texinga
Looks like Berkley is already working on a set of solutions to this issue:
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/CreditGeneralized
 
I expect this will all get hashed-out and will be resolved.

I like this part:
BU did these things, which are completely reasonable. But it turns out - because ASICs are so fast - that BU is granting huge amounts of credit. With fewer than 1,000 users, BU is granting more credit than the 300,000 users of all other projects combined.
 

Punchy, I'm not sure of your understanding of ASICs and what they are, but they can be made to do Bio sciences as well as others. The problem you get into is that they are made for a very specific purpose and that is it. That is their strength and their weakness. So, if GPUGrid wanted to go to an ASIC company and have them design one, they would blow the doors off of any of the GPU's EVGA or anyone else is currently selling. The problem is that the project isn't going to fund that and someone would have to sell a bunch to make it worth their investment. Since most DC'ers are using equipment that has other purpose, well... you can see where this is going.
 
BU does NOT require you to switch teams to support any of their campaigns. You are confusing that with supporting specific altcoins that have come and some have gone in the past that have tried to bring mining and DC'ing together. Ripple Labs gave away their XRP for contributing to WCG. However, you did have to join their team and yes that coin is still pretty much a failure. They did bring a lot of computing power to and or back to WCG at least for a while. Gridcoin is still limping along and required you to join their team but they supported multiple projects to get their coin. That is why they are referenced in that BU post in the FAQ's. They are not part of BU, but rather you could technically double dip if Gridcoin allowed it. So, earn Gridcoins while also mining coins for BU. Then you have Curecoin which was for FAH and is also limping along. They required you to join their team. SETIcoin never really went anywhere from last I read. Now you have Foldingcoin trying to fix the big issue of belonging to just one team. They are still "hashing" that detail out and have even posted in our forums about it. Most importantly I want to stress that you do NOT have to switch teams to "crunch" work units at BitcoinUtopia. You can very well have a Crunching @ EVGA team there.
 
For the point issue. If  you are all bent out of shape because you see one member do a billion points a day while looking at the BOINCwide stats, just mosey over to Free-DC and click the handy links where they compare without cryptos. That is a temporary solution and can easily be used while leaving those wishing to run BU work to their good will.
 
Yes Berkeley/David Anderson & crew are looking into happy middle ground. Don't expect miracles. They continue to add support for ASICs and other platforms like MIPS even with the points dilemma.
 
Efficiency vs payout is up to the user. Not a team. They may have a source of cheap power. What's that to you?
 
The team may not want represented at a project. However, if it is already created then you are a bit late. The only thing at that point is really just state it is unofficial when new members bring it up.
 
Last I would also say that any project can one day decide to do the exact same thing as BU and offer a Crypto app to run that users can select in their preferences. However, most projects don't have the funding, time, or expertise to bother with it. If you want to get down to nitty gritty, GPUGrid was the first to bring Bitcoin to BOINC. Donate@home was their fund raising project and yes it paid out better than most GPU projects at that time. They only stopped because 1. They too saw the inefficiency of running Bitcoin on GPUs once ASICs hit the market. 2. They didn't want to juggle with the many different Altcoins. You will also find that some Universities have too much red tape and don't want the bookwork of managing these cryptocurrencies. Milkyway now has their funding. BU raised over $3,000 US dollars. However, Milkyway didn't want the coins directly because they would have to document the value of each coin when they received it and then document the value when sold. If it went up in value, they would have to claim the capital gains. Since the University wouldn't set up a wallet, a staff member had to use their personal PayPal account for the donations. This means she would have had to pay those capital gains on her tax returns. So, there is a lot more to it. BU is willing to convert the funds to Euros or US Dollars for the recipient to make the process simpler for them.
 
I'm not trying to sway you either way. Just helping with the facts.
 
 
Edit: Another thing to keep in mind. Unlike FAH's client, BOINC was designed to be open source and free to all DC projects regardless of their goal. It is NOT a science only client. That is a DC community created intent.
 
Also a few helpful links:
http://www.hotchips.org/wp-content/uploads/hc_archives/hc20/2_Mon/HC20.25.421.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_%28computer%29
 

They are still a valid example. Regardless of the number of apps (sciences) they run, ASICs for each science or app could be made. It just wouldn't be feasible. But yes, I missed that post as I was skimming over the details being presented. They could also support an ASIC for one of the apps while not supporting ASICs on the others. Kind of how they run some MT CPU work and some ARM CPU work while running different apps on their GPU's. They can select what hardware to support with each app if they would like.

Afterburner
Just chiming in...
 
The points skews the wholly heck out ALL the other work we do. An it is not by thousands, it is by millions... If the points had been the same results as any other GPU project we have seen that runs for a long period (Like Prime as an example) then I highly doubt in any way shape or form this would even be a current point of discussion...

I would agree to that statement. However, it only skews if you are using it in your comparisons. You have options available to not use those stats. That is my point.

