1) Message boards : Number crunching : Test application for CPU MD (Message 37466)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
V8.45 is Windows only at the moment.
You don't have to do anything, the new version is automatically donwloaded, when it becomes available for your OS.
You can check it on the applications page.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : BitCoin Utopia went crazy credit-wise (Message 37463)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
Is there any authority who can audit their credit policy? Do they think that they need to reduce their credits?

There have been people who have called for a Credit Reduction but they get shot down pretty quickly. The Admin of BU has also stated that he will not Reduce the Credits either, about the only way they get Reduced now a little is the difficulty increases every 2 weeks. Larger difficulty = slower mining = slightly less Credit's.

That is BU gives credit for bitcoins, not for crunching.
It's like if rosetta@home would give credits only for those who find the lowest energy protein configuration (ok, it's a bit of excess).

There have been several of us bumping against the 1 Billion Per Day Wall, several (not me) will start going over it today & some more in a few day's ... Really Ridiculous, it's like an Arm's Race, so & so got this Miner so they use that as an excuse that they have to keep up & get 2 more of them them selve's, then the other guy gets 2 more himself & so on. I'm seriously thinking about putting my ASIC's up for sale on E-bay & just go back to crunching CPU work which I enjoy much more than this Arm's Race going on now ...

This confirms that if someone is addicted to credits, he/she will sell his/hers non-ASIC (also expensive) crunching hardware to buy ASICs, which is quite logical decision. On the other hand, it will decrease the GPU/CPU crunching power of all projects. I think it will hurt the already known credit-factory projects like Collatz Conjecture, Milkyway@home & PrimeGrid, and probably the others too.
Let's check the charts to see if there's any correlation:

BitCoin Utopia: 182000% gain

Collatz Conjecture: 43% loss

MilkyWay@home: ~20% loss

PrimeGrid: ~12% loss

World Community Grid: ~5% loss

GPUGrid: ~10-18% loss

Again: this is only the beginning. The credit factory projects will loose more (up to 90% I think) than the other projects. If not selling all their crunching hardware (as it is also good for gaming), it's not worth to crunch on them, because it's very expensive to do compared to the ASICs.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : BitCoin Utopia went crazy credit-wise (Message 37455)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
I'm sure many credits seeker out there [going to] sell all of their distr/collaz gpus to get a tons of BU ascis.

That is quite plausible course of action. That will hurt the other projects pretty soon.
I haven't thought of that, maybe because the primary reason for me to crunch is to aid science, not to collect credits.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : BitCoin Utopia went crazy credit-wise (Message 37449)
Posted 3 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*

Another 2.68% rise in BU's share of the total credits awarded. This small rise in the percentage means that BU awarded a little over 10 times more credits than all other projects combined. BU has 352 active users today, they have 207 more users since this started (19 June 2014), which is ~50% rise (5.3 new users per day regarding this period), so this is only the beginning. How will this chart look like, when there will be 10000 active BU users? By looking at the present chart I'm sure they will allure that many users by the end of this year. I think that BU will completely overtake the credit pie above. Is there any authority who can audit their credit policy? Do they think that they need to reduce their credits?
5) Message boards : Number crunching : BitCoin Utopia went crazy credit-wise (Message 37431)
Posted 4 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
I was happy just using my CPU's to run worth while Projects, but I'm not going to sit by, complain & watch other's run me over in a few weeks what took me over 12 Years to attain.

That's what I call a bad message for the old crunchers.


Sorry for I wasn't clear. Not your reaction is the bad message, but the fact that the impact of this project on science is way below its impact on the balance of the credits (while the impact of the GPUs in scientific use is nearly in direct ratio of credit difference between GPUs and CPUs). I think BU's impact on the BOINC community (science - if you like) could be even adverse in the long term, despite the profitability in the short term if they keep on awarding this amount of credits (that is the present projects cannot substitute the crunchers they will possibly loose in the future from the funding they receive in the present - there is only one such project at the moment).
However ASICs' impact on science could be as big as the GPUs impact if they'd be used directly for research. I think that the algorithm Collatz and DistRTG is using can be put more easily on ASICs, than GPUGrid's or MilkyWay's or PrimeGrid's. Furthermore I think that an advanced ASIC could do the same reverse engineering as rainbow tables are used for, making the whole DirstRTgen project obsolete. Still, in my opinion, they won't have such a device, as there's no one who would finance its development. The only reason for the existence of the BitCoin miner ASICs is that their development was financed by the present use of them.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : BitCoin Utopia went crazy credit-wise (Message 37414)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
I'm not really happy about the Bitcoin Project myself & the amount of Credit they give out, I've even expressed that in my Teams Forum.

It's quite comforting that I'm not the only one.

I was happy just using my CPU's to run worth while Projects, but I'm not going to sit by, complain & watch other's run me over in a few weeks what took me over 12 Years to attain.

That's what I call a bad message for the old crunchers.

I'd rather get on Board with the ASIC's & lead rather than follow much like I did when the GPU's 1'st came out ... ;)

That is a quite logical move from your side, and quite predictable from BU's side.

While the credit awarded by BU is only 1.57% bigger on today's chart than on the previous one I've posted, still this means that BU has awarded 7.5 times more credit today than the other projects together (the previous ratio was 6.5). This ratio is steadily growing, as more and more crunchers attracted like you. This undue amount of the awarded credits by BU, and the predictable actions it has called forth reminds me the way politicians manipulate people to provoke the action they wanted to achieve (however it was the same when GPU crunching became available).
This story is different though, as high-end GPUs are usually more expensive to buy and to run than CPUs, but these ASICs are very cheap to buy and to run yet they earn astronomical amount of credits.
In the short term the other projects won't suffer significant loss of crunchers, as these ASICs won't take the place of CPUs and GPUs. However in the long term it will make significantly harder for the old projects to attract new crunchers, when someone could make 100 times more credits with much cheaper hardware.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Problem - Tasks error when exiting/resuming using 334.67 drivers (Message 37395)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
I've noticed that GPUGrid tasks fail with the "file exists" error when I'm restarting my PC immediately after a restart. I thought that I should wait for the workunits made their first checkpoint to avoid this error, but I didn't thought that it's a protective algorithm.
Two (or more) fast system restart is needed (for me) when the USB controllers on my motherboard became unusable in Windows XP after a Windows 7 session on that PC, and I have to physically switch off the power from the PC to fix it. Fast system restart(s) is also needed when updating different drivers / software in succession, or when fixing other hardware related problems (for example: I have a PCIe ethernet controller card in this motherboard. At some point the ethernet card has disappeared from device manager, so there was no network connectivity on this PC which is crucial. I had to restart the PC several times, and make changes in the BIOS to fix it)
So this problem can be solved by making this protective algorithm complete: it should delete the canary file during a graceful shutdown.
EDIT: an additional safety algorithm could be this: the workunit should abort itself when it's progressing very slowly (for example: if it couldn't finish in 5 days)
8) Message boards : Number crunching : BitCoin Utopia went crazy credit-wise (Message 37379)
Posted 7 days 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.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : BitCoin Utopia went crazy credit-wise (Message 37313)
Posted 11 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.
10) Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Comparison of two GTX 660s (Message 37305)
Posted 12 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.

Next 10