... Trying to say anything about how many real floating-point-operations a computer has done across multiple projects based on these "Cobble-FLOPS" won't work, since "Cobble-FLOPS" != k * "real FLOPS" where k depends on project and where's probably atleast a 10x difference in k between projects.

Thanks for zero-ing in on the core problem in that we do not at present have a reliable measure. The (CreditNew) units are based on some (statistical) abstraction and change.


The near impossible question to answer is how we can easily gain a compatible pan-project standard?

Also note that some projects credit aspects that the present unit of Cobblestones does not even quantify or measure, such as prompt returns and network activity, disk storage, time active, and other non-cobblestones-defined aspects...

Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

LOL...

Well, I can see not much has changed on the credit front in the several years since I posted anything about it.

People still have a problem with difference between work and power, fixed vs. floating basis 'monetary' systems, and how both of those relate to the Cobblestone!

Al

Hehehe:)

You guys are trying to explain to me something I understood before I ever posted: you are talking about 'real' floating point operations. I get it. You're pissed. They don't add up. I know.

All o' yalls mistake is that you are trying to force 'real' floating point operations into an equation that calls for a number of floating point operations which is given by the 'bank'. If 'bank' is N and 'real' is Y, then sorry folks but you can't swap N for Y at your convenience. It's math. There is only one right answer and one right way to do things. Now please don't explain to me again that Y is less than N and that some banks are pretending that Y is equal to N. I know. I get it. I always have:)

In other words, Richard, the Zimbabwean Bank did not give you 36,190 Zimbabwean dollars and you did not go to the exchange kiosk to trade in 36,190 Zimbabwean dollars for 36,190 US dollars. What happened was the Zimbabwean bank gave you 36,190 US dollars. Because it can. And did.

Now normally I would have said 'let's agree to disagree' a long time ago... But here's why I think it's important: It involves Bank of Seti.

We all know Bank of Seti doesn't give out 36,190 US dollars. It gives out 100 US dollars. To be more precise, with Eric's old counter it used to always give out $100. With CreditNew it's sometimes $97, or $101, or maybe even $83 at times. But the point is, even under CreditNew, Bank of Seti has always tried to pay $100. Are we all on the same page? Is anything in this paragraph incorrect so far?

Unfortunately the rest of this post will quite likely be wrong. But I'll give it a go 'cause it's as good a theory as any and because I don't mind when people mop the floor with me or my theories:)

Right now Bank of Seti is paying (say) $70 instead of $100. And everybody is blaming the Bank of Zimbabwe:) Why?

Everybody seems to assume that Seti is still trying to pay $100. What if it's selling itself short? What if it made a mistake? What if it opened for V7 business and it's telling CreditNew that tasks are now worth paying $70 for? In other words, Seti could be the one asking CreditNew for $70. (Unless you haven't figured this out already, Bank of CreditNew is where Bank of Seti gets its money).

And here's where my theory may be turning into science-fiction as it involves my attempt at figuring out (by actually reading) how CreditNew works. Now of course I realize the fact that I read it doesn't automatically mean I understood it. I'm not that daft:)

CreditNew starts off with the Cobblestone equation. Yes, the one where if all projects declared true floating point operations, the Zimbabwean Bank would give you a hundred bucks just like every other bank:)

Now AFAICT CreditNew's 'feature' is a bunch of if-found-cheating/bendingtherules/cherrypicking-then loops. The good news is that all those loops try to cancel out (when no foul play is 'detected') and revert back to the good old Cobblestone equation. (To which William I'm guessing says 'b***ocks'. I'm sure for good reason:)

There appear to be a few catches though. CreditNew wants to know and keep track of every single app (including anonymous) for every type of WU. But it's young and dumb and can't measure GPU performance. So it measures CPU performance, then looks at what kind of WU a GPU just completed and awards credit based on CPU performance. Elapsed-time and GFLOPS as far as GPUs are concerned appear to be cosmetic. IOW, CreditNew may display them here and there, but doesn't really know what to do with them.

But it appears to keep tabs on CPU apps, both on the host and on the server. And it trusts the CPU benchmarks it runs. And actually uses them. And keeps tabs on anonymous apps and uses those too. And as long as an anon app doesn't get in the penalty box, then CreditNew goes ahead and uses the data to shell out credit to all other WUs. IOW, no matter how many apps a WU can be run on, CreditNew appears to choose the fastest to base performance on. But again it's young and dumb and can't measure GPU performance (which obviously goes for OpenCL apps too). So it can only choose between CPU apps.

So maybe, just maybe...

CreditNew was giving V6 WUs ~100cr because it knew there was an app out there running on a proc with Y amount of speed that could do them in X amount of time. But now it looks like it's finding apps on a proc with the same Y amount of speed but taking 2X the amount of time and therefore paying half the credit. And rightly so.

