If the guy has more PCs than you or Me, So what?(I would've gotten punished for saying that by My dad) There's nothing wrong with buying and possibly(or not) overclocking a PC for crunching, Don't like It, Too bad, So sad, My older brother would say(US Navy Retired 20yrs, Deceased-cancer), Bender also had a saying, But I not go there, Although I'm sorely tempted to. It's My money and I'll spend It how I like, If You can't keep up or don't want to then I can't do anything about that, I help the project by making up for those that login once and do a few units and then do nothing, The Seti Deadwood, How many users out there that never come to the forums do that or even contribute money to the project? I've done so in the past, If I could've I would've this Year too, But My house comes first for a while as I'm on a fixed income. Lowering the Multiplier says the project doesn't value My help as much and yet wants the same amount of work done and expects Me to keep paying about $150.00 a month for Electrical costs, If the Multiplier does go down I'll take My toys and any possible money elsewhere.

Joker....chill just a bit and think about it.....
My finances are in the tank because I am obsessed with this project. OCD to the max. And that's OCD, not overclocked. Oh well......I can live with that.

And I try to share what I can with those that I care about.......
400 pounds of kitty food to the shelter, a few shekels to Seti....
And more advice shared with you fellow Setizens than some might like.

Stay here with me, come what may.....the amount of work that you and I contribute shall not change.......

As Chris Rea said in his song 'Road to H***'......it's all just bits of paper, flying away from you..........

And all this time I was thinking of the other song, The Highway to H*** written by Bon Scott, Angus Young and Malcolm Young(AC/DC fame). ;)

---

CA HSR built a foundation, is laying Track!
PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550 Loco, US's 1st HST

And all this time I was thinking of the other song, The Highway to H*** written by Bon Scott, Angus Young and Malcolm Young(AC/DC fame). ;)

Ahh....those were the days, eh? The band was never the same after Bon passed. Even thought they continued to have commercial success, the soul had died with Bon.

But......we be getting off topic now.

What you say to sticking around bro?

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

So, I'm thinking about this.....

Let's say that credit was "inflating" by 20% per year.

This year, you crank out 500,000 credits.

Next year, you crunch 600,000.

Next year, someone comes along, duplicates your farm exactly, just two of everything you have, and they'd crunch 1,200,000 credits compared to your 1,100,000.

Which is actually worth more, their one-year sprint, or your two years of dedication?

Let's say credit was deflating by 20% a year.

This year, you crank out 500,000 credits.

Next year, you get 400,000, for a total two year contribution of 900,000.

The same mega-cruncher comes along next year, duplicates your farm x2, and he gets 800,000 for the same number of FLOPs. Is he entitled to less for his efforts?

That's why I think the project needs to be able to adjust credit up or down to keep parity -- so that everything else being equal, a cruncher on the stock application should get pretty close to the exact same amount of credit per year.

Those on optimized will likely always get more than those on standard, and that's fine, but the advantage is not going to be constant -- it'll be better sometimes, not so much at other times.

If the guy has more PCs than you or Me, So what?(I would've gotten punished for saying that by My dad) There's nothing wrong with buying and possibly(or not) overclocking a PC for crunching, Don't like It, Too bad, So sad, My older brother would say(US Navy Retired 20yrs, Deceased-cancer), Bender also had a saying(KMSMA). It's My money and I'll spend It how I like, If You can't keep up or don't want to then I can't do anything about that, I help the project by making up for those that login once and do a few units and then do nothing, The Seti Deadwood, How many users out there that never come to the forums do that or even contribute money to the project? I've done so in the past, If I could've I would've this Year too, But My house comes first for a while as I'm on a fixed income. Lowering the Multiplier says the project doesn't value My help as much and yet wants the same amount of work done and expects Me to keep paying about $150.00 a month for Electrical costs, If the Multiplier does go down I'll take My toys and any possible money elsewhere.

The essential point in my message is "same number of floating point operations, different credit scores" no matter which way things are adjusted.

My position is "same number of flops, same credit" regardless of your level of dedication or longevity.

---

Ned,

I'm sorry I don't see where the inflation is, other than it is cheaper and easier to get credits with today's hardware and apps.

