I'll reinstate your R@h account tomorrow.

Error : No such user.

I'll reinstate your R@h account tomorrow.

Aaron,

I agree. It wasn't much warning. It was late and the post was so out of line that my only choice was to delete your account to prevent you from posting again. You are free to share your opinions on the forum but do not post personal information like home phone numbers without permission. We have been deleting a lot of posts due to the recent degradation of threads due to flaming and hostility towards others, etc. I'm sorry you feel like you could not express your opinions.

When you over step the boundaries, you will have your account removed. I don't care if you have 1 million credits or 1 credit. Quite frankly I don't even know how many credits Aaron had and I don't care. I warned him and he reposted. There was no glitch in the system. If anyone posts personal information like a home phone number whether it is public information or not without permission and in bad intent we will delete your account. This type of stuff is way way way out of line particularly in the middle of the night when people are sleeping.

We have your account information backed up and may reinstate you if you show us that you will not be a burden to the project.

edit: If you have any issues with this, please feel free to email me.

We have your account information backed up and may reinstate you if you show us that you will not be a burden to the project.

Aaron may honestly believe that posting public information and calling on thousands of others to act on that information is within his every right... so let's encourage him to post his own phone number here. After all, it's public information that many who read these board would like to have!

This post was also removed and after he repeated it, his account was deleted.

Repeatedly posting is bad especially when you've been told not to, it is rosetta board after all not ours. Though still I don't get the point of the ban, you can just sign back up.
I had also assumed they had implemented the ban feature (since they updated the boards (or was that only here).

No, it's not.

I have my last Ralph WU in my cache, and when that's returned, I'll move my Ralph share to uFluids. So this is goodbye from me.

I don't expect a personal thank you for my contribution from David Baker, let alone a thank you from him on my teamboard.

Goodbye.

A user can fake the [edit: claimed credits, not the internal benchmark] by just editing a file just as a user can fake the numbers of decoys generated. The difference is that we can validate the decoys and catch cheaters. Unless we start encrypting data or use redundancy, the system is not going to be fake proof.

No, it's not.

I have my last Ralph WU in my cache, and when that's returned, I'll move my Ralph share to uFluids. So this is goodbye from me.

I don't expect a personal thank you for my contribution from David Baker, let alone a thank you from him on my teamboard.

Goodbye.

Unless we start encrypting data ... the system is not going to be fake proof.

But to simply make an effort to encrypt the BOINC figures still apparently penalizes Linux, and allows for other means of modifying the BOINC benchmarks...

Since Rosetta is but an application within BOINC... they aren't really in control of some of the code you are suggesting be changed. But encryption for the part they do control, the key portions of the .out file, is certainly possible.

And, as I've expressed before, I believe it would be helpful. Although I'll point out that if you encrypt the whole file, then it adds to the mystic and the cynics which come along from time to time and assert that the whole project is a fraud, or that it is a virus that's stealing your data or whatever. So, just encrypt a tiny portion of the file, so folks can SEE what's being sent and gain further interest and knowledge about the science being done here.

Would that produce the same benchmark regardless of OS?

Let's try to stay focused in this discussion.
We have already incorporated a simple benchmark in rosetta. But since we don't use redundancy people can still be malicious, so we decided not to go that route.

Solution : The Rosetta core application should do it's own benchmarking, and assign encrypted scoring values inside each workunit. BOINC level scoring systems could be bypassed on a per project basis, or per workunit basis even if you wanted to. The validator could be changed to decrypt these values on the fly, and everyone is happy. Although now that I think about it, you don't -have- to give this responsibility to the validator, you could require some background communication from Rosetta core whenever it needs to send in these values. It could send them in to the scheduler if you prefer.

Wow. Good stuff. Where were you for the last 3 months... ?

I know that it must be easier to simply change a few settings with the scoring algorythms, but believe me the current system works, it's merely got a backdoor that needs locking.

That's the problem, how do you lock it? Boinc and Rosetta are seperate things. Rosetta has nothing to due with credit calculation other than returning the time it took to complete the WU. Boinc then takes that, does some math based on your benchmarks (or edited benchmarks), and returns the results to the server. Rosetta has to trust the credit claims since the benchmarking part of Boinc is out of its control.

The only way to close the backdoor is to have a new version of Boinc developed and require everyone upgrade to have their credits counted. . . Or get into the business of determining if each seemingly large score is real or inflated.

This is a great proposal. If such a system gets developed, my vote would be to use it. That doesn't mean we should abandon our current efforts, though.

Fair is completely the right word as I stated it as a goal as in "the goal is to be fair."

Then, bear with me for a moment. I will type a long explanation of what I think would be far superior.

Fair is completely the right word as I stated it as a goal as in "the goal is to be fair."