1 Billion credit per day. That's 42.3% of the combined CPD, and it's rising exponentially. Even Collatz Conjecture wasn't that crazy.

The large bulk of the credits are from SETI.USA. They appear to be using USB BitCoin miners that do nothing else but just crunch a algorithm. Unlike GPU and CPU that perform other functions within a computer, these things are devoted to just one simple function. From what I have been able to gather from a BitCoin miner who is in the Information Technology field, these BitCoin miners are very powerful since all they can do is crunch a algorithm to unlock the key to block of BitCoins. This project claims to donate the generated BitCoins to specific charities mentioned on their site, less 15% for their efforts.

One particular cruncher, STE\/E [BlackOps], should reach as of the day of this posting a billion total credits today or tomorrow and as of this writing he generated 265 million points for today. Very impressive.

I've noticed that BOINC's overall 'computing power' (as shown on the home page) went up from 10.030 PetaFLOPS on Tuesday morning to 12.306 PetaFLOPS this (Friday) morning, and is currently displayed as 15.667 PetaFLOPS.

Those USB sticks must be heap powerful juju. Can we make some that work here?

From what I have been able to gather from a BitCoin miner who is in the Information Technology field, these BitCoin miners are very powerful since all they can do is crunch a algorithm to unlock the key to block of BitCoins.

I've noticed that BOINC's overall 'computing power' (as shown on the home page) went up from 10.030 PetaFLOPS on Tuesday morning to 12.306 PetaFLOPS this (Friday) morning, and is currently displayed as 15.667 PetaFLOPS.

Those USB sticks must be heap powerful juju. Can we make some that work here?

This project claims to donate the generated BitCoins to specific charities mentioned on their site, less 15% for their efforts

One particular cruncher, STE\/E [BlackOps], should reach as of the day of this posting a billion total credits today or tomorrow and as of this writing he generated 265 million points for today. Very impressive.

One particular cruncher, STE\/E [BlackOps], should reach as of the day of this posting a billion total credits today or tomorrow and as of this writing he generated 265 million points for today. Very impressive.

It is, but not the way I like to be impressed.

My post should also be read as sarcasm, especially the bit about the USB sticks.

I use Bitcoinminers too with summary 4,6Ghash, but i would never get the idea to cheat my Credits on BOINC with that O.o

And yes, these Miners can only! do that. My 4,6Ghash need only 16Watt but has the power of 6*HD7970 Cards bitcoinwise.
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

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.

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...

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...

That's exactly what we did in the past with Donate@Home.
But now it's not feasible anymore to crunch bitcoins with GPUs. Mostly with ASICS as people said.

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).

It is expected that more powerful ASIC computational power will emerge to solve the increasingly complex and computational demanding algorithm that generates or "unlocks" newly issued bitcoins. Each bitcoin series/type (I will never call them “currencies” as they are not issued by any sovereign government. Others may feel differently) is designed to issue a finite amount of bitcoins over its computational life. As time goes by, few and few bitcoins should be issued from each individual type/series as the computational demands keeps increasing. The universe or series/types of individually issued bitcoins may increase. It is for this reason why GPU's are now deemed to be poor bitcoin miners and more powerful ASIC equipment to be more desirable to solve/mine that ever increasing single algorithm that unlocks additional bitcoins. These basic premises (finite bitcoin issuance spread out over a long time) should help the individual bitcoin series/type to retain its intrinsic value and not devalue itself. Some would argue (not me) that is what makes bitcoins valuable as no government can inflate the bitcoin and debase its stored value, unlike various world governments that hyper-inflate their currency and debase their currencies intrinsic store value.

For your reference, here is a chart of the various series/types of bitcoins currently available:
https://bitcoincharts.com/markets/

*sign* sad how all these guys can pass my combined 800M in some days -_- its hard to restist not to follow them and abuse my asics for not getting behind...be strong...be strong! o.O
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

Sorry about your Dog. It hurts to lose a family friend/child.

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).

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).

