[citation][nom]RealCrowdSource[/nom]this is the correct way to crowd source, folding@home was just a brute force method trying to crunchy every possible combination, this uses the cognitive capabilities of users to solve the problem, participation was probably significantly smaller than a folding@home cluster because it required active participation but achieved results much faster than expected (that was some dedication considering this would be closer to your Tetris than CoD affair)[/citation]
F@H may be using a brute-force approach, but bear in mind that quite a few computational problems, even before computers, were first attacked with a brute-force approach. Then people who were clever (or too lazy to do the brute-force work) came up with a better way. The better way frequently came about simply because many people were exposed to the old way. So, perhaps the ubiquity and small success of F@H led to this next approach, which would not have happened otherwise.
One obvious historical example: Young Gauss' teacher assigned the class the task of adding all the numbers from 1 to 100 to keep them busy. Gauss came up with the now well-known formula for summing this series.
(Note that I'm not particularly defending Folding at Home. I'm trying to point out the value of starting with a brute-force approach and getting a lot of minds involved.)