At 12:08 AM 1/28/03 +0200, Nuutti Kuosa wrote:

Hmm.  Your name seems oddly familiar.  ;)

1. Punishment (capital punishment?) and making poaching hard to do.
2. trying to understand causes behind poaching and then change the server
software more milestone friendly. I think that we are like to reach
milestones.

I personally refer option 2.
I concur. Honey, vinegar and all that. But I still bet there will be some who just don't give a damn, and regardless of how far up we move the trailing edge through improving procedures, it won't be fast enough for them. I used to work expiries in the doublechecks, and I learned that helping to move the trailing edge forward faster just exposed more slower machines to poachers.

I like when we reach milestones and here are few things I would like to
change :
1. Why one size fits to all? 60 days expiry time to all task is not a good
idea.
Smaller tasks should have lower one. Like 30 days.
2. I would like to assign bottom 5 % of double check assignments to trusted
searches (who have shown that they return their jobs fast and reliably.
3. When George release small exponents to triple check then these should
assigned to trusted searches.
4. very slow computers should concentrate to trial factoring.
5. maximum time limit to bottom 5% double checks (like 6 months)
The reality is that given the amount of CPU time wasted by poachers through duplication of work, we would be reaching milestones faster if they were just doing legitimate assignments. A poacher helps reach milestone X a little faster at the expense of it taking longer to reach milestone X+1 because the poachers could have eliminated some exponents between X and X+1 instead, which would help reach milestone X+1 faster. Not to mention the loss of contribution by those who quit because they're disgusted with poachers and the project doesn't seem to be able to stop them.

_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers

Reply via email to