My K6-2 350mhz capable of a RAC of about 15 and is parked for now, my q6600 which cost less, even not counting monetary inflation, with an optimized app runs a RAC of over 6000 and would probably be sitting around 3500 with the stock app. If that's your inflation yes it exists, its called progress.

There is no question that the Whetstone/Dhrystone balance of the mythical 100 cobblestone computer is a little skewed based on the performance balance inherent in most current xx86 computers.

Looking at Whetstone benchmarks on line it doesn't seem to me to be that far out of whack for seti@home with a stock app.

You said to Dennis

"If they decided tomorrow to raise credits 10%, I'd be unhappy because it makes it harder to measure today against past contributions, but I'd still crunch."

Well we're allegedly currently looking a variable credit value with a projected drop of 15% within 30 days. How easy will that measure up against past contributions? As for whether I will still crunch it remains to be seen,

I have been pretty loyal to the Seti@home project with over 8 1/2 years in, but right now there are a few things holding me back from clicking off, the team to which I belong, finding a replacement project that does not disadvantage linux boxes and still does some good or maybe just saying heck with it and remembering that those "free" CPU cycles are not free.


Marcus

---

Ned,

I'm sorry I don't see where the inflation is, other than it is cheaper and easier to get credits with today's hardware and apps.

My K6-2 350mhz capable of a RAC of about 15 and is parked for now, my q6600 which cost less, even not counting monetary inflation, with an optimized app runs a RAC of over 6000 and would probably be sitting around 3500 with the stock app. If that's your inflation yes it exists, its called progress.

There is no question that the Whetstone/Dhrystone balance of the mythical 100 cobblestone computer is a little skewed based on the performance balance inherent in most current xx86 computers.

Looking at Whetstone benchmarks on line it doesn't seem to me to be that far out of whack for seti@home with a stock app.

You said to Dennis

"If they decided tomorrow to raise credits 10%, I'd be unhappy because it makes it harder to measure today against past contributions, but I'd still crunch."

Well we're allegedly currently looking a variable credit value with a projected drop of 15% within 30 days. How easy will that measure up against past contributions? As for whether I will still crunch it remains to be seen,

I have been pretty loyal to the Seti@home project with over 8 1/2 years in, but right now there are a few things holding me back from clicking off, the team to which I belong, finding a replacement project that does not disadvantage Linux boxes and still does some good or maybe just saying heck with it and remembering that those "free" CPU cycles are not free.


Marcus

Ditto and well said.

---

CA HSR built a foundation, is laying Track!
PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550 Loco, US's 1st HST

Well.......if you folks do not agree with me, that is fine.
But I will tell you one thing....

When the sun rises and the kitties awake, I shall still be here.

Hope you all can see past your differences and stick around too.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

...
I ultimately want a work unit to give the same number of credits no matter who does what. I want a work unit done today to be worth the same as a work unit done three years ago.

Trouble is, it just ain't that simple.

The concept is simple: a specific machine with specific characteristics is supposed to generate 100 cobblestones per day.

My understanding is that the 100-cobblestone computer would be generating closer to 280 cobblestones per day -- and would have been all along.
...
-- Ned

Eric's observation was that the 2.85 multiplier used by the application expresses the amount by which the flop counting needs to be adjusted to account for loading and storing data. The Whetstone benchmark runs almost totally in L1 cache on modern hardware so measures only pure computational capability.

The 100 Cobblestone computer was supposed to have 1000 Whetstone MIPS and 1000 Dhrystone MIPS. My P4 system most recent benchmarks are 814 and 1599 so it's approximately in the same range. It did approach 200 RAC here with the AK_V8 SSE2 Windows app, with stock it might have been near 130 or so based on standalone comparative testing. It's working SETI Beta now, there have been too many changes to allow RAC to stabilize, but is at about 73. It's hardly a typical system, but still tends to indicate the flop counting method is producing credits not hugely different overall than pure Cobblestones.

=========================

General observations for the thread:

Months ago Eric noted, probably in one of his Staff Blog posts, that he considered the credit rate about 15% higher here than it should be. If the 5.27 apps had the capability to respond to credit rate adjustment through the WU header, I'm sure he would have made a reduction then. Those who are bemoaning the adjustment now should keep in mind that it's been considerably delayed.

The new adjustment method is an option in BOINC which Eric hopes all CPU intensive projects will adopt once it has been demonstrated here. If they do, it will be a useful step toward keeping a sensible balance. There will still be the issue of how to value other kinds of contributions, though.

