No need to worry about getting to much credit any longer. Wow what a massive reduction in points? Is the project now using credit screw? If so why?

From the sublime to the utterly ridiculous. LOL

Yep, CreditNew. Seems to be the only way to fairly handle both CPU and GPU tasks.

Personally, I think that now the credits are very fair !

Personally, I think that now the credits are very fair !

At least 1 person likes CreditNew!

but with one person you will not finnish your "scientific goal".....)))) or someone will connect some old hardware like for exemple nvidia 750 card to this project vs other project today power hardware 2080ti , rtx titan, V100(witch some host run on primegrid or before on amicablenumbers)
normal human psychlology say - total backstep, no scientific ,no progresive...(childish)) and i have pay hw and electricity for this ??? megarofl ))
I black listed this project . good bye ))))

Yep, CreditNew. Seems to be the only way to fairly handle both CPU and GPU tasks.

Personally I think you, like Seti, will come to regret that decision. Seti has by far the most number of people signing up to crunch for it, they do the most PR stuff so why wouldn't people start there? BUT they are also the project that most people then leave for other projects too!! Seti has numerous problems such as not being able to get the grants like they have in the past etc and are now shut down at least 2 days per week every week, this has also affected their ability to retain people who pay to crunch too. The people that do crunch there are aware of that and work around it but since people are leaving the project it also means they no longer have as many people doing the crunching and their time frame to analyze the data is reduced as a result. In short it's your decision and your project and your decisions will affect how long it keeps going at the current rate.

Some projects pay a lot of credits for the crunching power users bring, some projects pay much less, it all depends on your goals and your ability to keep people crunching and projects such as Collatz, they currently pay the most of any gpu project, sometimes struggle to keep things running smoothly and cheater free. If your desires are to get thru the data faster then pay more credits, if your ability to expand or keep your existing hardware running is reduced then reducing the amount of credits you pay is the easiest way to keep users away.

---

Personally I think you, like Seti, will come to regret that decision. Seti has by far the most number of people signing up to crunch for it, they do the most PR stuff so why wouldn't people start there? BUT they are also the project that most people then leave for other projects too!! Seti has numerous problems such as not being able to get the grants like they have in the past etc and are now shut down at least 2 days per week every week, this has also affected their ability to retain people who pay to crunch too. The people that do crunch there are aware of that and work around it but since people are leaving the project it also means they no longer have as many people doing the crunching and their time frame to analyze the data is reduced as a result. In short it's your decision and your project and your decisions will affect how long it keeps going at the current rate.

Some projects pay a lot of credits for the crunching power users bring, some projects pay much less, it all depends on your goals and your ability to keep people crunching and projects such as Collatz, they currently pay the most of any gpu project, sometimes struggle to keep things running smoothly and cheater free. If your desires are to get thru the data faster then pay more credits, if your ability to expand or keep your existing hardware running is reduced then reducing the amount of credits you pay is the easiest way to keep users away.

Mikey, I agree. A few months ago the team standings on this project were turned upside down due to a huge credit anomaly. It also had the effect of singlehandedly reordering a good portion of the DC-Vault standings. Now the credits are so low here that it's folly to even think that the credit totals can be brought back into reality. GPU credits are ridiculously low. Maybe it's partly due to an inefficient GPU application. Back on topic, the crazy high credits that were spewed out for a few days were never rolled back and that's a problem. I'm sure that the people/teams that benefited are happy but no one else is. The apparently unrealized upshot is that those teams that benefited can quit work here because no one can realistically ever catch them and the teams that missed the few days of insane credits have no reason to run this project anymore as the possibility of upward mobility is virtually nonexistent. Not rolling back those crazy credit days are akin to shooting oneself in the foot as far as project participation is concerned.

Mikey, I agree. A few months ago the team standings on this project were turned upside down due to a huge credit anomaly. It also had the effect of singlehandedly reordering a good portion of the DC-Vault standings. Now the credits are so low here that it's folly to even think that the credit totals can be brought back into reality. GPU credits are ridiculously low. Maybe it's partly due to an inefficient GPU application. Back on topic, the crazy high credits that were spewed out for a few days were never rolled back and that's a problem. I'm sure that the people/teams that benefited are happy but no one else is. The apparently unrealized upshot is that those teams that benefited can quit work here because no one can realistically ever catch them and the teams that missed the few days of insane credits have no reason to run this project anymore as the possibility of upward mobility is virtually nonexistent. Not rolling back those crazy credit days are akin to shooting oneself in the foot as far as project participation is concerned.

