19,873 posts in this topic

I'm not the biggest fan of this idea.  A good percentage of BIONC participants, especially small ones, want to do a certain project that they are interested in.  I don't think we should try to force people into using the appropriate projects for their hardware.

 

I have to agree with this though. I mean, let's say I only have a dual core and I would like to help break RC5-72 or look for A L I E N (s), I should be able to contribute and not be told I am unable because I can't meet the min RAC.

TyphooN, GRCnation, MikeK and 2 others like this

Gridcoin - Paving the Way Towards a Better Tomorrow

GRC: SJgRQKZp19AG49bPwmoJyWQCHpd6CfTzKg || BTC: 13pTr3qXWDvycRLBPgt3bJzJst4ju46CGS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the biggest fan of this idea.  A good percentage of BIONC participants, especially small ones, want to do a certain project that they are interested in.  I don't think we should try to force people into using the appropriate projects for their hardware.

 

I have to agree with this though. I mean, let's say I only have a dual core and I would like to help break RC5-72 or look for A L I E N (s), I should be able to contribute and not be told I am unable because I can't meet the min RAC.

 

 

At a minimum, Bitcoin Utopia does not need to reward CPU/GPU work ever as it is wasteful.  For other projects, maybe we should allow all hardware by keeping the % lower.  I think that Bitcoin Utopia needs 3%, maybe we can set the rest to 1%-2%?  I still see this as an improvement over the current min RAC being set at 100 across the board.  Having a % vs keeping it a flat 100 min RAC will at least mean that those users that want to contribute with a CPU have to actually contribute a substantial portion of their CPU time to hit the min RAC instead of just a CPU WU or 2 per week for example.

Edited by TyphooN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a minimum, Bitcoin Utopia does not need to reward CPU/GPU work ever as it is wasteful.  For other projects, maybe we should allow all hardware by keeping the % lower.  I think that Bitcoin Utopia needs 3%, maybe we can set the rest to 1%-2%?  I still see this as an improvement over the current min RAC being set at 100 across the board.  Having a % vs keeping it a flat 100 min RAC will at least mean that those users that want to contribute with a CPU have to actually contribute a substantial portion of their CPU time to hit the min RAC instead of just a CPU WU or 2 per week for example.

 

Guys, I really really hope you know what you are doing. I hope you are going to discuss this deeply and with no rush, whatever it takes. It is a potentially dangerous path, so do it right please or leave it alone (and no, I have no idea about what's the right way to do it)

skoda9635 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I really really hope you know what you are doing. I hope you are going to discuss this deeply and with no rush, whatever it takes. It is a potentially dangerous path, so do it right please or leave it alone (and no, I have no idea about what's the right way to do it)

There really is no "wrong" way.  It's all just opinions.

dc7d and snakes_ like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have classified each currently whitelisted project by hardware type.  If anything is missing or incorrect please let me know:

Project                                Hardware Type
bitcoin utopia                      ASIC/FPGA ONLY
gpugrid                               CPU/AMD/NVIDIA GPU
collatz conjecture                CPU/AMD/NVIDIA/INTEL GPU
moo! wrapper                     CPU/GPU
milkyway@home                 CPU/GPU
primegrid                            CPU/AMD/NVIDIA GPU
poem@home                      CPU/AMD/NVIDIA GPU
seti@home                         CPU/AMD/NVIDIA/INTEL? GPU
einstein@home                   CPU/AMD/NVIDIA GPU
asteroids@home                 CPU/NVIDIA GPU
nfs@home                          CPU
yoyo@home                        CPU
numberfields@home           CPU
theskynet pogs                   CPU
sztaki desktop grid              CPU
world community grid          CPU/AMD/NVIDIA/INTEL GPU
cosmology@home              CPU
sat@home                          CPU
enigma@home                    CPU
climateprediction.net            CPU
rosetta@home                     CPU
malariacontrol.net                CPU
constellation                        CPU
lhc@home 1.0                     CPU
leiden classical                    CPU
burp                                     CPU
edges@home                      CPU
mindmodeling@beta            CPU
atlas@home                         CPU
convector                             CPU
citizen science grid               CPU
find@home                           CPU
quake-catcher network         Sensor
radioactive@home                Sensor
universe@home test             CPU
virtuallhc@home                   CPU

 

I believe we need 4 different project types (and min RAC % values).  I propose the following categories:

-ASIC Only

-Hybrid project (Any combination hardware type seen in the list above)

-CPU Only

-Sensor/Low Resource Usage (WUProp if enabled)

 

Edit:

For now, I believe we need to address Bitcoin Utopia's min RAC (to allow only ASIC/FPGA), and Sensor/Low Resource Usage (at a minimum).  We might just need to leave hybrid projects alone while we decide what is best for them.  If we want to set a new min RAC for CPU only projects, it is my opinion that we set it at a % that will lower min RAC instead of raise it.

