I changed the news because it was a bit harsh, so I apologize for that. However, the credit is still going to be limited. I've been busy working on getting the next app out -- and we'll have that open source for everyone.

---

I changed the news because it was a bit harsh, so I apologize for that. However, the credit is still going to be limited. I've been busy working on getting the next app out -- and we'll have that open source for everyone.

---

me@rescam.org

I changed the news because it was a bit harsh, so I apologize for that. However, the credit is still going to be limited. I've been busy working on getting the next app out -- and we'll have that open source for everyone.

One suggestion...

Why don't you make a limit for overclocking or number of cores or cpu's per machine...?

Why don't make a limit for a penryn or a nehalem too?

Only the equivalent in credits to one core per machine at the same speed like an P4... (only in credits, not in work)

If a P4 can do a WU in 24h (by example), total credits = 100.

Overclocked Penryn doing 400 WU's in the same time, total credits = 110.

That's what should be the 'fair play' in this project... as I see..

That's the way you want? Do it!

Best regards.

---

Logan.

BOINC FAQ Service (Ahora, también disponible en Español/Now available in Spanish)

@ Travis.

If one user (with skills and talent, what I don't have for that) buys a stock box like mine and makes improvements with it as replace the cpu by other better, the best RAM, the latest coolers and overclockes it to the max. expression, and he can do an 400% more of work than I in the same time... Can I claim to you to make a limit for this machine?

If not, this is not a limit for an equality system. It is only a penalty to one software optimizer. What about hardware optimizers?

The limits are for all or for none...

You are in a very dangerous zone...

In the bottom, is the same thing but in other ways... And, at the last, are complementaries for to reach to the best optimization and do the better work in the less time...

Best regards.

---

Logan.

BOINC FAQ Service (Ahora, también disponible en Español/Now available in Spanish)

Huh Logan, I don't understand this. The issue is not hardware or overclocking ability. It is that one individual has a different version of the software compared to the rest of us.

---

Well, after having a break I visited the forum again and I'm really surprised where the discussion is going to...

Limiting the credit based on time? Hahaha! Hahaha! Hahaha! Desperate!

It took me few moments to get idea what Crunch3r (or anyone else) COULD do. Remember, Crunc3r is skilled coder. So, if the project is restricting the credit based on computation time, Crunch3r can modify the source to simply report full time. Of course, this itself would not be sufficient...
If his app is calculating let's say 25-times faster than stock app (I'm not investigating exact number, it can be any number), he will add code to sleep (at the end of calculation) for 25-times the calculation really took. Just don't do anything. Only then the application will finish - and report 25-times more than it really took, so it will seem to be stock application (based on time). But, what to do with so much time sleeping (= no CPU load)? Well, let's start VMware... 25 virtual machines in fact... and every virtual machine will do the same... so at the end, the load on physical machine will be 100%... And all together it will be reporting 25x of the results than single machine with stock app, using 25 virtual machines on 1 physical machine and getting full credit of 25 machines. And for everybody it would appear like farm of 25 computers and there will be no way to remotely distinguish these virtual machines from any other physical machines...
There are several other variation to this idea as well, since BOINC itself is also open-source.

Happy limiting, if it's worth for Crunch3r, he will do it to you and feast on credits!
Or, more probably, he'll just delete his optimized source, go another project and let you compute for 20 years what could be accomplished in 1 year ]:->

Huh Logan, I don't understand this. The issue is not hardware or overclocking ability. It is that one individual has a different version of the software compared to the rest of us.

Yes, just like I could have a much faster machine than the rest of you. Same thing.

---

Agreed, limiting credit based on the speed which any host can run a task is the wrong approach.

It implies that the fast machine is doing less work (in an algorithmic sense) than a slower machine for the same task. This is impossible, by definition. The reason for the difference in speed is irrelevant to the question of how much work was done.

OTOH, the phrase 'speed limit' may just have been a poor choice in words on Travis' part. There wasn't a whole lot of detail given about the actual implementation, so it's all speculation at this point until we get a functional specification.

<edit> One other thing, IIRC Travis did say this was a temporary bandaid while the new application was being hashed out.

Alinator

Agreed, limiting credit based on the speed which any host can run a task is the wrong approach.

It implies that the fast machine is doing less work (in an algorithmic sense) than a slower machine for the same task. This is impossible, by definition. The reason for the difference in speed is irrelevant to the question of how much work was done.

OTOH, the phrase 'speed limit' may just have been a poor choice in words on Travis' part. There wasn't a whole lot of detail given about the actual implementation, so it's all speculation at this point until we get a functional specification.

<edit> One other thing, IIRC Travis did say this was a temporary bandaid while the new application was being hashed out.

Alinator

Once we get the new application out we should get this problem solved. We're either going to open the code up to everyone, or to no one. That way people can optimize it the way they want or on the other hand if no one has it, no one will be able to fiddle with the code and make changes to it.

---

Dave Przybylo
MilkyWay@home Developer
Department of Computer Science
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Once we get the new application out we should get this problem solved. We're either going to open the code up to everyone, or to no one. That way people can optimize it the way they want or on the other hand if no one has it, no one will be able to fiddle with the code and make changes to it.

