[QUOTE=markr;282119]
[URL="http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/exponent.php?exponentdetails=7018901"]M7018901[/URL] has a 58 bit factor. It was assigned to Carsten Kossendey for P-1 (since March): I don't usually poach but since P-1 would be very unlikely to find a factor with k = 43 x 258029413 I hope he won't mind too much.[/QUOTE]So, that's your "justification" for not asking Kossendey's permission to render his P-1 useless, or for not at least having the courtesy to notify him that you were about to poach?

Is it that you assign no value to Kossendey's time, so that it is of no consequence to [I]you[/I] that Kossendey might have wanted to do something else instead of a useless P-1? Is that why you saw no reason to communicate with him before you proceeded to poach -- that while your own time has value, someone else's doesn't?

However, it's admirable that you publicly admit your poachery.

- - -

Poaching seems always to involve a conclusion that one's own desires and impatience are somehow more important than the desires, time and effort of someone else who has gone to the trouble of properly getting an assignment from PrimeNet. What is the "somehow" by which a poacher arrives at that conclusion?

.

.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;282133]So, that's your "justification" for not asking Kossendey's permission to render his P-1 useless, or for not at least having the courtesy to notify him that you were about to poach?

Is it that you assign no value to Kossendey's time, so that it is of no consequence to [I]you[/I] that Kossendey might have wanted to do something else instead of a useless P-1? Is that why you saw no reason to communicate with him before you proceeded to poach -- that while your own time has value, someone else's doesn't?

However, it's admirable that you publicly admit your poachery.

- - -

Poaching seems always to involve a conclusion that one's own desires and impatience are somehow more important than the desires, time and effort of someone else who has gone to the trouble of properly getting an assignment from PrimeNet. What is the "somehow" by which a poacher arrives at that conclusion?

.

.[/QUOTE]

What's the big fuss? He did TF while it was reserved for P-1. Didn't know that extending TF was considered poaching...

[QUOTE=diamonddave;282134]Didn't know that extending TF was considered poaching...[/QUOTE]As is common with poachery justifications, that leaves out something important.

"Didn't know that extending TF was considered poaching..."
-- It wasn't [I]only[/I] extending TF. It was extending TF [I]while someone else had a legitimate assignment[/I] (as you yourself acknowledged in your preceding sentence, but not this one).

[I]That overlap with a proper assignment[/I] is what distinguishes poaching from legitimate non-overlapping work.

Why did you leave out that overlapping-an-assignment factor and try to pretend that the bare TF extension was what was accused to be poachery?

I don't see anything wrong in trying to extend the TF horizon for exponents assigned to other people for P-1 or ECM, but I see no motivation either. You gain nothing, except the fact that you WASTE your processor time. Off course, if you know the "other people" (as opposite of them being "anonymous" users or guys who are not members here), it should be better to ask first. That is polite and you can avoid later discussion like this one here.

My motivation is very simple: doing TF for exponents with lots of P-1 and ECM done on them is a waste of time. WASTE of time. Most of the time you will end up with NO FACTORs. Some of the time you could end up with a factor that would not be found by P-1 or ECM (like in the current case) and only very seldom, but VERY seldom, you will find a "reasonable" factor that would render futile the work of the other guy. The most of the time is YOUR work that is futile. It is YOUR processor time that gets wasted.

If anyone love to waste his CPU cycles, be my guest.

Additionally, P-1 assignments are done with P95, which would be enough clever to unreserve the exponent when the work is not needed anymore, if the work for that exponent was not started yet. If the work is in progress... well, here is very painful, because P95 will not unreserve any exponent which has work done on it, so for the original cruncher it would be double frustration, one: he lost the time to work on that exponent, and two: if he does not find out that the work is not needed anymore, he will still lose the time up to the completion of the work, doing something which nobody need any longer. In this case, someone should tell to the legitimate cruncher, so he could stop his work in case it is started already, and move to some other assignment.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;282135]"Didn't know that extending TF was considered poaching..."
-- It wasn't [I]only[/I] extending TF. It was extending TF [I]while someone else had a legitimate assignment[/I][/QUOTE]
cheesehead,

Interesting question. Had Kossendey reported any progress on that P-1? If not, then how long can one hang on to an assignment before it may acceptably be, um, pre-empted by somebody else?

