I think, we give too much credits recently. Seriously, at the time when I set credit it takes 6 hours to finish on single core on i7 CPU.
Recently, some tasks finish in 18 minutes on same machine.

I really don't like to be a person, who make "inflation" on BOINC projects...

Well, unfortunately, what your doing is credit deflation.

Your project, you can run it any way you like....
Obviously you don't like volunteer participation either......

To each his own I suppose....

Just a comparison from the same Raspbian V3 machine from one of the Team members that was crunching Universe and have since moved on.

Looking at a V3 that has validated tasks on both work units:

Universe New work unit and Credit

(24900.29/3600) / 666.7 credits = 6.916747222222222 ‬credits per hour


Universe old credit on same machine

(6711.44/3600) / 666.67 = 357.6001573432825‬ credits per hour

I think the extent of the drop is what is the issue, but if you can run your project without people volunteering their computers, at their expense, to do the work, carry on.

My Crunch times have gone from around 8,000 seconds to around 21,000 seconds with the 283 batch.
RAC is dropping accordingly.
I'm not whining and I'm not leaving.
Universe still provides a good credit compensation for work completed ratio.
Don't change anything, leave it just like it is.
I'm fine with it.

"I think, we give too much credits recently"

Well you are certainly going to see that decrease DRASTICALLY as the competitive crunchers leave the project.

You have also basically invalidated the Formula Boinc marathon for 2019 by the way. This may not matter to you but it matters greatly to many others.

I am whining and I am leaving. Why on earth did you change the credit system in the middle of the game. What chance has another user who now just joined have to catch up to another user who crunched the same amount of time with the same machine and now have no chance of catching up since he is getting 67% less credit. This is not fair and is not for me. Good luck retaining your users.

This thread is going off-topic now.
I would suggest moving the discussion about credit to another thread.

---

Your run time question was answered. With a static credit, run time and RAC are intertwined.

Anyways, I agree, credit at U@H was pretty high compared to other projects. I don't agree that making tasks 2-3 times as along in one abrupt change was the best way to get back a normal CreditNew credit level. (This is not a request for CreditNew. You can check with NumberFields to see what happened with they moved to it.)

Everyone here has made some good points, Krzysztof (pun intended). The reality is that the silicon keeps getting faster. It always was and it always will. New tech is gonna grind out points faster. It will always appear that you are "giving out too many points" unless you constantly deflate.

However, deflation has it's risk. Competitive crunchers will move to projects that offer better return. People who rely on gridcoin to offset their power costs will also move on (unless practically everyone leaves, then the magnitude will go back up). And then, there's the issue of new users who won't be able to "catch up" and get a nice badge unless they use cutting edge hardware.

Yes, ultimately, it's all about the science. But credits help people see at a glace how much compute was accomplished (and, yes, that means that new and expensive machines win the arms race adjusting for compute time). If rules keep changing then the credit system won't reflect anything anymore.

I would propose that credit remains tied to the amount of work accomplished. If you would like to reward senior users who have crunched out work over longer periods of time on slower machines, you could consider a revamped badge system (ex. badges for years working on the project). In the worst case scenario, if you really want to deflate credit per amount of work, then I would suggest doing that when new projects come out (ex. ultraviolet or whatever).

I do agree with you; however, that work units will need to be enlarged as the silicon gets more powerful. Logistically and computationally it is more efficient. But I don't agree with credit deflation at least when the end user isn't really upgrading their silicon. They just feel penalized that they aren't on 7nm.

Just my two cents. As for me personally, I will be diversifying my compute operation. Not just because of this, but because of the reality of projects going dark after some time (ex. denis or enigma). I hope that you can get enough people to keep crunching this in order to keep the papers flowing to the publishers and keep the enthusiasm alive.

I am whining and I am leaving. Why on earth did you change the credit system in the middle of the game. What chance has another user who now just joined have to catch up to another user who crunched the same amount of time with the same machine and now have no chance of catching up since he is getting 67% less credit. This is not fair and is not for me. Good luck retaining your users.

I'm with Pete, it becomes an exercise in pointlessness.....

A wonderful post. Take a bow, Christopher.

