Dpc Responds

[Entity_Razer]

Ok I plan to put all responses from DPC in here and the same for responses from Xs, please people this is not ment to ridicule DPC or the other way around. Seeing as DPC is a dutch team I will be more then happy to translate and just use this as a relay station to parse the information.

Please keep it civil or face rod's wrath ;)

[Movieman]

Please keep it civil or face rod's wrath ;)

best line of the day so far!:clap:

[Entity_Razer]

RESPONSE 1


ALL THIS IS A COPY FROM THE DPC BOARDS


Quote:
Entity_Razer wrote:
Guy's please ease up. Certain people or groups are thought of to be cheating. I don't feel good at all of this myself seeing as D2Ol is kind of "my baby" not to mention I'm a D2OL Mod. Just please stay calm, a official statement by the XS D2Ol staff will follow shortly, I promice.

BTW its looking like DPC'll have to wet its chest because rosetta will almost certainly be our new project.
End Quote

THE ACTUAL RESPONSE FROM A DPC MEMBER

before I begin, this post is not ment as a flame at Entity_Razer but adressed to team XS.

I'd like to state that I'm saying this PERSONALLY so not as PV (RAZER COMMENT: PV is like a teamleader....)

Without getting all wound up.....

D2OL (and TSC) does not intrest me anymore, but now that rosetta is involved i feel I have to respond

If Xs wants to be so childish as to go and accuse DPC of cheating on other fora, so be it. But did you REALLY think ,even for a second, that DPC would go down without a fight? THat we'd let you stomp us without putting up a fight?

Ica has been saving over the last few months waiting for the moment when you where going to overtake us to keep you at bay for a few more days.

If you guys cannot handle your loss so be it, but don't go around spreading things that are not true about DPC.

If you accuse us of cheating, make sure you have evidence!!
(ever think about going to the D2OL organisation ,mail them, ask them to check our results? While your at it, ask them to check your results too, because in a thread I already found that some of you do it to "test" it!!)
ENTITY RAZER EDIT: NOTE THE XS D2OL STAFF DOES NOT CONDONE THIS

Who was it that said a few days ago that Xs was a livly team and DPC a dead team (ENTITY RAZER AGAIN that was me but that was NOT how I ment it, check another post of mine on the forums of DPC explaining myself)
-Thanks to a few sad persons withing XS, the XS team is crumbling in just a few days time
- Some hold on, some do not
- DPC stand as one opposed to that (couldn't make out what he ment by that...)

If Xs wants to merge with Free DC to be able to stay ahead of us at rosetta so be it. And NO we will not merge with other teals because of that, we are not that desperate. We'd rather be Nr°2 then.
I"'d rather stand tall at second place then to get to number 1 like you want to do it.
I hope FDC and XS shine real nice there high up in the sky all alone. I hope you are all proud of yourselves!!

Appolagies if I sound harsh but thats MY opinion

@XS&FDC: cu on rosetta, and do what you want


END QUOTE FROM THE DPC BOARD I have already posted a comment saying the merges is for D2Ol and has NOTHING to do with Rosetta

[DDTUNG]

This is a quote from the FDC forums:


Or course they are cheating.
I'm going to move my XS_Troya account to FreeDC. I only processed 500 or the total so I understand, just by looking ate the numbers (avg.docking time, etc), if someone are cheating or not. That's why I always said that a few DPC members were cheating.
I cheated to understand WHO were also cheating.

DDTUNG,

Remember when XS_Troya joined XS? I making 6k/7k a day were. Well, just like ICA_Cows I could easily dump 100k!

Carlos

DDTUNG:cool:

[DDTUNG]

Here are the average docking times:

ddtung 15 min, 56 sec

ICA_COWS 12 min, 03 sec

ronbo54 16 min, 59 sec

kb9skw 16 min, 12 sec

My average rig runs at 3.3 GHz Intel, 2.5 GHz AMD.

DDTUNG:)

[DDTUNG]

Here's the details of my 32 DX farm:

1 2x2.4M0 @3.55
20 2x2.4M0 @ 3.4
1 2x2.8D1 @ 3.45
2 2x2.8M0 @ 3.35
1 2x2.8M0 @ 3.4
1 2x2.66M0 @ 3.35
1 2x2.4D1 @ 3.4
1 2x2.4D1 @ 3.3
2 2x2.4LV ES @ 3.4
1 2x2.4LV D1 @ 3.35
1 2x1.6LV ES @ 3.2

And my 5 AMD DC farm:

1 1xOpty 165 @ 2.6
1 1xOpty 170 @ 2.5
2 1x3800+ @ 2.45
1 1x3800+ @ 2.5

Details of another 11 rigs will be filled in later. 3 more Opty 165s on the way.

Pics will follow.

DDTUNG

The above was posted on December 5, 2005 in our forums.

As of today I have one more Opteron 165@2.5

Also ran 17 3.2 P4 HT rigs and 18 3.0 P4 HT rigs from the office for the past two and a half weeks. All IBM machines.

The 11 other rigs referred to above are:

1 1xP4 HT @3.3
3 1xP4 HT @3.1
1 1xP4 HT @3.0
1 1xAXP @2.25
2 1xAXP @2.0
1 1xP4 @2.9
1 1xP4 @2.8
1 1XP4 @2.48

These rigs produce approximately 18k cands per day. All are welcome to inspect them on site.

May I ask ICA_COWS what they are using?

DDTUNG:cool:

[em99010pepe]

I'm Carlos. I said what DDTUNG quoted. Just changed the nick from XS_Troya to Troya. Also left Free-DC team.

Carlos

[WesM63]

Carlos,
Let me get this straight. I want to make things clear as I had a hard time understanding what DDT's post said.

You "cheated" to see if it actually worked? and it did?

[DDTUNG]

And to set the record straight, I did not move to FDC to be #1. I am already #1 in case DPC haven't noticed. The purpose of the move was to make sure that DPC would be #2 on Dec. 31, 2005(even though ronbo54 might have something to say about ICA_COWS being #2, or he might not).

DDTUNG:cool:

[[XC] serlv]

There is truth, or reality, and there is perception of truth.

Whether true or not ( and I am but a peon, and have no way of knowing if it is true or not ), I believe the perception that elements of DPC have manipulated results is there, and widespread.

The thing is that the perception can be believed over the truth. Whether true or not ( it may very well be true ), that belief has taken hold.

It would take a lot for that belief to be overturned.

[DDTUNG]

There is truth, or reality, and there is perception of truth.

Whether true or not ( and I am but a peon, and have no way of knowing if it is true or not ), I believe the perception that elements of DPC have manipulated results is there, and widespread.

The thing is that the perception can be believed over the truth. Whether true or not ( it may very well be true ), that belief has taken hold.

It would take a lot for that belief to be overturned.


And one who is telling the truth should have no reservation about telling the whole truth, like I've started to do and will continue to in as much detail as is necessary.

DDTUNG:)

[[XC] Duc]

I've explained to DPC what the negative points in buffering the way they do it (with renaming result.dat files) are and asked them why they don't use the non-cheating method (buffer on an anonimous node until you want the points to show up... a much safer, better and non-suspicious way)

The answer: because our method works fine...

I also asked them why they are so reluctant to tell us what and how many machines they do the crunching on (since our biggest cruncher DDTUNG has openly declared on what rigs he crunches)... it's not like worldpeace would become impossible if they told us.

The answer: in some cases people would lose jobs...


Strange, very strange indeed...:confused:

[DDTUNG]

I've explained to DPC what the negative points in buffering the way they do it (with renaming result.dat files) are and asked them why they don't use the non-cheating method (buffer on an anonimous node until you want the points to show up... a much safer, better and non-suspicious way)

The answer: because our method works fine...

I also asked them why they are so reluctant to tell us what and how many machines they do the crunching on (since our biggest cruncher DDTUNG has openly declared on what rigs he crunches)... it's not like worldpeace would become impossible if they told us.

The answer: in some cases people would lose jobs...


Strange, very strange indeed...:confused:

We just want a list of all machines they use, no names required at this point.
If they can't do that, they've got something to hide.

DDTUNG:cool:

[L0$t Pr0PhEt]

Here are the average docking times:

ddtung 15 min, 56 sec

ICA_COWS 12 min, 03 sec

ronbo54 16 min, 59 sec

kb9skw 16 min, 12 sec

My average rig runs at 3.3 GHz Intel, 2.5 GHz AMD.

DDTUNG:)

I've got an explanation for that one:

Let's see what an instance of d2ol produces in a day:
ddtung's dual xeon (4 instances): 80cands/day.instance
lostprophet's amd64 (single core): 140/day.instance

See why you can't compare average docking time?
I'm not defending DPC but this is not a way to see if anyone is cheating.

[DDTUNG]

I've got an explanation for that one:

Let's see what an instance of d2ol produces in a day:
ddtung's dual xeon (4 instances): 80cands/day.instance
lostprophet's amd64 (single core): 140/day.instance

See why you can't compare average docking time?
I'm not defending DPC but this is not a way to see if anyone is cheating.

Thanks for your explanation. But I am sure we all would rather hear it from the horse's(or in this case the cow's) mouth and would appreciate that you don't act as their spokesman. This thread was meant to provide direct communications.

DDTUNG:cool:

It's late now and I must go to bed. Hopefully we will have some answers when I return in about 6 hours.

[[XC] Duc]

Thanks for your explanation. But I am sure we all would rather hear it from the horse's(or in this case the cow's) mouth and would appreciate that you don't act as their spokesman. This thread was meant to provide direct communications.

DDTUNG:cool:

It's late now and I must go to bed. Hopefully we will have some answers when I return in about 6 hours.

We'll keep you informed if anything important is posted at DPC's ;)

[Movieman]

Could someone please explain to me the the whys and hows of the following statistics?
Lets take today:
The DPC_ICA_COWS have uploaded at this time 43,680 cands.
Every single one is on the same node..#117749
In the last week they have also uploaded 690,500 cands on this same node.
This node is also noted as the highest one on the list with a grand total of 1,833,306 cands so far.
Does your entire team use the same node and if so why?
I don't understand why any single node would be used by more than one machine. I have 4 instances of D2OL installed on a DX system w/HT and there are 4 different nodes.
Please explain why you would have the same node on more than one machine when it is a freely available 15.5mb download.
Thank you.

[DPC-CowArt]

It is nice that a couple of people volunteered to translate the postings in our Dutch forum, but translators are supposed to be neutral. Please translate what our member say, and don't mix your personal comments into the translation.
I've explained to DPC what the negative points in buffering the way they do it (with renaming result.dat files) are and asked them why they don't use the non-cheating method (buffer on an anonimous node until you want the points to show up... a much safer, better and non-suspicious way)

The answer: because our method works fine...
The actual answer by ParaNoiMia was:
"I'm not saying that it is the preffered method (of MegaFlushing) for DPC, just that one of our members used it. Besides, it's a methode that works, so whether you think it is the right method or not doesn't really matter. Somebody deciding to use this method it doesn't automatically make them cheaters, even if other methods exist to achieve the same results."
I also asked them why they are so reluctant to tell us what and how many machines they do the crunching on (since our biggest cruncher DDTUNG has openly declared on what rigs he crunches)... it's not like worldpeace would become impossible if they told us.