Unfortunately the fact that WUs got longer only adds to the confusion. It's irrelevant. As far as CreditNew is concerned, the extra work is accounted for.

The simplest way to say this would be: have a look at your old anonymous V6 CPU APR. Now check V7 CPU APR. Is the particular APR drop relative to your RAC drop? Of course even if it is, my theory could still be wrong.

In other words I'm afraid CPU APRs are actually displaying correctly (definitely for stock, most likely for anon too). And until a faster CPU app comes out or CreditNew figures out how to use GPU data to shell out credit, then RACs will effectively stay halved (approximately).

Then again we could always go the Bank of Zimbabwe route and someone could hand out extra credit even though we may not deserve it:)

But most likely I'm wrong in my 'understanding' of CreditNew. In fact I'd be shocked if any of this holds up to scrutiny!

Live long and prosper,
Alex

A bit over the top there, Chris?

Anybody that leaves the project over the simple matter of credit awards cannot be much concerned about the science of it.

Have fun over at Einstein.

It is my backup project in the case of Seti going down entirely. Not happening much lately.

---

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

Would this be in USD or ZWD?

Work Unit 1263405947

My multi-hour stare at the Credit New formula gives me no way to explain this *EXCEPT* that it was "caught" as an outliar (pun and misspelling intended) so was "awarded" the "expected" credit.

I tried to post a screenshot and just bungled it badly, if someone else can do it more easily, great.

IF the law of large numbers means that this sort of result will not figure largely (excuse the other pun) into the overall credit averages so it will not matter over time, I can understand that.

What I don't understand is on what basis the "standard" credit was calculated and if there is a "standard credit" then why not just use it in the first place?

What does the statistical analysis hope to gain by adjusting away from the standard credit, except when the actual credit is clearly wrong in which case it just issues the standard credit which is *clearly* wrong?

Can we statistically say that the anti-cheat mechanisms are working the way, or heck - even in the direction, that they were intended to work?

I think it is time to consult an actuary.

<edit> My interest in this, now, is just because it is interesting. I don't hope to influence anything and I am not the least bit bothered by the whole issue. </edit>

Its a matter of principle. In the real world (which very few in this project seem to live in) if somebody - say for instance your employer wanted you to carry on working just as hard as you were before only now for 50% less pay. Would you do it? Of course your would not and this is exactly same. Our credit has been cut with no democratic vote to ask would we even mind.

A bit over the top there, Chris?

Anybody that leaves the project over the simple matter of credit awards cannot be much concerned about the science of it.

Have fun over at Einstein.

It is my backup project in the case of Seti going down entirely. Not happening much lately.

---

Its a matter of principle. In the real world (which very few in this project seem to live in) if somebody - say for instance your employer wanted you to carry on working just as hard as you were before only now for 50% less pay. Would you do it? Of course your would not and this is exactly same. Our credit has been cut with no democratic vote to ask would we even mind.

A bit over the top there, Chris?

Anybody that leaves the project over the simple matter of credit awards cannot be much concerned about the science of it.

Have fun over at Einstein.

It is my backup project in the case of Seti going down entirely. Not happening much lately.

A matter of principal?
This is a VOLUNTEER project.
You DONATE your computer resources to further it's goals.
You are not PAID anything for this contribution.
Credits are a TOKEN awarded to you to help signify your contribution compared to others on the project.
And there has been very little change in most people's position among others contributing here at Seti.

If Seti were awarding bitcoins for our participation which in turn could be spent for other goods or services, I could see your angst.

As it stands, you have nothing to stand on.

---

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

Its a matter of principle. In the real world (which very few in this project seem to live in) if somebody - say for instance your employer wanted you to carry on working just as hard as you were before only now for 50% less pay. Would you do it? Of course your would not and this is exactly same. Our credit has been cut with no democratic vote to ask would we even mind.

A bit over the top there, Chris?

Anybody that leaves the project over the simple matter of credit awards cannot be much concerned about the science of it.

Have fun over at Einstein.

It is my backup project in the case of Seti going down entirely. Not happening much lately.

A matter of principal?
This is a VOLUNTEER project.
You DONATE your computer resources to further it's goals.
You are not PAID anything for this contribution.
Credits are a TOKEN awarded to you to help signify your contribution compared to others on the project.
And there has been very little change in most people's position among others contributing here at Seti.

If Seti were awarding bitcoins for our participation which in turn could be spent for other goods or services, I could see your angst.

As it stands, you have nothing to stand on.

+1

---

[/quote]

Old James

say for instance your employer wanted you to carry on working just as hard as you were before only now for 50% less pay. Would you do it?

I want to answer that question honestly:

It depends on what prices have done.

What we have here is "deflation." Your points have been reduced, but so has the RAC necessary to be a top producer.

The place that analogy falls apart is in the "total credit" scheme of things. In the real world, if car prices fell by 50% because currency was worth twice what it had been, the car you bought for 30,000 old money yesterday could now be bought with 15,000 new money.

The only real problem we have here is that Mark can say his house cost 350,000,000 and I will have to work twice as long to make 350,000,000 as I did yesterday.

The reason it isn't a problem is that Mark's 350,000,000 house isn't worth a thing to begin-with.

BUT... any time the "credit" changes on a per-unit-of-work measure (which it clearly has) the only fair thing to do would be to adjust all old work measures to the new standard.

If a meter were suddenly re-defined, two buildings of the same height would still measure the same in meters. To allow one building to be considered "taller" than the exact same sized building because it was measured first with a shorter meter-stick would be idiotic.

It always strikes me as kind of annoying when folks can not be bothered to string a few words into a sentence and simply post "+1". Is it laziness or an educational issue ?

+1

---

As i previously said "the real world (which very few in this project seem to live in)"

Its a matter of principle. In the real world (which very few in this project seem to live in) if somebody - say for instance your employer wanted you to carry on working just as hard as you were before only now for 50% less pay. Would you do it? Of course your would not and this is exactly same. Our credit has been cut with no democratic vote to ask would we even mind.

A bit over the top there, Chris?

Anybody that leaves the project over the simple matter of credit awards cannot be much concerned about the science of it.

Have fun over at Einstein.

It is my backup project in the case of Seti going down entirely. Not happening much lately.

A matter of principal?
This is a VOLUNTEER project.
You DONATE your computer resources to further it's goals.
You are not PAID anything for this contribution.
Credits are a TOKEN awarded to you to help signify your contribution compared to others on the project.
And there has been very little change in most people's position among others contributing here at Seti.

If Seti were awarding bitcoins for our participation which in turn could be spent for other goods or services, I could see your angst.

As it stands, you have nothing to stand on.

---

It always strikes me as kind of annoying when folks can not be bothered to string a few words into a sentence and simply post "+1". Is it laziness or an educational issue ?

+1

It's an accepted protocol for showing agreement with another post without adding additional comment.

You really do have some issues, don't you, Chris?

---

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

It always strikes me as kind of annoying when folks can not be bothered to string a few words into a sentence and simply post "+1". Is it laziness or an educational issue ?

+1

Well I figured you were going to quit post haste, So why bother to say adios.

---

[/quote]

Old James

It always strikes me as kind of annoying when folks can not be bothered to string a few words into a sentence and simply post "+1". Is it laziness or an educational issue ?

If they agree with what was said previously, why say the same thing verbatim?
You could always just say "I agree", but that's gone by the wayside. Everyone appears to understand what +1 indicates.
I blame texting.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I think that these complaints about CreditNew are better placed on the BOINC forum

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_thread.php?id=8406

I don't think that SETI@Home can do much about it.

---

Goodbye Seti Classic

It always strikes me as kind of annoying when folks can not be bothered to string a few words into a sentence and simply post "+1". Is it laziness or an educational issue ?

+1

And I find it annoying that folks say they have had enough of Seti@Home then hang around for post after post justifying why they are leaving.
So leave allready. Your wasting your time on these boards when you can be having a livley chat on the Einstein boards saying how happy you are with the credit you get from them.

---

[/quote]

Old James

It always strikes me as kind of annoying when folks can not be bothered to string a few words into a sentence and simply post "+1". Is it laziness or an educational issue ?

+1

And I find it annoying that folks say they have had enough of Seti@Home then hang around for post after post justifying why they are leaving.
So leave allready. Your wasting your time on these boards when you can be having a livley chat on the Einstein boards saying how happy you are with the credit you get from them.

+1

---

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

You guys are sucking all of the fun out of my speculating and musing aloud.

Somebody has stepped on my Tarantula.

I shall bid all a pleasant day or night.

It always strikes me as kind of annoying when folks can not be bothered to string a few words into a sentence and simply post "+1". Is it laziness or an educational issue ?

+1

Just as it strikes me as annoying when a person replies and then quotes after, which makes me think "is this person a bit backwards?", but then most of us can live with it even though it can be frustrating.

Anyway there will be plenty of us doing the science whether you want to go on strike or not for better pay. :-P

Anyhow back to crunching.

Cheers.

It always strikes me as kind of annoying when folks can not be bothered to string a few words into a sentence and simply post "+1". Is it laziness or an educational issue ?

+1

Just as it strikes me as annoying when a person replies and then quotes after, which makes me think "is this person a bit backwards?", but then most of us can live with it even though it can be frustrating.

Anyway there will be plenty of us doing the science whether you want to go on strike or not for better pay. :-P

Anyhow back to crunching.

Cheers.

Crap, if they paid me well enough, I might just be able to buy that Seti toaster some have dreamed of...
I know I have.

---

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