Thank you for these great posts

I haven't join gridcoin yet but I have a small comment. For cryptographers, it makes sense to have the actual cost of bruteforcing something, specially it gives you an idea of how fast/expensive you could run such a computation in a decentralized way. It is because people tackled the RSA challenge that we still believe RSA2048 to be usable.

That being said, it doesn't mean the project is useful or not.

I choose SETI and run SETI on 2 laptops

My main concern is that who has the expertise to answer the last two questions?

Funnily, the answer for Moo! is yes for the both questions. It has contributed to a field of research (there are peer reviewed articles on scientific journals about it) and it has historical and ecosystem building value regarding distributed computing and the huge effort done to break a key this hard. Prize and charity is a nice small bonus too.

The problem with BOINC projects overall is, that topics that are deemed scientific enough _by scientists_, will usually get funding to get worked on by a supercomputer. Thus, BOINC projects will often tend to be brute forcing or borderline scientific projects.

If Gridcoin really takes off, we will really want there to be enough projects to choose from and have work units available. Currently team gridcoin is outputting 5000 TeraFlops, while bitcoin mining is aproximated to be at 82 zettaFlops = 82 000 000 000 TeraFlops. I think Moo! could fit in there.

If all projects were explained as they are here the community could choose them better. I approve your choosing methods, thanks !

Depends on personal taste I guess, some of those others I really don't care about but perhaps for another is a interesting project to take part in and maybe, just maybe can be useful in another way.

But for Moo!... My impression was that Moo! was just as useful as a pow coin.

Great post. Disclosure: I did indeed vote to delist Moo! Wrapper. However, for those of you worried about an all-out witch hunt on other BOINC projects, let it henceforth be known: 

I will staunchly support even the so-called "less-useful" projects like Collatz and SETI. Although pretty dang speculative, a positive result on one of these projects would have huge implications. Not only that, but *negative* results from these projects would be useful too -- not detecting E.T. despite decades-long searches would be an important empirical observation.

High-risk, high-return research gets little to no funding from governments and corporations. That is why Gridcoin and BOINC are needed to support these kinds of projects.

>However, these projects can be useful: Enigma@home [...] does so cleverly - using a hill climbing algorithm to reduce the number of decryption attempts needed. 

Using useful hill climbing algorithm (mixed with **brute force**  method, BTW) doesn't make the project useful. Using brute force method is not a valid argument for de-listing either, if no better method is known.

> Further, the Enigma messages have historical significance

I struggle to find usefulness in just being interesting from historical point of view. Also, there are thousands WWII mysteries nobody tries to solve due high cost and no usefulness.

>Enigma messages have historical significance, whereas the Moo! Wrapper message does not.

While hidden message itself most likely has no historical significance, some may argue Moo! Wrapper project has historical significance in computer and encryption history. 

Does (enigma@home) [decoded message you describe here](https://steemit.com/science/@dutch/enigma-home-the-first-decrypted-message-and-the-story-of-nazi-u-boat-u-264) add anything significant to the knowledge already gathered in the books? No.

On the side note - a strong argument for why to de-list Moo! Wrapper I have [described here](https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@guk/defending-moo-wrapper-and-distributed-net#@hotbit/re-guk-defending-moo-wrapper-and-distributed-net-20180122t222547864z)

It is hard to believe there are people who want to delist SETI@home, which is the father of all BOINC. This was the project that BOINC was originally developed for. My own opinion is that the search for extraterrestrial life is an important endeavor, even if the probability of finding something is low. I see there are other opinions out there.

Quite frankly this is devolving into sort of a priesthood. It is almost a mob mentality on which projects should or shouldn't be part of the whitelist.

I think we need to go back to a simple standard where a project is whitelisted based on

1.  Its ability to supply steady workunits

2. Process credits for submitted workunits ina timely manner

3. Remain up for computation/reporting of statistics for research payments.

4. Does not participate in ASIC-based mining of other cryptocurrencies.

We should vote on the standards for availability of workunits, credit granting latency, and uptime requirements for the project servers for statistics inquiries, and then implement an algorithm to make the decisions.