The answer: in some cases people would lose jobs...

Strange, very strange indeed...:confused:
Indeed, Witlof said something like that. Is it strange that people are reluctanty to give details about the computers at work they use for D2OL?
Sure we can ask ICA_Cows to produce a list of computers they use. I can already tell what the answer of some people to that list will be: "You might just have well made it up. Post some pics...". That's what Witlof ment: people don't loose their job for using work-computers for D2OL, but they will get in trouble for posting detailed information about these computers and plastering pictures all over the internet.

We just want a list of all machines they use, no names required at this point.
If they can't do that, they've got something to hide.

DDTUNG:cool:
See above...

I've got an explanation for that one:

Let's see what an instance of d2ol produces in a day:
ddtung's dual xeon (4 instances): 80cands/day.instance
lostprophet's amd64 (single core): 140/day.instance

See why you can't compare average docking time?
I'm not defending DPC but this is not a way to see if anyone is cheating.
Totally agree! DDTUNG thinks ICA_Cows are cheating because their docktime is 12:03 minutes? I have two computers with docktimes under 10 minutes, and I'm quite sure they are for real.

[[XC] Duc]

Could someone please explain to me the the whys and hows of the following statistics?
Lets take today:
The DPC_ICA_COWS have uploaded at this time 43,680 cands.
Every single one is on the same node..#117749
In the last week they have also uploaded 690,500 cands on this same node.
This node is also noted as the highest one on the list with a grand total of 1,833,306 cands so far.
Does your entire team use the same node and if so why?
I don't understand why any single node would be used by more than one machine. I have 4 instances of D2OL installed on a DX system w/HT and there are 4 different nodes.
Please explain why you would have the same node on more than one machine when it is a freely available 15.5mb download.
Thank you.


It's a common practice...
I myself have D²OL running on 6 machines, including 1 Xeon and 1 Amd dualcpu rig but only have 4 nodes on my account (only use 3, one is a dead one I lost a long time ago).
Ech time I install on a machine, I just use 1 node... no registering email needed and the node is already in my account.

[Movieman]

It's a common practice...
I myself have D²OL running on 6 machines, including 1 Xeon and 1 Amd dualcpu rig but only have 4 nodes on my account (only use 3, one is a dead one I lost a long time ago).
Each time I install on a machine, I just use 1 node... no registering email needed and the node is already in my account.
It may well be a common practice but I'm sure you see my point that it looks like something deceptive is going on. Also you are talking about one man with 6 machines, I am talking about an entire teams output for a week of almost 700,000 cands..a very big difference! This is apples and oranges to what you describe and even in your case, I don't understand. You could keep the installer on your desktop and transfer it between machines on your home network and the only difference in time is typing in your email address. Hardly a huge time saving! Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you but the practice itself. This should be one node, one install, period.
I still havn't heard fromn the cows as to why they use the same node on what must be many, many machines

[DPC-CowArt]

Perhaps the client is included in an image which is then distributed around the company?

[[XC] Duc]

The actual answer by ParaNoiMia was:
"I'm not saying that it is the preffered method (of MegaFlushing) for DPC, just that one of our members used it. Besides, it's a methode that works, so whether you think it is the right method or not doesn't really matter. Somebody deciding to use this method it doesn't automatically make them cheaters, even if other methods exist to achieve the same results."

You should also post my answer to that... TWO of the top 3 producing DPC subteams on D²OL use a very questionable (not to use the word shady) method, so you can call that method "prefered by DPC" in my believes. And if you could obtain the same result with a method that will not be questioned, why not use that one and be free of accusations instead of stating "It works for us..."?

Indeed, Witlof said something like that. Is it strange that people are reluctanty to give details about the computers at work they use for D2OL?
Sure we can ask ICA_Cows to produce a list of computers they use. I can already tell what the answer of some people to that list will be: "You might just have well made it up. Post some pics...". That's what Witlof ment: people don't loose their job for using work-computers for D2OL, but they will get in trouble for posting detailed information about these computers and plastering pictures all over the internet.


Yes, it is strange people refuse to tell us what rigs they use to get results... get over it. I can provide you with details on EVERY rig I use, even the one @ work my boss doesn't know I'm using... want pics? I'll get them as soon as possible... I'll do anything to show the world my work is legit... you guys on the other hand :nono:


About the average docking time: I agree on that one... I don't think you can assume someone is cheating by looking at his docking time.

[Movieman]

Perhaps the client is included in an image which is then distributed around the company?
Perhaps but that doesn't answer the why when the app is so easy to download and install. If you said to me that you burned the installer to a cd and installed it to save the many downloads that I would understand but it still needs to be installed and the registration takes seconds as I've mentioned.
There is in no reality any meaningful time saving so I am not buying that particular reasoning. I do see that you say "perhaps" and not this "is" what they do so I will just say that "perhaps" you should ask them why they do it this way.

[shmaa]

Just another small note... Their best candidate found still has not changed. It is still the one found on 4/27/05 @ -17.28. They have "done" 1,848,658 and counting. I'll be waiting for this candidate to change as -17.28 is a pretty weak best candidate.

By contrast, LBM has only crunched ~600,000 candidates and our best one found is -19.22. DDT's is -19. Ronbo's is -19.35. Cold_Fusion's is -19.91. kb9skw's is -19.48. TA_CowTipper's is -22.95.... Hell, even Team Gaol's is -19.15.

Don't get be wrong, I guess it IS possible somehow that they did not find a better candidate than -17.28 after crunching 1.8+ million candidates, I just find it kind of hard to believe.

[Bloody_Sorcerer]

"perhaps" because its a hell of a lot easier to slip something into an image where it will ALWAYs be no matter what, so you only have to install it once before hitting the "ghost" button, than to go to every machine individually EVERY time you ghost and reinstall D2OL and register. 1000s of installs... 1 install... hmm, i wonder which is more effective? I know that if i was to put D2OL on the school machines (already asked, net admin says "no"), I'd definitely hide it in an image, rather than go to each machine and manually install, especially because we reghost every computer every friday.

[mad mikee]

Just some balancing stuff and NO I AM NOT defending our future dinner :cow:

1. I don't know about Intel stuff, but ALL my nodes have docking times under 9 mins and a couple are around 8:05-8:10 so don't think that is a good criteria.

2. Various people here have used the technique of creating an install that includes a node.prp so that they aren't tied to requirement of having the registration server up (since it is ALWAYS :rolleyes: available )

3. During My conversation w/ Charles, we were discussing about uploading multiple resultsQueue.dat files from a single machine, and while I thought I remember that it somehow 'knows' the node where the file was created, he remembered it as being attached @ Upload time. Even If I'm right on this, 2) would explain them all coming from one node.

Just had to point these particulars out, not speaking on any other practices ATM, good or bad.

[RocKer]

What in the hell is here going on,am a few days away from xs-forum,open the xs-link on desktop to see this tread here(and others),my god:shakes: ,and the stats are all over the place,and there are some people missing,new one's to,i only read in this tread did'nt read any other forum's,yet,but i will allso take a look at dpc forum.

So at this moment i don't have any idea what really is happend(need to read),yes somebody is cheating,but who or what sub-team

I know one thing,i dont cheat,i find that if somebody cheats,the only lie against themselfs.

If the wont pics,the just have to ask,simpel as that,i have 5 rigs running at the moment,1 x DX1.6ghz @ 3.2ghz,1x DX2.0ghz @ 2.4ghz,1 x A643200+ @ 2.4ghz,1 x XPM2600+ @ 2.5ghz and 1 x P2 200mhz:D,there will come 2 more,1 x 2500+Barton @ 2.3ghz and 1 x DX1.6ghz @ 3.2ghz.

[Movieman]

Bloody_Sorcerer: In your particular situation with ghosting machines weekly I can understand your creating the shortcuts or you'd go mad getting it all done.
Back to the cows:
Ok, so now we should beleive that the entire output of the DPC_ICA_COWS for the last 7 days(690,500 cands) came from one location in one huge business or school, or factory that was controlled by one person who'd imaged the app so as to save the 5 mins tops of the install because there were so many machines to put it on.
If that were true, I'd say ok, makes sense, the guy needs to make this into assembly line work just as Bloody_Sorcerer has to. Pure common sense in those scenarios.
But this is different, this is an entire team putting out an average of 98,643 a day over one weeks timeframe, No one on the whole team had a different node? No one on this team ever had to do a format and grab one off the D2OL page? ever? from anyone? This node has upped as of this am 1,833,306 cands. This is one amazing node, it goes to every machine in the group and no one ever had the need to use another. Tell me that this sub team is one guy with 300PC's in a huge business and I'll apologise, anything short of that and I find it very difficult to beleive that any group, separated by any distance with all the factors that effect PC's from harddrive failure to electrical surges to virus's and no one ever needed another node? C'mon guys, do we all look like we just got off the turnip truck yesterday?
Can I prove it :NO! But if it looks like, tastes like and smells like, it probably is.
and to end my point, we've yet to hear from the Cows anything definitive to explain it.
One last point that is very relevant: By using this one node are you not defeating the purpose of the project? Let me play devils advocate: Isn't the point to explore all the possibilities and by using this one node you are hindering that? This point I may well be wrong about as my understanding of the particular node usage isn't total and if I'm wrong on this I apologise on this point.

[[XC] Duc]

The answers from DPC:

"They are not cheating" (which is indeed possible)

"We have no right to accuse them" ( not even if we point out what we are suspicious about... freedom of speech seems to be irrelevant)

"Until we can actually prove they are cheating they refuse to use another method to buffer there candidats... it works for them, so why change it" (even if they would get the same results with the non-cheating method)

"They are reluctant to answer any questions about their computers or output" (because people could lose jobs over it and it's none of our bussiness how and where they get the results)

"We should talk to the project leaders (Charles) if we think there's something wrong and they (Charles) have to prove what's wrong by showing serverstats, uploadstats or whatever... IF there's something wrong with the results they (Charles) should prevent people from using the 'result.dat-copy-method' by changing the program, method to up cands or whatever." (until then, they will NOT stop using this method which is know to be 'the' method where cheating is possible, even if you can buffer in a non-cheating way)

This is a personal translation of the opinion I can detect in the answers I get... (just stating the "personal" part before CowArt says I'm not translating exact sentences :rolleyes:)

[Entity_Razer]

what I must add

690050 canidates, at an average of 10minutes per canidate (which is short, very short in my opinion


thats

4 792,01 DAYS of docking needed to do those. Now take into account that some anthrax's or others can take up to 15, if not 20 minuts. But lets stick to 10 minuts per canidate, thats still 4 792 DAYS of docking needed

Now you please tell me how many computers they have to do THAT in say..... 3 months time, lets take 3 months time, = 90 days

I find 53 computers, something that is NOT that hard to find, 53 computers, but now take into account that we took a 3 month period for this , I do not know for sure how many members ICA counts, maybe someone of the team itsself would like to enlighten me on that, or even how many comps they count.

But a normal office computer is about a P4 2.5Ghz with its hyperthreading disabled thanks to a cheap motherboard by dell or whatever.

Now also, a lot of canidates require a LOT more then 10 minutes to complete.

Take that into account and you're beginning to see my point. Not to mention you can only start counting from 12 09 2005 since that was you latest big flush so lets say THE ENTIRE team went into buffering then? Its possible but to MANUALLY copy all those result files and copy them back.... I have to admit it seems HIGHLY unlikly, if it was just nodes being added, hey, thats VERY doable but how things are done now.... you'd need a small army to upload on all those comps

[lv_dicedealer]

Here is a thread over at FDC that I responded to... In it are some remarks from a DPC member.

LINK (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10633)

[[XC] moddolicous]

Lost prophet posted this:
ICA has 0 CANDS LEFT (source DPC forum, they say it theirselves so I bet they won't try to dump again), if we all stayed in XS team we could have made it to nr1 before new year. Guess we lose :(
If we can come back as a team, #1 can be ours! Lets go, come one guys. BTW, whose xs_payback?

[[XC]thewildblue]

Thats hardass from XR I think.

If you check the thread in the place not to be said I said the same thing about us rebanding......

[STEvil]

even my "best candidate'" is newer..

You guys (the cows) dont have to list your work or post incriminating pictures, but say listing the machines exactly as DDTUNG did and maybe saying the machines are @work in (country) would help.

Anyways, I hope this gets resolved.

edit

fixed typo

[DDTUNG]

Just a few more comments.

One node vs multiple nodes. Besides ease of installation, using one node makes it easy to scroll down the list of nodes when you are checking node stats in the D2OL stats pages.:) One obvious disadvantage is that when you want to check on the status of any one particular machine, you have to physically access it, or use remote access or monitoring software which consumes resources. And as has been pointed out, it can invite abuse.

Online uploading vs manual uploading. Manual uploading is time consuming. It is also dangerous in that a set of results can become corrupted due to instability or accidents such a power failure. I know because in December I lost close to 5000 cands when I was unable to upload due to the NAS outage, and at the same time our building had its power cut for minor repairs. Our team members prefer to upload every 6 hours to an 'offshore' node and add the node when desired.

Docking times. These do matter because it is common knowledge that AMD rigs have lower docking times than Intel rigs, and the average docking times for two identical machines should be comparable. Which brings me to my next point.

We have asked for a list of the machines that ICA_COWS use because from that list it is possible to estimate their normal output. It is also possible to estimate the correct average docking time. We can understand your difficulty about the possibility of people losing jobs, that's why we are only asking for brief specs, not pictures or locations. That is also why we always advise our members to ask for permission to run D2OL on rigs that they don't own. How difficult can that be.

In life we often come across situations where things don't seem to add up. In this case, to me at least, too many things didn't add up. Some of these things, such as the string of submissions in multiples of 10, are almost statistically mind boggling.

It is perfectly understandable that you take offense to these suggestions of cheating, and the resultant scrutiny. I myself went through that with F@H some 2 years ago, and ended up quitting the project after giving my side of the story. But the innocent should have nothing to hide, and the guilty will be caught and punished in the end.

DDTUNG:cool:

[DDTUNG]

Today being a holiday I had alot of time to sit down, gather some facts and figures, and do some calculations.

FACTS: ICA_COWS have -an average docking time of 12 minutes
-dumped roughly 700,000 cands in the last 7 days
-last dumped on Oct 11, 2005, so buffered 75 days

Average docking time of 12 minutes means the average machine they used produced 120 cands per day. 700,000 cands in 75 days gives an average of approximately 9,000 cands per day. So they used on average 75 machines on a given day. Each of those 75 machines would have completed 9000 cands, or 4.5 sets of the 2,000 cands buffers they claimed they uploaded last week.
That means they had around 350 sets of these 2,000 cands buffers to upload last week, which they did, manually. From my experience with manual uploads, it takes about 20 minutes to manually upload 2,000 cands from 1 resultQueue.dat. Using one machine around the clock, that would take around 5 days. But why would anyone with 75 machines use just one of them to upload? I wouldn't torture myself that way. So let's say they used 5 machines to upload these cands, and it would have taken 1 day round the clock, or around 3.5 hours per day spread over 7 days. But the actual upload periods per day were much longer than that. So one could say they tried to keep XS guessing by slowing the upload rate by using fewer machines, meaning they would have to work longer hours uploading. Fine. But there were at least a couple of stretches of uploads that took place throughout the night, so they must be better men(sorry I mean cows:) ) than I am by enduring these all-nighters.

As I said, it all seems like simple arithmetic, but somehow doesn't add up.:confused:

DDTUNG:cool:

[Movieman]

As I said, it all seems like simple arithmetic, but somehow doesn't add up.

DDTUNG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
After pulling an all nighter trying to find out what the heck was going on here Thursday I finally passed out about 1pm yesterday. This kept bothering me.
Was I accusing some totally innocent group of guys from across the Atlantic that I've never met?
It's possible, as much as I hate to admit it, it is possible that they did this legitimately. But to do so the resources and time involved is absolutely huge!
So lets stop and say to ourselves that they are as pure as the driven snow and I will prostrate myself towards the east and ask forgiveness for all I've said. I'd like something in return that will stop this from ever happenning again. It's a very simple thing and keeps EVERYONE honest beyond reproach.
NO duplicating nodes. You want to carry the installer on a cd to save the time of downloading it, fine. BUT install it, register it and get on to the next one. If this means that because of time constraints you can only install it on 6 machines in a day instad of 26 well thats a problem that you'll have to live with.Life just isn't perfect but to continue this as it is now is plain and utter BS!
I have no problem losing to someone with better resources than i do, but I refuse to play in a game where by doing things in a "certain" way you have the ability to cheat and the others involved are not on a level playing field.
Before this incident started, I wrote a post where I said " When this is all over whether we win or lose I think we should congratulate the COWS on a superb effort."
Another issue that bothers me is the lack of wanting to disclose what you are running for equipment. WHY? How could that harm you in any way?
No one is asking you to say that John Jones at IBM has the app on 300 mainframes, just what they are, not what business they are attached to.
What is the problem with disclosing this info?
The ball is now in your court, lets do this fair and square or lets not do it at all.
If you reply in the negative, you might as well admit what most of us already beleive. If you reply in the positive, tomorrow will start as a new day and I can go back to thinking of more important things like how to pay my electric bill this month with 2450 watt of PS running 24/7
Happy New Year to all!;)

[Entity_Razer]

ARKONXX SPEAKS (ICA COWS)
** This is a translation from the DPC forums. For the DPC reading this, I will translate as unbiased as possible, if you have problems with my translations, I suggest you translate it yourself and PM it to me so I can edit this post or you just post it yourself**


Dear DPC D2OL members,

Due to the big disturbance that has arrised we will try to shed some light on our operations/case.

We started of with 150 computers, the majority being P4 3ghz. Over take we where able to expand to rougly 750 PC's. Off course these computers are not all P4 3Ghz machines, we do not want to exclude the slower computers. We think every bit count dont you agree?

The timeframe?
Everyone can see in what timeframe this took place and posting a picture is something we personally find a bit stupid as they are not all in one room.

Previusly Team_Gaol was accused by XS of cheating. Was it proven that they where guilty of such a thing? NO. We find that XS judges people way to fast. Even the slightest resistance from being overtaken and they say it's cheating. How can THEY produce that kind of output daily? Starting 1-1-2005 up to 29-12-2005 they went from About 1 Mil to 15 mil. A 14 MIL. difference. Do we pose question at that? No. Then why do they start asking question when we post about 700 000

We have always seen XS as a threat but to keep ahead of them till the end of the year was a secundary goal. We have as a goal to make a big as possible flush in one go. en to become nr 1 as DPC. But seeing recent development we let these targets go away and we found that keeping XS from the nr1 spot was best suited as our primary target. I warned people for XS in previus post already that they where comming.

Again, we are not cheaters! Wij did our best for the good of the D2OL project. Everyone withing DPC knew of what we where doing, that we where buffering. We hope we still have the trust of the DPC memvers en that Xs will leave it at this. Xs, or Free DC right now, will eventually overtake us. Thats a fact, they have more active people at the project with bigger capacities. I think we where able to prevent that DPC closes 2005 as nr 2 and that we have completed our objective. Again, to all a happy newyear!

Members of DPC_ICA_COWS

[SoF]

time for us to go back to team xs or what do you think?

[Entity_Razer]

To respond to DPC:

Please question our output. We have about 460 members here on D2OL, a top producer who has 32 dual Xeons and a lot of other computers, jeff has about... what was it in his top days? about....10 dual xeons. Windforce has a lot of P4's at his disposale, Conrad had a lot of comps at his command as a system operator at the office before he got promoted), .....

hell LVDICEDEALER once had a Quad Itanium 2 ....

Please do question our output if you feel that will do anything. fact is we just have a lot of active members.

[Movieman]

ARKONXX SPEAKS (ICA COWS)
** This is a translation from the DPC forums. For the DPC reading this, I will translate as unbiased as possible, if you have problems with my translations, I suggest you translate it yourself and PM it to me so I can edit this post or you just post it yourself**


Dear DPC D2OL members,

Due to the big disturbance that has arrised we will try to shed some light on our operations/case.

We started of with 150 computers, the majority being P4 3ghz. Over take we where able to expand to rougly 750 PC's. Off course these computers are not all P4 3Ghz machines, we do not want to exclude the slower computers. We think every bit count dont you agree?

The timeframe?
Everyone can see in what timeframe this took place and posting a picture is something we personally find a bit stupid as they are not all in one room.

Previusly Team_Gaol was accused by XS of cheating. Was it proven that they where guilty of such a thing? NO. We find that XS judges people way to fast. Even the slightest resistance from being overtaken and they say it's cheating. How can THEY produce that kind of output daily? Starting 1-1-2005 up to 29-12-2005 they went from About 1 Mil to 15 mil. A 14 MIL. difference. Do we pose question at that? No. Then why do they start asking question when we post about 700 000

We have always seen XS as a threat but to keep ahead of them till the end of the year was a secundary goal. We have as a goal to make a big as possible flush in one go. en to become nr 1 as DPC. But seeing recent development we let these targets go away and we found that keeping XS from the nr1 spot was best suited as our primary target. I warned people for XS in previus post already that they where comming.

