Afterburner
EVGA Forum Moderator
- Total Posts : 25794
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2007/09/21 14:41:48
- Location: It's... Classified Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaah........
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 110
Hello everyone... This thread is intended to be an open forum of sorts. Be kind, open minded and remember this could turn into another ugly situation if we allow it. Only we can control that. So lets openly and honestly talk it through as a team and find a way to not cause any issues... A few folks have reached out to me with concerns to this mining event we are seeing... And frankly, I need to change my take on it as it has developed. Originally... I felt that if BOINC has it, we should not prevent folks from doing it. To be clear, I am/was thinking as a member of the team. Not as an individual with that thought. Now as an individual I think it is disgusting. It has no place on BOINC. It is taking science time away, not helping it. It skews the hard work others do and creates the same atmosphere I saw with folding. "Where the points became the focus and not the science" So......................................................... Let us discuss what we as a team think we should do. - Should it be a project we as a team participate in?
- If yes, then there is nothing else to discuss.
- If no....
- How do we police it without offending any member?
- Is there a way to keep crunching@ EVGA for seeing any credit/points?
- We should then be OK with folks that want to run it, but just not under the EVGA name plate. They can run it one their own.
Discuss!
|
Viper97
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5208
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2007/09/07 13:06:18
- Location: Chillin'
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 11
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 13:03:56
(permalink)
This will probably remind me of fishy stuff so... here goes. There are many tents in a camp. In the fishing camp there are fly fisherman, bait fisherman and tackle fisherman. Heck there's even an all of the above category. In fly fishing there are sub camps, dry fly flingers (purists), nymphers, streamers and bobbers, er indicator fisherman. The one basic denominator of all the tents is the fish. Doesn't matter the end goal to me, points, standings, coins, kudos or a taco at the end of a contest. It's still folding and crunching. I'm not a purist so I can see both sides of the coin and the rim too. Does the work get done? Yes. (Or do fish get caught and you have a great time... Yes... then it's all good.) I would however like to see mining specific team questions etc for folding and crunching moved to the Currency side of the forum. Regarding standings for the Vault, BOINC etc. I think we can let our feelings be known there. I for one think it really doesn't matter where we stand other than united. Be nice Orange_1050... 
post edited by Viper97 - 2014/11/19 13:05:35
|
bcavnaugh
The Crunchinator
- Total Posts : 38977
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2012/09/18 17:31:18
- Location: USA Affiliate E5L3CTGE12 Associate 9E88QK5L7811G3H
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 282
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 13:11:40
(permalink)
I believe that any Money Generating Project should NOT be part of BOINC. I have posted this as well under Bitcoin Utopia Forum under post http://boincstats.com/en/forum/10/9384For individuals they can do whatever they like, but for a Team maybe we should have some rules to be part of the Team. But I think this may be a bad idea as well. Because each of us have a own goal of what we want Crunch on and that should not change. But we can maybe vote to allow or not allow "Money Generating Projects" on our team.
post edited by bcavnaugh - 2014/11/19 13:48:39
|
texinga
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5066
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2010/07/03 14:30:32
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 22
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 13:35:20
(permalink)
Viper, you left out one of the first forms of fishing..."hand fishin'! I was doing that as a kid back in the early 60's before it actually had a name (or TV show).  I just started becoming aware of this thing by reading the discussion over at [H] between Grandpa and Gilthanis. I hafta say that I really don't care about it as long as it doesn't get in the way of (or evolve into) something that prevents me from normal Crunching for Science. When AB said that we don't want Crunching to have similar problems as we saw with the Bigadv debacle, I thought "amen brotha". But, it is "on me" to manage that and to keep my mind straight, regardless of what other people choose to do (or follow). Yeah, I don't understand (meaning I'm not very informed) about the concerns people are having with BOINC and mining. If there is a tangible concern that "mining" is going to remove or impair my ability to just Crunch normally, then I need to pay attention to it and what it is doing. Otherwise, I'm going to be rather oblivious to it. Punchy said something the other day about not becoming too focused on points. It was a wise observation and one that I hope I can follow a lot better than when I was Folding. If I were to get into mining (for me) that number chasing would begin all over again. 
