I am not so sure you would need to worry.

First these four assignments. They are likely to become the lowest exponents in the weeks to come.

27897511
27906397
27988427
27988483

They have been worked on for a long time, more than a year. They are 90-95% done and move up by a few tenth of a percent per month. But they do report reliable progress. So almost all indicators make these assignments a no-no for taking since it really would be poaching.

I tried to find another assignment below 30,000,000 that would meet the criteria spelled out in this thread but they all have already been poached or taken long time ago by others.

CaptainEntropy is still working on some exponents in this range with no progress reported in the last 4 years. They would meet the criteria if they would become a block to a major milestone, but other GIMPS participants have completed them already.

I agree that poaching should be prevented as much as possible, but I also think the criteria spelled out here make poaching very unlikely, definitely less likely than criteria actively used by others.

I'll take these next 8 ummm 10?.

[CODE]
28465331 - Woody
28471337 - Woody
28474087 - Hand_In_The_Box
28476733 - Hand_In_The_Box
28485169 - Hand_In_The_Box
28489207 - Hand_In_The_Box
28491019 - CKDO still has this one
28491101 - CKDO still has this one
28497499 - Speck
28513531 - Speck
[/CODE]

"Sid & Andy" will be the owner

New overview of the taken assignments:

[CODE]
28258819 * Tha 28759477
28262609 * Tha 28779329
28339513 * Tha 28784731
28351957 * Tha 28786301
28404611 * Tha 28809983
28425883 * Tha 28813847
28452059 * Tha 28818913
28818919
28465331 * Sid & Andy 28819093
28471337 * Sid & Andy 28819289
28474087 * Sid & Andy 28821313
28476733 * Sid & Andy 28824689
28485169 * Sid & Andy 28842977
28489207 * Sid & Andy 28861241
28491019 * Sid & Andy 28864109
28491101 * Sid & Andy 28869107
28497499 * Sid & Andy 28875697
28513531 * Sid & Andy 28875751
28514449 28876157
28514693 28876307
28519753 28876597
28531051 28877843
28531057 28879159
28533929 28881109
28535261 28887407
28539479 28888129
28544231 28888261
28546901 28890131
28550267 28890751
28550311 28891537
28550909 * Miszka 28892641
28563097 28894681
28566569 28897207
28573081 28898743
28574713 28899917
28579189 28900217
28579757 28900997 * Miszka
28588337 28939003
28589321 28944551
28592209 28968389
28598201 28970779
28602817 28975501
28611707 28976737
28612691 28977737
28613119 28980199
28617217 28980229
28622617 28981999
28627297 28986851
28655009 28990187
28658687 28995443
28663183 29029769
28663433 29031329
28668589 29031503
28679789 29031553
28693109 29126737
28730941 29127017
28751323 29127349
28757419 29204239
28759363 29206651
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;362870]Not really wanting to argue with anyone, and this will likely be my only post in this thread, but I'd like it on record that I feel quite threatened in my continuing tiny contribution to GIMPS by this sort of poaching. By the criteria indicated by a few in this thread, my slow but reliable DC work could easily be pinched from me before it reports.[/QUOTE]

I hear what you are saying.

But, at the same time, I think tha has brought into "the crucible" an important issue. And I believe he is trying to be fair in his approach, unlike several other active "poachers" who still submit results to GIMPS.

Every participant's cycles can important and useful, and no-one should feel that just because they don't have a lot of "fire-power" that they cannot contribute to GIMPS.

On the other hand, there are a few people who "don't play nice with others". Some reserve way more "preferred" candidates than they can process in a reasonable time. Other's reserve candidates in the middle of the "wave", and then "sit" on them for (literally) years until they become "milestone" blocking.

I would argue this is actually a "meta-bug" of GIMPS. As an example, why should "Captain Entropy" be able to hold up an assignment for TFing for more than three years?

Why should a Prime95 participant's machine be considered "trusted" and given the lowest available candidate at the moment of request just because it has "high confidence" -- shouldn't the historical through-put of the particular machine in relation to the candidate also enter the heuristics?

For the record:

1. I've spent the last three hours cleaning up the mess in the GPU72 database this causes by those who get such assignments from GPU72, since it warns users if the work they've been assigned has been completed, and suggests they stop the said work and unassign it from the GPU72 personal assignment report.

1.1. At least one user ignores this notice, and just keeps reserving new assignments. This causes work for me, personally.

1.2. This user is no longer able to reserve LL or DC work from GPU72.

2. GPU72 used to re-capture work which was assigned by it to one of our users but abandoned, and hold it for reassignment back to said user.

2.1. This will no longer be done. If a preferred LL or DC assignment is abandoned and recaptured, I personally will complete the assignment (and thus personally take the risk that my work will be useless if the user magically completes the work in the time it takes me to do it).

2.2. For those who get their LL or DC assignments through the GPU72 manual assignment page, please *ensure* you formally "claim it".

2.2.1. This ensures everyone knows who has ownership, and that you'll have 60 days to complete the assignment before it is recycled.

2.2.2. Rich et al... For your situation (not being able to have Prime95 talk to Primenet or the Proxy from work), simply copy your worktodo.txt file onto a memory stick or e-mail it yourself. Then when you're home place the assignments into a "slaved" Prime95 instance with your Primenet credentials and have it "call home".

Thoughts, comments, complaints, etc?

P.S. We all *really* need to get out more.... :smile:

LL test successfully completes double-check of [B]M28550909[/B]

I'll take these two exponents:
28514449
28514693

[QUOTE=Miszka;363039]I'll take these two exponents:
28514449
28514693[/QUOTE]

I would argue that, based on tha's proposed criteria above, the latter is reasonable, but the former isn't.

[QUOTE=chalsall;363040]I would argue that, based on tha's proposed criteria above, the latter is reasonable, but the former isn't.[/QUOTE]
O.K. I'll take these two exponents (assigned to ANONYMOUS):
28514693
28531057

because
28514449
28519753
28531051
are assigned to "Carsten Kossendey"

[QUOTE=Miszka;363042]O.K. I'll take these two exponents (assigned to ANONYMOUS):
28514693
28531057[/QUOTE]

These two candidates satisfy the proposal's selection criteria.

Hmm, I get a very uneasy feeling about this. The user that originally had all these assignments and did nothing with them for an extreme long time was asked to give up the assignments. The exponents were put back into the pool. Then we find out that he has taken them again, but now as ANONYMOUS. He also has not logged into this forum, at least not using his own account, since the exponents were released back into the pool.
Again we see nothing happening to these exponents. Then we spell out some criteria in the forum. The next thing that happens, said user makes a minimal change to a bunch of these assignments (adding his old username again and posting a CPU name), even going as far as having one exponent reporting 0.1% of the work done.

Weird, if that CPU can do 0.1% of the work on one exponent in so much time, then why have so many exponents reserved? Why does he not want to communicate, why does he suddenly shy away from contact in lieu of many previous postings?

The list I posted was carefully composed and the actions taken since by said user are (very) suspect to me and look like they are designed to obstruct rather than contribute. I stick to the assignments I have taken, and I consider all the exponents on the list to be kosher.

The machine "tycho" appears to be a dual core machine that claims to do a single exponent in 11 days. I stick to the work I've started and have progressed on.

But since there are still enough assignments available that meet the original criteria I'll add a mark to those exponents that are claimed by "tycho". And we will keep a watch on them.