Again, we are not cheaters! Wij did our best for the good of the D2OL project. Everyone withing DPC knew of what we where doing, that we where buffering. We hope we still have the trust of the DPC memvers en that Xs will leave it at this. Xs, or Free DC right now, will eventually overtake us. Thats a fact, they have more active people at the project with bigger capacities. I think we where able to prevent that DPC closes 2005 as nr 2 and that we have completed our objective. Again, to all a happy newyear!

Members of DPC_ICA_COWS
Interesting reading, answer the questions that you choose to and ignore the ones you don't want to answer.
I still have the question to you sir of why and how all of your output(90+%) for the last week was on one node? This has been asked more than once with no reply. On at least 1 day your entire output was on that one node.
Do you expect me to beleive that no one on your team uploaded ANY cands that day besides that one node? Do you control the uploading of every menber with such an iron hand that they do not allow their PC's to send the finished cands without your approval.
Am I the only one who went to the D2OL web page and actually followed the instructions and installed it that way?
I have 3 dual xeons, 2 with HT, so 4 instances each on the 2 machines with HT and 2 instances on the machine without HT, a total of 10 instances and thats what I have, 10 nodes.
I'd also asked about a one node per install usage and that you've also ignored. The odd's of all those cands being done legitimately on that one node are worse than the lottery!
To me, it's sort of cut and dried, once again, the numbers speak for themselves.

[[XC] moddolicous]

To respond to DPC:

Please question our output. We have about 460 members here on D2OL, a top producer who has 32 dual Xeons and a lot of other computers, jeff has about... what was it in his top days? about....10 dual xeons. Windforce has a lot of P4's at his disposale, Conrad had a lot of comps at his command as a system operator at the office before he got promoted), .....

hell LVDICEDEALER once had a Quad Itanium 2 ....

Please do question our output if you feel that will do anything. fact is we just have a lot of active members.
That was FreeCableGuy with the itanium I THINK. I know he's getting a dual opty rig (2x285's). As for the ICA's output thing, I have one question: If you could have gotten in trouble installing on all those comps, how did u have time to install them without being caught? I can think of only 1 quick way of doing it, but I'll see if you figure it out first.

[Soepkip]

Well hello, i'm from DPC too ;) ^^

Anyways, the same node explanation. I'm just thinking, but what if they put a client on an USB stick and just ran off all the computers?

And for the way they bufferd, maybe they had to flush it all from their homeadress, because the 750 computers they had couldn't connect to D2OL thanks to a firewall. Maybe that is a reason only 1 node was used for flushing?

[[XC] moddolicous]

You mean buy like a 64mb ram stick and leave it in the comp? Or do you mean copied that D2ol folder to each comp from the same usb stick? That firewall thing wouldnt make sense because each dump ended in a zero (except for the last 2 or so).

[RoyalFlusher]

Yes, you just have to install D2OL once on a computer. You also register it. You edit your prefs. You make a copy of the D2OL installation on a CDRom or a USB-stick. You copy the map on the systems you wish to 'infect' and make a shortcut in your startupmap. You manually update the buffers and take it after that offline. With the right parameter controller:file you let D2OL do invisible its work. As simple as that it is! :)

[[XC] moddolicous]

Alright, that was the response I was waiting for. Thats the only effient way to use 1 node. But doesnt coping that same work (from the original folder) just give the same work to the same comps?? But since one of you said that they cant connect through the firewall, how are they getting access to the results quene file? If you can explain how they get theresultsquene to their home comp, then maybe this whole thing can be resolved.

[RoyalFlusher]

Soepkip was 'supposing' and there were some flaws in his reasoning.

I suppose they managed it on the way I described.
After registering the client they stopped the client BEFORE it downloaded its workbuffer. Then they copied it. Once copied on the computers where they mirrored it, they gave it access to the internet to download the workbuffer. After they ran out of work on those machines they copied the resulQueue.dat files to USB-Stick and deleted the original ones. Then they dowloaded again a workbuffer. And so on...

[DDTUNG]

A P4 3.0 without HT crunches an average of 95 cands per day, or 4 cands per hour, giving average docking time of 15 minutes. A P4 3.0 with HT can do up to 150 cands per day running two instances of the client, giving 75 cands per day per client, or 3 cands per hour per client, resulting in average docking time of 20 minutes. Since most of your 150 machines were P4 3.0, you should have average docking time of between 15 and 20 minutes, depending on what proportion had HT capabilities. Since you said that the 600 other machines you used for the finish were mostly slower, you would have an even higher average docking time. But the D2OL stats page show your average docking time as 12 mins 03 secs. How is that possible?

With 150 P4 3.0 rigs your daily production should be between 14,000 and 22,500 cands, again depending on the proportion with HT. Since your last dump was 75 days before Dec. 25, how is it that you only had 700,000 cands instead of 1,050,000 to 3,375,000 cands, without even including the other 600 machines that you used later?

And how do you explain that with so many machines of varying speeds, that you were able to have dumps that ended with 0 not only on consecutive days, but every hour, and actually every 15 minutes? Did the slower machines all finish the 2,000 cands?

I will stop here for now because I think there is enough for everyone to form a conclusion.


DDTUNG:cool:

[Bloody_Sorcerer]

docking time is definitely not a decent way to judge anything; i have an average docking time of 7 minutes 58 seconds, but only average 26 candies a day. Yesterday, my machine was on all day doing pretty much nothing but crunching (a bit of background use, such as surfing the net, and a few VMs running) but I only did 59 candies, which would imply an average docking time of 25 minutes. not all is as it appears.

[shmaa]

A P4 3.0 without HT crunches an average of 95 cands per day, or 4 cands per hour, giving average docking time of 15 minutes. A P4 3.0 with HT can do up to 150 cands per day running two instances of the client, giving 75 cands per day per client, or 3 cands per hour per client, resulting in average docking time of 20 minutes. Since most of your 150 machines were P4 3.0, you should have average docking time of between 15 and 20 minutes, depending on what proportion had HT capabilities. Since you said that the 600 other machines you used for the finish were mostly slower, you would have an even higher average docking time. But the D2OL stats page show your average docking time as 12 mins 03 secs. How is that possible?

With 150 P4 3.0 rigs your daily production should be between 14,000 and 22,500 cands, again depending on the proportion with HT. Since your last dump was 75 days before Dec. 25, how is it that you only had 700,000 cands instead of 1,050,000 to 3,375,000 cands, without even including the other 600 machines that you used later?

And how do you explain that with so many machines of varying speeds, that you were able to have dumps that ended with 0 not only on consecutive days, but every hour, and actually every 15 minutes? Did the slower machines all finish the 2,000 cands?

I will stop here for now because I think there is enough for everyone to form a conclusion.


DDTUNG:cool:

Wow.. nicely played, DD.

[DDTUNG]

docking time is definitely not a decent way to judge anything; i have an average docking time of 7 minutes 58 seconds, but only average 26 candies a day. Yesterday, my machine was on all day doing pretty much nothing but crunching (a bit of background use, such as surfing the net, and a few VMs running) but I only did 59 candies, which would imply an average docking time of 25 minutes. not all is as it appears.

Docking time is the average time it takes to complete a candidate. The more candidates a node has completed since it was created, the more accurate the average docking time is. If you turn off D2OL or the computer for 10 hours, it does not affect your average docking time. For example, my node 117891, which completed 3 candidates since it was created on March 20, 05, using a total docking time of 44 mins 54 secs, has an average docking time of 14 mins 58 secs. Put another way, the average docking time is directly related to the processor used, as we know D2OL production is mainly determined by processor type and MHz speed. It can be affected short term by the candidates you are assigned to crunch, but over the long run it is quite stable for each machine.

You can increase your average docking time by using your computer more for other functions while D2OL is running, or by slowing down your cpu, etc.

BUT YOU CANNOT DECREASE YOUR AVERAGE DOCKING TIME TO BEYOND YOUR SYSTEM'S CAPABILITIES.

If you have further questions regarding this topic, please feel free to ask.

DDTUNG:cool:

[[XC] moddolicous]

A P4 3.0 without HT crunches an average of 95 cands per day, or 4 cands per hour, giving average docking time of 15 minutes. A P4 3.0 with HT can do up to 150 cands per day running two instances of the client, giving 75 cands per day per client, or 3 cands per hour per client, resulting in average docking time of 20 minutes. Since most of your 150 machines were P4 3.0, you should have average docking time of between 15 and 20 minutes, depending on what proportion had HT capabilities. Since you said that the 600 other machines you used for the finish were mostly slower, you would have an even higher average docking time. But the D2OL stats page show your average docking time as 12 mins 03 secs. How is that possible?

With 150 P4 3.0 rigs your daily production should be between 14,000 and 22,500 cands, again depending on the proportion with HT. Since your last dump was 75 days before Dec. 25, how is it that you only had 700,000 cands instead of 1,050,000 to 3,375,000 cands, without even including the other 600 machines that you used later?

And how do you explain that with so many machines of varying speeds, that you were able to have dumps that ended with 0 not only on consecutive days, but every hour, and actually every 15 minutes? Did the slower machines all finish the 2,000 cands?

I will stop here for now because I think there is enough for everyone to form a conclusion.


DDTUNG:cool:
Someone is really good at math. U wanna help me with my math homework DDtung. I got some proofs with your name on it.

[mad mikee]

:rofl: - thanks I needed that (after dinner entertainment :D)


Someone is really good at math. U wanna help me with my math homework DDtung. I got some proofs with your name on it.

[DDTUNG]

Someone is really good at math. U wanna help me with my math homework DDtung. I got some proofs with your name on it.

Yeah, I always enjoyed math. Especially the QED part.:)

DDTUNG:cool:

[[XC] moddolicous]

Thats my only good subject (that and spanish). Got a 94% in it this semester, so not doin bad. Just thought we needed some laughter in this serious thread.

[pythagoras]

Anyone need a maths teacher?:D

[[XC] serlv]

Anyone need a maths teacher?:D


Why, you got a theory?

[DDTUNG]

:rofl: That's a really good one.


Why, you got a theory?

[DDTUNG]

Soepkip was 'supposing' and there were some flaws in his reasoning.

I suppose they managed it on the way I described.
After registering the client they stopped the client BEFORE it downloaded its workbuffer. Then they copied it. Once copied on the computers where they mirrored it, they gave it access to the internet to download the workbuffer. After they ran out of work on those machines they copied the resulQueue.dat files to USB-Stick and deleted the original ones. Then they dowloaded again a workbuffer. And so on...

I see. With first 150 P4 3.0 machines scattered all over the place, and later adding 600 slower ones for the finish, that must have been some operation. Perhaps they can enlighten me as to how to do it efficiently. I run less than 50 machines in less than 3 locations and I have a hell of a time, even with groups of them in small local networks accessible through one computer in each location.