In volunteer efforts, changes always risk some participants opting out. That's inevitable since each volunteer has unique reasons for participating.

                                                                Joe

...
I ultimately want a work unit to give the same number of credits no matter who does what. I want a work unit done today to be worth the same as a work unit done three years ago.

Trouble is, it just ain't that simple.

The concept is simple: a specific machine with specific characteristics is supposed to generate 100 cobblestones per day.

My understanding is that the 100-cobblestone computer would be generating closer to 280 cobblestones per day -- and would have been all along.
...
-- Ned

Eric's observation was that the 2.85 multiplier used by the application expresses the amount by which the flop counting needs to be adjusted to account for loading and storing data. The Whetstone benchmark runs almost totally in L1 cache on modern hardware so measures only pure computational capability.

The 100 Cobblestone computer was supposed to have 1000 Whetstone MIPS and 1000 Dhrystone MIPS. My P4 system most recent benchmarks are 814 and 1599 so it's approximately in the same range. It did approach 200 RAC here with the AK_V8 SSE2 Windows app, with stock it might have been near 130 or so based on standalone comparative testing. It's working SETI Beta now, there have been too many changes to allow RAC to stabilize, but is at about 73. It's hardly a typical system, but still tends to indicate the flop counting method is producing credits not hugely different overall than pure Cobblestones.

=========================

General observations for the thread:

Months ago Eric noted, probably in one of his Staff Blog posts, that he considered the credit rate about 15% higher here than it should be. If the 5.27 apps had the capability to respond to credit rate adjustment through the WU header, I'm sure he would have made a reduction then. Those who are bemoaning the adjustment now should keep in mind that it's been considerably delayed.

The new adjustment method is an option in BOINC which Eric hopes all CPU intensive projects will adopt once it has been demonstrated here. If they do, it will be a useful step toward keeping a sensible balance. There will still be the issue of how to value other kinds of contributions, though.

In volunteer efforts, changes always risk some participants opting out. That's inevitable since each volunteer has unique reasons for participating.

                                                                Joe

Good observations, Joe. As usual, you are one of the most level-headed among us. You always seem to be able to cut to the quick and avoid the emotionalism that goes with some of these issues.....

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

I'm sorry I don't see where the inflation is, other than it is cheaper and easier to get credits with today's hardware and apps.

The following statement has been made several times:

If the multiplier is lowered, I'll quit.

The multiplier is selected so the hypothetical 100 cobblestone computer would earn 100 cobblestones per day. If the 100 cobblestone computer is getting 120 cobblestones/day, and the multiplier cannot ever be lowered, then we have inflation.

---

I'm sorry I don't see where the inflation is, other than it is cheaper and easier to get credits with today's hardware and apps.

The following statement has been made several times:

If the multiplier is lowered, I'll quit.

The multiplier is selected so the hypothetical 100 cobblestone computer would earn 100 cobblestones per day. If the 100 cobblestone computer is getting 120 cobblestones/day, and the multiplier cannot ever be lowered, then we have inflation.

I like how many people made that statement over the years, and remain to this day. Everything is speculation right now, dunno why no one can wait until Monday sometime, when Eric has a chance to read his email, or one of million PM's I'm sure he's received about this. Patience is a virtue.

---

I'm sorry I don't see where the inflation is, other than it is cheaper and easier to get credits with today's hardware and apps.

The following statement has been made several times:

If the multiplier is lowered, I'll quit.

The multiplier is selected so the hypothetical 100 cobblestone computer would earn 100 cobblestones per day. If the 100 cobblestone computer is getting 120 cobblestones/day, and the multiplier cannot ever be lowered, then we have inflation.

In other words penalize someone for having a faster better performing computer. Besides what cpu is this based on an 80386 DX? It's an antique If It is.

---

CA HSR built a foundation, is laying Track!
PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550 Loco, US's 1st HST

I'm sorry I don't see where the inflation is, other than it is cheaper and easier to get credits with today's hardware and apps.

The following statement has been made several times:

If the multiplier is lowered, I'll quit.

The multiplier is selected so the hypothetical 100 cobblestone computer would earn 100 cobblestones per day. If the 100 cobblestone computer is getting 120 cobblestones/day, and the multiplier cannot ever be lowered, then we have inflation.