The key I think is that once you buy an asic machine you can then donate forever, if you donate cash it is more a one time thing. I can justify a one time expense, and then itty bitty electricity costs over the long term, but justifying a donation periodically seems like more money going out.

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.

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?

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!".

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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 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.

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

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

MJH,
Why not resurrect Donate@home, and allow us to use our ASIC miners to find cash for gpugrid like we use to with our GPU's? Right now all my miners are crunching for milkyway@home via Bitcoin Utopia, but I'd love to switch some over to you. BTW Bitcoin Utopia has wu's for: ASIC miners only, cpu only, AND GPU only. if they think it's worthwhile, maybe you should reconsider. Just a thought.
Regards,
Col. Rick A. Sponholz
____________

Wow the 24 h credit amount chart above looks crazy O.o
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

I'd also question the efficiency of the fundraising. According to the graphs for Campaign #1 (Aquaponics) and Campaign #2 (HopeGames), they have raised about $(US)1,500 and $300 respectively. That sounds considerably less than the participants are likely to have spent purchasing ASICs, and very little money raised in the grand scheme of things, for a lot of effort.

The rate of donations is gathering pace, so maybe Milkyway's target of $20,000 is achievable - but it looks like hard work at this stage.

For me the think i hate it the combined 'douchebag' credit system. It mean nothing. Badge was not a bad idea.

I'd also question the efficiency of the fundraising. According to the graphs for Campaign #1 (Aquaponics) and Campaign #2 (HopeGames), they have raised about $(US)1,500 and $300 respectively. That sounds considerably less than the participants are likely to have spent purchasing ASICs, and very little money raised in the grand scheme of things, for a lot of effort.

The rate of donations is gathering pace, so maybe Milkyway's target of $20,000 is achievable - but it looks like hard work at this stage.

Bitcoin only is profitable when you sell permanent your miners and buy new fastest ones. The more the better, a single usb hub should have a absolut minimum of 30ghash+. But there a much bigger minerbackplanes, they are better. So its a lot of work ;)
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

Bitcoin only is profitable when you sell permanent your miners and buy new fastest ones. The more the better, a single usb hub should have a absolut minimum of 30ghash+. But there a much bigger minerbackplanes, they are better. So its a lot of work ;)

Bitcoin only is profitable when you sell permanent your miners and buy new fastest ones. The more the better, a single usb hub should have a absolut minimum of 30ghash+. But there a much bigger minerbackplanes, they are better. So its a lot of work ;)

The more I read about this, the more it worries me. I added the emphasis on 'buy': presumably, the best profits of all are available to pre-release testers and those closest to the centre of the development and manufacturing chain. By the time new hardware has passed through manufacturing and out into retail, the 'early adopter' margin has already been lost. And if you sell the used hardware because it no longer gives you that margin, what value does it have to the second user?

While I don't know enough about the subject to cast doubt on the integrity of the original concept of crypto-currency, the current implementation seems to have more in common with a Ponzi scheme or South Sea Bubble.

There are bars, restaurants, real estate brokers, Newegg.com and lots of other places now taking bitcoins as payment for their services. I don't think they currently think it is a Ponzi scheme or South Sea Bubble, but of course they could be wrong.

This discussion and the concept of Bitcoin itself is meaningless.. Bitcoin reads "fraud, thieves, you will lose your money!" all over it.

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

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.

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?

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

Vagelis, well I don't personally use physical money so much anymore, mostly my credit card. My money are mostly numbers in a bankaccount (too small numbers sadly) :) My bankaccount is in turn governed by greedy bank bosses :)

And banks can also go bankrupt ;)

Ryle, you couldn't possibly be more off the mark!

What is insubstantial in what you do is the exchanges, not the money itself. When you make an electronic money exchange, it's like saying "give me this product / service and I will have your money waiting for you in the bank". In fact, the electronic exchange is MUCH more secure than that!

The exchange / transaction is "in numbers", but the money being exchanged is very, VERY real! When you go to the bank or the cash machine, you will find it is VERY real cash you can get in your hands.