You asked markr, [QUOTE]Is it that you assign no value to Kossendey's time, so that it is of no consequence to [I]you[/I] that Kossendey might have wanted to do something else instead of a useless P-1?[/QUOTE]

OK, so if Kossendey felt that, over a nine-month period, anything else was better to do than the P-1 he got assigned to him, then can we really begrudge someone else taking over the exponent?

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just trying sincerely to get a better handle on the situation. I'm in no way in favor of poaching, I simply wish to see how and in what circumstances the concept is or isn't applicable.

Thanks!

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;282139]cheesehead,

Interesting question. Had Kossendey reported any progress on that P-1?[/QUOTE]PrimeNet releases assignments for which there's been no progress report within a certain time frame. Since the assignment still exists, we may deduce that a progress report [U]has[/U] been made within the time limits set by PrimeNet and the user's preferences (UnreserveDays=, DaysofWork=, etc.).

[quote]If not, then how long can one hang on to an assignment before it may acceptably be, um, pre-empted by somebody else?[/quote]There is never a time when an assignment may be "acceptably" poached.

If you have a complaint about the length of time someone has had an assignment, the acceptable way to handle that is to communicate directly with the assignee or with George Woltman, not by poaching.

[quote]OK, so if Kossendey felt that, over a nine-month period, anything else was better to do than the P-1 he got assigned to him, then can we really begrudge someone else taking over the exponent?[/quote][U]Yes, we can begrudge that[/U], if there was no communicating to politely urge the assignee to hurry up, and then communicating with George Woltman to ask for intervention. If the assignee, or George, releases the assignment, then it's okay for someone else to get it.

Otherwise, "taking over" an assigned exponent is just arrogant poaching.

[quote]Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just trying sincerely to get a better handle on the situation. I'm in no way in favor of poaching, I simply wish to see how and in what circumstances the concept is or isn't applicable.[/quote]It's rather simple:

When an exponent is assigned to someone else, and PrimeNet does not allow overlapping simultaneous assignments (as it does with ECM), then anyone else who does work on that exponent without having been assigned by PrimeNet is poaching.

Anyone who's not willing to abide by PrimeNet assignments should find some other project to work on, and not interfere with GIMPS.

[QUOTE=LaurV;282137]I don't see anything wrong in trying to extend the TF horizon for exponents assigned to other people for P-1 or ECM,[/QUOTE]Then it seems you don't yet understand the ethics of the GIMPS/PrimeNet system.

The PrimeNet assignment reservation system exists to allow GIMPS participants to contribute without having "toes stepped on". Once you have secured an assignment from PrimeNet, it is your right to proceed without having your effort duplicated or preempted by someone else (as long as your progress meets the PrimeNet standards -- and no would-be poacher has any judgement superior to PrimeNet's algorithms, with the very occasional and exceptional intervention of our project admins, in this regard).

(Note: PrimeNet does allows multiple simultaneous ECM assignments to be given to different users for the same exponent, because of the nature of ECM curve randomization. This doesn't apply to any other type of work, and does not apply to overlapping TF or P-1 with each other or with ECM, because non-ECM methods have deterministic, not randomized, initialization.

There could be an argument that ECM shouldn't be overlapped, either, but the likelihood of interference between two ECMers has been judged to be far lower than between any other combination and low enough to allow overlap. I'll accept that judgement until someone can show that it's detrimental. No one has ever shown that for non-ECM overlaps.)

[quote]but I see no motivation either.[/quote]Well, good -- you don't have the motivation that many poachers have. So, just don't do it.

[quote]You gain nothing, except the fact that you WASTE your processor time.[/quote]Have you given proper weight to the wasting of the assignee's processor time?

[quote]Off course, if you know the "other people"[/quote]You mean "assignees" here, right?

[quote](as opposite of them being "anonymous" users[/quote]If an "anonymous" user has a proper PrimeNet assignment, then s/he's not anonymous as far as PrimeNet is concerned, and no one else has any business interfering with or poaching that user's assignment.