In other words penalize someone for having a faster better performing computer. Besides what cpu is this based on an 80386 DX? It's an antique If It is.

It does not make any difference......
Don't you see, my friend.......
No matter what the project might set the multi at......it's all the same.
Within the Seti project, it does not matter whether the multi is 2 or 2 billion........it's all the same, because your credits and mine are treated equally......
There might be some difference when compared with other projects.....but that is not the point........
If you are only interested in credits, shop yer arse off. I am sure you will find another project that puts more numbers on the page than Seti......so what??
If that works for you...go for it. I have only left Seti a few times over political issues, never anything to do with the basic core project. And I have always come back home.
That should speak volumes to you. If not.......do what you must. But I shall not follow you.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

In other words penalize someone for having a faster better performing computer.

The only way to penalize faster computers is to give a lower multiplier to fast machines, and a higher multiplier to slow machines.

The check-in notes say "multiplier" not "multipliers." It's project-wide, not per computer.

... and I said "the 100 cobblestone machine should get 100 cobblestones" not "every machine should get 100 cobblestones."

There is a big difference between those statements.

---

The kitties now sign off on their previous statement and will not comment further.......this is now a non-issue as far as I am concerned......
As long as everybody on the project is treated equally, there is NO ISSUE.
Done deal. Period. Exclamation point. Finish line. Vanishing Point.
Catch my drift? Get my point? Lost the cork? A couple of cards short of a deck? Forgot to watch Bullitt?? What part of forget about it don't you understand?
Capiche?

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

I'm sorry I don't see where the inflation is, other than it is cheaper and easier to get credits with today's hardware and apps.

The following statement has been made several times:

If the multiplier is lowered, I'll quit.

The multiplier is selected so the hypothetical 100 cobblestone computer would earn 100 cobblestones per day. If the 100 cobblestone computer is getting 120 cobblestones/day, and the multiplier cannot ever be lowered, then we have inflation.

LOL not so long ago you had it up to 280 cobblestones/day.

If it is out by 15% it's been that way since the last "adjustment" that was meant to fix this, not increasing, not compounding, not inflationary.

Show me the figures for this baseline computer, show me representative work for Seti@home with the stock app.
Do the figures exist somewhere, can I see them?

Or perhaps this is just a bit of ad-hoc juggling by a benevolent dictator to try to get all the BOINC ducks in a row and behaving.

I might be willing to go along with this easier if I could see the reasoning and it didn't smell too bad. All this behind the scenes stuff that just suddenly pops up with no warning, no transparency or input from participants is rubbing me the wrong way far more than the "adjustment" itself.


Marcus

---

I'm sorry I don't see where the inflation is, other than it is cheaper and easier to get credits with today's hardware and apps.

The following statement has been made several times:

If the multiplier is lowered, I'll quit.

The multiplier is selected so the hypothetical 100 cobblestone computer would earn 100 cobblestones per day. If the 100 cobblestone computer is getting 120 cobblestones/day, and the multiplier cannot ever be lowered, then we have inflation.

LOL not so long ago you had it up to 280 cobblestones/day.

If it is out by 15% it's been that way since the last "adjustment" that was meant to fix this, not increasing, not compounding, not inflationary.

Show me the figures for this baseline computer, show me representative work for Seti@home with the stock app.
Do the figures exist somewhere, can I see them?

Or perhaps this is just a bit of ad-hoc juggling by a benevolent dictator to try to get all the BOINC ducks in a row and behaving.

I might be willing to go along with this easier if I could see the reasoning and it didn't smell too bad. All this behind the scenes stuff that just suddenly pops up with no warning, no transparency or input from participants is rubbing me the wrong way far more than the "adjustment" itself.


Marcus

I'm a volunteer here, just like you.

All of the numbers are relative to something.

Eric's statement (as I remember it) is that SETI "overpays" by about 15% compared to the average BOINC project.

There is a table here that might help.

The table says "here is how each project grants credit compared to other BOINC projects." Relative to each other.

The statement I made about 280 credits was based on a discussion (as I remember, on SETI Beta) that the multiplier should be 1, but was 2.8 to make it comparable to the earlier SETI@Home application.