On the other hand, when you get some Bitcoin in exchange for something, do you trust you can go somewhere (really, where? Do you trust "that site" will exist tomorrow?) and pick cash? Are you certain?

This is the (BIG) difference.
____________

Any form of money / currency is only as good as the entity that is behind it and vouches for it. Since the invention of the concept of currency, there has been a sovereign entity behind each currency.

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..

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

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

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.

Where is that entity behind Bitcoin?

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!

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.

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?

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

MJH,
Why not resurrect Donate@home, and allow us to use our ASIC miners to find cash for gpugrid like we use to with our GPU's? Right now all my miners are crunching for milkyway@home via Bitcoin Utopia, but I'd love to switch some over to you. BTW Bitcoin Utopia has wu's for: ASIC miners only, cpu only, AND GPU only. if they think it's worthwhile, maybe you should reconsider. Just a thought.
Regards,
Col. Rick A. Sponholz

Rick,

Donate@Home was a success for us because we had access to a lot of (AMD) GPU that we weren't using for anything else, at a time before ASICs when it was still possible mine Bitcoins usiing normal hardware.

We saw the effect of the introduction of ASICs almost immediately (indeed long before most of the customers actually received theirs, why that was is left as an exercise for the reader) and our return dropped to almost nothing very quickly.

Shortly after that happened we stopped the project as the human effort to run it couldn't be justified in the absence of any return. We're still accepting Bitcoin donations via direct transfer however.

I understand that some of you have ASICs now but, frankly, I doubt there'll be enough to make a worthwhile mining pool. Happy to be proven wrong, but I'd need to make a straw poll of crunchers to see.

Right now, however, if you do have ASIC mining hardware and want to generate Bitcoins for GPUGRID, firstly: thank you! and secondly: the best I can suggest is you subscribe to one of the large mining pools and reap a share of their activity, then xfer that to us.

Cheers,

Matt

Thats rediculess! Past by a user with a 232M Today BitCoin Utopia.. Lost place on place on the Worldlist. My no so far away finish to 99,99% is surely over now and never reachable, that sucks :(
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

...I understand that some of you have ASICs now but, frankly, I doubt there'll be enough to make a worthwhile mining pool. Happy to be proven wrong, but I'd need to make a straw poll of crunchers to see.

If you resurrect Donate@home with ASIC computing capabilities similar to what BU has done...we will come

If you resurrect Donate@home with ASIC computing capabilities similar to what BU has done...we will come

Right, I would be 1 of the 1'st to throw my ASIC's on the GPU Grid Project which I consider to be a much more worthy Project than Bitcoin Utopia, but for now I'll run BitCoin so I don't get Stampeded by the Credit Seekers.

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. 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. 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 ... ;)

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.

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.

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 ... ;)

Rick,

Donate@Home was a success for us because we had access to a lot of (AMD) GPU that we weren't using for anything else, at a time before ASICs when it was still possible mine Bitcoins usiing normal hardware.

We saw the effect of the introduction of ASICs almost immediately (indeed long before most of the customers actually received theirs, why that was is left as an exercise for the reader) and our return dropped to almost nothing very quickly.

Shortly after that happened we stopped the project as the human effort to run it couldn't be justified in the absence of any return. We're still accepting Bitcoin donations via direct transfer however.

I understand that some of you have ASICs now but, frankly, I doubt there'll be enough to make a worthwhile mining pool. Happy to be proven wrong, but I'd need to make a straw poll of crunchers to see.

Right now, however, if you do have ASIC mining hardware and want to generate Bitcoins for GPUGRID, firstly: thank you! and secondly: the best I can suggest is you subscribe to one of the large mining pools and reap a share of their activity, then xfer that to us.

Cheers,

Matt

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 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 thought exactly the same thing...WHAT? People said EXACTLY the same thing when gpu's came out and people started wiping the floor of the stats of people who had used only cpu's for YEARS!! Every new technology gives a bump up in both the ability to do it faster and getting more credits for it.