|
Viper97
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5208
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2007/09/07 13:06:18
- Location: Chillin'
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 11
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 13:55:25
(permalink)
I've been looking at this a bit closer since AB stuck it out there. From a nerd perspective I'd love to try it. It seems to be an inexpensive thing to play with and learn. (Most of my projects run 10 times the basic costs of this project.) So I'm thinking of giving it a shot to just find out what the whoopla is all about (and I suspect not make a dime other than basic knowledge and lessons learned sort of thing).
|
texinga
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5066
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2010/07/03 14:30:32
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 22
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 14:07:12
(permalink)
Viper, that's because you always were drawn to "the dark side".  To really have any pertinent opinion, I would need the "layman's understanding" of what the "hoopla" is all about with this topic. So, go forth and (maybe) prosper Viper...or was that "live long and prosper".
|
Viper97
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5208
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2007/09/07 13:06:18
- Location: Chillin'
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 11
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 14:15:45
(permalink)
Live long and die mining? Eh... I'm going to try this I think. I just ordered the new power supply for the 4P (EVGA of course). It just looks like something fun to do. Maybe tick off a few folks... who knows. I don't see the problem with points anymore. I did that with the folding world and frankly it's just not worth it getting worried over (as I still fold some). However, if I can beat a WU to death and do that much more science (perhaps even solo) then I think that's a worthy endeavor.
I'll probably order tonight after I finish drooling on the new 980 that's out for delivery.
|
texinga
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5066
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2010/07/03 14:30:32
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 22
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 14:19:55
(permalink)
Viper97
I'll probably order tonight after I finish drooling on the new 980 that's out for delivery.
It didn't happen if we don't have a pictcha! Do it (mining I mean)...and all the best to ya (unless you screw-up my Crunching).
|
bcavnaugh
The Crunchinator
- Total Posts : 38977
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2012/09/18 17:31:18
- Location: USA Affiliate E5L3CTGE12 Associate 9E88QK5L7811G3H
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 282
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 14:25:14
(permalink)
Viper97 may have an idea. Why not create a new Team call it say Mining@EVGA if it is ok with EVGA that is. Viper97 can be the President and devlin85 the Vice President and Captains. This way we could mine under that Team Name for users who want to try Mining. I can order two RockMiner NEW R-BOX 100 -110 GH/s ASIC SHA-256 Miner ASICMiner Gen3 today and join this new team.
|
devlin85
SSC Member
- Total Posts : 586
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2014/04/15 20:39:00
- Location: Florida
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 1
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 14:25:24
(permalink)
Yes Viper.. come to the dark side  I don't think it should be banned from the group or discriminated against by any means. I do think it should be separated in the stats and if enough people write to the stats sites / post suggestions in the features wanted forums, etc. to change their stat listings up a bit that would calm a few people down. Plus this is all for science, sometimes science needs some money, I do think the points are ludicrous, but I think that's just them trying to entice people into mining for them. Boincstats' own project on bitcoin utopia just ended so I'm sure they had a part in the allure of the points as well. And as many have said, you can always just compare per project, or cpu vs gpu, or work units submitted, there are many ways to view the stats.
"Science is much more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions." -Carl Sagan 
|
Viper97
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5208
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2007/09/07 13:06:18
- Location: Chillin'
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 11
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 14:37:52
(permalink)
I ordered one machine just about 54.546345 seconds ago. Not sure about the separate team thing just yet. I don't believe EVGA would have a problem with this but that's for AB and others to put forward if this were to happen.
Frankly, for 80 bucks I'll tinker with it. Keep discussing but let's not form teams yet. That's beyond the scope of the original intent of this message. If the points were more aligned I'd say, we crunch under the team name but what I need to know is what the ratio of WU time to complete is on the ASIC device compared to a CPU WU that is comparable size wise.