Edited by TyphooN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asia is running like an "investor" (although there is no coins) and it has no problems staying in sync with 178 connections.

 

Edit: Asia is also crunching for me.

My cruncher also PoRes and PoSes good, and my test-investor also has a couple of connections. I'll report back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I really really hope you know what you are doing. I hope you are going to discuss this deeply and with no rush, whatever it takes. It is a potentially dangerous path, so do it right please or leave it alone (and no, I have no idea about what's the right way to do it)

 

As per the last chart above.....yes it is me. You can see the days where I have shut it off. Aside from the debate on the overall issue it is likely not creating an unfair advantage as far as GRC is concerned.   The mag calc is working properly....current mag of 487 and dropping constantly even with mining another project with CPU and GPU. It is nothing like that initial shock factor on the mag of first day and nowhere near the limit now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bitcoin utopia can also do GPU as well.

 

It can but I don't think we should reward GRC for it.  I believe we should only reward those with specialty hardware that can't be be used for other projects, instead of taking away from resources that could be better used elsewhere.  CPU/GPUs don't have a place in SHA-256 hashing any longer, it is a giant waste of energy.

Edited by TyphooN
TheLostBoy and Cobra like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can but I don't think we should reward GRC for it.  I believe we should only reward those with specialty hardware that can't be be used for other projects, instead of taking away from resources that could be better used elsewhere.  CPU/GPUs don't have a place in SHA-256 hashing any longer, it is a giant waste of energy.

 

I agree, GPU/CPU work should surely not be counted for GRC through BU. I have mine crunching on asteroid project. (limited number of places for nvidia cards and Mac OS that are on the whitelist from what I have found). I cannot imagine anyone that would knowingly use CPU/GPU on BU.

Edited by Cobra
TheLostBoy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can but I don't think we should reward GRC for it.  I believe we should only reward those with specialty hardware that can't be be used for other projects, instead of taking away from resources that could be better used elsewhere.  CPU/GPUs don't have a place in SHA-256 hashing any longer, it is a giant waste of energy.

 

A link that might complete your list: https://boinc.berkeley.edu/projects.php

 

I agree that BU and WUProp are good points to start with and see how it goes from there (again, be careful please).

If you are not going to blacklist BU, is good that at least find a way to partially mitigate its most obvious negative effects.

In case someone still has doubts about what's going on, today a member uploaded this pic (it doesn't matter who): http://prntscr.com/662pd6

 

As you can see, all of the units for BU are for CPUMiner. So, despite me being an asshole, other members are unadvertendly (or not) running BU with CPUs and GPUs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have classified each currently whitelisted project by hardware type.  If anything is missing or incorrect please let me know:

 

<snip>

 

Edit:

For now, I believe we need to address Bitcoin Utopia's min RAC (to allow only ASIC/FPGA), and Sensor/Low Resource Usage (at a minimum).  We might just need to leave hybrid projects alone while we decide what is best for them.  If we want to set a new min RAC for CPU only projects, it is my opinion that we set it at a % that will lower min RAC instead of raise it.

 

Thank you for that!

 

I have created a table and classified current whitelist projects (plus WUprop!) Big thanks to Typhoon and sEpuLchEr for ideas and input! Visible here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IcB1zF7P6BUsC2CveguTJqskwQp-AQ_8ThDfrCoMNCs/edit?usp=sharing

 

Currently the system-wide minRAC across all project categories is set to 100. The table also illustrates the difficulty of setting a level that is adequate for CPU, CPU+GPU, ASIC and sensor projects.

 

So the proposition is this:

 

1) Bitcoin Utopia (you can put the chairs down please) as a special (ASIC) project needs a special minRAC, which should be 160'000 (currently 100, same as all projects).

Why this value? This is about what a block erupter ( a tiny, 300MH ASIC: http://www.ebay.com/sch/Miners-/179171/i.html?_dcat=179171&Type=USB%2520Block%2520Erupter) produces in 1-2 days. Roughly equal to a 5870 but with ASIC energy efficiency. It would also reduce the incentive to run said project with a CPU/GPU, essentially freeing resources for other, perhaps more meaningful, tasks;

 

2) WUprop (a low resource project to collect stats from running BOINC projects) should be reinstated to the whitelist with a reduced minRAC of 30 (currently 100, same as all projects).

Why 30? This is roughly what you get by running the project on one machine for one day.

The project was previously discarded from the whitelist (why: https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/1331-new-coin-launch-announcement-grc-gridcoin/page-684#entry165788 and https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/29841-discussion-boinc-whitelist-monitoring/page-11#entry167730). I think with a lower minRAC this will become a viable project for many.