I will certainly be off once the next couple of Formula Boinc sprints are announced. In going, can I just make the point that a completed WU advances the science of the project by precisely the same amount whether it be crunched by a competitive cruncher, by a Gridcoin cruncher or by a dyed-in-the-wool astrophysicist who crunches nothing else.

In going, can I just make the point that a completed WU advances the science of the project by precisely the same amount whether it be crunched by a competitive cruncher, by a Gridcoin cruncher or by a dyed-in-the-wool astrophysicist who crunches nothing else.

In staying, I can point out that the number of crunchers has increased from 1848 to 1871 in the last day. Maybe the ones leaving are making room for the ones who want to do it.

Regarding to Gridcoin.. the RAC will decrease for everyone and the Magnitude will adjust.. the only problem should be users that cherrypick the faster Work Units.. but in a couple of weeks probably the fast workunits will expire soon.. no problem for me..i believe in the project and i'll not switch my hosts..

I'm sticking with this project but I'm a bit concerned about the number of units I have awaiting validation. Its been hovering around the 900 mark for quite a time now while its usually 200-250!

Pete

You know, quite frankly I would agree to a certain compromise considering that a bit of deflation might be necessary when compared to certain projects on BOINC. I would propose increasing the points per WU to an even 1000 or 1500. Nice, round, easy, an increase, but still some deflation gets accomplished. idk just my two cents.

Ok.
I see that current points for WU's are problem for quite large group of us. Also, I see that small group of WU's now calculate even longer that most of them,
So, from next batch I will increase amount of credits by factor of 1.5 or 2 (I need bit more observation of current computation time)...

---

Krzysztof 'krzyszp' Piszczek

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

Ok.
I see that current points for WU's are problem for quite large group of us. Also, I see that small group of WU's now calculate even longer that most of them,
So, from next batch I will increase amount of credits by factor of 1.5 or 2 (I need bit more observation of current computation time)...

In practical reality, you should be increasing the points proportional to the increase in work done. since the increase was 3x (or thereabouts) the point increase should reflect that.

The only point in doing such an increase is to relieve server overwork from too many network requests.... but to penalize your clients/users for the amount of computer time and power they donate to you?

Nonsensical even from a scientific point of view. Yes you have a number of users who exclaim the science as their motivation, you will find that those who claim such only represent about 10% of the clients/users who contribute. The rest are motivated by the leaderboard..... Eliminate their ability to climb the leaderboard, you eliminate their desire to contribute to your project, just a fact of the Distributed Computing world......

Ultimately, you get to decide which direction you want your project to go......

But, many of your users, like me, have been crunching since before Boinc was even thought of. And if it wasn't for the leaderboard, there wouldn't be a Boinc.....
The leaderboard is what keeps your project viable from an operations standpoint... I know that isn't something most scientists want to recognize, but it is the facts of life in the DC world....

I sincerely hope you make a wise decision, and wish you well in your future endeavors with the project...

Ok.
I see that current points for WU's are problem for quite large group of us. Also, I see that small group of WU's now calculate even longer that most of them,
So, from next batch I will increase amount of credits by factor of 1.5 or 2 (I need bit more observation of current computation time)...

Good decision. I will be back once my queue drains.
Cheers.

---

Yes good news indeed :)

Ok.
I see that current points for WU's are problem for quite large group of us. Also, I see that small group of WU's now calculate even longer that most of them,
So, from next batch I will increase amount of credits by factor of 1.5 or 2 (I need bit more observation of current computation time)...

Yes that is something. Thank you for at least some kind of increase to compensate for the increased computation times. Credit reward should scale with amount of the calculations.

Universe@home is with CPU one of the best payed project in credit in regards to other project.
usually if you compute themselve an own project with the virtual box with an I7 then he is giving with full power only 220 credits for a quarter of an hour computing for a chemistry project.
I explain:
I received an order to do that for a brilliant student of the chemistry high school of mulhouse. After solving the whole models in a quarter of an hour with 8 CPU i received 220 points.
This is the reason why i am sure that Universe@home computing is overpayed.
Instead that the boincer do critik upon the credit payment They should think that the project congratulate you for your computing because without your computing for boinc then we could not make significative advance in science.
Your Help bring the future of the planet and the first who benefit of this knoledge are your children at school or for other project your own medical system.
Best Regards

Guy PFLIEGER France