My 100 vs. 120 comment was talking about a general principle: if you limit corrections to one direction (up) then you can never correct down. The values were not literal, they were an example.

All of these discussions are public. You can probably track them down through Google if you wish.

I'm not part of the decision making process.

My position is very simple: if we have a "gold standard" then we should follow that standard. The 100 cobblestone computer is a standard, and results should be proportional (and comparable) to the standard.

If we don't have a gold standard, then the value of a cobblestone "floats" and if you do 84 times the amount of work that I do, you get 84 times the credit -- and we can't really use cobblestones to compare last week to last year.

---

I'm sorry I don't see where the inflation is, other than it is cheaper and easier to get credits with today's hardware and apps.

The following statement has been made several times:

If the multiplier is lowered, I'll quit.

The multiplier is selected so the hypothetical 100 cobblestone computer would earn 100 cobblestones per day. If the 100 cobblestone computer is getting 120 cobblestones/day, and the multiplier cannot ever be lowered, then we have inflation.

LOL not so long ago you had it up to 280 cobblestones/day.

If it is out by 15% it's been that way since the last "adjustment" that was meant to fix this, not increasing, not compounding, not inflationary.

Show me the figures for this baseline computer, show me representative work for Seti@home with the stock app.
Do the figures exist somewhere, can I see them?

Or perhaps this is just a bit of ad-hoc juggling by a benevolent dictator to try to get all the BOINC ducks in a row and behaving.

I might be willing to go along with this easier if I could see the reasoning and it didn't smell too bad. All this behind the scenes stuff that just suddenly pops up with no warning, no transparency or input from participants is rubbing me the wrong way far more than the "adjustment" itself.


Marcus

I'm a volunteer here, just like you.

My apologies Ned, I didn't mean to imply that you were the decision maker.

All of the numbers are relative to something.

Eric's statement (as I remember it) is that SETI "overpays" by about 15% compared to the average BOINC project.

There is a table here that might help.

The table says "here is how each project grants credit compared to other BOINC projects." Relative to each other.

Yes I am familiar with that table, comparison across projects is still quite a mess isn't it.

The statement I made about 280 credits was based on a discussion (as I remember, on SETI Beta) that the multiplier should be 1, but was 2.8 to make it comparable to the earlier SETI@Home application.

My 100 vs. 120 comment was talking about a general principle: if you limit corrections to one direction (up) then you can never correct down. The values were not literal, they were an example.

All of these discussions are public. You can probably track them down through Google if you wish.

I understand where you are coming from, but without seeing the figures how can one actually make a decision.

I'm not part of the decision making process.

See my apology above.

My position is very simple: if we have a "gold standard" then we should follow that standard. The 100 cobblestone computer is a standard, and results should be proportional (and comparable) to the standard.

If we don't have a gold standard, then the value of a cobblestone "floats" and if you do 84 times the amount of work that I do, you get 84 times the credit -- and we can't really use cobblestones to compare last week to last year.

[/quote]

This surprisingly is my position too! The "gold standard" relative to seti is being changed and the new work will not be comparable. The same computer will doing the same work will apparently be getting around a 15% less credit with this amount based on a floating snapshot "benchmark".

Chasing an average BOINC benchmark across across that mess of a previously referenced table, bearing in mind the wide variety of project calculation types and the not representative balance of the mythical cobblestone computer, it seems a lot like "tilting at windmills".

Cross comparison of BOINC projects is a great concept, but is it really attainable?

I wish to see the actual calculation basis of the credit change with that Cobblestone "Gold Standard" against seti. If in reality the change is chasing the multi-headed BOINC variable monster and then hoping other projects fall into line, which will again change the variables, it is misguided in a very basic way.


Marcus

---

Some simple observations:

First, Like Mark, I am here to help the search for ET. Credit is relative. If S@H paid 100 credits or a 1,000 credits per unit would not really matter. The credits system is a measure of performance and work completed. If one computer performs better and gets more work completed then it should get more credit. If that function is served then great. What number is used as the measure is really irrelevant.

Second, I admit it, part of me is credit whore. I have invested thousands of dollars in hardware and pay over $400 a month for electricity to keep my farm running. I do this because I want to earn more credit. My farm is split working of different projects. Partially because I seen value in the work the other projects are doing and partially because they pay better. I even have some of my computing power focused on lower paying project because I value the work being performed. On the other hand some of my crunchers are working higher paying projects strictly for credit. If S@H paid more, then I would devote greater resources to it.

