New milestone

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

When a milestone approaches, (proving a number to be the 'n'th MP or having all expos below an MP tested once), we all will monitor the progress. When the number remaining drops to 3 we wait 6 months to see if it drops to 0.

If it does, great.

If not:
A goodbody Mersennary(s) will be premitted to take the remaining numbers. With the following provisos: they are a known person of good and of trustworthy reputation (and it shall be run on a known good machine), they post their info (GIMPS Username and Machine ID) to an appropriate thread, they agree ahead of time to disclaim all 'rights' to a new prime (in favor of the currently assigned person), they understand that they must manually turn in the result to George (to enforce the above), and that they get no GHz/days credit.

It's a bit better than other proposals I've seen, but it still clings to the faulty idea that the currently-displayed "milestones" constitute a valid measure of GIMPS progress. They don't, as I explain above.

Trying to eliminate poaching by tweaks such as this that don't address the basic source of incentive is a bit like trying to curb illegal drug use by intercepting shipments and arresting people for dealing/using drugs. In both cases, as long as an incentive remains, the problems will persist one way or another. (For drugs, eliminating the incentive would involve finding and implementing ways of preventing drugs from hijacking portions of the human nervous system. This is not simple, but I think it's the only effective way to go.)

Further they agree to buy Cheesehead a small gift ($25-$50) and send it to him or contribute $50 to a charity of his choosing. (This is per person per exponent.)

I'd want all to be contributions to my designated charity: GIMPS (i.e., no gifts to me).

See http://mersenne.org/donate/.

And they agree that if they don't normally do DC's, they must do 5 extra DC's.

... instead of 50 push-ups ...

[Primeinator]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

... instead of 50 push-ups ...

They should do these too... just for grins.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

But you yourself have argued in the past that those "poached" might be discouraged from continuing to contribute because their efforts are not credited.

That's funny.

Later in your post you chastise me for presumably (you're wrong) not considering that other people have different objectives and POV.

Yet, here you've done exactly that by maintaining that poachers and poachees share the motivation of credits!

Earlier, I wrote, "I haven't seen any advocate of poaching claim that the credit is an incentive to poach". Let me strengthen that:

1) some confessed poachers have specifically stated that they are not motivated by the credit.

2) I've not seen any poacher claim thet he _was_ motivated by credit.

So your assumed sharing of incentive by poacher and poachee does not exist in some cases, and may not exist in any cases. I have not contradicted myself in this regard.

Please keep in mind cheesehead that different people have different objectives.

It would be funny enough if I had to go to some previous post to find an instance where you exhibited exactly the same flaw you claimed I had.

It's even funnier when I only have to look within the same post.

I would argue that each individual should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't negatively impact the project.

Poaching negatively impacts the project.

What, exactly, is the real negative impact of poaching beyond possible (not certain) duplicated effort (possibly slightly delaying a future milestone) and possibly discouraging another participant?

As I said before, poaching violates basic principles upon which this project is founded.

Aside from what you mention there, there is the violation of trust that participants have that their assignments will remain exclusive to them as long as they abide by the rules. Note again, as I said before, that GIMPS specifically and officially pledges to try to preserve that exclusivity, although it must also inform the user that it cannot completely prevent that exclusivity from being violated.

Anyone who argues that poaching should be acceptable in some circumstance or other is directly contradicting a clause of the license by which GIMPS granted them permission to use GIMPS software.

Any user of prime95 or mprime who advocates poaching in any circumstance is advocating a violation of their license to use that software!

Any advocate of poaching should cease using prime95, mprime, or any other GIMPS software to which the license applies.

There are other negatives, but that alone should be enough.

Let me please further argue that the proposal above just might mitigate any negative impact of discouragement of those "poached", since they would get credit (if that's what they're after).

But it does nothing about the other negatives, such as the one I just explained at length.

Please do also consider that the "poacher" is donating the work -- they don't have to contribute to GIMPS.

That's like saying a burglar doesn't charge anyone for prying open a window for the purpose of burglary.

No, it isn't a deterrent to the poacher. But it might just prevent discouragement of the poachee.

Now, if you could only show how it also eliminates the other 99% of poaching's negatives ... but you can't, can you?

cheesehead, I do truly respect your position and arguments.