[quote] or guys who are not members here)[/quote]By "not members", what do you mean?

Anyone who has an assignment from PrimeNet is a "member" as far as GIMPS/PrimeNet is concerned.

[quote]it should be better to ask first.[/quote]It's [U]always[/U] better to ask first, regardless of your presumed social distance from the assignee.

[quote]My motivation is very simple: doing TF for exponents with lots of P-1 and ECM done on them is a waste of time. WASTE of time. Most of the time you will end up with NO FACTORs. Some of the time you could end up with a factor that would not be found by P-1 or ECM (like in the current case) and only very seldom, but VERY seldom, you will find a "reasonable" factor that would render futile the work of the other guy. The most of the time is YOUR work that is futile. It is YOUR processor time that gets wasted.[/quote]... in [I]your[/I] opinion, that is.

So, when, if ever, is [I]your[/I] opinion so superior to someone else's opinion as to justify poaching an assignment?

[quote]If anyone love to waste his CPU cycles, be my guest.[/quote]So, never poach.

cheesehead,

Thanks for taking the time to provide this lucid explanation. It makes sense.

How many GHz-days should that exponent (M7018901) require to P-1?

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;282146]
How many GHz-days should that exponent (M7018901) require to P-1?

[/QUOTE]That depends rather heavily on the B1 and B2 bounds, doesn't it?

That's life, my dear. I don't want to go through a flame war with you, but if it is a must, I will.

Why you take it so hard?

I agree that no one should poach. But what we call poaching, is different. Doing a TF for an exponent assigned to TF to other user and getting a result, and REPORTING that result before the other user do (call it assignee, I did not know the word), well, THAT is poaching. Same as doing a LL for an LL-assigned-already exponent, and reporting the result faster then the assignee, and so on. (Hmmm, here I wonder what GIMPS will do with the prize in such a case, if the poacher finds a prime. I think the original assignee should get the prize, and this should be specified in the rules, for exactly the reason of avoiding poaching).

Nobody stops me to play with whatever exponent I like, as long as I let the other guy do his job. I can do all your DC exponents faster then you, and report them as triple checks AFTER you report them as double checks. I can do your LL assignments in parallel with you, and report them AFTER you report yours. Is this poaching? The system allows it, and the server would be happy if I do so.

If the system is so "clever" as you assume, it should forbid me (the poacher) to report a result for an exponent assigned to other guy. And I would be REALLY REALLY REALLY happy to have that feature!!! You have no idea how many times I did manual reports WITHOUT being logged in (or the server logged me out in between, because of bad internet connection), and my results ended as credited to anonymous guys.

But in nature (and Primenet) things are not like that. The system WILL accept whatever result come first, and you (doing LL on a 100M digits exponent for one year already) should be happy if some other guy shows a factor of it, saving you from another nine years of work. I would be happy if some guy finds factors for all exponents I am DC-ing and LL-ing in this very moment. I would give him a kiss and move to other LL and DC assignments.

Most probably I would react the same as you did, if someone would poach my first time LLs and REPORT the results before I do it. That I would call poaching. And if he finds a prime, I would take the gun. :P

But getting angry if someone actually SAVE me from some work? C'mon!

TF and P-1 overlap
 

A few months ago I was assigned a first time LL with
no P-1 and TFed only to 68.
Eric's GPU did more bits of TF while I did P-1.
Although he asked me to let him know if I found a factor, (as if I wouldn't), neither of us gave the slightest thought
to letting the other go first.
Predictably neither of us found one, and the LL residue was not zero.

There was a myth on V4 that the TF wavefront was comfortably ahead of LL assignments.
Even if that was once true, the short-sighted notion of postponing the last worthwhile bit or so of TF until P-1 was done [B](not)[/B] hurled this fiction out of the window.

There is no reason why 200 new ([B]not re-assigned) [/B]LL
assignments/day shouldn't be GPUed to 72. But hardly any are.

I (not to mention many others) am fed up with
explaining why this screwup is occurring.

[B]FOCUS[/B]

David