The solution? Don't compare stats crossproject. It's that simple.

Like mikey said, it only makes sense to compare stats within each project, even if we didn't have those ASICs and only CPUS vs GPUs. It has never been fair in BOINC, since some people can afford more PCs than others and so be it. That's just how that is.

That aside, it IS pretty insane to achieve 1/2 billion points in one day, which takes several years even on GPUs.

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 entirely agree with Retvari Zoltan* and skgiven, however the one point I have trouble understanding is I always thought BOINC was not supposed to be for a commercial enterprise/platform especially since BOINC has received funding from the United States National Science Foundation (NSF), yet BU clearly states on the front WEB page, first sentence "Bitcoin Utopia is a commercial platform... . What am I missing?

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?

Is there any authority who can audit their credit policy? Do they think that they need to reduce their credits?

How happy and proud i was with the fact i will join an exclusive club by getting my first billion credits this Year with science only! Thats more then much who crunch nonsense distrgen and so on. Now every noob can get a billion in some days. Thats a hard kick in my ass even when i dont crunch for credits, but it was something parallel to the publications i was proud of and calculated on boinc and not folding :(

Like another mentioned, over 1M with a 330M usb stick. Lol so i could get additional >20M/day only change the asics to boinc. When this would work out, i would get a second hub with some asic monster only to reach 100M per day because this would make adicted because it is sooo unbelievable cheap to buy and to run them.....im sure much credits seeker out ther sell all of there distr/collaz gpus to get a tons of BU ascis.

1,5kw energy for my 1,4M per day against 2,5watt for a single low end asic. I have no problem with the fact it supports projects, thats a really good thing and idea, but not with this amount of credits. Im so shocked about the chart, soon it will destroy that pie before the year end because there are enough people out there like me who didnt get it to work immediatly on the first try (only wanted to look how much some rare workunits would bring to get a calculation about the possible amount per ghash per day) so they will join later.
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

There is something I probably don't understand about the whole thing. If I were able to build up an ASIC miner farm that will be profitable over the time I would surely do this and start earning some (real) money. Having some more money to spend I'd presumably use it to go on vacation, make presents, buy a sport car etc. I would also give a percentage to people who really need money (there is plenty around the world). There are also scientific projects that I find interesting and (for a variety of reasons) are not able to get funds the 'usual' way.

On the other hand, if I decide to put all the ASIC miners into Bitcoin Utopia I get:
- A lost of 12% of the money just because of 'system handling'
- A very limited set of projects that I may choose for funding
- No tax deductions

So, where's the deal? Getting boinc credits?

How happy and proud i was with the fact i will join an exclusive club by getting my first billion credits this Year with science only! Thats more then much who crunch nonsense distrgen and so on. Now every noob can get a billion in some days. Thats a hard kick in my ass even when i dont crunch for credits, but it was something parallel to the publications i was proud of and calculated on boinc and not folding :(

I'm sure many credits seeker out there [going to] sell all of their distr/collaz gpus to get a tons of BU ascis.

There is something I probably don't understand about the whole thing. If I were able to build up an ASIC miner farm that will be profitable over the time I would surely do this and start earning some (real) money. Having some more money to spend I'd presumably use it to go on vacation, make presents, buy a sport car etc. I would also give a percentage to people who really need money (there is plenty around the world). There are also scientific projects that I find interesting and (for a variety of reasons) are not able to get funds the 'usual' way.

On the other hand, if I decide to put all the ASIC miners into Bitcoin Utopia I get:
- A lost of 12% of the money just because of 'system handling'
- A very limited set of projects that I may choose for funding
- No tax deductions

So, where's the deal? Getting boinc credits?

