Formula BOINC 2015 / 2016

Discussions about rules
User avatar
Coleslaw
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:02 am

Re: Formula BOINC 2015 / 2016

Post by Coleslaw » Sat Jan 03, 2015 5:53 pm

Based on what I have read in this subtopic, I deduce that Donate@Home was crunching, even though it was mining, because it didn't use ASICs. More absurdities. An ASIC can be developed for any project.
myshortpencil, lets correct a few things before you get too heated.

One, Donate@home was also set up for testing AMD GPU's for potential future use at GPUGrid as it was stated on the projects main page as an addition to $$$ generation. So, to be fair it had more to do with crunching and science than BU currently does.

Two, If anyone mentions the ASICs at BU are not doing any science is because that is true. The ASICs at BU only mine cryptos. So, lets make that clear up front shall we? As you stated above, ASICs can be made for other uses. Phil should edit his statement.

Three, I would also prefer that money generating projects not be added. It is a personal preference and not a rule of thumb. I think that the BOINC community consists mostly of volunteers doing this as a donation and contribution directly to the science rather than making a project money by hosting a mining operation. I have no ill will against BU, so please do not assume I have anything against the project. I just think that it should not be part of this challenge. Again, just my preference.

Last, as far as projects to be withdrawn. I agree with removing AlmereGrid as they rarely have their points scoring working right. It makes it very tough to have an appropriate challenge when you aren't getting proper scoring. They also have no communication to the volunteers. Volpex on the other hand has work in spurts through the year. It may not be the typical BOINC project, but it does at least function. I think as long as it meets the other requirements, it should continue to be added. I also still think that projects like QCN, WUProp, and Radioactive should be added. I don't believe that they should be excluded simply because they don't have the same mentality of crunching work units. They are still BOINC projects that are using the BOINC platform. All teams can still generate more points by adding more devices just like any other project and none of them are money generation sites.

Phil1966
Steering comitee
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:03 am
Location: Nancy, France
Contact:

Re: Formula BOINC 2015 / 2016

Post by Phil1966 » Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:00 am

@myshortpencil

All opinions are respectable and important. Although I am a strong advocate of BU in my team*, I do not see how BU actually helps advance scientific research ? Yes, BU helps fund projects. But other than that ? + is BU really representative in terms of participants ? That said, we are here to discuss. And if a majority of team representatives vote for the entry of BU in the FB, we can always include it later. On ASIC hardware use for other applications: it will be extremely difficult to develop this material for other purposes than "SHA256 hash." (Too expensive to developp + too expensive to purchase as very limited market) Having to purchase specific equipment for each project seems illusory. In short, we are here to discuss, and nobody's right or wrong. We are all volunteers with the same purpose. Help science. Happy New Year 2015 !

* We don't include BU in our internal stats, but I also mine about 80M / day.

@ Coleslaw

Thank you for your comment.

Concerning using ASICs for other purposes than mining / hashing SHA256, I don't know if yet possible ?

Radioactive is already included, but I will ask why WuProp and QCN's arent.
Image

Phil1966
Steering comitee
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:03 am
Location: Nancy, France
Contact:

Re: Formula BOINC 2015 / 2016

Post by Phil1966 » Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:14 pm

A short message to confirm that QCN is included in the FB.

Concerning WuProp, the project's admin prefers his project not being included.

Have Fun !

Philippe
Image

User avatar
Coleslaw
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:02 am

Re: Formula BOINC 2015 / 2016

Post by Coleslaw » Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:21 am

Phil1966
@ Coleslaw

Thank you for your comment.

Concerning using ASICs for other purposes than mining / hashing SHA256, I don't know if yet possible ?
The quick and simple answer is yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_%28computer%29
Anton is a massively parallel supercomputer designed and built by D. E. Shaw Research in New York. It is a special-purpose system for molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of proteins and other biological macromolecules. An Anton machine consists of a substantial number of application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), interconnected by a specialized high-speed, three-dimensional torus network
However, it would not use the ASICs designed for mining..

Perhaps someone should do the leg work to find out the costs of design and then maybe have BU do a campaign for it....

Phil1966
Steering comitee
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:03 am
Location: Nancy, France
Contact:

Re: Formula BOINC 2015 / 2016

Post by Phil1966 » Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:13 am

Thank you for the link !
Very interesting
Best,
Philippe
Image

User avatar
Coleslaw
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:02 am

Re: Formula BOINC 2015 / 2016

Post by Coleslaw » Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:22 pm

For 2016, could we possibly see a change to how scoring is done? Perhaps do it on a quarterly basis to make things a bit more interesting. It would also let teams have points for their contribution while a project is active, but if the project ends or becomes a dead project they don't get further points from it. This will make the weight of dead projects a little more balanced. Currently a team can sit on 25 points when a project dies. If that project died in February, then they will enjoy a full projects value the entire year with no chance of losing anything. If it was a quarterly award, they would only bank 1/4th the total value in the end. I would also like to see the amount of points a project has to have be changed to a quarterly requirement to be eligible. If a project has no work for half a year and suddenly has a batch, that isn't really a challenge for a year. That is a short lived challenge. Just a few things I find to be annoying with the current system.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest