| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: Suggestions / Feedback
Thread: The Claims 'fArce Majeure'! |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 36
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
PS Suguruhirahara, complements on your English.....re-reading Graham Greene's 'The Human Factor' at the moment....in the original, the only way to appreciate foreign language books...too much lost in translation ;>) I'm sorry, but I can't understand what you intended to say. I'm so sorry if my English is too bad. regards ps. you're intoduced on the BOINC Synergy team's board. (http://www.boincsynergy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7496) Welcome!! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Aug 11, 2006 1:43:20 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Thanks very much for your replying.
----------------------------------------I think Truxoft does not cheat if you set it up the way the author intends. I made a mistake in the config file (truxoft_prefs.xml) when I setup Truxoft and that caused it to claim too much credit. I think WCG will always treat the results from Truxoft clent the same as any other client. If so, isn't it unfair for users of truxoft if their credits claimed are regarded by man/detectort as bogus just because it claims higher credits than original clients? It seems better that WCG would separate the results sent from the original client from those sent from the truxoft's client, since (as Dagorath said,) they aren't cheated. edit: because, unlike other optimised clients, the truxoft's client is introduced on the BOINC official page, maybe it's not what tempts us to cheat. What I have on my mind yet is that the introduction page of truxoft mentions no projects except SETI@home. I'm not sure whether the developer made this software for only that project or not. Thanks for reading. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Aug 11, 2006 5:34:44 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
If so, isn't it unfair for users of truxoft if their credits claimed are regarded by man/detectort as bogus just because it claims higher credits than original clients? If you accept that the claim from the original BOINC is correct then any higher claim is bogus. It seems better that WCG would separate the results sent from the original client from those sent from the truxoft's client, since (as Dagorath said,) they aren't cheated. I said that I think they are not cheated. I may be wrong. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Aug 11, 2006 9:47:31 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I'm testing the truxoft client for WUs.
Here is the result which I got. (Calibration was ON.) http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ms/device/v...orLog.do?resultId=4829830 And the status of this WU. http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ms/device/v...tus.do?workunitId=1210530 The client claimed 101 credits. Usually the original client on my computer claims around 70, therefore, the amount of creidits claimed increased around 30%. This can be an accident, so I'm going to keep evaluating for a moment. Thanks for reading, suguruhirahara |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Suguruhirahara, we believe you.....we're not allowed to see each other details thru a link....you have to past the screenprint in the post. 'Truxoft' is, except for the specific project it was designed for, a hoaxial claims generator that has not been updated from quite some time...out of step with the 'officious' BOINC version now at 5.5.11.
----------------------------------------Warranty Please note that the software is offered as is, with no warranty at all. Use on your own risk! Since I compiled the source code of the developer version (not the public release), it is very likely that the client can contain some bugs. Do not forget to make backup before you install the software. Think this bit is pretty self-explanatory.....sfar as i'm concerned, block this client, whatever good intend some of the users have/had. The goal of the feature is that the client claims fair credits for the work done. Normally, the SETI@Home reference WU, when calculated by a reference machines should result in credit of 32.32 cobblestones. Approximately the same credit should be granted for any full-length WU. Unfortunately, due to the optimized S@H applications, performing faster than anticipated, this is rarely the case - the credit may be as low as just ~5 cobblestones per standard WU. This is the reason people are hunting for clients with higher benchmarks, and some people even try to manipulate them manually. That is rather unfair, especially if the host computer works on multiple projects. The credit claimed for the work at other projects may be then far over the normal level, which is certainly not fair, should be avoided, and can even trigger alarms or bans on the project server. ciao
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sekerob at Aug 12, 2006 9:27:11 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Thanks for replying, sekerob,
Suguruhirahara, we believe you.....we're not allowed to see each other details thru a link....you have to past the screenprint in the post. 'Truxoft' is, except for the specific project it was designed for, a hoaxial claims generator that has not been updated from quite some time...out of step with the 'officious' BOINC version now at 5.5.11. Here is a list of hours needed & claimed / granted credits of that WU my computer crunched on Truxoft's client.