Oh one other thing, to be enable to enable internet access to download the initial and subsequents work files, the operator(s) of this scheme must have some system administrative rights, correct? Then why doesn't he(they) do the operation through the network? Without administrative rights they would have to sneak into the office every 3 weeks or so and finish the copy/download operation before the security guards discovered them? Or do it during office hours when the persons using those machines were on lunch or toilet breaks? And for 150, then 600 machines? How would they log on or gain internet access? Perhaps our own conran_maranan, who is a systems administrator and used to run around 75 P4s for XS until he was transferred to a bigger division with higher security standards, can find the time to come here and chime in.

The plot thickens.:)

DDTUNG:cool:

[lv_dicedealer]

DDTUNG , the cows have lost a lot of respect across the net regarding this whole issue. I'm sure that DC'ers across the net are now questioning a lot of their production. More damining evidence will come to light I have a feeling !

[DDTUNG]

DDTUNG , the cows have lost a lot of respect across the net regarding this whole issue. I'm sure that DC'ers across the net are now questioning a lot of their production. More damining evidence will come to light I have a feeling !

Thanks for your opinion.

I am only interested in finding the truth about this particular incident with D2OL. I am sure that the majority of DPC DCers are good honest people, so it is not my desire to damage their reputation. Just want the truth.

DDTUNG:cool:

[lv_dicedealer]

DDTUNG , the cows have lost a lot of respect across the net regarding this whole issue. I'm sure that DC'ers across the net are now questioning a lot of their production. More damining evidence will come to light I have a feeling !

Wow was I tired when I typed this!

It was supposed to refer to ICA_cows not DPC as a whole group.

[emphasis]

BUT YOU CANNOT DECREASE YOUR AVERAGE DOCKING TIME TO BEYOND YOUR SYSTEM'S CAPABILITIES.

there is a really simple way to decrease that time!!!

Just set your systemclock back for a year when client is running. On that way i first had a average docking time of -16 min (now its 3min, see here (http://d2ol.childhooddiseases.org/stats/nodeProfile.jsp?id=45053)).

Yes i know that is TSC, but thats the same

[Fr3ak]

Why do you set your systemclock back then?
I grew up with PCs and you guys do a lot of strange, uncommon things...

Legal weed in Netherlands eh? ;)

[DDTUNG]

there is a really simple way to decrease that time!!!

Just set your systemclock back for a year when client is running. On that way i first had a average docking time of -16 min (now its 3min, see here (http://d2ol.childhooddiseases.org/stats/nodeProfile.jsp?id=45053)).

Yes i know that is TSC, but thats the same

And why would one want to do that?:confused:

DDTUNG:cool:

[ParaNoiMia]

I guess he wrote it to tell you that the average docking time is not a solid figure to find out if someone has cheated or not, don't you think ?

[trakslacker]

sure, but if setting the system clock back is the only real way to drastically decrease docking time, and since it has been shown that ICA_COWS really could not have thier listed docking time given the comps they listed, then can they give a logical explanation as to why on earth they would set back the system clock on hundreds of PCs?

[Entity_Razer]

the only thing I can think of is winter savings time.... but that just doesn't add up.

[DDTUNG]

I guess he wrote it to tell you that the average docking time is not a solid figure to find out if someone has cheated or not, don't you think ?

So you are supporting the theory that they set back the clock on a significant number of computers, purportedly in a large company or institution, which caused a decrease in average docking time?

I've heard a few stories in my life. None can beat this one.

DDTUNG:cool:

[DDTUNG]

...but that just doesn't add up.

ER, that is my line.:)

DDTUNG:cool:

[shmaa]

So you are supporting the theory that they set back the clock on a significant number of computers, purportedly in a large company or institution, which caused a decrease in average docking time?

I've heard a few stories in my life. None can beat this one.

DDTUNG:cool:

Excuses are just being grabbed out of thin air now... it's starting to get very pathetic and lame.:cow:

MOD EDIT shmaa is expressing his personal opinion.

[DDTUNG]

Allow me to suggest a way for the ICA_COWS to prove their innocence. Why don't they send the resultQueue.dat files to Charles Beckius for verification? Since the files were saved and then copied over for the dump, surely they still exist on the computers where they originated.

DDTUNG:cool:

[saaya]

did they just not send them yet or did they say they will never send them to charles?

this is kinda distubring... a project to help humanity... gets cheated on for fame... sad



MOD EDIT: saaya is expressing his personal opinion.

[Fr3ak]

MOD EDIT: saaya is expressing his personal opinion.

ROFL thats great. Nice one Victor ;D
Entertaining stuff in this thread.
But as long as we have no hard proof, we can't tell if there is anything wrong or not.
I personaly don't believe in those tails, but thats only my 2 cents.
So it's "in dubio pro reo" I guess.
But just a hint for the future: There would have been no accusations if you had played the game like everyone else. Nobody would have had any doubt about the output of ICA if there were 1 or 2 node(s) per pc.
Have a look at the answers you gave us and decide for yourself if they are plausible or not.
I am using D2OL to help science, so that maybe one time people can benefit from it. Now Charles has to waste unnecessary resources to determine whether your "method" was legit or not.

[DDTUNG]

Fr3ak the hardproof is right there in the D2OL database and logs. Someone just has to take the trouble to extract it. Or the honorable ICA_COWS could just present the resultQueue.dat files and save everyone the trouble.

DDTUNG:cool:

[Hua Luo Han]

:confused: what did i miss ?

anyway, nice effort there Team XS :clap:

[saaya]

thx for the edit victor :D
i was speaking for myself and i dont want to insult anybody or accuse anybody of cheating, i was just commenting on the possibility of a project run to help humanity eventually beeing cheated on for fame.
wich is a very weird idea...

[DDTUNG]

thx for the edit victor :D
i was speaking for myself and i dont want to insult anybody or accuse anybody of cheating, i was just commenting on the possibility of a project run to help humanity eventually beeing cheated on for fame.
wich is a very weird idea...

I know, saaya. But just in case you did, I had your rear covered.:)

DDTUNG:cool:

[ParaNoiMia]

So you are supporting the theory that they set back the clock on a significant number of computers, purportedly in a large company or institution, which caused a decrease in average docking time?

I've heard a few stories in my life. None can beat this one.

DDTUNG:cool:

You just read what you want to read DDTUNG. I am not saying I support this, neither do I know if they did this, I am just telling you that the average docking time does not seem to be a 100% reliable figure, since it is possible to influence it, like it the example of changing the time.

[Movieman]

You just read what you want to read DDTUNG. I am not saying I support this, neither do I know if they did this, I am just telling you that the average docking time does not seem to be a 100% reliable figure, since it is possible to influence it, like it the example of changing the time.
It's not that it CAN be done to influence the times, the question is why would anyone in their right mind DO so unless they were trying to hide something else!
This whole deal has stunk. The hoarding of the cands,the copying of nodes, all of it. Why the hell not crunch it, up it and if you got more than the other team great, if not congratulate them and get on with life!
Do it clean and then there are no questions!

[DDTUNG]

You just read what you want to read DDTUNG. I am not saying I support this, neither do I know if they did this, I am just telling you that the average docking time does not seem to be a 100% reliable figure, since it is possible to influence it, like it the example of changing the time.

Sir, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and theories, and the rest of the world can form theirs about what you are saying.

I stand firm on my statement about average docking times for those who play by the rules. For those who don't, that is a whole different story.

DDTUNG:cool:

[saaya]

I know, saaya. But just in case you did, I had your rear covered.:)

DDTUNG:cool:
yeah, thanks a lot :)

You just read what you want to read DDTUNG. I am not saying I support this, neither do I know if they did this, I am just telling you that the average docking time does not seem to be a 100% reliable figure, since it is possible to influence it, like it the example of changing the time.
well it all sums up from what ive seen, its not only the docking time.
and i dont think victor only sees what he wants to see, but hes looking at things from a certain point of view.
its just a theory and he never claimed its true, neither did i and most other people.

there are many ways to look at things, the more complex the situation the more ways of lookng at the situation may appear true and even be true.
victor and other people are just pointing out that from the details we know its possible to have a credible theory saying dpc cheated.
thats why he is requesting more details to either proof the theory or remove all doubts that the theory is wrong.

the credibility of dpc is already in question and was harmed, not intentially from what i can see though, so i dont understand why dpc doesnt provide more details to clear up the situation and restore their credibility.

It's not that it CAN be done to influence the times, the question is why would anyone in their right mind DO so unless they were trying to hide something else!
This whole deal has stunk. The hoarding of the cands,the copying of nodes, all of it. Why the hell not crunch it, up it and if you got more than the other team great, if not congratulate them and get on with life!
Do it clean and then there are no questions!
well, there are some weird and shady things that result of tactics that teams use to secretly buffr some points and later unleash them all of a sudden, its part of the game, and actually the only way of making this game more fun, as a steady output is rather boring.
but i do agree that there are several thigs that are dont make sense, simple tactics and buffering points dosnt explain what and how they did what they did, at least from my understanding of the situation.

but maybe its all just a solution that resulted of people beeing lazy and sticking to a method even if it doesnt make sense or actually creates more work over time... thats how humans are :D
humans dont make sense :lol:

but as i said, i dont understand why dpc doesnt cooperate to clear up the situation :confused:

[DDTUNG]

but as i said, i dont understand why dpc doesnt cooperate to clear up the situation :confused:

My feelings exactly.

I know that if I were buffering all these cands and had all these resultQueue.dat files copied to one computer to upload, then someone came around and accused me of cheating, I would just send the entire folder of files to Charles to prove my innocence, then instruct my attorney to sue
their axx off.

DDTUNG:cool:

[saaya]

hahaha lol@ attorney :D

[[KoG]^weaZel]

this just gets stranger and stranger. It seems that ICA really isn't responding but other cows are speaking of wild tangents of what might have occured. One thing is about changing the clock of a pc. For the most part of the world everyone supports a form of Daylight savings time. So that shoudl put everyone on equal footing. Why on earth would to set 100's of office computers back 1 YEAR!?! or something even close. This whole thing stinks, there are too many what if's and what about's. What we are getting is an attempt to divert attention and discredit the possibility of some wrong doing.

All we want is the truth and all we are getting right now is excuses and what if's. After all we are giving you the benefit of the doubt, but your responses don't bring a favorable light to you. Stop "beating around the bush" and get to the heart of the matter. As this is tainting the whole project for many people.

*DISCLAIMER* this has been a commentary by Weaz and by no means is supported by XS or any members or bodies there of. The word "WE" refers to the D2OL community at large and the words "ICA", "YOU" and "cows" refer to members of the Dutch Power Cows.

[emphasis]

I think nobody will change the system clock all the time on all computers to get a lower average dockinging time. Also i don't know much about ICA, but i just gave the example to let you guys see that the average dockinging time says nothing.

its just a possible thingthat could have been happend. It also happend to me that I installed wndows on a computer, started d2ol and saw later that the system clock was some months different. So i set it back and later i saw that my average was -16min.

What if the system clock of 1 pc of their pc's was 1 or 2 years different and the set it back to the good year?
Then their average of that node will drop very much.

It's just a possible thing what also happend to me (thats why i know it can). I don't know if something like his happend, but very strange isn't this theory :)

[DDTUNG]

I think nobody will change the system clock all the time on all computers to get a lower average dockinging time. Also i don't know much about ICA, but i just gave the example to let you guys see that the average dockinging time says nothing.

its just a possible thingthat could have been happend. It also happend to me that I installed wndows on a computer, started d2ol and saw later that the system clock was some months different. So i set it back and later i saw that my average was -16min.

What if the system clock of 1 pc of their pc's was 1 or 2 years different and the set it back to the good year?
Then their average of that node will drop very much.

It's just a possible thing what also happend to me (thats why i know it can). I don't know if something like his happend, but very strange isn't this theory :)

Let's just say for a minute that your theory is possible. Then with 149 other PCS with an average of 15 to 20, and 1 with -16 like yours, the new average becomes 14.89 to 19.89. Nowhere near 12. Are you happy now?

DDTUNG:cool:

[Acrazar]

as far as the whole docking time thing goes, if the computers were set up in a lab at a school or something like that and if they were bought all at the same time it is very possible that the battieries died in them. I used to see whole labs at my HS with bad clocks cuz the network admin was to lazy to open up every computer to give ppl the right date, when the date matters little for email and web surfing.

I dont know enough of what is going on to really have an opinion on the whole cheating thing, but from what i have read it seems very fishy that ICA refuses to even offer a responce to our questions. I mean pride is one thing, but sometimes you just have to come out and explain yourself.

[UCmajewski]

Let's just say for a minute that your theory is possible. Then with 149 other PCS with an average of 15 to 20, and 1 with -16 like yours, the new average becomes 14.89 to 19.89. Nowhere near 12. Are you happy now?

DDTUNG:cool:

Setting time back on the computers come on! Does that even work?

I know resubmitting candidates affects dock time ...... I crunched 2000 (under a different accout BTW) and resubmitted the candidates ..... the dock time went down significatly from 10 seconds to 8 seconds. It was an old node with my a64 @ 2.7 ghz ...... used to have a p4 @ 2.8ghz. The p4 I believe was at a high 12 / 13 .... the athlon 64 made it go down to a low 10.

Has anyone answered why the best candidate is A) So old (4/27/05) B) So poor (-17 )? There are people who have done 1 / 10 ICA cows have done that and have much found better cnadidates.

[saaya]

could it be that the d2ol servers were down for registrations so thats why they coppied the same node folder over and over?
thats what they did right?
sorry if i got it wrong, just thougt the d2ol servers beeing down might explain some of what they did

[Movieman]

could it be that the d2ol servers were down for registrations so thats why they coppied the same node folder over and over?
thats what they did right?
sorry if i got it wrong, just thougt the d2ol servers beeing down might explain some of what they did
I thought about this also but look at the age of this node and the amount thats been upped on it by ICA...Doesn't add up!:nono:
It's more like someone or a group of someones has a system in place where this one node just keeps being copied and copied ad nauseum

[Bio1ogics]

Where to start, where to start…
Greetings from a DPC’er (not ICA, not even D2OL) and congrats with the first place. Well done.
I got personally interested in this cheat-story, so this is by no means official DPC stuff. I have read both DPC and XS forums regarding this.
May I give a recap on this thread?

First it was the one node, which got explained by XS members themselves. Your current #4 member Windforce, also uses 1 node I noticed, (link (http://stats.free-dc.org/new/teamstats.php?proj=d2ol&team=XtremeSystems)) and with that many candidates I speculate that he/she also uses more than 1 puter. If so, maybe Windforce can further explain you the bennies of using 1 node.

Then it was the question of the number of PCs involved; this was answered.
DDTUNG then asked the question: then why only 700,000 candies when they could have produced so much more in that time?
While your math is ok, you reasoning is based upon these PCs are crunching 24/7. Ergo…
Plus, if it was cheating, why then stop? Why not keep it going to keep ahead of you? Like it was stated by ICA, their goal was to keep DPC at #1 for 2005. All of DPC knew we were losing this one. As it was, DPC barely reached #1 2005, I think a couple of hours in the new year and you passed us.

Then the rather silly remarks about why hoarding the cands and copying of nodes, it must be cheating right?
I’m afraid this is somewhat of a culture clash. As has been explained by Floppus (page 2, link (http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/list_messages/1099398/1)) but sadly not posted here by Entity_Razer, I’ll quote
….If there is someone who should know about the possibilities to cheat, it should be the organization (or it would be very sad indeed). Only they have insight into all data, and have ways to detect cheaters. Accusations can be made by everyone, but only the organization will have the proof using the uploaded results. Not to offend you (edit Bio1ogics, this was in answer to XS_Duc), but I find it incredible that you’re seriously suggesting posting a list of hardware is a sufficient way of checking…

…I can assure you that it is extremely (edit Bio1ogics: no pun intended) hard to cheat within the DPC. Because of the fierce internal competetion and tight community, stuff like sudden increases in output, spreading of clients in other software and hacks WILL be noticed. Besides this, DPC is linked to an even bigger community: someone marked as cheater here will be known by the entire Dutch DC people and also through Tweakers.net by a lot of other people.

…About the saving method, which is regarded as normal here; DPC has a pretty good reputation and history in DC. This method of saving was already applied in the first DC projects in which DPC participated (btw in which projects it was not possible to cheat using this method). People are just plainly used to do it that way. Besides this, DPC is known for its megadumps…..

To make a long story even longer, an abstract:
- Push the organization so that cheating is impossible, and remove cheaters accounts
- Be carefull with accusing people when you have no proof. This regards to calling saving-methods questionable, while that same saving-method is in the blood through historical use in other projects. Besides: if a flush-method is questionable, the projectorganization should unable that method….



I hope this sheds some light on the background of the why.

Now, sadly, which is probably also one of the reasons most teams regard D2OL as a dead project, D2OL organization is not able to check if people cheat or not (link (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10633)). This also ties in with DDTUNG’s request to send all result files to Charles. If Charles can’t determine cheating in the uploaded files, he will also not be able to to determine this in the files ICA would send. They’re the same right?

One thing I do find encouraging of DDTUNG’s request is that he acknowledges that ONLY D2OL can prove cheating. So why not direct your time and energy to push D2OL into enabling detection of resent buffers.

That leaves the docking time. Wake up those math skills ;-)
First, it’s not the most stable parameter in D2OL, to say the least. Several people on this thread have given plausible ways of showing docking time is as reliable as the weather forecast. I find it a bit disappointing (or maybe you did not read it) that you did not respond to Lo$t PrOPhEt, mad mikee and Bloody_sorcerer on this thread. All show simple examples of how docking time means nothing (respectively, responses 14, 26 and 49).

AVERAGE docking time it is, right? So the the time needed to crunch them divided by the number of candidates.
Lets start an new account: 0 candidates
Suppose you have a buffer of 2,000 candidates with total dock time 30,000 minutes: upload it
Your results would be 2000 candidates, total dock time 30,000 minutes, average docking time 15 minutes.

Let’s go cheat and upload the same buffer which contains 2,000 candidates with total dock time 30,000.
Your results will now be 4000 candidates, total dock time 60,000 minutes, average docking time 15 minutes.

So reloading buffers will NOT shorten your average dock time.

If you look at the D2OL stats pages, the average dock time of a member is plainly calculated by dividing the the total dock time by the number of candidates. As the number of candidates can be checked, the wobbly number here is the time.
You want to know how wobbly?
Take 100,000 candidates, of which 99,999 have average crunch time of 15 minutes
That’s 1499985 minutes
Take ONE PC with similar crunch power (so 15 minutes per candidate) and let it crunch the remaining candidate but set the systemclock back one year. Yes I know it’s ridiculous, but for this example it’s valid.
365 x 24 x 60 = 525600 minutes. So the total dock time for this candidate is -525600 + 15 (actual crunching)
So – 525585.
Upload your results: What does D2OL get?
100,000 candidates with total docking time 1499985 – 525585 = 974400 minutes.

This makes average docking time 974400 / 100,000 = 9.744 minutes.

Hardware docking time: 15 minutes.
D2OL docking time (due to ONE candidate): 7 minutes 45 seconds.

Can you at least IMAGINE that D2OL docking time is NO proof whatsoever?

I’ll finish by saying to DDTUNG that I hope what you stated on the Free-DC forum was in jest (link (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10607)) , because I think the crunch power you have can be put to very good use, and it will be a loss if you decided to retire from DC.

Any flaws in reasoning are enterily on my account, and are mostly due to lack of coffee.

Which i will now get.

[UCmajewski]

So reloading buffers will NOT shorten your average dock time.


OK then explain this .... I used a 2000 candidate sized resultqeue crunched from an athlonXP on my athlon 64 node.

http://www.cas.uc.edu/~majewspj/Here/accident.JPG

you can see a dock time of 8 minutes pretty quick considering this node used to have a P4 on it. I assure you the 2000 did affect its dock time.

Heres an almost virtually identical athlon 64 system

http://www.cas.uc.edu/~majewspj/Here/plain.JPG

So submitting candidates under a different node will affect dock time ... It did in my case or does any else have an explanation for a -2 minute dock time?

[DDTUNG]

Where to start, where to start…
Greetings from a DPC’er (not ICA, not even D2OL) and congrats with the first place. Well done.
I got personally interested in this cheat-story, so this is by no means official DPC stuff. I have read both DPC and XS forums regarding this.
May I give a recap on this thread?

First it was the one node, which got explained by XS members themselves. Your current #4 member Windforce, also uses 1 node I noticed, (link (http://stats.free-dc.org/new/teamstats.php?proj=d2ol&team=XtremeSystems)) and with that many candidates I speculate that he/she also uses more than 1 puter. If so, maybe Windforce can further explain you the bennies of using 1 node.

Then it was the question of the number of PCs involved; this was answered.
DDTUNG then asked the question: then why only 700,000 candies when they could have produced so much more in that time?
While your math is ok, you reasoning is based upon these PCs are crunching 24/7. Ergo…
Plus, if it was cheating, why then stop? Why not keep it going to keep ahead of you? Like it was stated by ICA, their goal was to keep DPC at #1 for 2005. All of DPC knew we were losing this one. As it was, DPC barely reached #1 2005, I think a couple of hours in the new year and you passed us.

Then the rather silly remarks about why hoarding the cands and copying of nodes, it must be cheating right?
I’m afraid this is somewhat of a culture clash. As has been explained by Floppus (page 2, link (http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/list_messages/1099398/1)) but sadly not posted here by Entity_Razer, I’ll quote


I hope this sheds some light on the background of the why.

Now, sadly, which is probably also one of the reasons most teams regard D2OL as a dead project, D2OL organization is not able to check if people cheat or not (link (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10633)). This also ties in with DDTUNG’s request to send all result files to Charles. If Charles can’t determine cheating in the uploaded files, he will also not be able to to determine this in the files ICA would send. They’re the same right?

