Ok, some explanation.

This user host was doing wrong and his tasks should be not valid but...
As you remember, I had made server upgrade some time ago. Because of problems with validator I had to use old one, changed a bit by me long time ago. Unfortunately, with new BOINC server software the validator didn't work properly (which wasn't obvious as it was no problems during the time). I'm in contact with the user and it looks like his host was compute with errors but no it is fixed.

Now I'm working on new validator version but... It not accept points declared in template any more - need to get info about point in another procedure (not possible to use with already generated tasks). This is why at least temporary switch to new credit system. And there is another point.

Previously granted 666 points per task looks not really fairy, as it is quite large number for not very long tasks used usually. The question is - do we have to come back to credits per tasks defined be me (with possible changes to bit smaller amount of credits) or use credit new system?

---

Krzysztof 'krzyszp' Piszczek

Member of Radioactive@Home team
My Patreon profile
Universe@Home on YT

I highly recommend switching back to the old credit system once any validation issues are fixed. A lot of volunteers will quickly switch to other projects that give more points per compute time (especially those running gridcoin...they won't even bother checking the forum but just switch to whatever gives them more magnitude), and that will massively impact the project. Ultimately, getting the science done and publishing (and, trust me, Poland NEEDS a boost in high impact journals) is much more important than getting credits in line with the rest of BOINC. The whole purpose of the credit system is to give an incentive for others to participate. Right now I have switched over my computing to SETI because I can get the same amount of points and run it faster on a GPU. As both a UC Berkeley grad and a student at a Polish university, the credit drop is making it harder to be patriotic right now.

If you want to do a credit system overhaul, I would suggest implementing changes after BHspin is complete and for another project or application (with appropriate early announcements). Pulling the rug from under your users overnight will just piss people off and put this whole project in jeopardy and massively delay the schedule, which I assume has already been planned out.

And, please, let us know when the credit system is back in a news post or something. I really would like to switch back and support Polish research once all of this blows over.

I'd rather have a fixed credit system per task. Having ones own credit vary because the wingman has a slow/fast PC just blows my mind. Some tasks are longer than others and the credit can vary but please be fixed per task length. This also makes it much easier to compare systems between users, between OSs, and a good way to monitor clocks remotely.

To be honest, I agree with both of you.

So, because of problem in re-pointing last WU's I probably need to leave current points and go back to old system from new batch. It not really affect users - just some of recent tasks get smaller amount of points. Unfortunately, users table have recorded overall amount of points, not per task and it makes difficult to manage and assign it again :(

---

Krzysztof 'krzyszp' Piszczek

Member of Radioactive@Home team
My Patreon profile
Universe@Home on YT

That's fine. As long as we get everything fixed with validation and move back to the 666 points per WU going forward, we can all just write off this incident as some temporary technical difficulty. Just please let us know when all the back-end stuff is done so we know when to hit "resume." Update/edit: I just saw your announcement. Thanks man.

I agree. Ultimately points should reflect the amount of work accomplished. A certain amount of calculations (can be stratified according to FP16, FP32, FP64, or INT) should yield a set amount of points. Even if projects utilize multiple participants computing the same WU: checking or re-doing someone else's work is still work and still uses the same amount of power (adjusting for architecture and performance of course). Equal pay for equal work. :)

I'm working on it.

Why don't you all calm down ??

no reason to panic...

Good general advice for life. The above sounds a bit like an excerpt from a Douglas Adams book. :-)

BTW, I also prefer the fixed credit system because creditnew is crazy and also smells bad...

Ok, some explanation.

This user host was doing wrong and his tasks should be not valid but...
As you remember, I had made server upgrade some time ago. Because of problems with validator I had to use old one, changed a bit by me long time ago. Unfortunately, with new BOINC server software the validator didn't work properly (which wasn't obvious as it was no problems during the time). I'm in contact with the user and it looks like his host was compute with errors but no it is fixed.