I'm sure those more intelligent that I (Rocky Balboa for one) can figure that out. Also what projects does the thing actually run. (I will be looking into that when I get home.)
|
Viper97
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5208
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2007/09/07 13:06:18
- Location: Chillin'
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 11
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 14:50:31
(permalink)
So... my take. This is really nothing more than a form of crowd sourcing/funding projects and some of them have scientific value (Milkyway) while others such as the BOINCSTATs project is seeking funding for a RAID controller to replace their dying/dead one. With the potential to suggest crowd funding via bitcoins to other projects as well as suggest worthy projects.
Not sure about the Hydroponics lab set up but Milkway and BOINC stats is near and dear to a few of us.
Since this appears to be a start up sort of thing, the projects are limited but keeping BOINC up and running is good for us as well as mapping the stars.
|
texinga
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5066
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2010/07/03 14:30:32
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 22
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 15:01:08
(permalink)
I don't understand all of it, other than it appears there are some people feeling hurt that a mining team is getting more points than those (in BOINC) that are working typical science-related projects. I pay no attention to what BOINC stats says I am doing related to other Crunchers, so it doesn't bother me at all. But, I do feel strongly that we should keep the EVGA Crunching family together (as one). Just one team, crunching together whether on a medical project, talking to aliens, working stronger crypto functions and yes even mining to get there. It would have to be a "points ego" thing for me to have an issue with BOINC miners and I have no BOINC ego. I just want to use their software and sallie-forth into whatever interests me. We need to stay together. Separating could lead to division and we all know that we are strongest together. 
|
bcavnaugh
The Crunchinator
- Total Posts : 38977
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2012/09/18 17:31:18
- Location: USA Affiliate E5L3CTGE12 Associate 9E88QK5L7811G3H
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 282
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 15:21:10
(permalink)
texinga
I don't understand all of it, other than it appears there are some people feeling hurt that a mining team is getting more points than those (in BOINC) that are working typical science-related projects. I pay no attention to what BOINC stats says I am doing related to other Crunchers, so it doesn't bother me at all. But, I do feel strongly that we should keep the EVGA Crunching family together (as one). Just one team, crunching together whether on a medical project, talking to aliens, working stronger crypto functions and yes even mining to get there. It would have to be a "points ego" thing for me to have an issue with BOINC miners and I have no BOINC ego. I just want to use their software and sallie-forth into whatever interests me.
We need to stay together. Separating could lead to division and we all know that we are strongest together.
I do understand what you are saying. To give the Coin to a project of your choice I thought you had to change Teams anyway. If I recall you can also Fold for Coin but you had to leave your team and join their Team as well. Still looking into this part. This helps, From: Message 834Q: Can I get Bitcoins when I crunch this project? A: In short: No. At least, not at the moment. This BOINC project uses hosts for mining various cryptocurrencies in 3rd part pool servers and after that they will be exchanged to bitcoins. The fee at the moment is 10%, so 90% of the bitcoins will go to science campaigns and 10% for the limited company: Bitcoin Utopia (Consultum Finland Oy). It should be possible to use Gridcoin software to earn some Gridcoins while crunching for Bitcoin Utopia (or some other BOINC project).
post edited by bcavnaugh - 2014/11/19 15:23:25
|
texinga
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5066
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2010/07/03 14:30:32
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 22
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 15:46:43
(permalink)
BC, so I'm trying to wrap my head around the exact issue (for us) with this BOINC mining thing. I see what the issue is with other individuals who have strong feelings about points not being associated with typical science-work, etc. But for our team, do we really care if a member ventures off into some BOINC mining project with some or all of their hardware, even if they have to join a mining team? I'm just asking because, I haven't yet felt that there was any issue that I could see with it. We have had people (on our Crunching team) dabble into mining before. So, other than the BOINC points issue, I don't see any new issue that needs dealing with. To me, BOINC is just a mechanism to provide us a means to volunteer our PC production. Nothing about BOINC (to me) says it can't include mining or any other project that someone wants to create. If I'm way off base (and I could be), someone help me get a better grip on the exact problem.
|
Viper97
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5208
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2007/09/07 13:06:18
- Location: Chillin'
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 11
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 15:55:28
(permalink)
I'm hoping it's not about points. I'm going to phrase it like this... what happens with SETI? Lack of funding, hardware failures etc. What if this were a way to help bankroll SETI and get them more stable? Or any of the smaller, lesser known NOT WCG related projects? How many times have we seen our team help out with bucks when someone's hardware went down either a team member, a stat keeper, etc.
