Issues with my Proposals :(
As @cm-steem points out, there are a few issues with the proposals.
- Previous calculations was based on number of users per project, but has been exploited. It's far to easy to generate new CPIDs on projects to gain more shares.
- Regardless of that, even without accounting for users per project. Including
expavg_timethat I present i my second proposal would mean yet another variable in the chain (cause it has to be stored there for verification) that can be abused.
Teraflops are great... but BOINC isn't shaped for that :)
I can agree that calculating Teraflops in the equation would be very beneficial, but unfortunately isn't BOINC built to do it that way. An entirely new rewards structure within BOINC is required for that. Something that has been proposed within their community for a while though.
At least you are trying @sc-steemit, you cant fault a person for that!
What will be the difficulty of implementing teraflops calculation? It is not necessary changing current BOINC credit system, but just adding a feature for adding teraflops stats.
In case that is implemented, I suggest divide rewards by platform, that way CPU projects wont be excluded.
TFLOPS are not tracked by BOINC directly. Also, a GPU would hopelessly outcompete 100 CPUs of the same generation.
I know TFLOPS are not tracked by BOINC directly, but we may ask developer team to add that feature. Not changing current credit rewards, that may be very controversial, just adding a new stat. If they reject our suggestion, we may fork BOINC client, that would add additional work for Gridcoin developers but not sure how much.
Rewards may be split in two pools, one for projects CPU and GPU capable and other for CPU only projects. It would work pretty much the same as current whitelist project in that facet.
The BOINC community is currently discussing a new credit implementation, so you could get involved there and put the request on the table. Still, I think tracking FLOPS is far too easy to game by the user.
About forking the BOINC client, I am strongly opposed to that. The point of BOINC is that it is a decentralised piece of software independent from GRC, that anyone can use to set up their own research project server, and let people contribute with the client. Having our own client will introduce another variable that differentiates us from the current BOINC community.
For the GPU vs CPU pools, what about projects that allow you to use either? For example, I could run a SETI astropulse job on a CPU for several days, or on a GPU for an hour. Both have contributed the same amount of compute by the end.
Thanks for your explanation.
For projects that allow using both CPU and GPU you could still mine with your CPU but that wont be recommended as reward would be much lower, the same that happens with current system. I think this is good because that encourages efficient use of computing and protects Gridcoin against potential PoW attacks by GPU miners.
i share the opinion that tracking flops is not the direction we should turn to. This would turn the balance that we are now having completely upside down, things like crunching with a raspi or so ( even now this is not making any revenue :) ) would then be completely off the table. We would then be in the GPU "mining" corner just like every other POW coin (except them with asics which is even worse :) )
For sure a reward mechanism should reward the actual work that has been done on WUs, the variability and flexibiltiy of all the BOINC sytem is what makes it very complicated to find a easy solution. Thanks alot @sc-steemit for bringing up this discussion