1) Message boards : Number crunching : BitCoin Utopia went crazy credit-wise (Message 37379)
Posted 16 hours ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
This thread is not about BitCoin itself, but I have to clarify some misunderstandings.
I'm not against changing the world. BitCoin (and the other crypto currencies) is about changing the the basis of the economy of the whole world (that is the monetary system). I think that it can't be done against the will of the participants of the economy. If the powers of the monetary system wanted to change the basis of the economy all of us living in, it could have been done long ago. The so called socialism (or communism) - beside many things - was (or at least it was intended to be) an attempt to do that. This attempt has been failed, not just because the "communist" block was preparing for WW3 all the time of its existence (I lived in it for 20 years, so I know it from the inside), as the other block did the same. I think that the change the crypto currencies bring to the current monetary system are against the interest of the powers of the monetary system, as it would diminish (or even end) their influence on the source of their power. This power comes from the fact that they can change (usually lower) the value of the money by issuing more of it than needed. This is not a bad thing while it has a fairly low rate, because no one wants to keep the money in the long term, because it will devaluate over time. So one could either spend it, or invest it, or put it in a Bank (and they will invest it), which will result in a growing economy. The point of modern (so called fiat) money is that it's an infinite resource, therefore it could finance the growth of the economy for all eternity :). But the powers controlling the flow and creation of fiat money have to be very aware of how the others spend/invest this money, because there are some monetary entities, which has only one purpose: to grow as big as they can by exploiting the infinity of fiat money. On the other hand, if money would became more valuable over time, it would decrease the flow of itself, result in a decaying economy which would lead to mass loss of jobs (which is pretty bad).

This discussion and the concept of Bitcoin itself is meaningless..

The discussion of any subject is always useful: it could make the ignorant learn something about the subject.
About the meaning of BitCoin: "everything has a purpose, if nothing else it could serve as deterrent"

Bitcoin reads "fraud, thieves, you will lose your money!" all over it.

The powers of the current monetary system makes you believe it, partly because the powers pushed out of the monetary system (that is criminals) have to use alternative currencies.

Any form of money / currency is only as good as the entity that is behind it and vouches for it.

While the "good" sound familiar, its quite incomprehensible when talking about complex entities who have many faces, beside issuing money.

Since the invention of the concept of currency, there has been a sovereign entity behind each currency. This is what creates the faith in party A that the money it has taken from party B for providing some service or good will in actual fact carry its value in the foreseeable future.

This is the part of the monetary system based on fiat money what the common people perceive. But it's much more than that.

Where is that entity behind Bitcoin?

Nowhere. There is no entity behind it, only the users of it ("the network"). That's why it's revolutionary. That's why nobody knows how it's gonna work out. If there's big enough crowd behind it, it could work. But only if the current powers of the current monetary system will resign their powers.

I hear people crying out "the Network", well let me ask "the Network" to vouch for the value of my Bitcoins and guess what "the Network's" response will be. The picture of a slowly rising middle finger forms in my mind!

The problem with "the network" is that the economy cannot work without a power who throws out those who seek deals where they win by the other party's loss.

It is either that, or exchanging gold / silver / diamonds / some other valuable material, like corn for example. "Value" means it can be used by people to some end. Silver, gold and platinum (and other precious metals) have extremely good physical / chemical / electrical / thermal / etc properties, which make them suitable for many uses, including making long-lasting ornaments. Corn makes bread, the basis of human diet.

Is there so much corn in the world which can be exchanged for a fusion power plant?
The gold became the carrier of value because at that time it couldn't be used to make anything useful (as a tool or weapon), as it is soft (when pure) and dense (heavy), while it don't corrode on air.

In contrast, what can one do with Bitcoin? Can one eat it, make a tool out of it, create a long-lasting (practically invulnerable to nature) item from it?

Can you eat a dollar bill, or a plastic credit/debit card, or gold? These things only work while the economy is working as it is working now. When something would hit the economy hard (like a war), the people would receive bread for tickets, not for money. While this sounds odd, they will be happy because they lived.

No. People give it value because it is practically finite. Well, so are prime numbers, should we start trading in primes?

