First of all, I'd like to thank bruce for reopening this thread - I can understand his reasons for closing it and I hope that we can continue to develop this process without having it locked again - because it is really important.
I have been asked to prove why there is a need for adjustment, and what this adjustment means. Therefore, I have created a graph based on real data.
Graph 1
What the graph above is showing is the inflation in
PPD that is directly attributed to
technological improvement over time. That is, in the above graph, the X axis represents time, not TPF. Because of the increase in absolute numbers I have had to log the axis. That is, due to technological improvement we are moving towards the left hand side of the graph and ppd is increasing exponentially.
There are four lines on the graph. The first, the blue line, shows the current inflation in PPD over time that result from technological improvement. As you can see, it is increasing exponentially. The red line shows us the current inflation technological improvement has on the present QRB system. The key thing to take away from this is that the red line is growing faster than the blue line. Why is this? Because under the QRB system, the impact of technological improvement is being applied twice - once in increasing the base points and then again in increasing the speed ratio.
The green line shows the effect of accounting/controlling/normalising for technological improvement. Here we can see that we have removed the effect of technological improvement from the calculation of PPD
over time. However, what is interesting is that while the curve of the QRB points system has been greatly reduced by accounting for the technological improvement on the underlying points system, there is still a curve. This suggests that the current proposed system does not completely remove the inflation caused by technological improvement. What it does do is significantly reduce it and perhaps buys us some time before we have to reconsider it.
Now, it might be easy to say "well this does not work, because under this system there is no incentive to fold faster." That hypothesis, while very understandable, is not accurate. Why? Because at any one point in time, the original point curve still applies. That is, at a given point in time the point curve below still applies. Someone folding at twice the speed of another folder will still have an increased incentive greater than 2x to fold, but the value of the incentive will not increase exponentially over time.
Graph 2
My proposal of
PPDn / Yn, where PPDn is the points acquired in the time period n and Y is the relative computational improvement at time period n compared with the base at time 0, fulfils the original intent of my first post:
As I see it, the easiest way to keep 'PPD inflation' from going nuclear, is to adjust the benchmark machine to the rate of CPU Improvement. At a defined interval (annually is probably too infrequent, but monthly may be too frequently), adjust the benchmark machine's PPD to reflect the improvements of computing power.
MtM suggested his proposal:
We make ba make instead off 1000 points, 100 points ( 10%), and smp instead of 100 points, 10 (10%).
We use 10% as a start as it's easy to use.
The next round, we use Y which I described should be based on the computation speed increase. This speed increase should be applied to both trajectories again, so let's assume we have a 10% speedup which have caused ba to be making 1000 points again, and smp 100 points = we normalize down by 10% for both and publish the 10% number so people can still see the how much computational/scientific effort was needed to make earn x credit. How does this influence the relative progression of a ba versus a regular smp instance? The BA instance will still earn the same amount of points more than the SMP instance relative to the total points obtainable.
First of all, I disagree with this proposal for a number of reasons, first that it is ambiguous:
1. Why are we differentiating between BA and SMP? It would be simpler to simply write PPD1 = PPD2/y1, which is exactly the concept I proposed in the original post and exactly the formula I proposed in the post prior to your suggestion.
2. By talking about BA and SMP separately, you are increasing the complexity of the adjustment - It is quite easy for people to read that proposal and suggest perhaps you are normalising BA to 1000 points and SMP to 100.
3. The 1/10th figure is completely arbitrary and appears 'simply thrown out there'. Amongst other things, massive. Far too large for a single adjustment. Why choose 10%? Why not make the value of new points half the value of original points? I have had to justify every single element of my posts including exactly how to calculate the value of technological improvement (and have the examples of how it can be calculated then used as a vector to shoot down my entire proposal) and I think so should you.
4. If what you are attempting to propose has the same effect as my original proposal, why not use the formula that I proposed in the
prior post? As per point 1, my formula is much more simple.
I have been constantly asked to provide conceptual evidence and proof of my concept, while others have not done so.
Therefore, below is a hopefully concise outline of my proposal:
My equation was initially written, PPD / Y
It would have been clearer, but analogous, if it had been written PPDn /Yn
where PPDn is the points acquired in the time period n and Y is the relative computational improvement at time period n compared with the base at time 0.
