It's all okay, Martin or Marty is Entitled to his Usual Sanctimonious Opinion even if I'm not allowed to have mine without getting called names for it. All I've done is question as to why the Credits were lowered so far. I've never said they should be raised but just asked why they were lowered as far as they have been after starting out so high. If that's being a Credit Whore then all I can say to those people that feel like that is like Charlie Sheen say's it "Duh, I'mmmmmmm Winnnnnnning"

It always gives one a Deep Warm & Fuzzy feeling too knowing that your past, present & future Contributions to the BOINC Projects whatever they may be for has meant or will mean so little in the eyes of the rest of the BOINC World & that you can leave at any time without being missed. Martin really should be thankful for me and the other 413 people ahead of him in the BOINC Credit's ATM. If not for the rest of us Credit Whores as Martin Categorizes us he would then be the leading BOINC Credit Whore ... lol

I contend that anyone running this project (me included) is a "cw" regardless of how many credits they produce. There is zero scientific value since it is statistically a 100% given that a solution will be found if you try all combinations. It is like buying every combination for the lottery, you are guaranteed to have a winner.

So anyone contributing processing power here is doing it for the credits. It's hard to take a moral high ground when everyone is here for the same purpose. The question gets to be how cheap a whore you are and at what level you are comfortable participating.

For me if the credits are not better than other GPU projects then I will move elsewhere. If I can get the same credits on MW with the ATIs running cooler then why would I play here? At least something like MW does have a scientific purpose other than decoding a 5 word message saying "yep, you broke the code".

I don't want to enter in this fight, but, since many users complained about moo! was not in boincstats, this is now a past thing.
I saw this new section:
http://boincstats.com/stats/project_graph.php?pr=moowrapper

I guess the credit merge will happen soon.

Thanks to willy and boincstats for this.


I also notice moo! is listed in the top 15 active project in boincstats, so I wanna thank every Moo! Wrapper user!

Thanks Clod ... :)

Thanks :)

All I've done is question as to why the Credits were lowered so far. I've never said they should be raised but just asked why they were lowered as far as they have been after starting out so high.

They were lowered to a level that I thought was more in line with rest of the world. Actual calculations I used to decide can be seen in the first post and also on my previous answer on this thread. I can't say I used any highly mathematical formulas to decide the level. I also didn't have any statistics about devices and their current performance (or lack thereof) but my intention is to get some.

I also originally over-compensated for granting ridiculous and varying amounts of credit by lowering to 5cr/stat units, which then got changed to 7cr/stat units like I intended when I wrote my original post. Previously, anything over 9kcr/wu was a problem with the dynamic credit calculation routines or my configuration and shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Sure, cutting 2/3 (or more, depending on how one calculates) is huge but upside is that credits will now be more stable. I still think we are dishing out a decent amount of credits. As always, things and decisions made can change with more/new information coming in. BoincStats is one of those places that will be interesting place to watch.

I contend that anyone running this project (me included) is a "cw" regardless of how many credits they produce. There is zero scientific value since it is statistically a 100% given that a solution will be found if you try all combinations.
...
So anyone contributing processing power here is doing it for the credits. It's hard to take a moral high ground when everyone is here for the same purpose.

It's true that distributed.net has pretty much proven that RC5-72 encryption algorithm is currently resilient against a brute-force attack and that RC5-64 wasn't. But I for one also want to participate on dnet specifically because I'm interested to see just how far GPU power changes this situation and of course to get that challenge done and over with.

Granted, getting (unified) credits is definitely a motivation for me and that's a reason I want to integrate dnet with BOINC. This way I only need to run one client and I also can participate on some of the other projects (that have different scientific or other values for me). :)

Oh yes, there's also the monetary price and the fame if I happen to be the lucky one that finds The Answer for this challenge. ;)

-w

It looks like the original DNETC is waking back up. 8.05 credits per stat unit IIRC!

It looks like the original DNETC is waking back up. 8.05 credits per stat unit IIRC!

Hmm, yeah, looks like I was getting 8.5 / stat unit from them. I never calculated this before so had no idea.

-w

I was getting between 600k to 650k Per day from DNET on my Dual 5870 Box's, hardly half that here running what I thought was the same Wu's. Another reason why the big drop in Credits ...