And I feel that is a good thing because it does help to have all the facts. That is all I'm trying to bring as I really don't have any investment in what your team decides. I just know there has been a lot or recent debate from a few members at my team as well and they aren't always geared towards what is fair, factual, or even what is in the best interest of anyone but self. So, I tend to play Devil's advocate quite a bit. I didn't like BU at first. Then I looked into and considered all arguments. Both sides have strong arguments, but you will find the same people chirping the same boasts and many of them aren't based on facts or are merely how they prefer BOINC in general to be used. They need to step back and look at what BOINC really is and accept that. At least we have options even if we are stuck with BU.

devlin85
I get why we can't fold proteins on an ASIC miner, but what about math computations.. you figure somebody would find a way to re purpose the miners for some form of computations. Or custom make their own chips for such a task, it does just mean "application specific integrated circuit" so I'm sure there is a way for some genius to make a math miner.

devlin85, that would be awesome but I think they would be called CPU's...lol

When discussions reach a certain level, I see my language barrier raise. Read/ write access memory halts a bit, but I do have an opinion about this subject aswell.
I find mining very interesting indeed, and watched devlin's numbers with greatest interest .
I also went a little further to check out what kind of hardware it would take to make some serious numbers.
Yes, devlin has told us about the R-Box and such, and also showed us what numbers you could get.
Also, I have checked out what numbers the big guy's in Boinc produce:

But even those guy's are small fish compared to the really heavy miners.
 
I believe we are here because of a combination of common interests.
We like GPU's and CPU's, and we have the urge of using our more or less ordinary computers, to do good deeds.
When we mix those capabilities, we have a Cruncher's/ Folder's with a common interest.
To add some fun to it, we are given points to trigger some competition and to benchmark our production, and the points also give us the ability to compare with each other.
I have all sorts of fun competing with other teams and especially bcavnaugh lol.
We are here because we relate, we are a great team because we relate in both interest and hardware.
Devlin, please do not misunderstand, I think you are the greatest guy, and a great asset to this team, so this has nothing to do with you as a cruncher but....
Problem is, when I watch us Crunchers from a perpective, and then the mining thing, I find no relation to what we do.
Hardware is different. I watch people unwrap a box, connect it to a laptop, then let the billions flow.
Billions of BOINC points flow in, while you also are credited either dogecoin, bitcoin or 9 other types of cryptocurrency.
That's not what we do here is it?
 
I like to follow the miners, and the technology they use, but I don't see why the points are counted for in BOINC.
They who want to mine, please do so by all means, I may try it myself one day, but I would keep my mining points outside.
 
 
 
 

This discussion has been good for me.  I've been outside of knowing the latest things in Crunch-land for about 6-mos.  Because of that, I was struggling to understand this new thing.  Now, I have a much better idea of what this is about when people talk about it.
 
For me, the operative idea here is that BOINC is not relegated to "science-based" projects.  One could argue that other BOINC "science" projects (that don't yield mega-points) are questionable uses of a person's resources where that person thinks the project is "snake oil" or foolish to pursue.  But that is also the beauty of BOINC.  It does allow for a great many projects of varying purposes whereby people of a wide variety of interests can participate.  I see BU as possibly a fore-runner of change(s) (good/bad) that BOINC allowed for in its design.
 
I'm quite interested in these ASIC designs.  Not for coin mining per se, but for what they may be able to do one day if designed to work projects that focus on diseases.  Reading the above, it appears that day is not here at the consumer/donor level, but who knows, maybe one day it will happen.  I'm all for anything that can target things that make people healthier and allow them to live longer.

Viper97
It would be an egregious error to say that this project does not benefit science.  It does, just in a different way than we are use to.  Do you benefit science when you toss $5 in the boot for Muscular Dystrophy?  Or pour the change in your hand from the store into the slotted box for breast cancer?  I'm sure we all do.
 
That's not helping science?  If it's not then why are we doing it?
 
http://www.bitcoinutopia.com/2014/07/milkywayhome/#.VG3e_J8lG5M
 
Read the link... In the Readers Digest version of it, their grant ran out and they need $20K to continue the project.  They turned to Bitcoin Utopia.  If I mine for Bitcoin Utopia and help fund them for another year, then I've helped science. 
 
The argument that they (Bitcoin) take a percentage is an irrational one at best.  Every single charity takes a share (and some scam charities take 90%) to fund the operation and cover the overhead.  This is nothing new. 
 
If I can fund a hydroponic garden (there is a fund raising project) that can be cheaply made and works and we can get that out to countries that don't have great food sources, is that not using science to solve a food problem? 
 
All in all it comes down to that one base element that seems to rile us all up.  Points.  Forget the points, I stopped tracking them or more pointedly I am always encouraged when a team mate mows me over.  It means we are accomplishing the things we set out to do.
 
The points will be solved.  I also expect that ASIC and the like will flourish within BOINC once someone takes notice and writes specifically for the platform.  We saw that with CPU's to GPU's and vice versa.
 
It's just a matter of time when CPU's and GPU's are useless for folding/crunching and a new platform is needed.  This is probably just the start and we need to maintain our flexibility and not lock ourselves into the point problem.   

This is only one example is that correct? Are there other project that mining helps science and or will be?
 