While the known prime numbers are finite, there are infinite prime numbers exists. However they become more sparse as they become larger.
When the basis of the monetary system was gold (a finite resource), it has limited the growth of the whole economy, as there wasn't enough gold in the system to support its growth. The modern economy passed over this phase, that's why we live in better circumstances than ever before. There is a finite number of BitCoins, however it can be split infinitely (as far as I know). This is quite the opposite of fiat money.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : BitCoin Utopia went crazy credit-wise (Message 37313)
Posted 4 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
While you may be able to donate the ASIC computational power for forever, the value of the ASIC computational power decreases over time as the computational power needed to unlock additional bit coins increases. At some point, you are better off just making a direct contribution to the charity rather than sending the money off to your local electric utility.

Following your line of reasoning ... since my current CPUs/GPUs will be producing far less work for the project than the CPUs/GPUs available 5 years from now then I should shut them down now and just send the project the money I spend monthly on electricity. Is that correct?

You are wrong. The original post didn't say that it's not worth to mine with ASICs for the time being, but it says that it eventually will happen in the future, so your thoughts are not following the original post's reasoning. The correct projection of the reasoning of the original post to GPUs is that noone should crunch with previous generation GPUs, as running them in the long term is worse than selling them and collecting the money the cruncher saves on electricity while not crunching, and either buy a new card when the savings add up, or send the money directly to the project.

The arguments everyone is making are identical to when GPUs 1st came on the scene. It was the same trauma for those that didn't have a GPU. "It's going to ruin BOINC!".

It's not the identical argument, while the credit-trauma is the same.
While a GPU could be up to 1000 times useful (in scientific calculations) than a CPU, it's quite logical, that it should be awarded in direct ratio.

At least with ASIC mining anyone with a USB port can get into the game with a very small investment, $20 versus the hundreds of dollars that were required on the 1st (and current) GPUs.

It's truly a profitable possibility.

The benefit to BitCoin Utopia versus Donate@home is that it is primarily using technology that doesn't take CPU/GPU resources away from other projects.

While this is true, I'm not that naive to overlook the real benefit of BitCoin Utopia (and BTC mining ASICs): it's the only project which can generate a unique and precious resource to projects that no CPUs nor GPUs can generate efficiently enough: money. I'm happy that this project can solve the funding of scientific projects for some time.

Donate used the same resources and therefore it can be argued that it hurt the overall BOINC effort.

Besides, It wasn't efficient enough.

Typically projects award credits based on the amount of work being accomplished.

"Typically" :)
"the amount of work being accomplished": While it sounds good, in reality no such measurement exists. Projects are quite different scientifically and therefore the arithmetic they use is different too. Some of them don't fit into the original definition of credits, as the original definition is based on FLOPS measuring benchmarks, as these projects don't make Floating Point Operations at all. Just like BitCoin mining. Yet they award the same type of credit as GPUGrid awards.

A GPU will gain you more credits at "most" projects than running a CPU only. The GPU produces more work than a CPU and therefore should be rewarded higher. The same is true of BU. As someone mentioned, their 4.8Gh/s ASIC is producing more work than 6 HD 7970s. Shouldn't they be compensated for the work they are producing?

Let's turn it around:
Can these ASICs crunch MilkyWay, GPUGrid, Rosetta@home, SIMAP or other workunits? No.
Should be the same kind of BOINC credits awarded for them? No.
In theory you can write a code for CPU which does the same work as a GPU (but it will be significantly slower & less efficient). Many projects have GPU and CPU apps for the same work.
But even in theory you can't use that ASIC to crunch anything else, while you can possibly design one.
I don't think that these ASICs have no place among other BOINC projects, but the credit they award is simply too much - because it is based on the very inefficient CPU / GPU hashing clients. I'm saying that even GPU credits shouldn't be mixed with CPU credits, because there are some tasks which can be done only on CPUs, but there are some tasks, which can be done effectively only on GPUs.
Even before BitCoin Utopia showed up the Credits were an absurd measurement of "how much science" one has done.
This can't be measured, so that's why it's absurd. To make it even more absurd, it is used to compare CPU/GPU projects.
Until now no real world credits were linked to the BOINC credits, and no fund raising projects were present.
But now the work done directly for scientific projects is devaluated by a single fund-raising project, which is very incorrect, and it has a very bad message for the CPU/GPU crunchers.