Third, a significant number of power users, people who have farms or even just gardens, crunch for credit. There is a thread at the Seti.USA board discussing this issue. Many of the high power users have left S@H because of the low pay. Many more will leave if the pay is lowered even more.

Conclusion, lowering the pay will alienate a significant number of participates. Not all but some. What percentage, I can only guess. However, at a time when S@H needs more participates, is it wise to lose participates? If the project wants to increase the number of users, then better pay would seem the wiser course.

I will be here one way or the other.

PS: Donations to the project are also at risk if the credit is lowered.

---

Some simple observations:

First, Like Mark, I am here to help the search for ET. Credit is relative. If S@H paid 100 credits or a 1,000 credits per unit would not really matter. The credits system is a measure of performance and work completed. If one computer performs better and gets more work completed then it should get more credit. If that function is served then great. What number is used as the measure is really irrelevant.

Second, I admit it, part of me is credit whore. I have invested thousands of dollars in hardware and pay over $400 a month for electricity to keep my farm running. I do this because I want to earn more credit. My farm is split working of different projects. Partially because I seen value in the work the other projects are doing and partially because they pay better. I even have some of my computing power focused on lower paying project because I value the work being performed. On the other hand some of my crunchers are working higher paying projects strictly for credit. If S@H paid more, then I would devote greater resources to it.

Third, a significant number of power users, people who have farms or even just gardens, crunch for credit. There is a thread at the Seti.USA board discussing this issue. Many of the high power users have left S@H because of the low pay. Many more will leave if the pay is lowered even more.

Conclusion, lowering the pay will alienate a significant number of participates. Not all but some. What percentage, I can only guess. However, at a time when S@H needs more participates, is it wise to lose participates? If the project wants to increase the number of users, then better pay would seem the wiser course.

I will be here one way or the other.

PS: Donations to the project are also at risk if the credit is lowered.

Think you have hit the nail firmly on its head. Credits/time should be equal across all projects, for each computer, so that users can do their favoured science project(s) knowing they will earn approx the same credits as all other BOINC participants.

With Seti being the dominant project then all other projects need to bring their credits in line with Seti. And if the Seti Management thinks they are paying over the odds compared to the 'standard' so be it.

Chasing credits is not the way to choose which project(s) to join.

As a side note if projects are granting credits, in excess of what can be got on Seti using optimised applications they must be paying way over the odds.

Edit] To clarify figures on same computer:
. . . . . . . Resource Share . . . RAC(long term ave)
Einstein . . . . . 40 . . . . . . . . 600
SetiBeta . . . . . 60 . . . . . . . . 600
Seti . . . . . . . 300 . . . . . . . 4500

Einstein Power app
SetiBeta standard app
Seti Optimised app.
[/edit

My position is very simple: if we have a "gold standard" then we should follow that standard. The 100 cobblestone computer is a standard, and results should be proportional (and comparable) to the standard.

If we don't have a gold standard, then the value of a cobblestone "floats" and if you do 84 times the amount of work that I do, you get 84 times the credit -- and we can't really use cobblestones to compare last week to last year.

This surprisingly is my position too! The "gold standard" relative to seti is being changed and the new work will not be comparable. The same computer will doing the same work will apparently be getting around a 15% less credit with this amount based on a floating snapshot "benchmark".

There is what "can" be done, and what "should" be done.

Once upon a time, you could pull a U.S. Dollar Bill out of your wallet, walk into the Federal Reserve and get 1.5 grams of gold. There was 1.5 grams of gold in the Federal Reserve (at Fort Knox, KY) for every bill in circulation.

It is a "gold standard" because you could freely convert paper to gold, and gold to paper.

For BOINC, you replace the gold with the 100 cobblestone computer. 1 Cobblestone is equivalent to 14.4 minutes of computing on a machine that does exactly 1,000 double-precision MIPS based on the Whetstone benchmark and 1,000 VAX MIPS based on the Dhrystone benchmark.

Anything else is a floating standard, and the "price of gold" varies.

If the multiplier can not be reduced, we can never lower credit if that is what is needed to get back to the gold standard -- and we don't have a gold standard.

What "should" be done is another discussion.

---