And as for your other items... They do not effect BOINC. I would like to try and stay focused on  how mining is effecting us than start offering thousands of examples of how one thing is similar to another when it effect BOINC in no way. 
 
I mean... I could tell you that I am running a scientific experiment with Bacardi 151 (My favorite medicine) and need $$ to fund the program... 

Afterburner
This is only one example is that correct? Are there other project that mining helps science and or will be?
 
And as for your other items... They do not effect BOINC. I would like to try and stay focused on  how mining is effecting us than start offering thousands of examples of how one thing is similar to another when it effect BOINC in no way. 
 
I mean... I could tell you that I am running a scientific experiment with Bacardi 151 (My favorite medicine) and need $$ to fund the program... 

For science yes... however, there  is again the fund raising for BOINC stats RAID controller, how can we complain about lop-sided numbers when we have no stat site!!!!!
 
The point I'm making is that this is the start of something big. The continual bickering about the BIGADV points vs GPU etc. is now affecting BOINC.  I'm hoping rather than turn this into a crying program about points that I am at least trying to show that the potential there is more than just crunching proteins but also supporting programs that can benefit humanity.
 
A quick one is the hydroponics program.  What if, we can make it cheap enough that an arid desert with people who are hunter gathers could raise fruits, vegies and fish to supplement their intake?  Isn't that worthwhile?
 
The problem is we are project/point oriented and can't see beyond that.  I'm trying to... there are many ways we can help this is but one.  Again though since everyone tends to be point centric, they don't see beyond the big red circle that is their point accumulation. 
 
As far as Bacardi 151 being medicinal I whole heartedly agree but I prefer a good bourbon.  I get more points when I drink bourbon. 

Orange_1050
 
We are here because we relate, we are a great team because we relate in both interest and hardware.
Devlin, please do not misunderstand, I think you are the greatest guy, and a great asset to this team, so this has nothing to do with you as a cruncher but....
Problem is, when I watch us Crunchers from a perpective, and then the mining thing, I find no relation to what we do.
Hardware is different. I watch people unwrap a box, connect it to a laptop, then let the billions flow.
Billions of BOINC points flow in, while you also are credited either dogecoin, bitcoin or 9 other types of cryptocurrency.
That's not what we do here is it?
 
I like to follow the miners, and the technology they use, but I don't see why the points are counted for in BOINC.
They who want to mine, please do so by all means, I may try it myself one day, but I would keep my mining points outside.
 

Your great too Orange!  Really what keeps the group focused and you bring some serious power to the table, power that is growing more and more by the day it seems .
 
I knew the second I fired up that miner and made a post about it there would be an interest.. to say the least . These have been very active topics! Pros and Cons all around. The gist of everybody's argument though.. split the stats or remove the stats from boinc altogether. I say the first, split em, have separate lists. 
 
And... Dunnn Dunnn.. Dunnn Dunnnn... DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN..........
 
 
 

bcavnaugh, That is what I'm saying. If you create a team at BU called mining@EVGA that would begin the headaches we have suffered. Since most BOINC related stats pages, challenges, etc... try to get off lazy and tally your lists by team name, one day you may end up with this conflict as [H] does. We have had people create a new team after we already had one. It happens. No take backs. It is there. So, from my experience, just leave it as it is. However, it is your guys' decision. Just my advise from experience. And as I have noted above, any project can do as BU has done. If they do, will you then change the team name at that project?
 
Edit: Example, if SETI suddenly decides to offer an crypto on top of their normal apps, will you change that to minin@EVGA even though they do other things? See the future potential headache?

cuarc001
bcavnaugh, That is what I'm saying. If you create a team at BU called mining@EVGA that would begin the headaches we have suffered. Since most BOINC related stats pages, challenges, etc... try to get off lazy and tally your lists by team name, one day you may end up with this conflict as [H] does. We have had people create a new team after we already had one. It happens. No take backs. It is there. So, from my experience, just leave it as it is. However, it is your guys' decision. Just my advise from experience. And as I have noted above, any project can do as BU has done. If they do, will you then change the team name at that project?
 
Edit: Example, if SETI suddenly decides to offer an crypto on top of their normal apps, will you change that to minin@EVGA even though they do other things? See the future potential headache?

Removed

bcavnaugh
It will not be very long before Devlin85 will have taken the left chart as well, this is what I think is going to breaking our team for me.
Our Points are not even enough to show up in the right chart anymore. Sorry now that I even brought this up. Sorry Team

don't worry, i'm ending it after 7 days, so it will be around the 1 billion mark when I shut 'er down, which would be less than 1/4 of the points. It was never my intention to run this long term. And it sounds like a few people are going to do some testing of their own  

I'd settle for reasonable points... not ungodly points... after I finish knocking a few billion off... that is.
 
Actually I'll probably just mine coins to get the hang of things this way I don't disturb the rankings much.  Once that's figured out (I figure that's the hardest thing to do is make mining for coins and all the things you need to do ahead for wallets and all, then perhaps Crunching will be interesting for a bit.)