PrimeNet 5.0 Upgrade

[cheesehead]

I think some folks may be answering the wrong question.

It's not a question of richs's residue being incorrect. It's not a matter of richs's reporting a bad result.

What richs is asking about is a situation where:

A first-time LL residue, with an incorrect value, has previously been reported by someone else. Although this residue is incorrect, no one can know that until later.

When richs reports the (correct, as will be shown later) DC residue, PrimeNet does not credit richs with a success on the Top LL Double-Check Producers report because this DC residue doesn't match the first-time LL residue.

When will richs eventually get credit for that DC on some Top Producers report and on which report, once a triple-check shows that richs's residue was the one that was correct?

[S485122]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

When will richs eventually get credit for that DC on some Top Producers report and on which report, once a triple-check shows that richs's residue was the one that was correct?

Never : the success counter is only modified at the time a result is turned in. So in the case you return a residue that differs from a previously returned one, you do not increase your success counter. Once a triple check confirms one of both results, the triple checker sees her success counter increase, but the person that had returned that same confirmed residue does not.

Jacob

[retina]

Originally Posted by S485122

Never : the success counter is only modified at the time a result is turned in. So in the case you return a residue that differs from a previously returned one, you do not increase your success counter. Once a triple check confirms one of both results, the triple checker sees her success counter increase, but the person that had returned that same confirmed residue does not.

So:

1^st time checks are actively encouraged no matter how crappy your hardware is (or if you feel inclined to fake a result).

2^nd checks are discouraged if you have good hardware due to your hard work being completely ignored if you are unlucky enough to get an exponent that has been tainted earlier by a previous tester.

3^rd checks are slightly better than 2^nd but you still need at least one honest tester with good hardware as one of the two previous testers.

[garo]

Originally Posted by retina

2^nd checks are discouraged if you have good hardware due to your hard work being completely ignored if you are unlucky enough to get an exponent that has been tainted earlier by a previous tester.

Not true. The success counter is not updated but you get credit for turning that result in. So your hard work is not ignored.