One thing I do find encouraging of DDTUNG’s request is that he acknowledges that ONLY D2OL can prove cheating. So why not direct your time and energy to push D2OL into enabling detection of resent buffers.

That leaves the docking time. Wake up those math skills ;-)
First, it’s not the most stable parameter in D2OL, to say the least. Several people on this thread have given plausible ways of showing docking time is as reliable as the weather forecast. I find it a bit disappointing (or maybe you did not read it) that you did not respond to Lo$t PrOPhEt, mad mikee and Bloody_sorcerer on this thread. All show simple examples of how docking time means nothing (respectively, responses 14, 26 and 49).

AVERAGE docking time it is, right? So the the time needed to crunch them divided by the number of candidates.
Lets start an new account: 0 candidates
Suppose you have a buffer of 2,000 candidates with total dock time 30,000 minutes: upload it
Your results would be 2000 candidates, total dock time 30,000 minutes, average docking time 15 minutes.

Let’s go cheat and upload the same buffer which contains 2,000 candidates with total dock time 30,000.
Your results will now be 4000 candidates, total dock time 60,000 minutes, average docking time 15 minutes.

So reloading buffers will NOT shorten your average dock time.

If you look at the D2OL stats pages, the average dock time of a member is plainly calculated by dividing the the total dock time by the number of candidates. As the number of candidates can be checked, the wobbly number here is the time.
You want to know how wobbly?
Take 100,000 candidates, of which 99,999 have average crunch time of 15 minutes
That’s 1499985 minutes
Take ONE PC with similar crunch power (so 15 minutes per candidate) and let it crunch the remaining candidate but set the systemclock back one year. Yes I know it’s ridiculous, but for this example it’s valid.
365 x 24 x 60 = 525600 minutes. So the total dock time for this candidate is -525600 + 15 (actual crunching)
So – 525585.
Upload your results: What does D2OL get?
100,000 candidates with total docking time 1499985 – 525585 = 974400 minutes.

This makes average docking time 974400 / 100,000 = 9.744 minutes.

Hardware docking time: 15 minutes.
D2OL docking time (due to ONE candidate): 7 minutes 45 seconds.

Can you at least IMAGINE that D2OL docking time is NO proof whatsoever?

I’ll finish by saying to DDTUNG that I hope what you stated on the Free-DC forum was in jest (link (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10607)) , because I think the crunch power you have can be put to very good use, and it will be a loss if you decided to retire from DC.

Any flaws in reasoning are enterily on my account, and are mostly due to lack of coffee.

Which i will now get.

Thank you for your rather logical reply which befits your username.:)

You will note that I have made my own analysis of the advantages as well as the disadvantages of using one common node, elsewhere herein, and this point was not my primary complaint.

In my paragraph regarding the number of PCs used, I estimated the plausible range of outputs from 150 P4 3.0 machines for a period of 75 days, without taking into account those of the 600 acknowledgedly slower machines run for a much shorter period of time. That showed the actual output of 700,000 was within the plausible range, a scenario well explained by your suggestion that the PCs might not have been used full time. What I contended as inconceivable was that somehow these PCs, under the circumstances, produced sets of results which invariably ended in multiples of 10. Yes, at least 750 sets, plus all the completed 2000 cands sets, ending almost all in 0.

Why stop? Because they had already achieved their stated goal, and to continue much further after I had cried foul and attracted the attention of the DC community would have been too risky. This is of course only my personal contention.

At no point in my analysis did I suggest that uploading the same resultQueue.dat more than once would decrease the average docking time. What I did suspect, and still do, is that the sets of results which were uploaded were produced on a faster machine than the P4 3.0 claimed.

Now we come to the arithmetic part. If you make the very, very reasonable assumption based on the fact that the 700,000 cands were produced by around 700 machines, an average of 1000 or more cands were produced per machine(to give ICA_COWS the benefit of the doubt), since some of them were slower and also used for much shorter time, you will have the following results:

Take 700,000 cands, of which 690,000 had average docking time of 15 minutes. That's 10,350,000 minutes

Your other machine, with its clock set back 1 year, average docking time of 15 minutes, and 1,000 candidates crunched, would give a figure of -510,600 minutes using your same calculations.

That would have given 9,839,400 minutes, or an average of 14.05 minutes.

Sir, it was a valiant effort, but you have illustrated a hypothetical situation which was clearly designed to be overwhelmingly in your favor, but wholly unrealistic, and flawed. Unfortunately you have met your intellectual match.:)

DDTUNG:cool:

[Bio1ogics]

stuff..

I am not making a case that submitting candidates under a different node will affect dock time, because you have shown it will.

Maybe I was not clear enough, but I ment to say that cheating by sending the SAME buffer two or more times will not affect the average docking time. So a short docking time does not tell anything is this regard.

[DDTUNG]

I am not making a case that submitting candidates under a different node will affect dock time, because you have shown it will.


But was it not claimed by members of DPC that the resultQueue.dat files were copied from the buffers of the crunching machines and then uploaded from another node?

DDTUNG:cool:

[Bio1ogics]

Thank you for your rather logical reply which befits your username.:)

You will note that I have made my own analysis of the advantages as well as the disadvantages of using one common node, elsewhere herein, and this point was not my primary complaint.

duelly noted


In my paragraph regarding the number of PCs used, I estimated the plausible range of outputs from 150 P4 3.0 machines for a period of 75 days, without taking into account those of the 600 acknowledgedly slower machines run for a much shorter period of time. That showed the actual output of 700,000 was within the plausible range, a scenario well explained by your suggestion that the PCs might not have been used full time. What I contended as inconceivable was that somehow these PCs, under the circumstances, produced sets of results which invariably ended in multiples of 10. Yes, at least 750 sets, plus all the completed 2000 cands sets, ending almost all in 0.


It is still possible :shrug:


Why stop? Because they had already achieved their stated goal, and to continue much further after I had cried foul and attracted the attention of the DC community would have been too risky. This is of course only my personal contention.


They continued flushing after you cried foul.


At no point in my analysis did I suggest that uploading the same resultQueue.dat more than once would decrease the average docking time. What I did suspect, and still do, is that the sets of results which were uploaded were produced on a faster machine than the P4 3.0 claimed.

Now we come to the arithmetic part. If you make the very, very reasonable assumption based on the fact that the 700,000 cands were produced by around 700 machines, an average of 1000 or more cands were produced per machine(to give ICA_COWS the benefit of the doubt), since some of them were slower and also used for much shorter time, you will have the following results:

Take 700,000 cands, of which 690,000 had average docking time of 15 minutes. That's 10,350,000 minutes

Your other machine, with its clock set back 1 year, average docking time of 15 minutes, and 1,000 candidates crunched, would give a figure of -510,600 minutes using your same calculations.

That would have given 9,839,400 minutes, or an average of 14.05 minutes.

Sir, it was a valiant effort, but you have illustrated a hypothetical situation which was clearly designed to be overwhelmingly in your favor, but wholly unrealistic, and flawed. Unfortunately you have met your match.:)

DDTUNG:cool:

Unfortunately, you have made an error: 700,000 minus 690,000 is not 1,000 but 10,000. So multiplied by ten gives -5,100,000 minutes
10,350,000 minus 5,100,000 = 5,250,000 minutes
divided by 700,000 gives 7.5 minutes.


So? It is possible, yes?


edit: btw, I did not exemplefy this as being "in my favour" . The outcome of the math holds for any number.

[UCmajewski]

I am not making a case that submitting candidates under a different node will affect dock time, because you have shown it will.

Maybe I was not clear enough, but I ment to say that cheating by sending the SAME buffer two or more times will not affect the average docking time. So a short docking time does not tell anything is this regard.

what its the same node 117289? Those are 2 different nodes .... 2 different machines. The first one I submitted a resultqeue from a different machine(whould be the same thing as resubmitting ... ur adding 2000 that machine didnt crunch). The second machine is your standard im running d2ol 24 / 7 node never messed with.


We've also re submitted results and got the same result on a different account. I sent the same buffer 2 or more times same result .... it lowered dock times as well. It does lower dock times .... period! I suggest you give it a try ?

[Bio1ogics]

what its the same node 117289? Those are 2 different nodes .... 2 different machines. The first one I submitted a resultqeue from a different machine(whould be the same thing as resubmitting ... ur adding 2000 that machine didnt crunch). The second machine is your standard im running d2ol 24 / 7 node.

Ive also re submitted results and got the same result on a different account. I sent the same buffer 2 or more times same result .... it lowered dock times as well. It does lower dock times .... period! I suggest you give it a try ?

Interesting confession you make here, btw. You could almost call it cheating.


The first one I submitted a resultqeue from a different machine(whould be the same thing as resubmitting ... ur adding 2000 that machine didnt crunch).


Please do your math. I'll offer you two ways of explanation. First the cumbersome one:
You already had candidates and a average dock time of the "first one". You took a resultfile from a diff machine, which is ofcourse completely unequal to REsubmitting. You just upload a resultfile of a - let's say - offline machine. Of course your dock time will change! if your "first one" had average DT of 15 minutes, and your other one a different average, your new average will change. Write the numbers down and see for yourself.

Easier explanation. In the result file there must be some info for D2OL to produce stats. Besides the science beside it, the resultsfile contains the number of candidates crunched and the time the machine took to crunch them. So the average dock time WITHIN that results file is fixed. So if you would REsubmit that same result file, the ave dock time is not affected.

The thing which confuses you is that multiple result files from different machines uploaded through one node does affect ave dock time. Different machines have different dock times.

I hope I've made myself clear this time. English is not my native language so I'm sometimes struggling for words.

[DDTUNG]

duelly noted



It is still possible :shrug:



They continued flushing after you cried foul.



Unfortunately, you have made an error: 700,000 minus 690,000 is not 1,000 but 10,000. So multiplied by ten gives -5,100,000 minutes
10,350,000 minus 5,100,000 = 5,250,000 minutes
divided by 700,000 gives 7.5 minutes.


So? It is possible, yes?


edit: btw, I did not exemplefy this as being "in my favour" . The outcome of the math holds for any number.

Thank you for pointing out an error which, when corrected, goes in my favor.

700,000 - 1,000 = 699,000 x 15 = 10,485,000

(365x24x60) - (1,000x15) = 510,600

That gives 10,485,000 - 510,600 = 9,974,400 / 700,000 = 14.249.

I believe that follows your method exactly and is now correct. So your statement that 'The outcome of the math holds for any number.' is fallacious.Q.E.D. :)

DDTUNG:cool:

[saaya]

welcome to XtremeSystems Bio1ogics :)

you indirectly say we shouldnt accuse ica of cheating if we have no proof, and a few sentences later you point out yourself that its impossible to have proof that somebody cheats, only sengent can tell :P

so is it possible to reload buffers and upload buffered results again?

victor never claimed that the docking time was a prof, just like you pointed out theres no way to have a proof, only sengent can tell, he and others just pointed out that its suspicious, together with other things that are suspicious.
im not really intot his and dont know the details, but thats what ive read and understood of this issue so far :D

why did you ignore the point about ica not replying to victor or offering cooperation with charles b?

the resultsfile contains the number of candidates crunched and the time the machine took to crunch themhow do you know this?