Valterc: It is not possible to do anything else with ascis then bitcoin mining at all, thats why they are so cheap, and limited architecture to need low power and running really fast FOR BITCOIN MINING. When mining dies, ascis die too, some serious seller tell you that when buying some. They are NOT The GPU Generation 2 (power and functionalwise). So its not possible to say, asics are that what gpu was "after" cpu. And the difficulty raises, and? The power of the asics are raising too...thats how bitcoin works, so it will not drop creditwise dramatical. Thats my theory. So i can live with collaz/distr/primeguys until today, the projects are not so crazy like they was some years ago so its ok, but BU...schlägt dem fass den boden aus, in good old german ;) even when they instant reduce the credits by 100times for the future work as example, the maindamage is done. And every single day makes it look more crazy. The only way in my opinion is to exclude this project from boinc combined only, so user can still competitive within the projectstats but not with the rest of boinc projects.
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

I have no Problem with them taking BitCoin Utopia from the Combined Stat's, just as long as they do away with Combined Stat's altogether & let each Project stand on it's own. The BitCoin Project was / is allowed to be a BOINC Project so you Can Not Exclude it from the overall / combined Stat's.

To do so would be Highly Hypocritical is so much as the Stat's from all Previous Excessive BOINC Project's are allowed to be Combined with the Much Lower paying Project's
____________
STE\/E

I have no problem of project bitcoin @ Utopia
It's exactly the same situation as though some projects, scientists have developed an application for GPU performance and rac degrees from the cpu counting hundredfold.'s Happened years ago and also around that they were fierce debate.


Taking just the principle of science and scientific progress, we should support the counting on other future architecture-as it is now, for example, ASIC and others ..

When some people may benefit from a clusters in schools, universities or other public or private places only for your personal account for boinc .. or competition as BOINC Pentathlon or other competitions which runs constantly on various projects .. so if you're the Super Administrator at the University it's nice for your team ... and they do not make it legally .. their only excuse is-that it is good for the boinc project .. loool

ASIC is a challenge for scientists and programmers in BOINC projects as take advantage of this awesome efficiency.

STEVE- rac your credit or anyone else can not be deleted or moved to another statistics!

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.

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 ...

Another way to look at it is from the point of view of those among us who are competitive and do care about credits as a reward for investment in a project. I have nearly always had at least 1 GPU on GPUGrid for the science ( except for periods when the units just keep crashing my system ). I am the number 1 in my taem on the project and the only one with a constant presence.
At the same time I ran Collatz etc to bolster my credit. Being able to run my ASICs for the benefit of Milkyway after they lost their funding was why I put them on Bitcoin Utopia. The credit from BU sated my competitiveness, so 5 more nVidea GPU's were transferred to GPUGrid. My AMD's are now all on Milkyway and Einstein.
Prior to BU I was already in the top 300 users for Boinc as are most of the current crunchers on BU, so not exactly the noobs suddenly turning up and passing you all by. Most of the users you are talking about are credit orientated anyway and have bought equipment to further those aims.
After following this thread and the hysteria and venom at a project not toeing the official boinc credit line , do you want to guess whether my 6 nVidea cards are staying here or going back to Collatz ?

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.

Retvari: mhm milkyway isnt giving you that much credits anymore since a longer time. I get way! lower credits ( max 200k on a good day) there for a fully loaded OC 7950hd witch is compareable with a minimum of 300k nvidia card on gpugrid ;) yesyes i now dp/Sp opencl cuda blabla ;) i know but only as general ;) wish i could use it on a medical project again, but poem has soooo low ati workunits counts, never got one while trying one hour -_-
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

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.

Money is not the reason of evil, it is its product. If there should be no money anymore, there will be another evil. We (people) will surely take care of that! Like always in human history. It's all about people, our nature.

BTW, my RAC at vLHC@Home is ~2500, which is a really good score (15. place) :-D And I believe it's a good and useful thing. Not like those empty numbers at BU, or some other projects, that just waste power.

Lets get back on topic about BU and away from monetary theory.

While the GPU and CPU debate is well known and discussed, both processes produce a valid research result for their project. We can discuss the projects validity in another thread or privately. The meaningful query here is that BU does not generate a valid research result, it helps solves a algorithm to release bitcoins. The actual purpose of that algorithm being processed does what again? When the algorithm is completed or at some other point during its computational life does the algorithm generate a result/answer that finds the meaning of life and the pursuit of happiness? A cure for cancer, ebola and the common cold? Does someone on this planet know the answer?