 

 

Chairs up! :)

Edited by snakes_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kia ora Rob

 

The good news is that I got my first block of any kind in 3 weeks overnight. It was PoS. I still haven't had a PoR in three weeks. The only thing I changed recently (approx 24 hrs ago) was deleting Duck and adding Typh00n.net in the conf file. Over the last three weeks, the only thing that I haven't replaced is the conf file. ;-)

 

When the PoS block arrived, Magnitude in the display finally showed something other than 0.000, which it has done since Feb 10th. That gives me hope that some PoR may finally be produced, but so far not.

 

Remember, I'm trying to create my first zombie-block, not a true newbie block. Whatever the error I introduced, it made me fall off the chain. I believe that the PoS block just put me back onto it.

 

Question: When you did your test, was it a Win client or a linux client? I'm running on linux. And to be particular, to fully replicate my situation, you would need your new test cpid to fall off the chain and then try to revive it.

 

You've asked for list cpids and explainmagnitude. Here they are, practically unchanged for weeks:

 

 

[

    {

        "Command" : "cpids"

    },

    {

        "Project" : "climateprediction.net",

        "CPID" : "9dbd2eb638bfda3dc573a8e5f1ce7a4a",

        "RAC" : 377.00000000,

        "Team" : "gridcoin",

        "Verified RAC" : 337.00000000,

        "Verified Team" : "gridcoin",

        "Is my CPID Valid?" : true,

        "CPID Link" : "http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/get_user.php?cpid=9dbd2eb638bfda3dc573a8e5f1ce7a4a",

        "Errors" : ""

    },

    {

        "Project" : "einstein@home",

        "CPID" : "9dbd2eb638bfda3dc573a8e5f1ce7a4a",

        "RAC" : 1170.00000000,

        "Team" : "gridcoin",

        "Verified RAC" : 1178.00000000,

        "Verified Team" : "gridcoin",

        "Is my CPID Valid?" : true,

        "CPID Link" : "http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/get_user.php?cpid=9dbd2eb638bfda3dc573a8e5f1ce7a4a",

        "Errors" : ""

    },

    {

        "Project" : "world community grid",

        "CPID" : "9dbd2eb638bfda3dc573a8e5f1ce7a4a",

        "RAC" : 447.00000000,

        "Team" : "gridcoin",

        "Verified RAC" : 450.00000000,

        "Verified Team" : "gridcoin",

        "Is my CPID Valid?" : true,

        "CPID Link" : "http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/get_user.php?cpid=9dbd2eb638bfda3dc573a8e5f1ce7a4a",

        "Errors" : ""

    }

]

 

[

    {

        "Command" : "explainmagnitude"

    },

    {

        "Participating NetRac: 1252, CPIDValid: Yes, VerifiedRAC: 337 Project" : "climateprediction.net",

        "User climateprediction.net Verified RAC" : 337.00000000,

        "climateprediction.net Network RAC" : 1251.88248364,

        "Your Project Magnitude" : 26.91924462,

        "Participating NetRac: 7932, CPIDValid: Yes, VerifiedRAC: 1178 Project" : "einstein@home",

        "User einstein@home Verified RAC" : 1178.00000000,

        "einstein@home Network RAC" : 7932.11153203,

        "Your Project Magnitude" : 14.85100796,

        "Participating NetRac: 1932, CPIDValid: Yes, VerifiedRAC: 450 Project" : "world community grid",

        "User world community grid Verified RAC" : 450.00000000,

        "world community grid Network RAC" : 1932.21407710,

        "Your Project Magnitude" : 23.28922434,

        "Grand-Total Verified RAC" : 1965.00000000,

        "Grand-Total Network RAC" : 6417250.18183560,

        "Total Magnitude for All Projects" : 65.05947691,

        "Grand-Total Whitelisted Projects" : "37",

        "Participating Project Count" : 3.00000000,

        "Grand-Total Count Of Network Projects With RAC" : 30.00000000,

        "65.06/37*30=" : 52.75092723

    }

]

 

 

 

I did not take note of the Duck addnode line when I replaced it yesterday. It's entirely possible that it had a typo and has been the sole cause of all my drama.

I still have debug2 &3 =true and I still show myself looping through the newbie loop, however, instead of showing "calc research subisdy 0.000, Interest 10.2233" It now shows "calc research subsidy 69.99345, Interest 10. 22344534"

 

Fingers crossed for a newbie/zombie PoR block soon.

Hi Caraka,

 

It sounds like your only problem was you have not paid close attention to the node being online and in sync.  You are alluding to the fact that "this is the first block in 2 weeks" when you created the problem!  The system is working for 1700 distinct users correctly.  

 

Yes you staked what appears to be a POS block because blocks 1-5 are only 10grc and do not pay the full POR amount until list rsa shows the correct amount.

 

I sum this problem up as you were not in sync.

 

Regarding my reproduction of the problem:  It was on windows, and the cpid test *was* the same as falling off the chain because I created a new cpid.

 

Let me know if you end up having any real problems after keeping it online for a few days.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member