Show it, then. Tell us you respect the GIMPS software license and its promise to prevent poaching as far as possible.

It would be appreciated if you could at least try to consider that not everyone have the exact same objectives and POV as you do....

Funny, funny, funny .. mistakenly implying that I exhibited that flaw while ignoring that you exhibited that very flaw inside this very same posting.

I've never claimed or assumed that everyone has the same objectives and POV I do. If you want to repeat your mistaken implication, please try to accompany such repetition with quotes of actual wording where I've exhibited that supposed flaw. Otherwise, stop exaggerating or distorting my positions.

[axn]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Note again, as I said before, that GIMPS specifically and officially pledges to try to preserve that exclusivity, although it must also inform the user that it cannot completely prevent that exclusivity from being violated.

Anyone who argues that poaching should be acceptable in some circumstance or other is directly contradicting a clause of the license by which GIMPS granted them permission to use GIMPS software.

Any user of prime95 or mprime who advocates poaching in any circumstance is advocating a violation of their license to use that software!

Any advocate of poaching should cease using prime95, mprime, or any other GIMPS software to which the license applies.

Where does it say/imply any of this?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Show it, then. Tell us you respect the GIMPS software license and its promise to prevent poaching as far as possible.

Please calm down cheesehead...

I have been a GIMPS participant for ten years. I am currently ranked 10th top contributor overall, and 1st for factoring, over the last year.

I respect the "unofficial" rules of conduct which GIMPS participants try to follow. Please do note unoffical.

But to speak to your straw man, let me please quote directly from the mprime license.txt file:

Every effort has been made to ensure that you will be assigned an exponent that no one else has tested or is testing. We are not responsible for lost prize money, fame, credit, etc. should someone accidentally or maliciously test the number you are working on and find it to be prime. We are not responsible should the program determine a number composite even though it is prime - the program's heavy use of memory and FPU could trigger an error that goes undetected.

Clearly and empirically, George et al don't take poaching as seriously as you do....

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Every effort has been made to ensure that you will be assigned an exponent that no one else has tested or is testing.

No straw at all, axn and chalsall -- it's right there in the first sentence:

"Every effort has been made to ensure that you will be assigned an exponent that no one else has tested or is testing."

Didn't you notice that that pledges to prevent poaching (insofar as possible, of course -- but that's farther than many of you have granted)?

It's even official rather than unofficial!

The wording could be improved (such as using more active, and less passive), but I don't think it's beyond the abilities of folks discussing poaching to see how that sentence applies.

[axn]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

"Every effort has been made to ensure that you will be assigned an exponent that no one else has tested or is testing."

Didn't you notice that that pledges to prevent poaching (insofar as possible, of course -- but that's farther than many of you have granted)?

That's just a CYA disclaimer written in legalese. It should be interpreted along with the following sentences.
It is not in the best interest of GIMPS to promise any such thing, lest it open itself up to legal troubles (unless of course, there is a foolproof way to prevent poaching). Now, George may unofficially want to promise such thing, but officially, I don't think so.

Secondly, a typical EULA will have a section for "ACCEPTABLE USE". I would think that it would be a simple matter to add this section, explicitly prohibiting "poaching". Of course, for such a thing to happen, GIMPS must consider itself the owner of all these exponents. Otherwise, on what moral authority could such a condition be made?

EDIT:- Lastly, considering that it is a volunteer effort, I don't think it is in the best interesting of project to be overly "legislating".

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by axn

That's just a CYA disclaimer written in legalese. It should be interpreted along with the following sentences.

So what?

One can't make "every effort" while condoning poaching.

It is not in the best interest of GIMPS to promise

I used "pledge".

any such thing, lest it open itself up to legal troubles

A strictly legal argument would be dodging the ethical issues, I think. I've made no statement about legality, because I'm concerned with the ethics.

(unless of course, there is a foolproof way to prevent poaching).

No, "foolproof" is not required.

Now, George may unofficially want to promise such thing, but officially, I don't think so.

Are you using "officially" to mean "legally" there?

Surely license.txt is "official" as far as GIMPS is concerned outside of legal considerations.

