Message boards :
Number crunching :
It appears that cheating has arrived for BOINC & LHC
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 378 Credit: 10,765 RAC: 0 |
I admit it.. I'm a boinc cheat! ______________________________________________________________ Did your tech wear a static strap? No? Well, there ya go! :p |
Send message Joined: 1 Sep 04 Posts: 39 Credit: 54,460 RAC: 0 |
> 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. |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 126 Credit: 49,653 RAC: 0 |
|
Send message Joined: 17 Sep 04 Posts: 3 Credit: 81,875 RAC: 0 |
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. |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 321 Credit: 10,607 RAC: 0 |
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 |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 545 Credit: 148,912 RAC: 0 |
> 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! |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 11 Credit: 20,824 RAC: 0 |
|
Send message Joined: 1 Sep 04 Posts: 39 Credit: 54,460 RAC: 0 |
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." |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 321 Credit: 10,607 RAC: 0 |
>;-) sorry folks |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 209 Credit: 1,482,496 RAC: 0 |
|
Send message Joined: 17 Sep 04 Posts: 190 Credit: 649,637 RAC: 0 |
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 .. |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 545 Credit: 148,912 RAC: 0 |
> 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! |
©2024 CERN