The arguments you bring to support moo are weak/trivial. I also agree with @artstein.
- Distributed computing
All of the BOINC projects have in some way helped to advance distributed computing. That is hardly the point here, rendering animation can also do the same but it has nothing to do with GRC. - Publicity
Your argument that cracking the code will might bring extra publicity is self defeating, since you previously stated that more useful projects do exist. If the moo power was diverted to, even a very far fetched but still scientific project like seti, the publicity gain would be far greater. Hence your argument is actually for removal if you follow it through consistently. - Whitelisting is up to the whims of the voter
Similarly in this argument you argue that community members can't be trusted to pass judgments, yet you finish by suggesting your own judgment for consideration. There exist many studies which show that aggregating weak learners results in information gain (wisdom of the crowd) hence I would prefer voting over single amplified opinions.
Lastly, if you are going to bring credentials in to this discussion (you mention you are phd researcher, in your reply to artstein you write "as a scientist") you should do so fully. In other words, if you hold a masters/phd degree you cite your thesis and the institution where you defended. This is important because titles alone do not necessarily mean universal expertise or proficiency. For instance if I tell you I am a doctor (hold a phd) and try to give you medical advice you should ask me what kind of doctor I am, since I might be a doctor of liberal arts. Hence I would suggest withholding your credentials unless they are very specifically involved with the discussed topic.
These are good points. Most of the pioneering work for distributed computing has been done at the start of this RC5 project and the RC5 project before. My point was just that this project as a whole has had some value. It is true that its speculative if it will have this kind of impact in the future.
On the second point, a result from Seti is not quaranteed. For Moo! there is a clear goal, which will ultimately end the project, and possibly bring some publicity.
Of course since the topic is up to vote now, I want to bring out some points to influence it. My main question here is, should whitelisting just be a matter of individual votings, or should there be a semi-automic system where if a project passes certain rules, it should be accepted?.
The reason for mentioning my academic career is to tell that I have a good knowledge of the scientific process and academic research. I mention that cryptography is not my field, so I'm not trying to step in with my topic knowledge. On my bio you can find that I'm a PhD researcher in Space Physics. My PhD topic is about the Sun's Heliosphere and cosmic ray modulation. I'm working at University of Oulu, Finland, but I want to stress that I'm not officially representing my institute in any way here.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
i don't think the moo project has enough in common with the scientific process. that was actually how this whole discussion started:
https://www.reddit.com/r/gridcoin/comments/7qre20/moo_wrapper_is_this_a_scientific_project/
i agree with you that an automatic system would be better, but then you should elaborate more on the objective rules governing this system.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think the black/graylisting presented in the post I linked has good ideas, but many aspects like scientificity is hard to automatize.
As I've said, the results of moo wont be scientific, but the process can (and has) be studied.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit