Snip
If something nefarious is suspected here, no, results get removed no later than about 12 hours after a quorum has been reached and the canonical copy has been migrated into the master database. 12 hours is the duration of a statistics cycle, meaning at 12:06 and 00:06 UTC you can still scrape copies [or xml export] the past 12 hours results that make up the statistics for the 12 hour cycle (in 99.999999% of the cases). Soon after this is likely not possible as the Result Status data is a direct view of a live system, a continuous coming of new and going of old.

Do some projects "inflate" credit granted? Yes. Believe it or not, Bitcoin isn't one of them, at least per the "rules". A Cobblestone (BOINC credit measurement factor) is a synthetic value based on both the number of floating point operations executed and the number of integer operations executed. And THOSE values are based on a CPU benchmark value that varies based on OS, available CPU instructions, compiler settings, other programs running, phase of the moon... It was created before the advent of GPU computing and WAY before the advent of ASIC computing. It is realistically no longer (if it ever was) an accurate way of calculating your contribution, EXCEPT within ONE project. (Actually, probably one APPLICATION within one project...)

Einstein gives more credit-per-hour (on a given CPU, haven't looked at GPU comparisons) than SETI. Is Einstein inflated? See my posts on the SETI and Einstein boards from 2005 (yes, this argument has been running for 10 years...) and you'll find there is no definitive answer to the question. One uses more floating point than the other, which is more integer-based.

I am new to WCG this month, but have been on BOINC since the beginning. I started running Bitcoin recently also, because I had some idle mining ASICs, and quickly took most of them off BOINC (leaving one that I manually trickle work to) because it messed up MY method of keeping track of my stats. (Having Bitcoin being 80% of my credit 2 days after attaching...) I don't completely "grok" WCG credits vs. other projects yet, but don't much care. A much more useful statistic to ME is World Position within the project, if I'm looking at standings at all. Am I in the top "x"%? No? Up the resource share for that project. I gave up on comparing projects based on "credits" many years ago.

Not to say that I don't want as many of the annoying little things as I can get! :-)

And you and a few others have been. One was insulting, another suggested to pull out the popcorn because there is going to be a street fight and another lied straight out about no one caring about the points given.



Still, we are donating hundreds to thousands of dollars of electricity, time and equipment to these projects. The profits the pharmaceuticals make are HUGE and there are life changing medicines not getting to people that need them. Then we have psychopaths come in and do this!
But that's not really why I started this thread. It's just about the discrepancy between BOINC credit and WCG points, which I didn't understand the difference of nor why my results reflected BOINC, were there for 10 days and then suddenly disappeared.



Thanks for the explanation. I was relying on this projects result reports to create a spreadsheet to guide my computers' donation resource levels. BOINCstats are meaningless for that endeavor.



Yep, I don't compare cross-project RAC to decide where to put research effort. There are better measurement systems.


My initial post was not aggressive. I didn't take an aggressive stance till the Texan took a cheap shot at me. Feel free to castigate that poster for their aggression also.
It was also very irritating to have someone tell me that no one cares about the credit. That is patently untrue and when someone lies it can be very offensive.

Hello Friends,

Speaking of forum rules, here they are.

Please everyone do their part to be helpful, respectful, and keep the forums a friendly place for the members.

Many, many thanks!
ErikaT