Hmm, yeah, looks like I was getting 8.5 / stat unit from them. I never calculated this before so had no idea.

-w

Yes, it really has DNETC 8.5 credits per unit.

@Teemu

Looks like the new workunits are granting 8.5 credits per stat units. So you increased the credits again?

What if DNETC will give some extra credits to compensate for the inavailability of work and loss of credits during its breakdown. Will this start a credit war between DNETC and MOO! WRAPPER?

And - btw - does it make any sense to have 2 BOINC projects doing actually the same thing?

What if DNETC will give some extra credits to compensate for the inavailability of work and loss of credits during its breakdown. Will this start a credit war between DNETC and MOO! WRAPPER?

You are absolutely right, and I'm going to avoid getting into credit war at all cost. It's not fun and everybody looses in the end.

That said, I have indeed changed to 8.5cr/stat units for now. I did have, and still have, some doubts doing this but hopefully this wasn't wrong thing to do. :/

And - btw - does it make any sense to have 2 BOINC projects doing actually the same thing?

I do think little competition won't hurt. Of course, not with credits, but in features, availability and such things. In the end, users will be the ones deciding what makes sense and what not.

-w

I do think little competition won't hurt. Of course, not with credits, but in features, availability and such things.

Agreed!

But - imho - it wouldn't make any sense to have 2 projects investigating the same RC5-72 key spaces. As both DNETC and MOO! WRAPPER are just wrappers for the distributed.net project i would assume that distributed.net is "generating the workunits" - so a workunit sent out to a DNETC cruncher isn't crunched by a MOO! WRAPPER cruncher and vice versa?

I do think little competition won't hurt. Of course, not with credits, but in features, availability and such things.

Agreed!

But - imho - it wouldn't make any sense to have 2 projects investigating the same RC5-72 key spaces. As both DNETC and MOO! WRAPPER are just wrappers for the distributed.net project i would assume that distributed.net is "generating the workunits" - so a workunit sent out to a DNETC cruncher isn't crunched by a MOO! WRAPPER cruncher and vice versa?

The units are assigned to our proxy by the main distributed.net keymaster.
That one has the responsability to send different units to us and to DNETC@home.

The units are assigned to our proxy by the main distributed.net keymaster.
That one has the responsability to send different units to us and to DNETC@home.

Good.
If we give it a bit time - we`ll see how it all works.
Just keep it up, guys. ;-)

---

I also think competition is good, and just like in the free-market, the consumer (i.e. the crunchers) win. Thank you for providing another option. This project may be quite beneficial by taking a chunk of the severe ATI GPU load that was on DNETC, and both project servers will run more efficiently. Moo! and DNETC being similar, also allow for an option to crunch a similar project if one of the two suffers an extended down time.

If you keep the credits equal to or slightly higher than DNETC, (let us be honest, a new project must attract support, and slightly increased credit is an easy way to foster good will)...the crunchers will come. ;)

I tried 2 units dnetc and I noticed they had slightly increased appropriations for Nvidia: 816 pts for less than 15 minutes instead of 700 before their worries ...

What makes when an hour with about 3200 points, they are almost at your height in the funds ....

---

Config : i7 860 2.8ghz, 8g ram, boinc : 6.12.26, GPU : GTX 470 Zotac Amp Edition 1280 mo DDR5

I ran DNET for 1 day and pulled over 1.5 Million with what few ATI's I still have left, about .4 or .5 Million more than I'm able to get here. Running Moo now again for a day or so to Compare. Not complaining just reporting the differences in the 2 Projects ...

Hmm, with my ATI HD 5850 running on 775/500 MHz (Win XP 32bit) it's the other way 'round:

Moo! is giving me 3.2 credits per second (using core #3)
on DNet it's only 3.0 credits per second (using core #0 - dunno why i can't select #3 on DNet).

So for my configuration Moo! is the better choice (in terms of credits).

I also see different credit amounts for different combinations.
My single GPU host (HD5850) gets more credit here, another single GPU host (HD3850) and the dual GPU host (HD5870 and HD5850) get more credit at DNETC.

using core #0 - dunno why i can't select #3 on DNet.

I guess this has to do with the different version of the dnet-client used over there since the -bench command with the DNETC-version also only tests core #0, #1 and #2 unlike the version used here which also tests core #3