I donated money to Snurk because he created a badge that I have in my signature.
It's a way of helping move hardware forward that may not be grant eligible, or help tide them over while writing and hoping for grants.
|
Viper97
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5208
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2007/09/07 13:06:18
- Location: Chillin'
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 11
|
bcavnaugh
The Crunchinator
- Total Posts : 38977
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2012/09/18 17:31:18
- Location: USA Affiliate E5L3CTGE12 Associate 9E88QK5L7811G3H
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 282
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 16:12:38
(permalink)
Yes and No, I think the Points for within Team Challenges would be hit and it would end our In Team Challenges. How would anyone in our Team compete with 100,000,000 to 160,000,000 Points a day from a single user? I have a hard enough time with Orange_1050 and his 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 but that is between him and me. I mean he is my rival within our team so I do my best to to keep up with him, yes I am still 2 or 3 years behind him but that is where all the fun comes in. Now that I have my head part way wrap around this I might get a few and run them but not under our Team. The Coins all go for the project that is running so no money or coins are being given out. texinga
BC, so I'm trying to wrap my head around the exact issue (for us) with this BOINC mining thing. I see what the issue is with other individuals who have strong feelings about points not being associated with typical science-work, etc. But for our team, do we really care if a member ventures off into some BOINC mining project with some or all of their hardware, even if they have to join a mining team? I'm just asking because, I haven't yet felt that there was any issue that I could see with it. We have had people (on our Crunching team) dabble into mining before. So, other than the BOINC points issue, I don't see any new issue that needs dealing with. To me, BOINC is just a mechanism to provide us a means to volunteer our PC production. Nothing about BOINC (to me) says it can't include mining or any other project that someone wants to create. If I'm way off base (and I could be), someone help me get a better grip on the exact problem.
Viper97
I'm hoping it's not about points. I'm going to phrase it like this... what happens with SETI? Lack of funding, hardware failures etc. What if this were a way to help bankroll SETI and get them more stable? Or any of the smaller, lesser known NOT WCG related projects? How many times have we seen our team help out with bucks when someone's hardware went down either a team member, a stat keeper, etc.
I donated money to Snurk because he created a badge that I have in my signature.
It's a way of helping move hardware forward that may not be grant eligible, or help tide them over while writing and hoping for grants.
post edited by bcavnaugh - 2014/11/19 16:15:04
|
texinga
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5066
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2010/07/03 14:30:32
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 22
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 16:53:52
(permalink)
So, help me better understand these mega-points that people are getting from a $100 rig. I'm guessing that it is the Mining project itself that is awarding some extreme amount of points if you come over and work their project? I can see why they might choose to do that easily enough. But, what I don't see is how that situation with all those points for mining can affect other challenges/contests like PrimeGrid for example. PrimeGrid isn't going to be playing that way and will award points based on the way that they value work. The only ways that I can immediately see an issue is if you are in a contest where that Mining project is part of the way to compete.
