Dpc Responds

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

In contrast of what i earlier stated, THIS will be my final say. I will do so because you keep stating things about me, which are not true and actually apply to yourself.
Furthermore, you don't seem to understand i agreed with you on your outcome.
But for one point:

the quotient 0.750857 is derived from the number of minutes in one year divided by the number of candidates.
So the Ave DT IS dependant on the set-back time, e.g. set 1 PC back a century and your formula becomes:

Average DT = 15 - N x (100 x 365 x 24 x 60) / 700,000
= 15 - (N x 75.085714) .

N=1 -> ave DT = 15 - 75.085714 = -60.085714

It seems that you rarely get criticized, as can be gathered by your use of words like, "met your match", "infallicious", and "rambling on with your arguments". It's called a discussion DDTUNG. If your arguments or math are criticized, it is common decency to attack the arguments, and not resort to the person questioning your responses.

Couldn't agree more.

Bio1ogics signing off

victor usually doesnt talk like that, hes just taking this all very serious, and i think he sees your posts as avoiding a clear statement and beating around the bush. i think victor and other people here are getting frustrated of the lack of clear statements and all the beatng around the bush, so please dont take it personal. victors posts are a little harsh, but i think thats understandable considering the work he put into this, and considering you appearently didnt read this thread but posted like you knew it all better.

you miss the point that its highly unlikely that somebody sets a pc back that much in time, or sets a load of pcs back in time... afaik they even have to be set back in time while they are working on a candidate!
this is making it so unlikely that i think we can conclude that its pretty much impossible to happen by accident or coincidental.

we arent debating a formula here, but how likely or unlikely it is that the low average docking time, the low best candidate result, the high output comming out of nowhere etc happened out of a coincidence or as a sideproduct of something else, wich isnt related to manipulating the client.

from what ive seen so far and what i understood victor pointed out that its pretty much impossible that this happened by accident or because somebody was too lazy to change the system time on a couple of machines.

this+using the same node+pulling loads of points out of nowhere+the low best candidate result+replies from ica avoiding a clear statement are all multiplying our suspicions.

i cant come up with any coincidence or situation wich isnt related to manipulating the client and manipulate the output that would explain all those findings. then again, im by no means a d2ol expert and didnt even know what was written in those result files and how you can buffer candidates in files etc...
lets wait a week or two, if we dont get a reply by then im going to leave d2ol and recommend everybody else to do the same.
even if ica didnt cheat, its appearently so easy to cheat even i could do it if i wanted to, and i dont know sht about this.
this is just the cream on top of the cake, barely any support from d2ol, no clear answers about project related questions or no answers at all, steady server troubles... and there is appearently no cheat protection whatsoever and sengent doesnt even seem to care about it.