I would not be against rolling back the crazy credits. I am unaware of any precedence for doing this and had not even considered this as an option. If the vast majority of users think this is a good idea I will consider it.

The credit debacle happened several months ago and the project has still been progressing nicely, so I am not sure if I agree with the statements about reduced participation. But yes, participation would probably be higher if I increased credits. Either way, at some point I will reassess the credit situation, compare with other projects, and then possibly increase it. I will put that on the list behind improving the GPU apps and updating the badge system.

Personally I think you, like Seti, will come to regret that decision. Seti has by far the most number of people signing up to crunch for it, they do the most PR stuff so why wouldn't people start there? BUT they are also the project that most people then leave for other projects too!! Seti has numerous problems such as not being able to get the grants like they have in the past etc and are now shut down at least 2 days per week every week, this has also affected their ability to retain people who pay to crunch too. The people that do crunch there are aware of that and work around it but since people are leaving the project it also means they no longer have as many people doing the crunching and their time frame to analyze the data is reduced as a result. In short it's your decision and your project and your decisions will affect how long it keeps going at the current rate.

Some projects pay a lot of credits for the crunching power users bring, some projects pay much less, it all depends on your goals and your ability to keep people crunching and projects such as Collatz, they currently pay the most of any gpu project, sometimes struggle to keep things running smoothly and cheater free. If your desires are to get thru the data faster then pay more credits, if your ability to expand or keep your existing hardware running is reduced then reducing the amount of credits you pay is the easiest way to keep users away.

Mikey, I agree. A few months ago the team standings on this project were turned upside down due to a huge credit anomaly. It also had the effect of singlehandedly reordering a good portion of the DC-Vault standings. Now the credits are so low here that it's folly to even think that the credit totals can be brought back into reality. GPU credits are ridiculously low. Maybe it's partly due to an inefficient GPU application. Back on topic, the crazy high credits that were spewed out for a few days were never rolled back and that's a problem. I'm sure that the people/teams that benefited are happy but no one else is. The apparently unrealized upshot is that those teams that benefited can quit work here because no one can realistically ever catch them and the teams that missed the few days of insane credits have no reason to run this project anymore as the possibility of upward mobility is virtually nonexistent. Not rolling back those crazy credit days are akin to shooting oneself in the foot as far as project participation is concerned.

I agree it's a balancing thing and if a Project doesn't do anything when 'things happen' they aren't destined to be a multi-year Project. Users remember when they've been 'wronged' and will refuse to crunch for a Project again once bad 'things happen'. EVERY Project has 'things happen' how they handle them is key to their long term survival.

Yep, CreditNew. Seems to be the only way to fairly handle both CPU and GPU tasks.

Well, based on my (recent) experience on YAFU (also using CreditNew), i would suggest not to use it.
There's completely no relation between workunit run time and credits assigned, looks like the credits are assigned by a random generator.

I had several identical machines running there for almost 3 weeks 24/7, 100% BOINC, same type of WU's, so the crediting system had time enough to "stabilize", still the highest credit machine had over more than 3 times (!!!) the credits the lowest credit machine had. While on other projects (without CreditNew) these machines accumulate about the same credits.

The thing which bothered me most is that the project admin over there has totally no idea how the crediting works, and points to BOINC/Berkeley when participants are complaining about it! >(

So i did the same as most users did over there; leave the project!


Please don't make the same mistake.

This was short moment of high credit of some work units probably on small batch:
runtime 1,843.91 gputime 1,843.91 credits 8,316.45 Get Decic Fields v3.03 (cuda30)
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
https://numberfields.asu.edu/NumberFields/workunit.php?wuid=57881629

This was short moment of high credit of some work units probably on small batch:
runtime 1,843.91 gputime 1,843.91 credits 8,316.45 Get Decic Fields v3.03 (cuda30)
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
https://numberfields.asu.edu/NumberFields/workunit.php?wuid=57881629

Could be related to the new apps - with each new app version CreditNew (aka CreditScrew) starts recomputing stats from scratch and that can lead to spurious credits at the outset.