Overall credit divided over projects: (I hope that you can see the pictures I've attached)


Credit divided over projects in the last 24 hours:

BitCoin Utopia awards 6.5 times more credit than the other projects together.
Is fund raising that important?
Is this the message the BOINC community wants to send to it's present and future crunchers?
Could it be mixed with scientific work?
Could be different scientific work mixed together?

Credit Per day chart:


BitCoin Utopia shows the flaw of the credit system even more, than before.
It's like when you have to decide which fruit is more tasty by measuring their weight: a strawberry, an apple, a banana, or a watermelon?

You guys are incorrect as to what an ASIC is. It stands for Application Specific Integrated Circuit. They ARE processors but they have been designed to perform a limited number of tasks ... very quickly.

I know that, and I'm sure that BTC mining made a lot of people learn that. :)

I worked for HP for 32 years and we designed and used many ASICs. One ASIC I'm very familiar with did FFTs and inverse FFTS .... very very quickly. The heart of the Seti WU is preforming FFTs. So if someone were to design an ASIC that plugged into your USB port that could compute a Seti WU 1000s of times faster than a GPU would you be complaining because it isn't fair? Particularly since it would use a handful of watts versus hundreds of watts to do the same job. Of course the market is so small no one would every produce one for Seti ... you couldn't sell enough to pay for the development costs.

This made me rethink my crunching career.
Are we crazy for paying our electricity bills instead of creating and funding a project which makes ASICs for the research GPUGrid does?
So we could have found E.T. long time ago if we'd developed and used an ASIC for that task?
We could have found the cure for AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer's, CJD, ebola if we'd developed and used and ASIC for each research?
If this is true, then we are all sons of b****es for we haven't done that.

I agree with the person who mentioned that maybe projects should start their own ASIC mining sub-projects if they need funding.

This is probably me. I'm considering that I should mine BTC to support my electricity bills.

BU has approached MilkyWay@home to contribute to their program MW lost their grant and are in need of funds to continue.

This is good news. Donate@home should be revived and switched to those ASICs.
3) Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Comparison of two GTX 660s (Message 37305)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
Three months ago I gave my daughter a spare ASUS GTX 660, having persuaded her that it was a good idea that her PC crunch for GPUGrid. She powers off her PC at bedtime but during waking hours it crunches. She has a Dell 9100 dual-core that runs at 3.40 GHz and does little more than email and FB.

I assume that you are referring to this host.
It says that it has a Pentium 4 CPU 3.40GHz, which I think has only one core hyperthreaded. You should check it with the CPU-Z utility.

I removed from the stats below those WUs she ran that did not earn a bonus.

My PNY GTX 660 crunches 24/7 on my eight-core AMD 8350 that runs at 4.00 GHz, a bonus every time!

Your CPU is much more advanced than your daughter's P4, as your CPU has integrated memory (DDR3) controller and hypertransport (for the GPU's PCIe3.0 bus), while the P4 is using FSB architecture, accessing the DDR(2) memory and the PCIe (2.0 hopefully) through the north bridge chip. The P4 architecture is hindering the performance of the GPU.

Daughter’s ASUS averages 9753 credits per hour. My PNY averages 11510 credits per hour, an 18% improvement.

Is there anything to do to improve daughter’s performance, or does this look about right?

You can improve the performance of your daughter's GPU only by using more recent CPU to feed it (which has integrated memory and PCIe controller), so you should change the motherboard / CPU / RAM.

If this P4 CPU is really a single core / hyper threaded one, then you should not crunch anything else on it to improve the performance of the GPUgrid app.

You can check the generation and speed of the PCIe bus your GPU is using with the GPU-Z utility.
4) Message boards : Server and website : very slow download (Message 37286)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
I'm experiencing this in Hungary too.
The strange part is that the upload speed is ok.
EDIT: The download is usually gets "temporarily failed".
5) Message boards : Number crunching : output file ... absent (Message 37238)
Posted 17 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
It seems to me as a driver issue, as only the CUDA 6.0 tasks failing on your host, the CUDA 4.2 tasks working fine.
See the Important news for Linux Crunchers thread.
6) Message boards : Server and website : Not getting long WUs (Message 37206)
Posted 21 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
For me, things are back to normal.

Same here.
7) Message boards : Server and website : Not getting long WUs (Message 37196)
Posted 22 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
There are 8K long WUs available but all I get are shorts, for which I've said "no thanks".

