Gridcoin Multi-tiered White List

in #gridcoin3 years ago


The Gridcoin Whitelist

With the recent discussion regarding the delisting of Moo wrapper, I thought it might be a good idea to suggest again the possibility of having separate tiers within the whitelist.

Here are some whitelist tiers that could loosely form part of the idea:

Tier 1

High quality publications in reputable journals and + ample work units. Daily stats updates and high security standards. Examples: Rosetta, World Community Grid, Einstein, Milkyway, GPUGrid, Universe, etc. SETI may be a good option here as well, they do have a publication but have not yet found intelligent life. Plus it is one of the oldest BOINC projects.

Tier 2

Low probability of publications or lacking in some capacity (low work units, lack of daily stats updates etc). Examples: Sourcefinder, (sporadic work units), climate prediction (no daily stats updates), Enigma (no publications)

Tier 3

No publications/low probability of future publications and/or very dubious scientific or historical benefit. Example: Moo

Scientific publications are the language and currency of the scientific world (rightly or wrongly). Therefore it is important for us to take into account the probability that our computation time is spent in a manner that is most likely to result in a scientific publication. That is not to say that we will not support other forms of research, hence the existence of tier 3. However, world community grid and rosetta for example are very high visibility projects that have a history of excellence in terms of scientific output, so it is fitting that these types of projects reap a lion's share of the rewards.

The split of credit could be weighted towards the Tier 1 projects since there are quite a few of them. For example, something like 75% of newly minted GRC could be directed towards the Tier 1, 15% for Tier 2, and a remaining 10% for Tier 3. These numbers are all speculative/subject to review of course.

What are your thoughts on a multi tiered whitelist for Gridcoin??


I'm going to put my vote in for this idea. However, I'm most interested in stratifying based on overall quality of project execution. That is, projects are put into tiers based on things like work unit availability, public presentation of the website, open availability of results (where appropriate), demonstrated security and integrity in rewarding of credits, and so on. This would hold projects accountable to present themselves professionally, and would be beneficial for everyone involved. If there's just an on/off switch for being on the whitelist or not, projects don't have motivation to improve beyond the basic requirements like workunit availability.

We can talk about stratifying based on science too, though. I like the idea of mechanisms being in place for the Gridcoin community to decide what science it finds most important. This would help realize the exciting concept of computational science driven by the goals and interests of a decentralized international community [my catchphrase.. ;) ]

Check out the proposed whitelisting/greylist process. Let's build on that. The initial implementation is already up for a vote!

Just saw that today! It's a great start. I'm going to try to find some time to chew on the technical details and see if there are any refinements/questions I want to pose. But at the face of it, I agree it looks good enough to vote in right now. We can see how it fares in practice and then decide how we might want to build on it.

That is a very good point. Project execution is also of critical importance. We can't have crooked admins for example trying to pump up their own stats or the stats of their buddies.

There are certainly many different criteria that need to be considered for any type of tier or ranking system.

thinking to hard but assuming things are so basic and strait forward makes me say DO SOME RESEARCH you are way to new and do not know how things function down to even a basic VPS server / client level model let alone boinc or the Gridcoin nerual network...

I am not convinced it is the way to go. I want to decide myself which projects I want to crunch and not be punished for it by the network. But I guess I am not completely settled on this one.

How would a project move from tier to tier? Who decides where a project starts? How do we define likelihood to publish?

I think magnitude is something we need to look at, but i'm not sure if this is the way to go. Would be interested to see if anyone develops a functioning process that discourages infighting for something like this, but I don't think it'll be possible.

Tiered mag was discussed in 2015, I think. I'd suggest we focus on the current whitelist process in development and already up for a vote.

I would say some type of voting mechanism could be incorporated into the client. All projects could start in tier 1, let's say, and be downvoted into lower tiers as needed. Likelihood to publish could be based on the track record of the project. An unproven project may have to stay in Tier 2 until some type of output has been achieved.

Magnitude/computational power is an interesting idea. For example, should we give more weighting towards projects with the highest magnitude?

I'd prefur just letting people choose, Have no requirements at all but instead provide information and details so people can make an informed vote, The community will decide for itself what it thinks is worth being whitelisted.

While I wished to fully agree, there is a problem - communities choose solutions that trump better solutions. Well advertised anti-cancer very charity project could easily take majority of the computing and reward resources.

I dont think it's a good idea to have multiple whitelist tiers. I would rather have a blacklist instead. Hell, I would even be in favor of for profit projects (as long as they rain a portion of the revenue)

I would also like to see a blacklist but someone could easily just make a new project under a different name, it may end up like a game of whack a mole. AFAIK there have been no bad actors up to this point so perhaps it is not needed.

For profit projects are a very good idea as well. A rain mechanism onto whitelisted projects or a gridcoin burning mechanism could function well here.

just because you do not like gay porn or enjoy it being part of the web let alone if you do , does your opinion matter in a whole as of opinion of the community or world.... I use this example as , marijuana related issues may not seem medical or scientific to you ( and since gridcoin is full of squares ) or relevant to the world does not mean the same to you and should you judge the relevance. Opinions are like assholes , everybody has one and they all stink... BUT what is great is that you voiced it... We do not all have to agree even if we are a team , its just an umbrellla and is truly just a cult following and the leadershit needs to be replaced as Customminer our fearless non crunching investor only whom retired his old ass Opterons since GRC is not worth the electricity costs per his words on recorded voice record so maybe get to know the community , process and past a little better... Also , wait till we imploment MY graylist idea...
FYI FU G_UK go smoke a blunt.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.17
TRX 0.03
JST 0.023
BTC 19185.55
ETH 601.60
SBD 1.19