to other projects that pay just as much as SETI@home use to or even better.

Cheers.

Show me project that pays (actually, that pays more than electricity costs) and I consider to crunch it to rise money for new hardware. Until then "pay" just disguise for "offer me more bragging rights" Not so nice sounding to use it for complaining, yeah?

"pay" just disguise for "offer me more bragging rights" Not so nice sounding to use it for complaining, yeah?

Actually it sounds "nice".
It's been fun to upgrade my system or change settings and get more credits.
To assess what my investment, I want a credit system that reflects my calculation power and time relatively stably.
I'm learning that there are many factors to be considered and very difficult to satisfy everybody by reading these thread.

Still I consider the credit system, which can not reflect resources we put in is a bad one.

If it's so difficult to give equivalent credits among different projects why not using different currency for each project for now?
After a while, an appropriate exchange rate may be established.

---

to other projects that pay just as much as SETI@home use to or even better.

Cheers.

Show me project that pays (actually, that pays more than electricity costs) and I consider to crunch it to rise money for new hardware. Until then "pay" just disguise for "offer me more bragging rights" Not so nice sounding to use it for complaining, yeah?

Coming from you, you should know exactly what I think of that and that hasn't changed any in the last few years (far to literal and greedy = an**). ;-)

Cheers.

Still I consider the credit system, which can not reflect resources we put in is a bad one.

All do.

If it's so difficult to give equivalent credits among different projects why not using different currency for each project?

Cause the idea was to allow fair competition w/o ANY relation to project choice. To posts like "pay better or I'll move to another project" never appear from one side, and team competitions with members doing projects they REALY WANT TO DO from other side.

As we know this intention was not implemented right in CreditScrew. In such degree that only few BOINC projects were implemented it at all and there is no real comparison possible even in frames of single project-different apps not saying about different projects.

So, implementing "many currencies" approach one should have "many currencies" even inside single SETI project. For AP, and few for MB.
And even then the fine idea to allow fair competition still allowing to participate in what one feels right thing to do will fail.

one should have "many currencies" even inside single SETI project. For AP, and few for MB.

Isn't current continuous drop over a month mainly caused by trying to be fair among different projects?
Someone benefits from one software or one hardware over another within a project seems to me a different story. If someone wants to be more productive, it will be solved by switching them.

---

one should have "many currencies" even inside single SETI project. For AP, and few for MB.

Isn't current continuous drop over a month mainly caused by trying to be fair among different projects?
Someone benefits from one software or one hardware over another within a project seems to me a different story. If someone wants to be more productive, it will be solved by switching them.

Switching to... what? If your intention to find ET, to what software you will switch then...? Do you really did not see constantly appearing posts about "project X pays much better" ? So, switching to project X will help in finding ET?? And how decrease in credits in SETI will help if other projects already grant more credits? So no, it's just a signs of broken system. But actually nothing new in that. I hoped just explain why such system [with common "currency"] could be needed at all (working one, not current CreditScrew).

Your didn't understand what I wrote.

what software you will switch then...?

I said within A PROJECT which you brought up.
If AP is more than MB, set your system to be able to process AP preferentially. That's what I meant.

project X pays much better

To solve this, simplest way is to make them not comparable.
This way users chose projects for their merit in their mind, not for credit.
Make them compete within the project if they WANT to.

---

project X pays much better

To solve this, simplest way is to make them not comparable.
This way users chose projects for their merit in their mind, not for credit.
Make them compete within the project if they WANT to.

The whole point of BOINC though was that they were meant to be comparable.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

project X pays much better

To solve this, simplest way is to make them not comparable.
This way users chose projects for their merit in their mind, not for credit.
Make them compete within the project if they WANT to.

The whole point of BOINC though was that they were meant to be comparable.

But, that concept was never enforced as a requirement of being a project under the Boinc umbrella.
So, projects have been allowed to hand out credits like candy in whatever fashion they wish to.
And with so much water under the dam, it is never going to be changed.

That is why I am rather proud of my Seti credits....they are very hard earned credits.

Meow.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

project X pays much better

To solve this, simplest way is to make them not comparable.
This way users chose projects for their merit in their mind, not for credit.
Make them compete within the project if they WANT to.

The whole point of BOINC though was that they were meant to be comparable.

Well the big thing for me, credit/kibblestones aside, is it's all connected to task scheduling (estimates), and 99.9% of problems in scheduling and estimates are therefore just as wacky/frustrating (but obscured).