When I hear of things like a $100 rig that produces more points than one that costs a $1000, I'm drafted back to the days of Bigadv (as AB suggested). A very similar thing happened back then in a number of ways which ultimately resulted in hurt feelings amongst Folders. I just hope that we don't see anything like that happen to Crunching. But back to the Mining and Crunching. If some new project wants to award incredible amounts of points (regardless of the project's purpose), what is to stop them from being free to do that? It doesn't appear that the BOINC program gets involved in that level of control and it is fully up to the project entity to determine the value of work.
|
texinga
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5066
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2010/07/03 14:30:32
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 22
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 16:53:52
(permalink)
Double-post bug got me...don't know how that happened cause I only clicked send once... 
post edited by texinga - 2014/11/19 16:55:28
|
texinga
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5066
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2010/07/03 14:30:32
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 22
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 16:59:33
(permalink)
|
Punchy
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2969
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2010/02/06 09:33:05
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 14
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 17:06:00
(permalink)
Whether we like it or not, it's about points. Points is how we measure the "value" of our contributions.
Let's take a look at what happened with F@H once they introduced the QRB - it basically wiped out the value of people's years of work up to that point. I believe even most of the Stanford staff has admitted that the QRB was a huge mistake.
Points has been less of a focus for many of us that crunch, in part because many of us came to get away from the points focus and what that could do to us. Another part is the realization that with so many independent BOINC projects there are bound to be disparities. As I mentioned before, with only CPUs crunching, I don't have a chance of competing for "total BOINC points" against the high points of some GPU projects. As several folks have mentioned, you can really only (sometimes) compare fairly within a project if you feel the need to compare.
If this had been a centralized project like F@H where suddenly there was a way to get as many points in a day as people had generated in years, you can imagine the fallout, and staff would deal with it (ha! but let's not go down that path). With BOINC as decentralized as it is, there is really nobody with any authority to make changes. The only real avenue for change is to have the stats sites deal with it, and that seems to be happening.
This situation is doubly disturbing in that not only are the points astronomical (presumably as a marketing ploy to get more donors, as someone mentioned) but the actual computations being done have no scientific value. I can certainly understand anyone's objections. At the same time, I don't feel like we can tell our teammates what to do.
For me personally, I found some years back that my life is a lot happier when I don't compare myself to others, so I'll have to continue to follow that path.
|
bcavnaugh
The Crunchinator
- Total Posts : 38977
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2012/09/18 17:31:18
- Location: USA Affiliate E5L3CTGE12 Associate 9E88QK5L7811G3H
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 282
|
texinga
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5066
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2010/07/03 14:30:32
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 22
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 17:25:48
(permalink)
OK BC, I'm starting to see what you are talking about and it surrounds BOINC points ranking whether within members of a given team or across multiple team comparisons. So this is the reason that some people feel that a member who is pursuing Mining (within a given team) needs to operate on that project outside of the team? I can see that if comparing one person's BOINC tally to another persons is important from a competitive perspective. Personally, I would not care and would want those team members who are also mining to stay inside the team (regardless of what project they work or what it pays in points). But that's just me and there are lots of different things that people on teams find motivating.
Maybe as Punchy said, it will be handled at Stats site level where they put in play some sort of capping/threshold mechanism. I would just encourage people (from experience) to keep your mind on the ball and even if necessary find a new yardstick to measure personal effort. But keep the team whole throughout all, because without that unity the team is less functional.
|
Viper97
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5208
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2007/09/07 13:06:18
- Location: Chillin'
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 11
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 17:28:10
(permalink)
Punchy
This situation is doubly disturbing in that not only are the points astronomical (presumably as a marketing ploy to get more donors, as someone mentioned) but the actual computations being done have no scientific value.
I would question whether or not Milkway is a valid scientific value on your part. Not to be mean or anything but if the Crunching is going to make that project work... isn't that of value? BOINC stats, yes, it's marginal but it's a system of measurement which a lot desire to gauge their performance. Necessary? Probably not. Wanted... definitely. Again, if this turns to say, WCG gets tied into ASIC (which really is just one humongous GPU) and it gets science done... is it worth it? What if they wrote, for ASIC style systems, WU's throughout all of BOINC to capitalize on the fact that ASIC is there and it computes pretty darn good... do we reject that because it's not what CPU's do, not what current gen GPU's do? I don't know the answer but I do know one thing, if there's enough interest and it can be done cheaply in the DC world then they will build it and we will come. First though we need show interest.
post edited by Viper97 - 2014/11/19 17:31:11
|
texinga
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5066
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2010/07/03 14:30:32
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 22
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 17:55:12
(permalink)
|
Viper97
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5208
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2007/09/07 13:06:18
- Location: Chillin'
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 11
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 18:06:43
(permalink)
|
Punchy
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2969
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2010/02/06 09:33:05
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 14
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 18:10:09
(permalink)
Viper97
I would question whether or not Milkway is a valid scientific value on your part.