Secondly, a typical EULA will have a section for "ACCEPTABLE USE". I would think that it would be a simple matter to add this section, explicitly prohibiting "poaching". Of course, for such a thing to happen, GIMPS must consider itself the owner of all these exponents.

No -- owner of the assignments, not the exponents.

Poaching is a violation of exclusive assignment.

Anyone operating outside GIMPS/PrimeNet (and thus NOT using any GIMPS-licensed software such as prime95 or mprime) is free to test whatever exponent they wish. Those of us using GIMPS-licensed software are bound by ethical considerations not to poach, I contend.

EDIT:- Lastly, considering that it is a volunteer effort, I don't think it is in the best interesting of project to be overly "legislating".

One more reason I've been arguing from ethics, not law. I haven't advocated any legislation, just an ethical interpretation of the principles and statements.

Portraying my arguments as being of legal nature would be false.

- - -

I think I'm finished with my editing. :-)

[Oddball]

Once again, a debate about poaching has come up on this forum, and it predictably involves around none other than Cheesehead. It's like gravity or something.

Here's a possible solution: have a maximum limit of 500 days per exponent for doublechecks and 1000 days per exponent for first time tests. Before that, the server should reject any results by poachers, and the milestones page should be left unchanged. After that, anybody is allowed to poach the exponent if it still hasn't been completed, and the poacher gets both the credit for it and the prize money if it happens to be prime. The milestones page will be updated, but if the original tester later finishes the exponent, he/she will still get credit for it.

[axn]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

So what?
<snip>

I could fisk your post, but it is too distracting. Let me summarize.

It is you contention that GIMPS has some kind of official commitment (promise/pledge/whatever) to protect users from poaching. I say that no such commitment exists officially.

Exhibit A - License.txt (Note:- There is no exhibit B).

"Every effort has been made to ensure that you will be assigned an exponent that no one else has tested or is testing"

Definitely a promise (or pledge or whatever). But, of what? Plain reading suggests a promise to be free from system SNAFUs. The sentence covers exponents "no one else has tested or is testing". But says nothing about "once you start testing, no one else will take it" -- which is the operational definition of poaching.

The rest of that section reveals its CYA nature, not a "solemn promise" for anything.

Coupled with the fact that it is straightforward to add a "No Poaching" clause (I mean, if you have a Rights section, you should also have a Responsibilities section, no?), I submit to you that you're overreaching with the "No-Poaching-official-pledge" intrepretation of license.txt.

Defense rests.

PS:- Pledge -> A solemn promise.
PPS:- License.txt has legal purposes. Ignoring that undermines your analysis.

[cheesehead]

Let's deal with the last two first:

Originally Posted by axn

PPS:- License.txt has legal purposes. Ignoring that undermines your analysis.

But I didn't ignore that! I have specifically mentioned on multiple occasions that it has legal purposes!

For instance, do you see that I've ever denied a legal purpose for license.txt? (Answer: no.)

I am simply refraining from using legality in my current anti-poaching arguments, not ignoring it. If I were ignoring it, I wouldn't have made any mention of legality at all -- but I have mentioned legality!

You undermine your analysis by including false statements such as that one.

PS:- Pledge -> A solemn promise.

Yes, GIMPS has promised, and done so solemnly.

Now, back to the beginning:

The sentence covers exponents "no one else has tested or is testing". But says nothing about "once you start testing, no one else will take it" -- which is the operational definition of poaching.

Poaching means (deliberately and knowingly) testing an exponent while it is assigned to someone else.

An assignment is referred-to as both a single event (when PrimeNet "makes", i.e., creates, the assignment) and an ongoing event with a duration. The assignment remains in existence after its creation, until its dissolution; if it were not so, then there would be no way to associate a result report with the user to whom the credit should be given. Poaching occurs during the latter phase of an assignment.

The rest of that section reveals its CYA nature, not a "solemn promise" for anything.

It's not a promise? It's not solemn?

You don't show how either of those holds.

Coupled with the fact that it is straightforward to add a "No Poaching" clause (I mean, if you have a Rights section, you should also have a Responsibilities section, no?), I submit to you that you're overreaching with the "No-Poaching-official-pledge" intrepretation of license.txt.

I understand that's your opinion. I also understand that it's partly erroneous.

Defense rests.

... having failed to prove its case.