The formula to calculate total accrued points becomes:
sum(PPD1/Y1)+(PPD2/Y2)+ (PPD3/Y3)...(PPDn/Yn)
If you have earned 10,000 points, then those 10,000 points remain locked in and are not changed. What does change is the value of the current points that folders are earning but only in relation to other time periods and only in relation to technological improvement.
Therefore, we take User A. At the start of 2012 they have a total of 10,000 points and they presently earn points at a rate of 100 per day on a new computer of 'relatively decent performance at this point in time'. This 100ppd happens to be about average across the entire community.
PG uses a range of tools and statistics to measure the technological improvement in computers over a 6 month period and determines that this value is 4% - because of the improvement in computers points are 4% easier to earn. Therefore, it devalues the current value of additional points by 4%. The reason why technological improvement can be treated as a continuous variable is because people do not all go out and purchase a new computer when a new generation is released and the price of the new generation hardware does drop during while that generation of hardware is still the most up to date generation.
In any event, User A still has their accrued 10,000 previously earned points, but their present ppd drops from 100 points to 96 (because they haven't acquired additional computers). This isn't unfair though, because the 4% drop affects ALL users equally, so no user is worse off. Under the old system, User A would still be earning 100ppd, but on average (as more users adopt newer generation hardware), the average has increased by 4% to 104. It isn't altering the 'scientific value' of points any more than the existing system does in hyperinflation.
We extend the time frame out, to say 3 years, User A now has 18,000 points, (I haven't calculated the exact amount because it would require a lot of calculations and assumptions). In this scenario, because computers have increased in power at an average rate of 100% every 18 months. over 3 years this is a total of 400%), the accumulated rate of normalisation/depreciation has resulted in User A's 3 year old computer now currently earning 25 ppd. The average user is folding 100ppd - or 4 times more.
However, User A chooses to buy a new computer, a new computer with 'relatively decent performance at this point in time'. Because of the underlying improvements to computers, this computer is 400% more powerful than his old computer. Because we have accounted for this increasing performance improvement, his new computer earns 100ppd - the same as the 'average user'.
Where this is different to the existing system is that under the old system, the first computer would earn 100ppd indefinitely. The new computer would instead earn 400ppd - four times as much. User A's original computer perpetual earns 100 but the average user is now earning 400 ppd, so the point accumulation rate of their original computer is still 1/4th of the average, or 25/100. Under the existing system, each new generation of computers earn exponentially more points. Ppd is eventually measured in trillions. Under the new system, this does not happen.
I wanted to get that point across before looking at the QRB system, but everyone kept pushing their own agenda and polluting the point with FUD. My theory is that once we resolve the wheat and chessboard effect of underlying PPD, we will be left with wheat and chessboard effect of QRB - which is apparent under graph 1 above. That is, if you look at the graphs above, then the line of PPD without QRB over time becomes horizontal, and the line of PPD with QRB becomes roughly similar to the old PPD without QRB, although it is a little lower. If that does not make sense please help me to convey it better.
My own opinion has developed to think that 3 monthly (quarterly) is probably a good period in time from which to run a re-calculation. It becomes regular enough that is becomes ingrained in the FAH framework (just as reserve bank monetary meetings are ingrained in the financial system) and the amount of change is relatively small. It is infrequent enough user's current ppd is 'stepping' down in absolute terms at a rate where they can still provide important advice regarding the beta-testing process.
If there is anything above that anyone would like me to explain better than I am more than happy to do so.
k1wi
[Add]mdk777:
I understand your point of view, but would argue, the only reason why last year's donation looks bad is because the current system rewards technological improvement. Remove that and last year's donation only looks bad if you are putting relatively more effort into this years donation (say because you have increased your donation from %5,000 a year to $10,000 a year). As to measuring PPD in billions or trillions of billions, I think there is a fundamental psychological impediment to using either factors or raw values so large - even using factored measuring. Even with factors there is an issue with exponential growth because every 18 months the ^x value will also double!
F@H #1 folder 343 clients running on the cloud. http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... p?s=&srt=1 http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/mai ... me=_s3v3n_ but who cares about that it is not de-valuating anybody efforts right. And they are only breaking a few moral and ethical rules while the rest of the folders out there have to compete with them.There are several people on that team alone that are running multiple instances of the cloud how many on the rest of the teams out there are doing the same. But who cares about that lets just look at how the bigadv folders are de-valuating everybody. (Sticks head in sand) 
