[QUOTE=M29;422180]So, not the new prime itself, just that a new one exists (probably).[/QUOTE]
But even this has changed. Now even the fact of a new prime is hidden. The top producer's report used to show a success count for a new prime. Now... nothing. Really, they might as well have done the whole verification and press release silently instead of creating this zero-information thread.

[QUOTE=axn;422183]But even this has changed. Now even the fact of a new prime is hidden. The top producer's report used to show a success count for a new prime. Now... nothing. Really, they might as well have done the whole verification and press release silently instead of creating this zero-information thread.[/QUOTE]

But where's the fun in that? :smile:

[QUOTE=Dubslow;422185]But where's the fun in that? :smile:[/QUOTE]
Where's the fun in [B]this[/B]? Zero guesses. No one even bother to do "sleuthing".

Even before the thread was started, the prime had been verified. Independent verification happened in record time. Yet, here we are, none the wiser about the new prime. Fun? I don't think so.

[QUOTE=axn;422189]Where's the fun in [B]this[/B]? Zero guesses. No one even bother to do "sleuthing".

Even before the thread was started, the prime had been verified. Independent verification happened in record time. Yet, here we are, none the wiser about the new prime. Fun? I don't think so.[/QUOTE]
And yet, were we to poll about having this thread or not, I suspect the response would be overwhelmingly affirmative.

The verification runs
 

I get a Little confused about all verification runs going on and wonder which results have come in and which we are still waiting for. Below is what I have found in this thread:

[B][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Madpoo (Aaron Blosser)[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Madpoo already verified it once before this thread started. [/FONT][/COLOR][B][COLOR=#00b050][FONT=Arial]Verified[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]We're at a point now where my 2nd run finished and still gets an "is prime" result[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]- As for the verification, I actually ran it a second time (saving the interim residues every 1M iterations, since I forgot the first time) [/FONT][/COLOR][B][COLOR=#00b050][FONT=Arial]Verified[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]- re-ran my penultimate save file (last 100K or so iterations) using a larger FFT of 5M and it did fine. [/FONT][/COLOR][B][COLOR=#00b050][FONT=Arial]Verified[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]

[B][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]ATH ([/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Andreas Höglund)[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][STRIKE]ETA on 8 cores on 5960X ~ 8am UTC on tuesday the 12th.[/STRIKE]

ETA on Titan Black run ~ 10 am UTC on wednesday the 13th [/FONT][/COLOR][B][COLOR=#00b050][FONT=Arial]Verified[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]- Titan Black ETA is now tuesday ~ 7 AM UTC, just before the CPU run.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]- [/SIZE][/FONT][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]M( 7xxxxxxx )[B]P[/B], offset = 14508, n = 4000K, CUDALucas v2.05.1[/FONT][/COLOR]

[B][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]airsquirrels (David S.)[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Team AMD:
1100(OC) Mhz Fury X - Due ~ Tues 1/12/2016 10:27 PM EST
1000(UC) Mhz Fury X - Due ~ Weds 1/13/2016 4:50 AM EST

Team NVIDIA:
Titan Z (Air, One core, DP enabled) - Due ~ Tues 1/12/2016 8:59 AM EST
Titan (Water, DP enabled) - Due ~ Tues 1/12/2016 3:51 AM EST
Titan Black (Water, DP enabled) - Due ~ Tues 1/12/2016 2:41 AM EST

Team Intel:
Dual Xeon E5-2698 v3 + DDR4 (32 cores 1 worker) - Due Mon 1/11/2016 2:03 AM EST [/FONT][/COLOR][B][COLOR=#00b050][FONT=Arial]Verified[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]- [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]is prime" result, and AirSquirrels run with Prime95 was the same[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]- AirSquirrels finished his Intel + Prime95 run and we had matching residues along the way.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Right now AirSquirrels has a separate Intel + Prime95 run using a larger FFT, as well as the aforementioned GPU runs. [/FONT][/COLOR][B][COLOR=#00b050][FONT=Arial]Verified[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]- The Xeon run with a larger FFT and a separate CUDA run also came up positive.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[B][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Batalov + [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]e.w.mayer[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=#00b050][FONT=Arial] Verified[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]ETA on Mlucas Run #1 is on wednesday the 13th, too.
ETA on Mlucas Run #2 is perhaps later but on a different FFT size and all residues, of course, can be matched between all runs.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Ernst [STRIKE]run.[/STRIKE][/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;422121]If that's a reference to my comment, look up hyperbole in the dictionary. Sorry, I thought it was obvious? Um... I wasn't *really* going to die or anything.

