Message boards : Number crunching : It appears that cheating has arrived for BOINC & LHC
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
Profile Alex

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 378
Credit: 10,765
RAC: 0
Message 2942 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 4:01:05 UTC

I admit it.. I'm a boinc cheat!


______________________________________________________________
Did your tech wear a static strap? No? Well, there ya go! :p
ID: 2942 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
LP

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 39
Credit: 54,460
RAC: 0
Message 2943 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 4:08:19 UTC - in response to Message 2942.  

> I admit it.. I'm a boinc cheat!


Ah ha!! I knew it! Lol... hehe..

just kidding ;)

I guess it just comes down to.. if you suspect something is wrong, address it with one of the LHC staff and let them check it out.
They'll be the final word on it anyway.



ID: 2943 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Michael Berger

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 126
Credit: 49,653
RAC: 0
Message 2945 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 4:21:26 UTC - in response to Message 2943.  
Last modified: 21 Nov 2004, 12:22:53 UTC

ID: 2945 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Narwhal
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 3
Credit: 81,875
RAC: 0
Message 2972 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 11:54:59 UTC

Going back to the BOINC/Beta testing, I was lead to believe that cheating wouldn't be a problem due to the way the servers check and compare returned work units. There are threads on other BOINC projects that talk about changing your benchmarks to get a higher score, but when the work unit is validated against other work units the maybe reduced. I also run a number of computers on dialup (not LHC) and have had big jumps on my RAC in the past, so that may be the reason for such a jump.

We do these projects for science, the stats just make it fun.
ID: 2972 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Guido Alexander Waldenmeier

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 321
Credit: 10,607
RAC: 0
Message 2974 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 12:01:51 UTC
Last modified: 1 Oct 2004, 15:48:57 UTC

SAY NO to cheating ALL I HOPE
but a news update about the Project plan or timeline for reset credits will be nice Mr.ROOT 127.0.0.1

--------------------------------------------
after 20 years come the power back have a look at
Recent Mount St. Helens Earthquakes
Last updated Fri Oct 1 02:05:02 PDT 2004
http://www.geophys.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/HELENS/mshrec_eqs.html
and this is the link from the mt.st.helens webcam
http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/
------------------------------------------------------------------
feel free to visit www.guidowaldenmeier.de


ID: 2974 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Paul D. Buck

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 545
Credit: 148,912
RAC: 0
Message 2996 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 14:41:29 UTC - in response to Message 2972.  

> Going back to the BOINC/Beta testing, I was lead to believe that cheating
> wouldn't be a problem due to the way the servers check and compare returned
> work units. There are threads on other BOINC projects that talk about changing
> your benchmarks to get a higher score, but when the work unit is validated
> against other work units the maybe reduced. I also run a number of computers
> on dialup (not LHC) and have had big jumps on my RAC in the past, so that may
> be the reason for such a jump.

Since the computer id is tied to the work issued, you can I cannot collude and you get some results and I get results and then we swap copies of results so that you turn in all of yours and all of mine and I do likewise ...

With SETI@Home classic that was possible. Now, you turn in my results the procesing will discard them because you were not issued the work, the same goes for me turing in your results. Even better, if we keep trying, the system can be made to disregard you as a participant ...

With redundant processing of the work, you do get the ability to defeat the benchmark cheating also. I suspect that as time goes on this is going to be made harder also. As this is, in part, a cosmetic issue it is not that important right now. But again, since the system tracks the computer and its capabilities this is another place where "bounds" can placed on the claimed credit. At the current time we are only using the middle of the three claims ... but time will tell if this needs to be done.

My call? I would say that it should be done. The point is the science ... if people are trying to "cheat" in any shape, manner, or form, well; that contaminates the results and lowers the value of the science ...

I mean, do you want to use a drug that was developed on a system where "cheaters" predominate? I would not want to ... but that is just me.
<p>
For BOINC Documentation: Click Me!


ID: 2996 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Jim Harris

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 11
Credit: 20,824
RAC: 0
Message 3006 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 15:30:01 UTC - in response to Message 2974.  
Last modified: 2 Oct 2004, 0:49:45 UTC

ID: 3006 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
LP

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 39
Credit: 54,460
RAC: 0
Message 3007 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 15:37:47 UTC

Also off topic- could the Guido or the staff please remove the Mt. St. Helen's picture? It's pretty, for sure, but it's also 900k and so big that I'm having to scroll sideways to read this thread, and that's extremely irritating.

Per the new rules- "In message boards other than Cafe LHC you can only use one inline-picture in your post, but the size must not exceed more than 50kb. This is because there are lots of people without broadband internet connection and they have to pay for the bandwidth/time spent on the Internet. Browsing the message boards with many/big images will be slow and expensive for such users. Big collections of images also make message boards unclear. If you really need to share multiple pictures with others, just use a hyperlink."
ID: 3007 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Guido Alexander Waldenmeier

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 321
Credit: 10,607
RAC: 0
Message 3009 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 15:44:57 UTC - in response to Message 2996.  
Last modified: 1 Oct 2004, 15:49:54 UTC

>;-) sorry folks
ID: 3009 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Krunchin-Keith [USA]
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 209
Credit: 1,482,496
RAC: 0
Message 3015 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 16:22:59 UTC - in response to Message 2996.  
Last modified: 23 Oct 2004, 20:27:02 UTC

ID: 3015 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ric

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 190
Credit: 649,637
RAC: 0
Message 3669 - Posted: 12 Oct 2004, 14:34:06 UTC - in response to Message 3015.  

very cool.

Having a question about long running WUs, found some postings in a thread talking about cheating..

Got 2 of the long rider babies:



3 GHz Northw. 512 HT, LHC only. w2k sp1 4.09 gui, no screen saver

sorry for picture (to small for thumbnail), but I think, this is a friendly way to share information as they are "outside".

we will see what it gives ..



ID: 3669 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Paul D. Buck

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 545
Credit: 148,912
RAC: 0
Message 3680 - Posted: 12 Oct 2004, 16:20:32 UTC - in response to Message 3015.  

> Paul you are so correct, most of us have been trying to express all these
> points throughout this thread.
>
>
> > At the current time we are only using the middle of the three claims
>
> This is not how the credits are being granted by LHC.

You are right! :)

It is the lower claim. And they seem to be using the issue 3 and hope for 2 results method ...
<p>
For BOINC Documentation: Click Me!


ID: 3680 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Number crunching : It appears that cheating has arrived for BOINC & LHC


©2020 CERN