Can point to credits and say they don't matter until the cows come home, but when the chips are down Boinc is about task scheduling and estimating work, and I think we deserve state of the art. We will get that, if it takes me 3 years to setup a vanilla test project to make it happen.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

project X pays much better

To solve this, simplest way is to make them not comparable.
This way users chose projects for their merit in their mind, not for credit.
Make them compete within the project if they WANT to.

The whole point of BOINC though was that they were meant to be comparable.

But, that concept was never enforced as a requirement of being a project under the Boinc umbrella.
So, projects have been allowed to hand out credits like candy in whatever fashion they wish to.
And with so much water under the dam, it is never going to be changed.

That is why I am rather proud of my Seti credits....they are very hard earned credits.

Meow.

Regulation/enforcement only works if you make something 'good', otherwise you just create more black markets and segmentation.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

IIRC we have the same conversation few years ago when V7 apears and the diference V7 vs AP comes to a big number.

At that time Jason and some others makes a lot of test (eben with other projects) and the conclusion was simple: creditscrew is broken.

It´s penalizes optimization.

Aparently DA and his team never agree of that and makes nothing to correct it.

Now the history is repeated.

My 0.02 cents.

---

Well, since credit has (almost literally) fallen off a cliff in the last couple of weeks, I'll have no trouble with maintaining my current ranking for the foreseeable future. That's a plus, isn't it?

---

IIRC we have the same conversation few years ago when V7 apears and the diference V7 vs AP comes to a big number.

At that time Jason and some others makes a lot of test (eben with other projects) and the conclusion was simple: creditscrew is broken.

It´s penalizes optimization.

Aparently DA and his team never agree of that and makes nothing to correct it.

Now the history is repeated.

My 0.02 cents.

Agree. What we need to do is sack DA, he is a millstone around ever ones neck ...

---

This is something I just put over in the credit discussion on the BOINC forums:

What I see is that people stare themselves blind on the recent average credit (RAC) and when it goes down, they panic, even while their credit is still going up.

So I am wondering if we shouldn't just do something about the RAC. With the present CreditNew RAC is being calculated all wrong anyway, so isn't it easiest then to get rid of RAC?

It is at the moment no longer a value that shows how well your computer has been doing over a set length of time. So either fix it so it again is showing the progress your computer makes over a set length of time, or don't use RAC.

---

This is something I just put over in the credit discussion on the BOINC forums:

What I see is that people stare themselves blind on the recent average credit (RAC) and when it goes down, they panic, even while their credit is still going up.

So I am wondering if we shouldn't just do something about the RAC. With the present CreditNew RAC is being calculated all wrong anyway, so isn't it easiest then to get rid of RAC?

It is at the moment no longer a value that shows how well your computer has been doing over a set length of time. So either fix it so it again is showing the progress your computer makes over a set length of time, or don't use RAC.

I personally would prefer that it be repaired, as it can and should be a useful barometer of how one's computers are running.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

I personally would prefer that it be repaired, as it can and should be a useful barometer of how one's computers are running.
____________

+1
Every time I look and see my rac dropping I keep thinking there's a problem then I remember Credit Screw

---

Life is what you make of it :-)

When i'm good i'm very good , but when i'm bad i'm shi#eloads better ;-) In't I " buttercups " p.m.s.l at authoritie !!;-)

I personally would prefer that it be repaired, as it can and should be a useful barometer of how one's computers are running.

It's a kindof sleight of hand by luddites, to suppose dismissing RAC or Credits will solve anything. This is since the measure of work drives the whole system, that is the estimation of how much work to send you, to process between project switches and indeed track your progress. Perhaps if this number were converted to Joules of Energy, or Kilograms of carbon (both quite doable), then the pressing needs, benefits and very real costs might be more relatable.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

Every time I look and see my rac dropping I keep thinking there's a problem then I remember Credit Screw

Not the cause anymore... it's now due to your exclusively NVidia farm receiving GUPPI VLAR work units on the GPUs. As noted much elsewhere, they process much more slowly than Arecibo MBs but pay the same credit.

---

Every time I look and see my rac dropping I keep thinking there's a problem then I remember Credit Screw

Not the cause anymore... it's now due to your exclusively NVidia farm receiving GUPPI VLAR work units on the GPUs. As noted much elsewhere, they process much more slowly than Arecibo MBs but pay the same credit.

A bit more to it than that, but thumbs up :) [i.e. not a blame game, more of a cluster f***]

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.