Or are you being funny and it totally whooshed over my head? :confused2:[/QUOTE]
I did not intend any insult to you or anyone else. I just pointed apparently in an inappropriate way, that most of the guys knowing the exponent are quite secretive about it. Verification is nice to have, but the whole thread looks like: "Some of us know something secret, but we will not share it with you." May be you should have contacted the verifiers in private in advance and out that there is a prime coming in a press release in a day or two. That is fair. Now it looks like a mess. On top, some of you knowing the exponent are pointing how wrong are the guesses :-). That is quite cynical.

P.S. Personally, I think it is quite disrespectful to the community to emphasize how well you hidden the find from your helpers. Do not forget that the prime was supposedly found by anonymous user in attempt to help the project. How would the rest of the helpers feel about that?

[QUOTE=bloodIce;422196]That is quite cynical.[/QUOTE]

Actually I Think it is very good that we have a thorough verification process Before announcing the exponent. Lets say we annonced it first and then it later turned out to be a false positive, the quality of the whole GIMPS-Project would be questioned. We don't need something like a "Skylark bug"-discussion which put the results from the Project into question.

One thing I have been thinking about is if there is a way to build a version/mode of prime95 to be (even more) [B]rock-solid[/B], to be used (only) for verification issues like this. Maybe with built in checking and double-checking on every iteration (with a lot of cores this would not slow down the process) and error checking on every iteration (with a lot of cores, this again, would not slow down the DC much)? Maybe there are other ways also to build in more error checking in the assembler code or make the program (even more) robust? It may be useful also for the real big LL runs.

@bloodice:
Honestly, I can´t see any disrespect in doing that. It has been explained ten times over why the potential primes are hidden until the verifications deemed adequate are run and the press release is ready. If some mechanism was put in place to prevent the early leaking of the news, so much the better it is good and works. Feeling "disrespected" due to that is in my opinion a bit childish. (Note that I am in the very same situation as yourself, I do not have any clue about the number in question).

[QUOTE=aketilander;422193]I get a Little confused about all verification runs going on and wonder which results have come in and which we are still waiting for. Below is what I have found in this thread:
[snip]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT]
[B][COLOR=black][FONT="Arial"]Batalov[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]
[COLOR=black][FONT="Arial"]ETA on Mlucas Run #1 is on wednesday the 13th, too.
ETA on Mlucas Run #2 is perhaps later but on a different FFT size and all residues, of course, can be matched between all runs.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT="Arial"] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[B][COLOR=black][FONT="Arial"]ewmayer[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]
[COLOR=black][FONT="Arial"]Ernst run.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

2 small notes:

o AFAIK the Prime95 DCs are not considered 'independent verify' because even they they use different shifts for the initial 'rotated residue', they use the same code. I'll let the DCers in question comment on whether any of the runs used an FFT length different than 4096K.

o I'm not doing a verify run; Serge is using my code (specifically a Haswell-style AVX2/FMA3 binary thereof) to do one via his Amazon Web Services cloud account. As you note he is doing 2 separate DCs, one @4096K and one @4608K. The smaller-FFT one should finish in around 2-3 hours - original ETA was 3:50am PST, but he lost an hour yesterday evening when his run got borked due to Free Market Capitalism - and the larger-FFT run is proceeding ~20% slower. Due to the FFT-size-independence of the Mlucas bytewise savefile format, not only can we compare Res64 values at various checkpoints, we can in fact directly compare the entire residues between the various 10Miter-multiple persistent savefiles deposited by the program, and between the final 100Kiter-multiple checkpoint files, simply using Linux 'diff'. (And Serge, that means you only need one copy of each of the aforementioned savefiles in your coming public-share upload, along with a copy of both .stat files, for reference purposes.)

Off to bed - assuming the result is confirmed a few hours from now, congrats to GIMPS, George, and the lucky discoverer(s)!

Thank you for the clarification Ernst!

Did anyone set up the old Glucas for a verification run? There was some talk about this before in this thread.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;422207]...(And Serge, that means you only need one copy of each of the aforementioned savefiles in your coming public-share upload, along with a copy of both .stat files, for reference purposes.)[/QUOTE]
Yep, I do have them all. They will be available @ dropbox.