If it is real cheat, he should not only be banned but also it is necessary to get his all points back

Yes it is. Admins have the ability (or atleast one does). On Nanohive a number of users managed to do things to gain credits and the accounts were zeroed out or changed back to before the incident.

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

I think it is rather sad that some people feel it necessary to behave like that, but it is good that they were fairly quickly found out. I'm sure the admins here will deal with it appropriately.

I think it is rather sad that some people feel it necessary to behave like that,

The strangest thing about cheating on Boinc credits, is that the ONLY thing you can do with the cheated scores is brag "look how well I cheated". There is nothing else you can do with cheated credits! I'll never understand such thinking.

but it is good that they were fairly quickly found out. I'm sure the admins here will deal with it appropriately.

Lets hope so. To me that means reversing at least the cheated credits, if not all the milkyway credits, as well as banning the cruncher.

Sometimes it is done not to increase personal and/or team credit but to cause trouble for the target project for a number of different reasons.

Other times the cheating method gets passed from one team member to another and is only used for short periods and/or not in such an extreme form until someone gets too greedy and overdoes it so that it can be much more easily noticed.

Sometimes it is done not to increase personal and/or team credit but to cause trouble for the target project for a number of different reasons.

Other times the cheating method gets passed from one team member to another and is only used for short periods and/or not in such an extreme form until someone gets too greedy and overdoes it so that it can be much more easily noticed.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a team thing or at least 3 members of the team... Look at stats for arvisa2000, MrGutis, and Pavysiu here.

Looks like they are all hiding computers as well, except for the first user.

---

Yes, but something remains...

Task 132473914  
Name de_s222_3s_random_3p_10r_24_6612327_1255415842_0 
Workunit 129567207 
Created 13 Oct 2009 6:37:24 UTC 
Sent 13 Oct 2009 6:38:14 UTC 
Received 13 Oct 2009 6:39:22 UTC 
Server state Over 
Outcome Success 
Client state Done 
Exit status 0 (0x0) 
Computer ID 107881 
Report deadline 16 Oct 2009 6:38:14 UTC 
Run time 3.686209 
stderr out <core_client_version>6.10.7</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
Running Milkyway@home ATI GPU application version 0.20 (Win64) by Gipsel
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: --device
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 1
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     E8400  @ 3.00GHz (2 cores/threads) 2.99968 GHz (285ms)

CAL Runtime: 1.4.344
Found 2 CAL devices

Device 0: ATI Radeon HD 3800 (RV670) 512 MB local RAM (remote 1855 MB cached + 1855 MB uncached)
GPU core clock: 850 MHz, memory clock: 901 MHz
320 shader units organized in 4 SIMDs with 16 VLIW units (5-issue), wavefront size 64 threads
supporting double precision

Device 1: ATI Radeon HD 3800 (RV670) 512 MB local RAM (remote 1855 MB cached + 1855 MB uncached)
GPU core clock: 850 MHz, memory clock: 901 MHz
320 shader units organized in 4 SIMDs with 16 VLIW units (5-issue), wavefront size 64 threads
supporting double precision

1 WUs already running on GPU 0
0 WUs already running on GPU 1
Starting WU on GPU 1

main integral, 100 iterations
predicted runtime per iteration is 27 ms (33.3333 ms are allowed)
borders of the domains at 0 1000
Calculated about 2.29421e+011 floatingpoint ops on GPU, 2.39676e+007 on FPU. Approximate GPU time 3.68621 seconds.

probability calculation (stars)
Calculated about 3.34818e+009 floatingpoint ops on FPU.

WU completed.
CPU time: 1.60681 seconds,  GPU time: 3.68621 seconds,  wall clock time: 5.558 seconds,  CPU frequency: 2.99969 GHz

</stderr_txt>
]]>
 
Validate state Valid 
Claimed credit 0.0245001684629481 
Granted credit 53.45337 
application version 0.20 

---

A proud member of the Polish National Team

COME VISIT US at Polish National Team FORUM

I don't know if they are cheating, but it sounds a lot like the shenanigans that where happening on Seti-Classic and really damaged the credit system as well as compromising the science. It is one of the reason Boinc adopted the concepts of replication, quorum and validation of the work. It provides a certain assurance that good science is being done and that the credit system has some meaning. It would seem that MW is failing on both counts. If you leave the door open, there will always be someone taking advantage of the situation.

---

Questions? Answers are in the BOINC Wiki.

Boinc V7.0.27
Win7 i5 3.33G 4GB, GTX470

I don't know if they are cheating, but it sounds a lot like the shenanigans that where happening on Seti-Classic and really damaged the credit system as well as compromising the science. It is one of the reason Boinc adopted the concepts of replication, quorum and validation of the work. It provides a certain assurance that good science is being done and that the credit system has some meaning. It would seem that MW is failing on both counts. If you leave the door open, there will always be someone taking advantage of the situation.

If someone is cheating that needs to be dealt with. If the validation system is allowing bad WUs to come through or bad WUs to be awarded credit, that should also be dealt with by MW admin.

---