Einstein set up a separate beta project (Albert) out of necessity. In order to start building ATI apps, it required the latest server code, and they didn't want to upgrade the existing server code and mess something up before they even had the chance to start beta testing. You are right that its easier to do beta testing within the same project, so long as it doesn't require server code upgrades. If the beta test requires server code upgrade, it is much safer to do it in a separate project. Albert's server code has been updated several times to keep up with the changes and bug fixes. GPUGrid has done the same with donate@home to use the latest code and better develop ATI applications.

Oddly enough, BOINCstats carries Albert, but BAM does not.

Per request of the project admins.

It will be added soon with a horrific project description warning people to stay away.

Like the one you wrote on Albert@home? I've never seen so many synonyms for "untrusted" all together

thanks for the stats soon
i can live with an horrific project description ^^

I have decided to add donate@home because of the science it indirectly supports.

I'm still not happy with the project, to me it sounds insane to burn electricity to generate a currency which is worth less than the cost of the electricity and the hardware needed to run the app. But since the project doesn't have to cover those costs, it's a win for them. All in all it doesn't seem very efficient and it takes crunching power away from real science. Maybe you should reconsider if you want to run this project instead of donating a few $$ to them.

I can say upfront that any project which produces bitcoins with no other purpose than to reap the benefits of it (e.g. money not going back to BOINC science) will not be added to BOINCstats, no matter how hard you people nag about it. Let's call that a protection of the future of BOINC. I sincerely hope other stats sites will have the same conscience.

Edit: Challenges can't be issued on bitcoin projects.

Don't agree with your decision but I thank you for your clearness and all other guys who wrote in this discussion for their fairplay

I very much doubt even those who may take part in Donate@Home will disagree with that , I sure dont, for me there has to be a purpose - not just a cash collection exercise.

Regards
Zy

Thanks Willy for adding D&H Hopefully, will not be too long before GPUgrid can afford to sponsor another scientist for the project.

Willy, maybe make some pressure to admins to cut down points for e.g. 70%?
This step will prevent points inflation on BOINC platform...

And now you had added it. What a shame!
Credits inflation goes up...

Pssst, don't say such things loud, the credit jerks will have a go at you.
They'll do everything to get more credit without doing anything for it.

D @ H in the statistics of a black day for the whole of BOINC. Not only that the project consists of BTC is to have a very inflated scores. Sorry for my English.

Shame!

I hope GPU Grid would choke to death and volunteers will abandon them, because the GPU credit system is the poorest in Boincstats, and WU are the longest and now we have D@H which pays the best...

Thanks Willy! FWIW (not much, I know), I agree with adding the project.

For me it is not the problem of bitcoin. or the project. I think that the credit levels in Donate@home are set extremly high. Id is granting twice the credit any other project grants. The credit inflation is awful. i think that there should be some benchmark in place for example ATI5990 for 1 hourof work should generate 10000 points and set other apps and projects acordingly. otherwise other project admins will say that to attract people they will bump up their credit levels too. I personally am ettached to almost every BOINC project out there. For mostof them i try to reach 10k milestone and for GPU ones 1M milestone. But it bothers me to see the points inflation. Plentyof people run BOINC not only for the science but also for fun, for the stats, for the chellanges. And credit inflation spoils that fun. I realy think that D@H should set its credit levels at least for the half of the current level. Or perhaps 30% of it. Because soon we will se Milkyway Moo PrimeGrid Distibuted and plenty others setting their level high.

They are conveniently not exporting the credits per CPU second and therefore they are not included in the project comparison page. That could show how much they overgrant.

Well i can tell one thing. Best "paying" project so far for my GPU was Moo. I gained around 60000 credits per day on 4770 ATI card. other project paid less. Like 50 000 or 45 000. But Donadte is granting me around 130 000. This is twice the best paying project in the stats.

Now every team is thinking how to stay on the current position. And they will crunch for Doneate not to lose. Lots of people aou there crunch for science. But guys with the top gear are also credit maniacs. Such a credit inflation will drive them away from the useful projects. If i was an admin of such a project i would increase the credits so as to keep people crunching for my project. Where will such an inflation get us? soon the boincstats will have a problem displaying the stats beacause of the number of digits.... it spoils the fun

Cross-project parity is impossible.

http://www.boinc-wiki.info/User:Nicolas/Credit_scenarios

Trying to make it so is just a waste of effort. Just stop trying to combine pine cones and rain drops into some fantasy total. As long as the credits stay consistent with a project, all is good.

The typical quotation of the credit jerks, each time a new projects succumbs to their greed for hyper inflation.

Your last sentence would be true if people only crunched one project. The fact is, stats comparison does try to "combine pine cones and rain drops", so unfortunately all is not good.

Note, I'm not saying that parity is possible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to achieve it, or at least get close to. It certainly doesn't justify letting projects do what they like with credits.

Parity it would be nice...

Edit:
A further thought.

I'm not knowledgeable about CreditNew, Boinc's new credit system that, as far as I understand, is supposed to adjust the credit granted in an attempt achieve parity. I have seen complaints on sites that started using it, that the credits were way off to start with. Could this be what's happening with Donate? If so, then it should correct itself.

Anyone who actually knows?

Credit jerk? I would be offended it that applied to me.

I crunch *all* projects equally, regardless of the size of the credits, using MegaMilestones as my measure. I am currently working to achieve 250k in each CPU project, as a minimum (of course, I have larger goals for GPU projects). Using MMs, it doesn't matter what each project awards. I have to crunch 250k in as many of them as possible. Some are achieved faster than others. But to win the MM game, one has to crunch them all. And that makes cross-project parity irrelevant. And *that* renders "inflation" moot.

So perhaps you would like to retract the name calling?

FWIW, donate does not use CreditNew. They use fixed credits. I think they are still evaluating what the "right" amount of credit should be.

Also FWIW, POEM was using CreditNew, but recently had to change to fixed credits, because CreditNew does not work.

They were, and I doubt the Project would disagree. GDF said very early into the project - before the whole BOINCStats controversy blew up, that the credits would be better realigned to existing GPUGRID applications. At present new apps are still being produced, so its hard to be specific on how to apply the credits to the WUs. Of course, fixed credits etc etc etc. But they always look long term, GPUGRID, so they will take their time to get it right first time. I dont know if its credit new, I very much doubt it. As to timescales, I have no idea, I doubt GDF will drag his feet on this, he is well aware of the credit situation in genral terms in BOINC. How much of that is current reality - cant say - I am not a Project Admin, but doubt its far from the truth.

Actually Willy came up with the obvious one across the board - slash all of them and rebase the credit level proportionally, I'd certainly go for that, stops silly number developing over time. Of course the proportional issue is still there, as is the overall potential for credit inflation BOINC wide as a principle, not just one Project, but a proportionate cut would at least be a start.

EDIT:
Almost forget .... this silly "credit-whore" name calling. Go spin. I'm with Zombie all the way on this. Its getting very very tedius responding to self styled credit cops. If you must make a fool of yourself at least do your homework first. Not everyone is a "credit-whore" and flinging the phrase out like some avenging white knight flashing a sword in the sunlight is dumb beyond words. Others also have a mind to the problem, and do also pocess brain cells. No doubt the Project will fix the issue as they had stated way long ago. Dont like that? Frankly Tough.

Regards
Zy