Steve Elias wrote: >legally, who knows - maybe there will be a court case some day if some awful person poaches the >10M exponent ...
On the legal issue, if a poacher did happen to pick the lucky number . . . The good news is that GIMPS starts out with the money, and the only evidence the poacher has is thru GIMPS. The bad news is, if currently the server doesn't keep track of the old assignee when the poacher is given credit, then even if the legitimate double-checker comes forward the documentation is on the side of the poacher. So I would urge George and Scott to at least change it so that -- if an exponent has been assigned to more than one person -- it stores the last two names until a valid doublecheck proves the exponent composite. Personally, I agree with most of the suggestions made to the list (see http://www.mail-archive.com/mersenne@base.com/msg06960.html) On the topic of incentives to poach: We all know that if poachers used slow machines or waited too long before poaching so that they received the "Exponent already tested." message more than half the time, they'd lose interest quickly. They are doing it because they have fast machines and they've figured out when to pounce so *they* get credit. Their's is no noble urge to quietly clean up the trailing edge of the project. They're scavengers who don't want to get lost among the other fast machines in front, and won't put in the time. Making the suggested changes would take away their incentive, and encourage *careful poachers* to wait until an exponent expires. ( Well, I feel much better now ;+) Bruce Leenstra mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