I'm in the same situation with one of my 5 hosts.
It was receiving long workunits until 30 Jun 2014. 20:02:33 UTC, since then it receives only this:

01/07/2014 15:11:33 | GPUGRID | Sending scheduler request: To fetch work. 01/07/2014 15:11:33 | GPUGRID | Requesting new tasks for CPU and NVIDIA 01/07/2014 15:11:34 | GPUGRID | Scheduler request completed: got 0 new tasks 01/07/2014 15:11:34 | GPUGRID | No tasks sent 01/07/2014 15:11:34 | GPUGRID | No tasks are available for Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) 01/07/2014 15:11:34 | GPUGRID | No tasks are available for the applications you have selected.


It's on the same venue the other (working) hosts are.
I've tried:
1. detach / reset the project
2. attach to the project again
3. detach / reset the project
4. rename my host (to receive another ID)
5. attach to the project again
6. merge the old host to the new (also did it a couple of days ago)
7. change the settings of the venue, save it
8. check it (short runs downloaded),
9. revert the setting of the venue to the original, save it
10. check it (no long runs downloaded)
11. create a new venue
12. change the host's venue, refresh the host
13. check it (no long runs downloaded)
14. change the host's venue back
15. update BOINC manager to 7.2.42
16. search the forum
17. post about it on the forum
8) Message boards : Number crunching : BitCoin Utopia went crazy credit-wise (Message 37194)
Posted 22 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
If a volunteer can generate more money using those ASICs than their TCO, then a project can do it for itself (of course it's still better for a project to receive only the funding, without the cost of generating it). If a volunteer can generate less money using those ASICs than their TCO, then it's not worth doing, as donating directly the money is more useful. However, if better and better ASICs will emerge, therefore BTC gets cheaper to generate, will this process devaluate BTC itself? (at least until the last unit is generated.) I think BTC is a very temporary thing, so every miner should make haste - which would make BTC even more temporary (contrary to the inventor's intentions). In the end the value of BTC will rise, and speculators will own most of it - but no one would sell it for 'real' money or buy anything for it, as they will wait for another rise in BTC's value - and that will be the end of BTC (and the end of the tinker-speculators' real wealth).
9) Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Titan a good choice for gpugrid? (Message 37186)
Posted 24 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
Many GTX750Ti's have a 6-pin power connector,

Thanks for the tip, I've checked only the pictures on the ASUS, Gigabyte, and MSI website, and they doesn't show the top side of the card.
There is an example of the opposite: the MSI GTX 750Ti 2GB Gaming OC doesn't have a PCIe power connector...

A long time ago I had four GT240's in the one system (69W TDP each). The GPU's didn't have their own Power connector. The motherboard had an additional power connector (might have been Molex, but some have a 6-pin PCIE connector and or an extra 8-pin power connector),

Look just above the top PCIE slot, and just above the CPU.

The second extra PCIe power connector is actually on the left side of the bottom PCIe slot, the connectors above the CPU is for the CPU :).
10) Message boards : Number crunching : BitCoin Utopia went crazy credit-wise (Message 37182)
Posted 24 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
skgiven wrote:
So, trying to evaluate the worth of BitCoin Utopia by comparing its fundamentally incompatible implementation of the somewhat imaginary, largely meaningless and overwhelmingly pointless credit system against the also imaginary, meaningless and pointless credit system implementations of more genuine research projects truly is an unprecedented exercise in futile hyperbola.

I know, and I agree. But...
I've started this thread because I think that there are many people who choose their hardware for their desired project, and they choose project by the amount of the credit the project awards for their work (because one might think that it's related to the amount of scientific progress they make, and it's quite logical to do it the most cost-efficient way). The amount of the credit awarded was misleading before the BitCoin Utopia boom, but now it's ridiculous on the outrageous level that shocked me: yesterday the 244 active users made 2 billion credits, today 2.44 billion, and I think this should be undone.
The main difference between BitCoin Utopia and the other projects is that the "somewhat imaginary" credits earned on BTC Utopia is in relation to the amount of real world things (i.e. money) they give away (which is a good thing by the way), but in my world BOINC is *not* about making money, therefore I take the mixing of money-mining with volunteer distributed computing as an abuse and as an offense (because of the undue amount of credit awarded).
I know that I'm on the wrong forum...


Next 10