Source available at Free-DC.
hmm…
Follow-up msg on the Free-DC forum
Strike R@H!
Now that we’ve know there has been a specific and special connection between Dr.Baker and the team XtremeSystem, why should we just put up with the situation? Unless devs stop listening to the fxxking team’s opinions and take general credits counting system into the system, no team cannot beat them. It’s time to stand off from the project!
How to strike it?
Just detach R@H from your computer. If you’d like to continue the science, try other projects like P@H or WCG! The grid also serves you the protein folding prediction program. Throw out the project, not science itself!Your action will stop this fxxking situation! Thanks for your cooperation.
I strongly assume that it’s up to your choise, though
Blimey…seems like a lot of strife over a credit system.
Everyone should run Folding@home and get along :Pimp:
There always will be strife over the credit system until someone decides to standardise it properly. The scientists couldn’t really care less about credits, they just want the results and as many of them as possible. I suppose the cynic would say the more credit a project gives, the more people will crunch it.
It still all boils down to optimised clients of Boinc and project application. I have a feeling this will be discussed at length at the Boinc workshop in Geneva. I know this for sure because I am going 
DT.
This was an argument waiting to happen on Roestta.
In my opinion it has been fuelled by the lack of a quorum on the project, hence granting whatever the cruncher claimed.
For sure optomised Boinc has had an impact, but optomisation in itself, is not a bad thing. If however, the Boinc community is moving to a standardised credit model then optomising the Boinc client serves no purpose. The Boinc client merely becomes a vehicle for requesting and returning work. Optomising it could (and has) force download of more WU than the cruncher can cope with by returning high benchmarks.
Optomising the science app provides the real benefit: it returns the work quicker, so the scientists are happy and the cruncher is granted more credit per hour, so they are happy.
On the other hand, I fear as IP issues and scientific validity concerns impact, more projects will move to closed source science apps. The danger there is that it takes away the innovation aspect of DC and leaves us crunchers with a “my farm is bigger than your farm” situation.