Applying Moore's Law to scores, what do you think?

What would you guys think of a project(I'm not thinking of anything in particular) that increased the amount of work required to get a given score so that it doubled every 2 years? (Yes, I know that Moore's Law tends to be thought of as taking about 19 months)

This would basically mean that the score for a given amount of work would go down about 2.85% every month. I know some people would probably object to that, but people who had given to that project years ago might still be fairly high on the leaderboards and power players might be less inclined to believe they're throwing good money after bad, since they'd keep their rank for a good amount of time. and it would also encourage loyalty to a project, in my opinion.

What do you guys think?

An interesting idea.

My first impressions are that I can't find any major faults with it. However, it would be slightly disheartening to think that my machines will only ever crunch at a decreasing rate (of score accumulation), unless they are upgraded. Especially at a rate of 2.85% per month, that seems like a lot. Also this scoring technique would probably be enough for people to think their older hardware isn't worth running on project X any more, "well, it barely produces anything now, and it's only going to get worse so why bother".

I'd cautiously say that this would be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist though. Who's complaining about how things are at the moment?

Rather degenerative..... apply that same thinking to the medical and scientific advances, etc., and we wouldn't be gaining anything anywhere. Thumbs down.

Ditto from me too. It's an interesting idea. alpha makes a good point that your machines day-to-day do less and less work. And it'd be a nightmare to calculate too. That and there are efficiency increases in the programs we use that are independent of the speed of one's resources.

But an interesting idea jasong! :thumbs: