Quote from: gyverlb on June 22, 2013, 09:22:59 AM

Quote from: notme on June 21, 2013, 11:25:38 PM

Quote from: gyverlb on June 21, 2013, 10:29:52 PM

Quote from: notme on June 21, 2013, 07:24:45 PM

Quote from: gyverlb on March 15, 2013, 12:47:36 AM

BFL: if you have a BFL Single, an early FPGA MiniRig (cgminer has a parameter for later ones to fix them, check its documentation) or a BFL SC (ASIC) don't waste their hashrate on P2Pool, they have huge latencies and can't perform well on P2Pool. Put them on a traditional pool.

Are you sure, or are you just going off the FUD on these forums? Clearly the FPGA products have an issue, but these guys claim the ASICs blow through an entire nonce range in a few ms:
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/jalapeno-single-sc-support/3367-reducing-20%25-hash-rate-penalty-using-bfl-hardware-p2pool.html#post42224

It would be a pity if the p2pool guide was turning away major hashpower unnecessarily. In fact, looking above the linked post, there is the exact quote from above used to justify not participating in p2pool.

ckolivas and kano confirmed this. The instruction supposed to be implemented in the communication protocol by BFL to interrupt work doesn't work and BFL didn't answer when asked if/when it will be fixed.

I didn't read the link but a Jalapeno is supposed to have 2 chips for ~5GH/s a whole nonce range is 4GH (nonce is a 32 bit field), do the math...

Well, in the link we have an example of a Jalapeno in the wild running on a p2pool instance with better 100% efficiency. But thanks for ignoring it.

Don't post inaccurate information and I won't ignore it. You reference a post quoting an assertion that is clearly bullshit: "these guys claim the ASICs blow through an entire nonce range in a few ms". Why do you still expect me to waste my time with a post like this when I clearly explained it was impossible 2 posts earlier?

Now a newbie user (seems to be the same) claimed in the P2Pool thread that he got 106% efficiency after enough shares that it shouldn't be a fluke so I'll update my guide to reflect that. But I certainly won't write that BFL Asics are working properly, only that they might: between a newbie report I don't know at all and ckolivas' report there's clearly a difference in trust.
This would change if for example ckolivas confirmed that his device is working properly and he made a mistake in his earlier tests, there's a new firmware for BFL ASICs solving early problems or there are some other trusted user reporting good efficiency.
Currently I have conflicting reports with the most trusted user claiming it doesn't work properly with p2pool and a newbie I don't know claiming otherwise, like I said in my earlier post... do the math!

If I were in your shoes, I'll look for an explanation for why ckolivas' ASIC didn't work like it should or find trusted members of the forum to verify the newbie's claim. I'm only collecting information here, if there isn't enough information I can't do much.

I'm sorry I didn't do the digging to figure it out for you. It appears it is raising the share difficulty that saves your efficiency. I just figured you were the expert and could figure it out easier. Sorry for wasting your time. I clearly keyed in on an incorrect statement, which caused you to dismiss everything I had to say.