8.08h - 101 / 70 8.92h - 70 / 70 That is rather unfair, especially if the host computer works on multiple projects. The credit claimed for the work at other projects may be then far over the normal level, which is certainly not fair, should be avoided, and can even trigger alarms or bans on the project server. Thank you for noticing me! I missed the point. I got the author's intention, which is that the client should be used for SETI@Home. Well, since he has realised that credit claimed from the Truxoft's client has the possibility of being banned, I suppose the server can mark the credits as bogus regardless of being refutated. However, if any way that prevents the participants from being awarded credits more than they should be granted would be taken, then I think the grid should establish the system which doesn't deny the results sent through the client, because the results of computing on science applications cannot be decieved. Whether credits are unfairly claimed or not, every science results are invaluable. It's better to deny just their credits claims, not science results crunched. Thanks for reading, suguruhirahara |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
....sfar as i'm concerned, block this client, whatever good intend some of the users have/had. But the client itself cannot be blocked. The Truxoft client courteously identifies itself as the Truxoft client but you could modify the ID string(s) in Truxoft's source and cause it to identify itself as the recommended BOINC. The only way would be for the science app (or another app downloaded by the project) to run a cheksum or CRC on the client. Then a smart cracker will adjust the bytes in the client so that his bogus client will produce the same cheksum/CRC as the original. Then WCG could counter-attack and do a bitwise comparison but that method can be beat too if it doesn't bend and snap under its own weight first. Cheating on points is like prostitution, you cannot stop it. You might reduce it when it is as rampant as it is at R@H but eventually there comes a point when the law of diminishing marginal returns takes over. Then you must spend extraordinary amounts of time and money to reduce the problem any further AND you obtain only very small reductions. If WCG is not at that point now then it is very close. |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Well even here close to the Vatican, Case di Tolleranzie are an accepted fact of life......philosophy is, that 'prohibition' only promotes more crime.....
----------------------------------------.....Going in circles, flops before or after as the real base is the function that cannot be manipulated....it would just be too laborious as 3 with different flops would easily reveal who is the impostor....add some CRC checking and put it too bed would be my layman solution......we can already verify that the software offered by BOINC and WCG in its original has a valid checksum!
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Flops before isn't going to happen. It's not that the techs are too lazy or lack the skills to implement it. It's that it is impossible. Not just exceedingly difficult, impossible.
Flops during/after is very difficult to do well and will frequently lead to 3 different flop counts in the quorum which proves NOTHING about who the imposter is. It will only succeed in starting lots of arguments. Yes, we can verify that the software offered by BOINC and WCG in its original has a valid checksum. The trouble is a sharp cracker can make his bogus client have the same checksum as the original. Adding something that can be defeated (checksum) to something that doesn't work (flops during/after) is not the double indemnity you seem to think it is. It's simply double the time and effort wasted for a purpose that had no merit to begin with, very few care about the tiny bit of cheating here at WCG. If they do then where are they? Where are the posts expressing their concern? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
we can verify that the software offered by BOINC and WCG in its original has a valid checksum. The trouble is a sharp cracker can make his bogus client have the same checksum as the original. It's troublesome. If the server would depend only the validity of checksum, the server cannot detect the"stealth" host. But anyone who cracks the checksum just to have the chance to be awarded a little bit more credits...?  Adding something that can be defeated (checksum) to something that doesn't work (flops during/after) is not the double indemnity you seem to think it is. It's simply double the time and effort wasted for a purpose that had no merit to begin with, very few care about the tiny bit of cheating here at WCG. I agree. I fear this project doesn't yet need to implement the special and perfect cheating defence system, on which developers will be required to work intensively for a while. I think the auto detector could be developed more easily. |
||
|
|
|