idea offends !

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

True Thierry but one post each of the main contenders now the debate has gone a long way, should make their position clear and could possibly be put to Dr.Baker as a presentation to what they think. The arguments certainly cannot !

I apologise if the idea offends !

OK we can try to summarize what the standard BOINCers would have. It's very simple. We are in a BOINC world (I mean in this project):

- An equity between Rosetta and the other BOINC projects in terms of credits, whatever the way to calculate them is (this is in the way to be done).
- A re-calculation of the Rosetta credits to be coherent with the other projects.

If someone have other points, add them to this.

O.k. guys...Positive input only. That means no tearing the other guys post.

One post each on how to overcome recent points problems. You have one go to make David Baker see it your way excluding the fact of the decisions already made of "no backdating" of the NEW system.

What do you want implemented ? Take your time and no interrupting the post`s make sure you cover it all.

One go only, like a presentation to David Baker. No mention of individuals or teams allowed.

So no one so far has a presentation for David ? Just the fruitless squabbles ?

It's fine for the future as far as I can tell now.
Work done will be counted, and the calibration factor will obviously be BOINC-consistent.

Of course I still would like to know for the past, who really did how much work, not who managed best to fiddle the benchmarks, but you said that's no option ;)

From a strictly intra-project POV it would perhaps be better to give all crunchers the inflated credits, to give those who use stock a better opportunity to catch up with those with inflated benchmarks in the past, but I like the current solution better.

To give a ranking of my preferences (although it should be widely known by now;):
Best: Retroactive calibration of the credits according to work done, as far back as possible, to have a fair competition between the participants.

Next best: Do as proposed, start giving credits according to work done and at values compatible to other BOINC projects, and let the bogus credits from the past stay.

Bad: Do as proposed, start giving credits according to work done and at values compatible to the inflated clients, and let the bogus credits from the past stay.

Worst: Leave it as it is.

---

Grüße vom Sänger

What do you want implemented ? Take your time and no interrupting the post`s make sure you cover it all.

Start with the credit everyone currently has.
Add in future credit based on the new model-based "granted work credit" system.
Make these the official stats which are exported to third-party stat sites.

If someone have other points, add them to this.

No, you cant have everybody elses points added to yours Thierry. ;-) :-)

---

If someone have other points, add them to this.

No, you cant have everybody elses points added to yours Thierry. ;-) :-)

;-)