Maybe the stats sites could add a new category: "Total credits for science projects" and replace the current total with "Total credits with cryptocurrency schemes". Maybe even put cryptocurrency projects in a separate class for those who want to run them and not mix the totals at all.

And when GpuGrid, or any other boinc project, adds asic mining to their own list of usable devices, even if to only run bitcoin mining so no loss thru any 3rd party site, what happens to your stats then?

Stats have been a problem ever since the introduction of credits, people with multiple machines were outdoing people with single machines, people with single gpu's were being outdone by people with 4 or more gpu's in a single machine. All of this just moves the pc world further ahead as well as the world of Boinc. Without gamers would anyone have thought to use a PS3 or even a gpu to crunch with at Boinc. Dr A certainly never considered it in the beginning, his initial grant paper was for 'users', not even pc's.

Asic machines must do some kind of calculating very fast, someone will figure out what that is, even if it is only adding two numbers to each other, and then figure out how to make their Boinc units fit into that. They did it with gpu's, it took time to make it work right, but we have a great community and someone will figure it out. Maybe even a new Boinc project will be born, mapping dinosaur DNA or whatever using asic machines, what happens to your stats then?

Asic machines must do some kind of calculating very fast, someone will figure out what that is, even if it is only adding two numbers to each other, and then figure out how to make their Boinc units fit into that. They did it with gpu's, it took time to make it work right, but we have a great community and someone will figure it out. Maybe even a new Boinc project will be born, mapping dinosaur DNA or whatever using asic machines, what happens to your stats then?

I'm not too sure about this.

GPUs were originally purposefully built to be generic fast 3D graphics renderers. Then the big players came up with "common platforms" such as OpenCL and CUDA, so they could be additionally repurposed as "generic work processors".

ASICs, however, are purposefully built to be non-generic. They perform a single task, and it's likely there will never be a push toward some sort of "common platform" to make it more generic.

If anything, a BOINC project would come up with the purpose, and then design the ASIC around the purpose. But that too is highly unlikely, because it is very expensive, from what I understand.

The stats problem we have here, is that we have no tangible way to relate "how much science work" an ASIC does. We can only compare how fast it is against other ASICs, and also compare how long it would take a generic CPU to do the same non-science work. With GPUs, you can sort-of compare "it would take x times as long to do this science work on a CPU", especially for OpenCL... But for ASICs, which (so far) are not doing any science work, there is no comparison.

It is a pickle. I don't have an answer. I just know that this stats panic seems to need to be countered.

In the meantime, users should try to keep in mind that, instead of buying ASICs, they should focus on "how to efficiently convert their electricity into science results." But most users like "longer" stats.

The stats problem we have here, is that we have no tangible way to relate "how much science work" an ASIC does...... But for ASICs, which (so far) are not doing any science work, there is no comparison.

It is a pickle. I don't have an answer. I just know that this stats panic seems to need to be countered.

In the meantime, users should try to keep in mind that, instead of buying ASICs, they should focus on "how to efficiently convert their electricity into science results." But most users like "longer" stats.

Until someone can stated what the purpose or meaning behind the algorithm that is being processed (other than unlocking/releasing/distributing additional bitcoins) I have very serious doubts that it does anything else. At best a mathematical computation is occurring, otherwise we are looking at a "blackbox" scenario.

And when GpuGrid, or any other boinc project, adds asic mining to their own list of usable devices, even if to only run bitcoin mining so no loss thru any 3rd party site, what happens to your stats then?

Once again, ASICS can't do science.

Stats have been a problem ever since the introduction of credits, people with multiple machines were outdoing people with single machines, people with single gpu's were being outdone by people with 4 or more gpu's in a single machine. All of this just moves the pc world further ahead as well as the world of Boinc. Without gamers would anyone have thought to use a PS3 or even a gpu to crunch with at Boinc.

