Quote from: HellDiverUK on October 20, 2013, 02:12:33 PM

Quote from: IYFTech on October 20, 2013, 01:41:00 PM

Quote from: ckolivas on October 20, 2013, 01:21:04 PM

The fault lay with the hardware manufacturers, not p2pool, as p2pool was around long before they started making their ASICs. If all the newer hardware follows the same pattern, things will only improve, and old hardware becomes irrelevant very fast in this world anyway.

Agreed, but pool software should be able to adapt to newer hardware - which p2pool does not do. Other pools adapt - that's why they are more successful/bigger.

Exactly. I can point my Blades to any other pool, be it one with a getwork interface, or any stratum pool via a stratum proxy, and guess what? It works. ONLY p2pool shit's it's lips when presented an ASICMiner (or KnC it seems).

As usual, ck, you're skirting round an issue and making excuses, rather than fixing the issue - amazing as it isn't even YOUR issue this time...

I posted some good news about upcoming hardware and p2pool and you shat on it and turned it into an argument against me. Good work. It gets tiring having you go around dissing the effort I put in just because you support a hostile fork. I don't recall personal attacks against you to make you to take sides with such an aggressive stance. You don't like my software and its approach or p2pool, don't use it, but don't expend so much energy putting down other people's hard work. There's a big difference between constructive criticism and just plain bashing. You want to flame? Take it elsewhere, this is the p2pool thread.

To forrestv's credit, he made a LOT of changes leading into the ASIC era, like beefing up stratum support, variable difficulty, clamping down on memory leaks and the longer blocks. There is ALWAYS more work to be done when the landscape is changing so fast in the bitcoin mining world, but it's clear the manufacturers till now have not put p2pool on their radar at all.