[QUOTE=retina;396691]Factors are checked by the server but residues aren't (and can't be).[/QUOTE]

"no factor to xxx" cannot be verified by the server, see.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;396693]"no factor to xxx" cannot be verified by the server, see.[/QUOTE]Oh, okay. I understand.

[QUOTE=retina;396643]Hmm, just thinking now, that perhaps I could just not bother with those pesky time and power consuming LLs and DCs. Perhaps instead I can just submit random residues for exponents and let Madpoo (and whomever else is doing such things) run the real tests. AFICT I still get the credit. And the only price to pay is getting flagged as unreliable. Moar credits! :evil:[/QUOTE]

Man... you try and do something nice, and then... See, this is why we can't have nice things. :smile:

As for your suggestion re: removing credit for results found to be bad... that would remove the incentive to cheat I guess.

The checks I'm doing are still a long way out from where the double-checks are being assigned, so even though I'm pretty confident my residues are correct and the originals are the bad one, it'll be some time before we know for sure.

That just means that some determine cheater (and George has his ways of looking for them) would only get the glory of their stolen valor for a bit longer until we prove their malfeasance.

I have this sense of deja vu, like this idea may have come up before... I kind of remember reading some discussion about credits for bad results. Don't remember what came of it though.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;396701]As for your suggestion re: removing credit for results found to be bad... that would remove the incentive to cheat I guess.[/QUOTE]Not just cheating, but people with bad machines. We shouldn't be incentivising people submitting useless work, no matter the intent, whether it is deliberate or not. Naturally we don't go calling everyone a cheat who submits a bad result, we just assume it is a cosmic ray, or a poor PSU, or whatever.

That's why the Prime95 binaries are shipped with hidden security code. Only manual results can be spoofed, and too many would be caught. (Having said that, you can still easily submit a *lot* of false results through the manual submission form.)

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;396693]"no factor to xxx" cannot be verified by the server, see.[/QUOTE]

Indeed :tu:

A quick check at mersenne.ca

Factoring credit for M997755331 from 72 to 100 bits is 257,339,023 days, yes 257 MILLION days

Want to prove it wrong? Try finding a factor.... :razz:

[QUOTE=chalsall;396459]I think George's newly proposed ranges for the categories make a lot of sense -- trusted (read: Cat 1 and 2) DC'ers are currently facing a famine; trusted LL'ers are being given more than they can eat.[/QUOTE]

I made changes as discussed. Look for new crossovers within the next 24 hours. Please monitor the situation over the coming months to see if more changes are necessary.

[QUOTE=Prime95;396838]I made changes as discussed. Look for new crossovers within the next 24 hours. Please monitor the situation over the coming months to see if more changes are necessary.[/QUOTE]

Thanks George!

[QUOTE=Batalov;396209]Maybe it's a good thing, because at least the error code is clearly visible, which for some reason [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_ll/?exp_lo=79299719"]was not recorded[/URL] to the database.[/QUOTE]

Just so you know Gordon, your result did not match mine. 00000000 error code.

Not really surprising considering how long you said you took for the run, probably without ECC memory.

Whimsically....
 

I will brazenly predict that we will have all exponents > 30,000,000 TF'd to 70 bits by 2025

[QUOTE=petrw1;397070]I will brazenly predict that we will have all exponents > 30,000,000 TF'd to 70 bits by 2025[/QUOTE]

Sure? Infinity is an awfully big number :smile: