As of right now, the main possibilities I have in mind are the ones I laid out in my last post; either rewards effectively based on FLOPS/hardware - as accurately as we can get - or rewards based on an intentional ranking of projects. Further investigation might reveal other possibilities than I just can't see now. But the de facto ranking that we have now I think doesn't make any sense.
I'm recently giving it quite a bit of thought.
Would you mind sharing?
Can you try to put this into numbers? For example just nvidia 1080 vs amd 7970 vs intel i5-6600K ?
After that we can research whether coding such a solution is feasible.
That's the plan :)
the more the output, the more the reward. I don't pity people with slow outdated hardware. I want GRC to motivate people to push science. The tougher the competition the better for science.
about the value of the project. its up to the user to judge as long as its whitelisted (need to change the criteria for whitelisting)
for popular project with little incentive. its basically. you are in because you believe in the science or just monetary rewards. but not both.
tiering projects and incentivizing popular project will create unfavorable user distribution.