My apologies to D.net and Moose and everyone in efnet at the time... Would love a reply from d.net...

[Possessed Freak]

I am sorry I came off as a 'troll' I did not mean to, I am just very passionate torwards TWTA and was seeking the impossible.

the log is here, it is unedited.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/emr131/distributed.log

 

[SYST3M]

well after reviewing the logs, i am going to disagree. it seemed to me that phule and moose were uninterested in dealing with a serious question and that they are just being rude and dismissive. Aren't we doing them a favor? it seems to me that they get quite a larger share of the winnings than anyone else, so they should treat it as such. if something isn't feasable, fine. If it is still feasable and withing bounds of being fair, i think they should cater to us a little bit. I still can't see why a limit 8 was put on, i can see if someone were abusing the system, but this i still am unable to comprehend their logic. i am open to discussion and i invite moose, nugget or phule to respond. if i cennot get a satisfactory answer or anything other than what has already been said, i believe that my rc5 career is over. Dnet can have it's 2+ year old key and i will no longer be performing any favors for them in the future.

 

[jmcoreymv]

Keep that limit at 8

 

[BoberFett]

Wow system, is this really that big a deal? Every retired email requires additional processing when the stats are run for every block submitted, they need to trace the email from what it was cracked under, to what is currently the active account. If there was no limit, it could really bog down the stats run. They had to choose a limit, and 8 sounded like a good number to them.

And they said they're looking into a way of doing mini-teams without retiring, what more do you want?

 

[SYST3M]

yes bobberfett, it is that big of a deal to me. things for me were just getting really exciting and more fun, and then this happens. until pf and i joined up i wasn't having a whole lot of fun doing this, and i was getting bored with it. when we joined up it became more fun. and since our membership has just started to grow it was getting even better. now for them to treat this the way they did, it dissappoints me and makes me reconsider just what i am doing this for. it certainly isn't the money and it certainly isn't because i like to hear the whine of my fan 24/7. I can tell you that i did join to have fun, and if you take the fun away where does it leave me? I went out and bought a new computer when i really didn't need to and even went dual cpu just so i could do rc5 faster. now i am feeling gypped. i realize that it may take a few more miliseconds to do the stats now, but wouldn't it be the same if their mini-teams were added? what i am saying is that it is in the realm of possibilities to do the, and it is also not an unreasonable request. so why can't it be done? that is what i am asking.

 

[Dantoo]

PF, I know nothing of chat rooms and their rules, but I do believe that you remained calm in the face of some immature baiting. It also has to be said that Moose behaved well. I am quite sure that I will continue to avoid chat rooms.

I am concerned a little about this rule and what it might mean for us. Does this cause a problem for the 4+ cows? I think the sub-teams idea is great. Does this mean that we cannot proceed? Does it mean that we have to quit and them come in cold again and reset all the machines we have?

It may be that TA is about to set a trend that dnet needs to look at, perhaps from a marketing point of view anyway. If their goal is to create the world's greatest supercomputer and achieve that on a budget of $0, then any encouragement they can give to their customers/workers should be undertaken with alacrity.

Good on you for having a go.

 

[JHutch]

Lately, I've noticed a shift in the way people are starting to think about DNet. I suppose it is inevitable since Process Tree got everyone thinking about making money, but ...

Distributed Net is a volunteer organization run during the free time of the people like Moose, DBaker, etc...

The 8 e-mail limit is in place to prevent abuses like someone stealing passwords and retiring a bunch of accounts into their own. It is also to help keep the stats run to a manageable level. Getting around this limit is a manual process that takes a finite amount of time. If DNet were to change this limit for TWTA, it would set a precedent that would be hard to stop. Eventually, others would want mini-teams of the same nature, and the manual tweaking it would require would quickly get out of hand.

I guess what I have a problem with is people forgetting that Moose and co. are doing this as volunteers, more so than any of us. They get no financial gain out of this. Personally, I'm astonished (and grateful) that they are able to devote as much time as they do to this.

That being said, I do vote for moving forward on the sub-teams idea, because it does seem to provide excitement and fun for a rather large number of people. I just think doing this "the right way" is important, and changing the stats engine to handle it automatically, is "the right way."

/rant off

JHutch

 

[SYST3M]

i agree hutch. but i don't want to be pushed away and just told i have no good reason to do this. i would have been content with an answer like this "i am sorry, but we are unable to comply with your request at this time. we are looking into making it an ability to have sub teams, but due to this reason [time constraint/not wanting it to create a rush of other to do this/i'm lazy/etc.] we just don't think it is proper to let you do this." i am not trying to be unreasonable, but i would like to know what is going on. if they are considering miniteams and they aren't just saying that, give us a timeframe for an answer on it. it is the whole cold shoulder that i am dissappointed in. i was unaware that they are volunteers, but being a volunteer doesn't give them the right to be rude.

 

[Xede]

The main thing that bothers me is that there wasn't anything displayed on the screens where you retire your address that mentioned or even hinted at the 8 email limit. I'm sure we're not the first people in the history of DNET to have the idea of a mini-team.

If there HAD been a message addressing the mini-team issue or the 8 email limit, this would never have even come up, except perhaps as us lobbying for DNET to add support for a miniteam feature.

So Moose, if you're reading this--why don't you just add a brief bit of text on the "I'm about to retire my address" page to warn people about miniteams and the limit? Most people are perfectly happy to follow the rules, as long as the rules are clearly explained ahead of time. It's when new, previously unpublished rules suddenly appear that people get upset.

Phule seems to be a bit of a power-monkey... (Not to be confused with Dutch Power Cows--entirely different species)

 

[Possessed Freak]

bump, moose or somebody else from d.net I would love a reply

 

[Possessed Freak]

bump, one more time or it vanishes into obscurity.