Asic machines must do some kind of calculating very fast, someone will figure out what that is, even if it is only adding two numbers to each other

It's already known. It's a simple algorithm specific to bitcion or litecoin. As you say, someone could also just make a BOINC project that adds 2 numbers together for a minute or two and decide to award a billion credits/WU. Credits were introduced as a way to get more users into BOINC. It's more or less a gaming system, except that the game actually does valuable science as people are having fun playing. Adding non-science arbitrary "projects" with huge credit awards to BOINC destroys the game in any useful sense. Those interested in playing the BOINC game will do much better by running projects that don't do science at all. What many are saying essentially is that due to ASICs and the huge credits awarded, the "BOINC science game" is now broken. Some of us will keep crunching projects that we feel are valuable but a large number of people will either lose interest in the broken game or switch to ASICs. Either outcome means less science done, both outcomes are negative if you care about useful science, which is the whole purpose of BOINC. This could be avoided by putting ASIC projects into a totally separate category and not mixing the totals or perhaps by limiting the credits to an arbitrarily determined amount. I've never had much love for credit-new and it still has problems but maybe requiring it of all projects may be a solution.

This argument will not be resolved however in forums like this as those to have purchased or are thinking of purchasing ASICs will of course disagree and even attack people who voice the opinion that ASICs aren't good for the BOINC world. You can see this already happening in some of the previous posts. Hopefully it will cease as bullying is an ugly way to argue. It simply shows that those using the tactic have little logic behind their opinions.

Beyond:

The ASICs that are used in BitCoin Utopia, have been created to mine cryptocurrencies. Specifically, BitCoin, I think. ASICs that have been created with the specific purpose of doing something scientific, can do science. I'm sure they exist. ASICs can do science, if they were built to do science. Please stop saying they cannot. :/

Beyond:

The ASICs that are used in BitCoin Utopia, have been created to mine cryptocurrencies. Specifically, BitCoin, I think. ASICs that have been created with the specific purpose of doing something scientific, can do science. I'm sure they exist. ASICs can do science, if they were built to do science. Please stop saying they cannot. :/

Jacob, of course some ASIC could be created to do any specific task. The ones that everyone is discussing here are ASICs that run cryptocurrencies. Of course it's possible to design one that does do science. Will you see many of those? Probably not, as designing and producing the chip is expensive and without a profit motive it's not likely, unless the government funds it for some purpose like decrypting our communications :-)

Beyond:

The ASICs that are used in BitCoin Utopia, have been created to mine cryptocurrencies. Specifically, BitCoin, I think. ASICs that have been created with the specific purpose of doing something scientific, can do science. I'm sure they exist. ASICs can do science, if they were built to do science. Please stop saying they cannot. :/

An ASIC is just another kind of processor, it can theoretically be designed to do any kind of calculation, including solving heavy scientific special-purpose algorithms. The problem is that it costs a lot of money to do this, from design and engineering to mass production and IMHO no-one will do such a thing in the near future.

As posted earlier, GPUs were designed mainly for 3d-processing but computer graphics, rendering, gaming, simulations, computer vision etc. need some kind of 'generic' hardware (even if not so generic like CPUs), not just suited to solve a few algorithms. That's the reason why GPUs were somewhat easily 'evolved' as computing co-processors (but can also do a lot of other things).

Also, the BOINC platform has been designed for helping projects which cannot (for a lot of reasons, most of them complicated) afford to spend a lot of money. If you have a lot of money (because you got big grants) you can simply buy/rent a supercomputer. So, I don't think any BOINC project will even think about, develop, produce, sell and convince people to buy any kind of (even scientific) specialized device such an asic, just able to solve a specific algorithm. Also remember that projects wich require special devices (like RadioActive or Quake) started first developing the sensors and had good reasons to spread them around the world, it's a completely different approach.

What i think about Bitcoin Utopia...

As you say, someone could also just make a BOINC project that adds 2 numbers together for a minute or two and decide to award a billion credits/WU.

Isn't this already the case of Collatz ? Not a billion points, but still quite huge credit and in fact has no scientific value.

I've found this works for me....

Crunch for a project because you want to either 1) compete with other crunchers, or 2) because the underlying work means something to you; if neither of these conditions are met, make sure your PC switches to standby when not in use and save yourself some KWH/£.

