Great work! I also have my gateway as 192.168.1.254 so would definitely vouch for an image with reversed assignments, i.e IP of 192.168.1.1 and gateway of 192.168.1.254 (that despite the notes above).
Once again, great work!
PS. What version of cgminer does this ship with?

Bulk sales, as far as bitmain are concerned, usually signify EOL if we are to go by the experience of S3's and S5's. But end of Jan is a bit of a way off in bitcoin terms, fingers crossed diff rise as well but next-gen is certainly on the horizon thus cementing the notion this is fool's gold!

The price of S7 B8 would be a reflection on the price of BTC if the S7 sales were not from stock. And there is a difference between a fire sale and a clearance sale which I believe this is thus the fool's gold.

S7 @ 3.1BTC shipping 5 days after payment recieved is fool's gold!
Shipping from stock at what was at the time a price cut smacks of a clearance sale. The significance of that clearance by bitmain may simply be undermining a competitor or clearing space for the next generation BM chip. Either way, with the network diff they have to recoup as much as possible from their stocks before they become worthless.

That's probably due to the BTC rate. I will not be surprised if it gets back online with a higher USD price for the S7.

You indeed never claimed such, and your numbers should tell a good story ... the one you refuse to see and tell, so I'll ask for some pointed stats.
1. What is the percentage of forks / empty blocks?
2. What is the percentage of forks / all blocks?
3. What is the percentage of forks / empty blocks in a timespan of the highest concentration of forks (in which timespan at least 2000 blocks have been mined)?
4. What is the percentage of forks / all blocks in a timespan of the highest concentration of forks (in which timespan at least 2000 blocks have been mined)?

The answer to all of those is bound to be in fractions of a percentage; extrapolations will without doubt yield similar results, meaning the likelihood of forks happening due to empty block mining is statistically negligible, and that will be true for a very long time.

So if you base your argument of empty block mining being detrimental due to the evil that is forking, which said forking's occurence is statistically negligible, you may have an agenda but you definitely have no point.

Is it possible to delete messages? Well I'll spell it out for you then, not all prunes are mangoes.

Ofcourse it does, and mangoes are prunes though just like not all blockchain forking is due to SPV mining.

Johnybravo, I do not agree with you on the specific issue of the process of SPV mining being unstable in itself, I rather think it is the people who code it that flagrantly implement it - and that is a nod with particular reference to the mentioned forking.

On top of that, forking is not exclusively caused by SPV mining but more importantly there's no harm to "rest of us" when a fork of this nature happens. Infact, forks do happen and the protocol knows about it, thus it can not, by definition, be detrimental.

This whole empty blocks cum spv mining is simply "too much ado about nothing"!

The way I see it is there will be a time when mining empty blocks will neither be in the interests of the pool nor the miner, assuming they are separate entities and otherwise, therefore the empty blocks will die a natural death. Before that threshhold is crossed, it can not be reasonably assumed that empty block mining is or can be detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem, infact, it would be foolish to even think so and downright silly to assert so.

I should add that the only time I've noticed transaction confirmation delays is when the network is under attack and not when empty blocks have peaked. It would also be interesting to establish what percentage of network-wide transaction confirmations is attributed to the pools being pillored for empty block / spv mining against those that do not regularly mine empty blocks.

The only pseudo-substantive argument that I have seen put forward against empty block mining boils down to a veiled effort to lure miners to certain pools, no more.

Honestly, if the question asked is so far off the mark why bother to answer or even post a response? It is as though asking a question that may fit anyone's incongruent pre-concenceptions warrants snide remarks. Guys, spare us your frustrations, if you can not or do not want to answer, do not answer at all.

I am not sure the question is not answered by one, but I'll elaborate just so we are clear. If you can find a block with an rPi ZERO then you'll agree the mBTC is covered by that block, or am I missing something here? Then again, I am not sure one rPi ZERO can not mine an mBTC and still be re-useable, be it for tinkering or as an expensive controller, and that in effect being the proof that cpu mining is not dead.
But you are right, you started this thread and you must be correct.

If the question was how many $5 rPi ZERO's do you need to mine btc then, surely, the answer is just one NOT cpu mining is dead. Is it worth it? Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder .... usb stick or rPi ZERO ... both have an equal chance of finding a block but the rPi ZERO has the added advantage of being re-useable.
Anyone who says cpu mining is dead is simply being narrow-minded.

I have to agree, cpu mining is not dead by any objective measure, btc included, though you will never ROI if doing it on a pool. But who knows, with btc you may find a block solo mining and of-course with alt coins you never know where the price is headed.

For those in the US, I read from the rPi site that MagPi will be your end in 2 weeks (actually 3 weeks from printing as sent by ship)!

Now for the tinkerers who'd rather end up with a $30+ PiZERO contraption of a bitcoin mining rig controller, here's some inspiration .... this guy is working on a daughter board that adds wifi .... though for CNC https://openhardwarecoza.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/raspberry-pi-zero-grbl-all-in-one-cnc-controller/

How is this question a botnet? Some people are just foolishness itself!

Your code is not complete as you will need to connect to a remote pool with your socket, or you'll need to interface with getblocktemplate if you are running a local node.

I've seen reports of the new Pi ZERO being sold by authorised resellers for EURO 12+ plus shipping ...
But yes, volume purchases normally result in lower pricing, but notwithstanding the Pi ZERO using the "older" processor, I am not sure how far below the listed price the price can go. Are they getting the processor for free? The footprint of the PCB would itself cost about $2 at a dirt cheap PCB fabricator (OK given that would not be for volumes)!

You can add ethernet to the Pi ZERO by simply plugging in a mini USB to ethernet dongle which costs about $10. But the cost difference between a BB and a Pi ZERO is not even that (reportedly the BB costs bitmain $7) and both will require a daughter-board (even for Avalon).

That is the reason I said the Pi ZERO will not be of interest to Bitmaintech, however, for an independent developer, there definitely is some scope. Technically on a simplistic level, it is merely a matter of serial interfacing with the hash boards which can be achieved with the Pi ZERO as much as it is with the BB.

With regard to bricking, for the S1 and S3 that was an issue in the ealy days, but unless there is damage to components, recovery from bricking is a breeze and aside from time, costs a meagre $3 for a USB to TTL dongle. Ofcourse with the BB, you can always pop down your favourite webstore for a replacement so bricking and time to RMA is moot.

In terms of changing the controller-scape, Avalon can only be mentioned as a detail to Bitmaintech, for all the good things Avalon that may be. I can not see the appeal of a Pi ZERO over Bitmaintech's chosen BB derivative, not even price (and not to mention connectivity, or the lack of it - USB to ethernet considered).

It does change the miner controller-scape only as far as the manufacturers are willing to embrace it. Bitmain walked away from the ar9331 modules (which would have cost them about the same) to the BB which, with their volumes, costs them about the same.

The Pi ZERO, though, is quite limited in terms of connectivity, aka ethernet and / or wifi, without further spending on enabling it, thus the $5 would end up being more like $15+ in medium volumes, even $30+ in small volumes. I can not see it below $10 with the connectivity added (to say the conrol board).

That said, the Pi ZERO will only change the controller-scape if an independent developer can fashion a drop in replacement controller board that it can host but most importantly, can run bitmain boards.