You know darn skippy I agree  with you as always buddy!
Opinions are like assholes , you sure as hell get facial liquid duct leakage when you don't get your own way and need to be flamered out like a hemorrhoid burning on the Gridcoin bunghole. Your's and mine are far apart , like your chump bitch antics with ODLK and we have a vote system since it seems others agree that opinions are like assholes , everybody has one and they all stink. The science of sex with and without another person is logical , the research on marijuana and even cocaine or HEROIN is legit. The possibility that social medial has ruined the world  , the participation ribbon era gets to be heard. I like its better when you don't piss with us old timers the we wont piss with you. You are the antiGRIDCOIN with your 3.8niggawattz e-penis powers.  You screwed the system by pitching a princess bitch fit over ODLK and you made Gridcoin a dishonorable system and shown the current leadership Administration such as Customminer whom makes the final choice , I mean he " requires " owning the team Leadership position so people do not get shafted , but the user Gridcoin ( him too ) or Donn Pike can get pissed at any time and kick anyones ass out and it won't matter if its in the whitelist... 
You know , we should implement my gray-list system idea that I have been working with the mumble/voice/irc think tank with for 6+ months on and stick with votes and fix the math for weight? A vote would had been the right thing , had there been a need for choice but you had to have your own way since you and #1 there is an application that is clear , its done via email and uses your own personal for project contact #2 ODLK1 although ODLK2 is/was a fork , branched off ODLK as its 2nd project but eh there is no direct translation soooo sue the commies they cant science? The community should have gotten to vote ODLK1 or ODLK and we waited... 3 weeks or something... At the time that you pitched a bitch they did not even have use a domain when sites like afriad.org have 1m + zones free for subs. Anyways I hope you rot in hell and your servers meltdown or thanks to XEONS your PW gets stolen and you loose the your beacon and both pub/priv keys and I hope you get a virus.. You and your computer...


I f'n hate that I promote your website since https://www.gridcoin.us - https://gridcoin.science  - https://gridcoin.io/ - http://gridcoin.ch/  are all are real and offical and non-offical as each other...
The REAL Gridcoin foundation , the people of the organization itself in raw tangible human form.

Well said.  Now:

Here's hoping we can get a process in place before the next mad dash for < whatever >!

I strongly support SETI@home. Or any SETI! Huge SETI fan.

I think each of the BOINC users have their own motivation to participate in one project or not, that’s why there is an ample variety of BOINC projects in the first place. There for the GRIDCOIN community will and shall never agree on rules how to whitelist projects on “scientific” merits of a project. 

Some of the projects you list do not have any “scientific” value to me, but in some I am participating because they guaranty a steady workflow and/or have a nice community.

Out of the last two whitelist process we should draw other lessons, and establish simpler, basic rules on technical and ethical criterias: 
SOURCEFINDER: Did not have the back-end to support the demand of work after being whitelisted, this distorted the “profitability” of the other projects and the community.
ODLK or ODLK: a complete disaster! Your self have written an article about double projects with the same aim. The title of the poll was:” Poll: Whitelist Poll: Odlk Round #2” and the correspond ending question: “ODLK now has an English page and is SSL. Are we ready to add it to our whitelist?” And quess what, which Project get’s whitelisted? ODLK1, the question was never ODLK1 it was ODLK. So a few have benefited heavily from a head start.

If we are not able to prevent such “technical and ethical” shortcomings first, how will be able to judge “scientific” merit of a project to white list? The GRIDCOIN community or at least some of its users are already optimizing their profits, whitelisting small projects with dubious or no track record at all, to get the first mover advantage, on the back of users supporting old, big projects, like SETI, PRIMEGRID, CLIMATEPREDICTION to name a few.

We should all thank SETI@Home for one very important development: the creation of BOINC. 
Although SETI@Home may never find proof of extra terrestrial intelligence the project has contributed massively to the field of publicly distributed computing. The research being done is as much related to data science and computing technology as it is to astronomy.
There is often a great deal of value in the process of conducting research even if the immediate outcome seems fruitless.

>... While it is true that to date they have not heard such a thing, a single finding by this project has colossal ramifications for everyone, so it makes sense to support the effort.

Imagine if they had thought Einstein@home wasn't a *valid* project, because it still hasn't found what it's looking for. 

What would it look for if it was already found 😋

# Great views from @dutch
Precis and to the point. Valid views and good explanations

Congratulations @dutch! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

[![](https://steemitimages.com/70x80/http://steemitboard.com/notifications/posts.png)](http://steemitboard.com/@dutch) Award for the number of posts published

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click [here](https://steemit.com/@steemitboard)

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word `STOP`

> By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how [here](https://steemit.com/steemitboard/@steemitboard/http-i-cubeupload-com-7ciqeo-png)!

Seems you guys forgot bitcoin Utopia. it got delisted for not being a science project but it helps funding like h202 said  "high risk high return little to no funding projects".

so where to draw the line?

I really don't get how the collatz conjecture has any real use :/