I forgot to ask earlier:

How does Mersenne@home choose the exponents it assigns as workunits?

Now, in its early stages, it would make sense to assign only exponents that had already been tested, as shown in the PrimeNet database -- i.e., already-DCed exponents -- so that the Mersenne@home admins can verify accuracy.

But once they have confidence in their accuracy of results, and demonstrates that to GIMPS's satisfaction, wouldn't it make sense for the Mersenne@home server to request bulk assignments from PrimeNet, deal them out to its users, then report results back to PrimeNet?

Batalov said in post #14 that they don't even trialfactor exponents first, so the site doesn't seem too trustworthy?

[QUOTE=ATH;247386]Batalov said in post #14 that they don't even trialfactor exponents first, so the site doesn't seem too trustworthy?[/QUOTE]It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of being still in early stages.

From [URL]http://mersenneathome.net/forum_thread.php?id=8[/URL]

[quote]As you read on the homepage in the news section, the project is under implementation and the current analyzed samples are marked as "test", because we are currently testing application, server, work generator, validator, etc. So the current stage is not the actual search.[/quote]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;242418]My security software says that's a suspicious site and advises me to leave immediately.[/QUOTE]

I get the same message from both mersenne.org, mersenneforum.org and mersenneathome.net. Rarely does this mean anything but that they do not have a VeriSign certificate, SSL encryption or other security features. Most websites fail when checking for these and other security features.

[QUOTE=imwithid;247853]Rarely does this mean anything but that they do not have a VeriSign certificate, SSL encryption or other security features. Most websites fail when checking for these and other security features.[/QUOTE]As in post #15, ZoneAlarm warns because of the short time the websites had existed.

Would GIMPS accept M@H doublecheck results?
 

[EMAIL="Mersenne@Home"]Mersenne@Home[/EMAIL] seems to be starting out by doublechecking results from roughly 21 million upward. GIMPS is also doublechecking in this range. If [EMAIL="Mersenne@Home"]Mersenne@Home[/EMAIL] happens to doublecheck exponents that GIMPS has not had a chance to doublecheck, would (or should) GIMPS be willing to incorporate those results into its own database, and hence avoid running redundant doublechecks?