Not to be mean or anything but if the Crunching is going to make that project work... isn't that of value?
Well, it is of some value to fund other projects, but not nearly as much value as donating the money directly. x% of your BOINC "donation" goes to the power company; some BOINC project gets 90% of the remainder, and the BTU owners get 10%.
Again, if this turns to say, WCG gets tied into ASIC (which really is just one humongous GPU) and it gets science done... is it worth it?
What if they wrote, for ASIC style systems, WU's throughout all of BOINC to capitalize on the fact that ASIC is there and it computes pretty darn good... do we reject that because it's not what CPU's do, not what current gen GPU's do?
Well, ASICs aren't even close to GPUs, but let's continue the thought. It is theoretically possible - but just as GPUs can only handle a fraction of the computational types used in DC projects, ASICs would only handle a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that fraction. GPUs and CPUs are reprogrammable, while ASICs aren't. Mining ASICs only implement specific integer algorithms; almost all DC projects use floating point.
I don't know the answer but I do know one thing, if there's enough interest and it can be done cheaply in the DC world then they will build it and we will come.
And this may be where Stanford and some other projects are heading. With enough funding and some very limited algorithms, you might be able to build an ASIC, or at least use a giant FPGA array, to directly implement some sorts of research.
|
Afterburner
EVGA Forum Moderator
- Total Posts : 25794
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2007/09/21 14:41:48
- Location: It's... Classified Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaah........
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 110
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 18:17:34
(permalink)
devlin85
Yes Viper.. come to the dark side
I don't think it should be banned from the group or discriminated against by any means. I do think it should be separated in the stats and if enough people write to the stats sites / post suggestions in the features wanted forums, etc. to change their stat listings up a bit that would calm a few people down.
Plus this is all for science, sometimes science needs some money, I do think the points are ludicrous, but I think that's just them trying to entice people into mining for them. Boincstats' own project on bitcoin utopia just ended so I'm sure they had a part in the allure of the points as well.
And as many have said, you can always just compare per project, or cpu vs gpu, or work units submitted, there are many ways to view the stats.
Absolutely bloody heck no not! No one is going to be banned. The discussion is how to best work through this without diluting what Crunching is all about or alienate members who want to mine. Simple as that. As for measuring cpu to cpu or gpu to gpu etc. That will not work. That still dilutes the results greatly when mining is involved. As for the Mining@EVGA... What is wrong with adding to Cryptocurrency? Is that to different?
|
Viper97
CLASSIFIED ULTRA Member
- Total Posts : 5208
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 2007/09/07 13:06:18
- Location: Chillin'
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 11
Re: Mining Discussion...
2014/11/19 18:20:47
(permalink)
Eh... it's like Paypal... they take a percentage.  As long as some of it goes to the application, I'm happy. Next... ASIC isn't close to GPU's in the ability for GPU's to adapt... I'd agree with that. However, and I'm young at this for an old fart, it appears to me that ASIC can hash for a hundred bucks pretty good numbers, compared to say a GPU... now add four more... for less than say... $500 bucks. I would love to see them numbers. Now remember I'm speaking of directly coding for ASIC vice adaptability (think console port to PC here). If one codes directly to the system, the yield should be greater. Devlin's numbers indicated that (albeit it inflated due to promotional efforts or the what not). What I am interested in is a direct comparison for a WU that is CPU centric, to one that is written to be ASIC centric. (Direct one for one correlation of computational power.) That would be interesting to me and I think our fellow crunchers.
|