Quote from: notme on July 12, 2013, 11:08:13 PM

Quote from: rovchris on July 09, 2013, 08:09:57 AM

The issue with p2ppool is ASIC miners will not work on them

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90658.0

Please stop spreading this lie. The issue with p2pool is people who might try it are actively discouraged by uninformed people like you. ASICMINER hw works, BFL hw works, and soon Avalon hw will work.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153232.0:

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

Hardware latencies

ASICMINER Block Erupter blades: they seem to work correctly according to this post

Avalon: I've ordered one in batch 2 but don't have any experience with it yet... There have been various informations floating around but no definite conclusion. Here is what is reported to influence how Avalon and P2Pool behave, you may want to try different combinations of these suggestions:

Test different versions of the Avalon firmware, beginning with the latest one.
Avalons apparently have a limitation with stratum that a new branch of p2pool tries to circumvent: you may want to try this branch
try to use cgminer's "--fix-protocol" to avoid Stratum
contact the p2pool devs on the #p2pool IRC channel to report feedback (and maybe get some tips)
force a high difficulty for the shares submitted by Avalon by adding +n at the end of the username used to connect to P2Pool (try n=16, 32, 64, ...)

Please report your experience (hashrate, DOA and orphan percentages and efficiency) if you can. Current reports are incomplete and seem to indicate that Avalons don't reach 100% of their mining efficiency on P2Pool.

BFL: if you have a BFL Single, an early FPGA MiniRig (cgminer has a parameter for later ones to fix them, check its documentation) don't waste their hashrate on P2Pool, they have huge latencies and can't perform well on P2Pool. Put them on a traditional pool. If you have a BFL SC (ASIC), ckolivas and kano reported the same problem, see ckolivas post. At least two users reported around 100% efficiency: here and here. You might want to test it for yourself for at least 24h and report your results here (please include the details from cgminer's API if possible).

Additionally, with the upcoming hardfork (code released, waiting on 95% of hashpower to upgrade), p2pool should work reasonably well for all ASICs (including Avalon), and optimally for most. Even without the hardfork, I'm mining away with 61 AM USBs with 111% efficiency.

The issue is when you search to see if they work the first results say they don't - What percentage of people are going to keep looking? If they already mining at 100% on an existing pool why are they going to take the risk?

Nobody is going to read through 300 pages of posts - only people that have been closely following that thread will.

After having a look through it is not clear what is going on with the BFL devices. When the guy who wrote cgminer is saying there is a problem what conclusion do you expect people to come to. It looks like the 5ghs devices work but not the bigger units.

To quote ckolivas the author of cgminer

Quote

Check the BFL forums. We asked them why they didn't implement the command because we tried it and it doesn't work on BFL SC devices.

They did not respond. I think BFL are too busy drowning in fail to respond to petty questions like these.

Avalon's as you say also have a problem

So at the moment it is only the USB miners and the BFL low ghs units that appear to work. So in essence no big miners are going to use it.

I also don't understand why so many people on this forum immediately attack each other - anyone that is not involved in Bitcoins is going to be reluctant to join or even post due to all the demeaning comments that are fired at you when you misunderstand something - which would will be the majority of new users.

You guys need to be more patient and just explain why something may be incorrect.