If 1) or 2) work for you, then you've made a choice and you'll need at least a CPU and whatever other appropriate hardware you can afford (or are willing to buy) to take part to the level you alone choose.

Crunching is an 'emotional investment' at best - check with your accountant if clarification is needed.

Depending on 1) or 2) make sure you are looking at the Stats which are meaningful to you.

....... €0.02 worth of my personal opinion.

P.

A friend of mine who is using R-Box crunchers, two of them, at BU says he has done some research, and is now testing it, but says he can make $45 US every month using his two R-Box's mining for himself.

I have no idea if that is true or not, but am interested to find out. If true it could mean the end is near for BU and it's funding of any Boinc projects, and THAT would be a bad thing IMHO. You can buy an R-Box for about $70 US on the internet, meaning a two month payback and then you are padding your bank account from then on, until it all ends.

Interesting and timely topic regarding generalizing credit:

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/CreditGeneralized

Very interesting and reasonable proposal !!!

Interesting and timely topic regarding generalizing credit:

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/CreditGeneralized

With date August 19, 2014, there are many crunchers (around 500) in the "BOINC statistics for the world" that have negative credits.
Does anyone knows if BOINC has implemented this proposal?

Their Stat's are totally Screwed up ... IMO

Stoneageman who has over 6 Billion in Credit's at the GPU Project which is included in the BS Stat's show's only 4.2 Billion in Total Credit's ... Go Figure

What your going to end up with is 100 Different Stat's Site's that all report differently so everybody can point to the Stat's Site that best reflects their own Credit Position in the Stat's ...

---

STE\/E

Very interesting and reasonable proposal !!!

Interesting and timely topic regarding generalizing credit:

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/CreditGeneralized

With date August 19, 2014, there are many crunchers (around 500) in the "BOINC statistics for the world" that have negative credits.
Does anyone knows if BOINC has implemented this proposal?

No they have not done anything yet except talk, and it looks like it might continue for a bit yet.

Their Stat's are totally Screwed up ... IMO

Stoneageman who has over 6 Billion in Credit's at the GPU Project which is included in the BS Stat's show's only 4.2 Billion in Total Credit's ... Go Figure

What your going to end up with is 100 Different Stat's Site's that all report differently so everybody can point to the Stat's Site that best reflects their own Credit Position in the Stat's ...

+1000

Their Stat's are totally Screwed up ... IMO

Stoneageman who has over 6 Billion in Credit's at the GPU Project which is included in the BS Stat's show's only 4.2 Billion in Total Credit's ... Go Figure

What your going to end up with is 100 Different Stat's Site's that all report differently so everybody can point to the Stat's Site that best reflects their own Credit Position in the Stat's ...

If it's designed right, I'd imagine it would be a stats site where the visitor can choose certain filters to include/exclude, so that the visitor can see what they are after. Let's try to be optimistic!

Their Stat's are totally Screwed up ... IMO

Stoneageman who has over 6 Billion in Credit's at the GPU Project which is included in the BS Stat's show's only 4.2 Billion in Total Credit's ... Go Figure

What your going to end up with is 100 Different Stat's Site's that all report differently so everybody can point to the Stat's Site that best reflects their own Credit Position in the Stat's ...

If it's designed right, I'd imagine it would be a stats site where the visitor can choose certain filters to include/exclude, so that the visitor can see what they are after. Let's try to be optimistic!

+1000

I had to do this because I agree with you too, it would be a good thing to let people pick and chose from a wide range of options to show the data the way they want to see it. Too many options though could mean too much Admin time needed and end up being a pay site.

it would be a good thing to let people pick and chose from a wide range of options to show the data the way they want to see it

Right, that way everybody can argue until the Cow's come home who's doing more for BOINC or argue that their Holier than you because they run only Supposedly Scientific Projects ...

---

STE\/E

it would be a good thing to let people pick and chose from a wide range of options to show the data the way they want to see it

Right, that way everybody can argue until the Cow's come home who's doing more for BOINC or argue that their Holier than you because they run only Supposedly Scientific Projects ...

Yes, that is correct. The viewer will have the choice. And that is a good thing.