Dave--thanks to you and the good professors for listening to my concerns that I approached you about

Once we get the new application out we should get this problem solved. We're either going to open the code up to everyone, or to no one. That way people can optimize it the way they want or on the other hand if no one has it, no one will be able to fiddle with the code and make changes to it.

I tend to think that speeding up an application should be regarded the same way as speeding up hardware. Having said that, there is one big difference with optimizing the app, though. Unless the optimized app's results are checked against a non-optimized app, the project has no way of knowing if the results are truly valid or not.

So, my opinion on the options?
Either use a quorum of at least 2, or don't open up the code.

Rod

Once we get the new application out we should get this problem solved. We're either going to open the code up to everyone, or to no one. That way people can optimize it the way they want or on the other hand if no one has it, no one will be able to fiddle with the code and make changes to it.

I tend to think that speeding up an application should be regarded the same way as speeding up hardware. Having said that, there is one big difference with optimizing the app, though. Unless the optimized app's results are checked against a non-optimized app, the project has no way of knowing if the results are truly valid or not.

So, my opinion on the options?
Either use a quorum of at least 2, or don't open up the code.

Rod

I think, this is an equitative solution. And if the results are the same (with or without OC or opti app) grant the corresponding credits without artificial limits.

Best regards.

---

Logan.

BOINC FAQ Service (Ahora, también disponible en Español/Now available in Spanish)

Once we get the new application out we should get this problem solved. We're either going to open the code up to everyone, or to no one. That way people can optimize it the way they want or on the other hand if no one has it, no one will be able to fiddle with the code and make changes to it.

I tend to think that speeding up an application should be regarded the same way as speeding up hardware. Having said that, there is one big difference with optimizing the app, though. Unless the optimized app's results are checked against a non-optimized app, the project has no way of knowing if the results are truly valid or not.

So, my opinion on the options?
Either use a quorum of at least 2, or don't open up the code.

Rod

I think, this is an equitative solution. And if the results are the same (with or without OC or opti app) grant the corresponding credits without artificial limits.

Best regards.

Yes, validation of open source code is a big problem. We would have no idea if the results returned to us were valid or not. So that's that's a factor for leaning toward closed source. We would like to have it so people can submit the code changes directly to us so we can validate there's no malicious activity going on. However, the BOINC framework doesn't currently support this. It's basically very decentralized and doesn't check with our server to see if you're running good binaries or not.

---

Dave Przybylo
MilkyWay@home Developer
Department of Computer Science
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Yes, validation of open source code is a big problem. We would have no idea if the results returned to us were valid or not. So that's that's a factor for leaning toward closed source. We would like to have it so people can submit the code changes directly to us so we can validate there's no malicious activity going on. However, the BOINC framework doesn't currently support this. It's basically very decentralized and doesn't check with our server to see if you're running good binaries or not.

Agreed, this is a serious shortcoming which has existed with the anonymous platform since day one. It was never really intended for use with independent code optimizers in mind. It was envisioned that it would primarily be used for straight ports of the 'official' source code to unsupported platforms, and assumed all projects would be using multiple replication validation to detect possible 'rogue' output.

Although you could supply a number of tested and confirmed tasks for the third party coders to use to verify their code is producing sufficiently accurate output, before they cut it loose on the project.

However, since you seem to working toward a fixed basis backend scoring system, and given the very consistent nature of the work in an individual search, as long as you set the basis with a plain vanilla app then it should be possible accommodate having the source open and still be able to control what MW would be producing in terms of CPP. The other alternative would be to instrument the app as needed, but that could prove restrictive especially if you are still evolving the app algorithmically.

Either way would let you have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. ;-)

Alinator

One way to ensure the use of optimised apps is about as fair as it can be, is to make it a condition of downloading the source and optimising it, that the optimised app is then made available to everyone to use and that prior to release the app is put through a validation stage to ensure the results are valid scientifically.

Just my 2c worth....

Live long and BOINC!

Yes, validation of open source code is a big problem. We would have no idea if the results returned to us were valid or not. So that's that's a factor for leaning toward closed source. We would like to have it so people can submit the code changes directly to us so we can validate there's no malicious activity going on. However, the BOINC framework doesn't currently support this. It's basically very decentralized and doesn't check with our server to see if you're running good binaries or not.

You can still work this out with open source:
You will publish only the computation code and simple test/validate code (so contributors can validate the updated code by themselves before sending you the proposals).
But the binary produced by you will contain additional code for signing of the result (the signing key will NOT be released to public). Validator's task will be to check the signature.
Then participants can contribute to your code by sending you updates, but if they attempt to use their private binary in the BOINC, signature will be missing and therefore not validated.

If you would mention such contributors on the project page, this kind of honour could be still motivating... maybe even more motivating than additional credits which the optimizer can get today.

But, signing of the result requires additional effort and it still does not guarantee the 100% good results (e.g. overclocked machine could return result, which is numerically incorrect, but signature will be valid). I still believe that quorum 2 is better way of validation...