One last thing on this subject. While this mess was probably unintentional, this single rather anemic machine was awarded around 17,000,000 credits in the 4 days that it was spewing bad results. Manually adjusting that to a realistic level might be reasonable. Here's the info from BoincStats:

https://boincstats.com/en/stats/158/user/detail/55370/lastDays

Yes, I will do this.
But firstly I want to be sure that all problems are definitely sorted to not make to many manual changes in database and creating more mess.

---

Krzysztof 'krzyszp' Piszczek

Member of Radioactive@Home team
My Patreon profile
Universe@Home on YT

(especially those running gridcoin...they won't even bother checking the forum but just switch to whatever gives them more magnitude)

That is not how magnitude works. Magnitude is calculated from the percentage of the total pie that a GRC member returns and is independent of the credit system. Every Universe WU could give 1 total point and ItalianPower18 would still be getting the best magnitude. The computer that was "cheating" isn't even in Gridcoin and wouldn't hurt ItalianPower18's magnitude one little bit. But if the "cheating" technique caught on (if there is one, could have been an overclocked CPU or bad memory stick or numerous other issues causing the invalid results), it could.

People who are trying to get the highest RAC and win the BOINC credit epeen are loving the high credits scores here (although DHEP has stepped up the credit inflation another notch; see the fastest rising RAC scorers; all Collatz and DHEP).

The problem results with that machine stopped on Feb 4 and every thing since is valid.

Why are invalid results giving credit at all? I've not seen another project give credit to invalids.

Why are invalid results giving credit at all? I've not seen another project give credit to invalids.

Fortunately there are some ! CPDN that can send you tasks lasting several weeks, task can crash for reason external to the user computer itself, who already gave a long CPU time for the project (for this task), so the boinc trickle message system will generate credit during the time of calculation, that are no lost even in case of crash of the task.

I think some other projects go the same - DHEP ?

Magnitude is calculated from the percentage of the total pie

Right. And the new credit system was giving variable points per WU (so some people would get disproportionately lower returns on average based on a wide range of variables). This (potentially significant) group of people would then end up with less of the "pie." Hence, this would give them less mag and could make them potentially leave, leading to less total compute power being devoted to the project (at least for the short term until a smaller "pie" would entice those whose computers and unique pan-project timing luck can get a better return on WUs). Either way, the risk of loss from so much flux isn't worth the reward especially mid-project.

Magnitude is calculated from the percentage of the total pie

Either way, the risk of loss from so much flux isn't worth the reward especially mid-project.

I'd rather BOINC enforce the standardized credit system and deny access to projects that inflate credit.

You'd think they learned a lesson after the Bitcoin Utopia fiasco.

You'd think they learned a lesson after the Bitcoin Utopia fiasco.

what fiasco?

---

Destroying the inter-project credit balance, generating so much frustration to a majority of crunchers (without ASICS) who simply vanished in the statistics compared to others (with ASICS), pretending to compare things that cannot be compared (versatile computation vs. uniquely specialized coin calculation). At such a high level that some statistical sites decided to ignore BU credits (StatSeb) or show them in a separate view (BoincStats).

But the same thing already happened when GPGPU came into boinc world years before : putting into the same account calculation output (decision of Boinc itself pretending that "Gflops are Gflops") done from two different worlds (versatile unlimited CPU calculation against already specialized and limited GPU calculation - some projects will never be able to use a GPU application due to the nature of the calculation performed), the same frustration was created among the crunchers (GPU newcomers making in a few weeks what CPU crunchers had generated in the past 10 years) and the credit balance was already broken at that time.

Some statistical sites even decided to invent dedicated CPU ranking in order to restore equity among crunchers.

yeah, okay. thats why I wasn't aware of it. I'm not interested of being the best. credits are for me just a form of how much someone has done. and my postion in stats is only 50 postions better without ascis. but I'm crunching on GPU too...

---

What's a "wingman" in this BOINC context??? TIA

For any boinc project with quorum > 1 = the other boinc participant that calculates the same task as yours.

So I just want to ask is that the cheating or cheater got caught?
Or is it some error?