[DDTUNG]

Interesting confession you make here, btw. You could almost call it cheating.



Please do your math. I'll offer you two ways of explanation. First the cumbersome one:
You already had candidates and a average dock time of the "first one". You took a resultfile from a diff machine, which is ofcourse completely unequal to REsubmitting. You just upload a resultfile of a - let's say - offline machine. Of course your dock time will change! if your "first one" had average DT of 15 minutes, and your other one a different average, your new average will change. Write the numbers down and see for yourself.

Easier explanation. In the result file there must be some info for D2OL to produce stats. Besides the science beside it, the resultsfile contains the number of candidates crunched and the time the machine took to crunch them. So the average dock time WITHIN that results file is fixed. So if you would REsubmit that same result file, the ave dock time is not affected.

The thing which confuses you is that multiple result files from different machines uploaded through one node does affect ave dock time. Different machines have different dock times.

I hope I've made myself clear this time. English is not my native language so I'm sometimes struggling for words.

It is evident that your line of reasoning did not take into account the facts stated in my post #96 above.

By the way, UC will be sending the resultQueue.dat file used in his experiment to Charles B. for adjustments to the scientific results and statistics, as well as to help decipher ICA_COWS' results.

DDTUNG:cool:

[Bio1ogics]

Thank you for pointing out an error which, when corrected, goes in my favor.

700,000 - 1,000 = 699,000 x 15 = 10,485,000

(365x24x60) - (1,000x15) = 510,600

That gives 10,485,000 - 510,600 = 9,974,400 / 700,000 = 14.249.

I believe that follows your method exactly and is now correct. So your statement that 'The outcome of the math holds for any number.' is fallacious.Q.E.D. :)

DDTUNG:cool:

Sigh. Let me put it mildly then for you. Is 14.249 less than 15 minutes?
So you have just shown that a 1,000 candidates is not enough to bring the oh so magical 10 minutes or whatever average docking time.
The general idea is that a single set-back systemclock can influence the average docking time to a shorter time.

So, the outcome of the math, which is that the average docking time decreases, holds for any number. Do it for 2 candidates, or do it for a million, when a percentage of the candidates are run on a set-back systemclock, THE AVERAGE DOCKING TIME WILL DECREASE.
The amount of which varies on the set-back time, the number of candidates and the number of PCs with a wrong systemclock.

So by your own reckoning, the average DT decreases if some candidates are run on a set-back systemclock machine.

Is abstract thinking THAT hard? You call my reasoning fallacious and that I have met my match, and still you keep proving to yourself that average docking time decreases with the principle mentioned.

Shoot, I need another coffee

[Rodzilla]

It is evident that your line of reasoning did not take into account the facts stated in my post #96 above.

By the way, UC will be sending the resultQueue.dat file used in his experiment to Charles B. for adjustments to the scientific results and statistics, as well as to help decipher ICA_COWS' results.

DDTUNG:cool:
Exactly! Thank you for posting this.

[Jeff]

Now this is getting fun to read! :clap:

;)

[Bio1ogics]

It is evident that your line of reasoning did not take into account the facts stated in my post #96 above.

By the way, UC will be sending the resultQueue.dat file used in his experiment to Charles B. for adjustments to the scientific results and statistics, as well as to help decipher ICA_COWS' results.

DDTUNG:cool:

True, i did not see #96 before posting. You present them now as being facts, while in #96 you ask a question, so please keep your semantics straight.
Dunno the answer, I'm not ICA.
Rather pointless I figure, because you keep pressing the same point, while I and your own team-mates on this thread show you that ave DT is not telling anything.

So UC will be sending the result file? Oh.
Adjustments to the scientific results shouldn't be necessary, in fact it is a nice double check on the candidates.

It would be good if Charles could provide some clarity.

[Movieman]

We keep getting responses from people within the DPC organisation but speaking as if they are individuals. Every time a question is posed that might let some light in on the issue we get a "Dunno the answer, I'm not ICA" or something to that effect. Might it not be better if someone in authority from the DPC or even better, the person/persons within the ICA to comment?

[Bio1ogics]

welcome to XtremeSystems Bio1ogics :)

Thanx Saaya!


you indirectly say we shouldnt accuse ica of cheating if we have no proof, and a few sentences later you point out yourself that its impossible to have proof that somebody cheats, only sengent can tell :P


err, yes? Your point is?
Why accuse anyone without proof. If you have suspicions, go to the project organization and let them handle it. We have diverse contact persons (project wise and DPC wise) D2OL can contact. Makes perfect sense, right :confused:
If D2OL says cheat, ICA goes. Simple as that.


so is it possible to reload buffers and upload buffered results again?


jup.


victor never claimed that the docking time was a prof, just like you pointed out theres no way to have a proof, only sengent can tell, he and others just pointed out that its suspicious, together with other things that are suspicious.
im not really intot his and dont know the details, but thats what ive read and understood of this issue so far :D


I take it victor = DDTUNG? He was the one "crying foul and attracted the attention of the DC community". He could have decided to make sengent make the call.
I also do not know the details, but was bugged by severe lack of reasoning on this thread.


why did you ignore the point about ica not replying to victor or offering cooperation with charles b?


Didn't have the time yet, had to finish my coffee first ;)
Asked and answered. At least if you mean sending the result files again? There the same ones Charles allready has, so what's the point?

the resultsfile contains the number of candidates crunched and the time the machine took to crunch them


how do you know this?

How else would sangent know?

[Bio1ogics]

We keep getting responses from people within the DPC organisation but speaking as if they are individuals. Every time a question is posed that might let some light in on the issue we get a "Dunno the answer, I'm not ICA" or something to that effect. Might it not be better if someone in authority from the DPC or even better, the person/persons within the ICA to comment?

All people are individuals. :rolleyes:

You also got responses from your own team-mates that aspects of this are plausible. I do have to say that I find your way of speaking very untruthful.

Not every time a question is posed, the answer was "dunno". Scroll through this thread again and see what's left of the "facts".
You have got comments from ICA. I can not help that the answers do not please you.
Spokesperson for DPC iischots has agreed with Entity_Razer to keep out of each others hair (is that an english saying?) and let sengent make the calls. He also stated that evidence can at all time be presented to him at crew@dutchpowercows.org

So i guess I'm somewhat out of line here :shh:

[Movieman]

All people are individuals. :rolleyes:

You also got responses from your own team-mates that aspects of this are plausible. I do have to say that I find your way of speaking very untruthful.

Not every time a question is posed, the answer was "dunno". Scroll through this thread again and see what's left of the "facts".
You have got comments from ICA. I can not help that the answers do not please you.
Spokesperson for DPC iischots has agreed with Entity_Razer to keep out of each others hair (is that an english saying?) and let sengent make the calls. He also stated that evidence can at all time be presented to him at crew@dutchpowercows.org

So i guess I'm somewhat out of line here :shh:
I agree, I should have worded it better. I was not implying that everything asked was avoided. It appeared to me and still does that the pertinant info was avoided in the first round of posts on this issue and that was my mindset when I wrote that. I apologise to you sir, I was not implying that you specifically were avoiding the issues. It was your comment of"Dunno the answer, I'm not ICA " that prompted my response.

[Quatar]

Hello from another DPC member.

As the chosen project representative for D2OL and crew member from the DPC, I want to make a few comments.

I really hope that Charles B. can do something with the resultqueues send by DDTUNG, so we all can close this discussion. Keep in mind that cheating is not tolerated within the DPC. If someone is found cheating :slapass:, they will be removed from the DPC.

As for dockingtime, I have had several nodes with dockingtimes between 12 min. 20 sec. an 13 min. 15 sec. , so I can't see what's so special about the dockingtime from ICA.

Furthermore I want to congratulate you all for reaching the first place, but don't forget to look in your rearviewmirror once in a while, there can allways be a stampede building up behind you.

[DDTUNG]

Sigh. Let me put it mildly then for you. Is 14.249 less than 15 minutes?
So you have just shown that a 1,000 candidates is not enough to bring the oh so magical 10 minutes or whatever average docking time.
The general idea is that a single set-back systemclock can influence the average docking time to a shorter time.

So, the outcome of the math, which is that the average docking time decreases, holds for any number. Do it for 2 candidates, or do it for a million, when a percentage of the candidates are run on a set-back systemclock, THE AVERAGE DOCKING TIME WILL DECREASE.
The amount of which varies on the set-back time, the number of candidates and the number of PCs with a wrong systemclock.

So by your own reckoning, the average DT decreases if some candidates are run on a set-back systemclock machine.

Is abstract thinking THAT hard? You call my reasoning fallacious and that I have met my match, and still you keep proving to yourself that average docking time decreases with the principle mentioned.

Shoot, I need another coffee

If you go back and read another previous post of mine, and this time you will have to look for it yourself, I stated that 1 PC with the clock set back one year, for whatever mysterious reason, could not have set back an average DT of 15-20 minutes to 12, or something to that effect. It is interesting, and perhaps it is DPC tradition, for you to start with numbers which would show a HUGE decrease due to one PC. For the benefit of all I will put down the formula as follows:

Total cands docked = 700,000 which is constant
No. of PCs with time set back one year = N
No. of cands crunched on each PC with time set back one year = M

Total DT = [700,000 - (N x M)] x 15 + N x [-(365 x 24 x 60) + (M x 15)]
= (700,000 x 15) - N x (365 x 24 x 60)
Average DT = 15 - N x (365 x 24 x 60) / 700,000
= 15 - (N x 0.750857) which is independent of M

The general formula for multiple PCs with variable time setbacks and cands crunched are derived similarly and will give the same conclusion.

And I must point out that the scenario of PCs with time setbacks affecting the average DT only arises when the time setback occurs in the middle of crunching a candidate, not before, or after.

I am quite capable of abstract thinking, thank you.

DDTUNG:cool:

[DDTUNG]

Hello from another DPC member.

As the chosen project representative for D2OL and crew member from the DPC, I want to make a few comments.

I really hope that Charles B. can do something with the resultqueues send by DDTUNG, so we all can close this discussion. Keep in mind that cheating is not tolerated within the DPC. If someone is found cheating :slapass:, they will be removed from the DPC.

As for dockingtime, I have had several nodes with dockingtimes between 12 min. 20 sec. an 13 min. 15 sec. , so I can't see what's so special about the dockingtime from ICA.

Furthermore I want to congratulate you all for reaching the first place, but don't forget to look in your rearviewmirror once in a while, there can allways be a stampede building up behind you.

The ICA numbers are special because of the fact that they were using 3.0