What is the purpose or meaning of the algorithm other than releasing bitcoins?? Why was BU allowed to use the BOINC platform for their purpose?

Why was BU allowed to use the BOINC platform for their purpose?

You are comparing the move from Scientific Research on CPU's to Scientific Research on GPU's+CPU's, with the move from Scientific Research on CPU's and GPU's to mining (not scientific research) on ASICS.
GPU's and CPU's are otherwise useful while ASIC's are not, and can't even perform scientific research.
GPUGrid went from PS3 crunching to GPU crunching.
Projects such as MW and WCG run/ran both CPU and GPU projects simultaneously. In the case of WCG when they released OpenCL GPU tasks many people attached their GPU's to that project and shifted their CPU's to other WCG projects.

While BU might have attracted a few ASIC miners to Boinc, on the whole I think BU is not attracting new crunchers but is attracting existing GPU and CPU crunchers who are not only moving to BU because of the credit but are abandoning/reducing their GPU and CPU input for other projects, and 'investing' in ASICS purely for Boinc credits.
Further, any ASIC miners who are attracted to Boinc will soon realise the relatively poor credit from GPU's and CPU's especially, and probably won't do a lot of scientific crunching.

So how many CPU only Projects were Hurt when the GPU Work started to Flow, I read countless Post's in some Forum's that they were turning off their CPU's & running GPU Work only.

You are comparing the move from Scientific Research on CPU's to Scientific Research on GPU's+CPU's, with the move from Scientific Research on CPU's and GPU's to mining (not scientific research) on ASICS.
GPU's and CPU's are otherwise useful while ASIC's are not, and can't even perform scientific research.

One of the things this thread has shed (plenty of) light on is a hidden motive of some high-level crunchers for crunching for GPUGRID (or perhaps more generally for GPU crunching):

Big bucks (sorry credits)!

I keep reading posts about how altruistic people are and how they go off buying expensive kit to crunch for science.. and then they go off whining about how unfairly BU gives tons of credit in a day, that they have taken years to get!

I don't understand, aren't you doing it for the science??

If you are really doing what you do for the science of the thing, why whine so much about the credits?? Ignore them! At least, ignore non-GPUGRID credits! They won't be affected by BU or any other nonsense we-re-here-to-help-the-children(-and-make-a-buck-ourselves) type of project!

If you primarily care about your position in the combined world Boinc charts though...

perhaps Dagorath was right.
____________

Complains to BU reminds me complaining multimillionaire to billionaire..

I will explain------

User under the nick-name-bcavnaugh in the project -theskynetPogs
Must use this enormous and expensive hardware for credit F*** ONLY RAC 250 000 approx...

4P 64 Core AMD Rig GTX 650Ti
2P 32 Core AMD Rig GTX 660Ti
Intel i7-4960X 3 GTX Titans
Intel i7-3970X 3 GTX 780
Intel i7-3970X 3 GTX 690
Intel i7-3770K 3 GTX 680 Classified
Intel i7-3930K 2 AMD R9 290X

ONLY ON CPU!!!! skynetpogs is one of the most effective projects for the cpu only!!! Others boinc cpu projects are less efficiently programmed.

How expensive graphics cards YOU need to rac 250,000 to GPUGrid ?? 100-200 EU from secon hand....loooool

Nobody here did not complain that this user has to spend so much resources on 250,000 rac but to complain when someone have million more per day, while ASIC machine set to count without errors is hard to..more hard than just instal boinc manager and run..


So this pitiful screeches and cries from some users here as to the shape of rac does not matter to them ..Now it turned out that they are dependent only on rac..lol..

You are completely laughable when you complained to the project BU...

I only hope that the leader and pioneer BOINC projects ,SETI elaborate the beta application for ASIC and other effective machines..

takk

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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. :/

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. :/

What i think about Bitcoin Utopia...