Definitely weird. Again with all 12 going down it is highly unlikely something broke in all 12 of them at the same time. Something is hinky about their connection to the network.

Question: From the A10 on up the Avalons support running 1 network cable between the router/switch and then daisy-chaining more miners onto that 1 connection by using both LAN ports on the miner. eg, router > miner1 > miner2 > miner3 > etc. Are you doing that or does each miner have its own cable running to the router/switch? Folks have had issues with doing the daisy-chain configuration.

Is it possible for you to move 1 miner to a different location and try it from a different network connection?

Correct - if you are using Compassmining. You should change the title of this thread to reflect that vs sounding like a blanket statement about all BTC mining.
Find a place with cheaper hosting fees and it is a different story. As has been said numerous times in the past, you need to find cheap power (and/or hosting where power is cheap). Only then is there a good chance of profitability.

Considering you say all 12 miners are offline odds are this is not a problem with the miner hardware. Either your router does not work (can you access the internet from a PC connected to it?) or it is possible your internet provider is blocking them. Can you run through a VPN to bypass any filtering your ISP might be doing?

If you are talking about a different miner on the planet mining to a different node/pool that is an entirely different matter. Is it possible they may get the same work at the same time? Sure.

It is also bloody unlikely because the work sent to them is completely random and is defined by the node they get the work from. Not only can/will the work ID's be different but the underlying data itself will be as well because the node/pool picks what Tx's to process and again that results in different work being sent. Also keep in mind that even the fastest hardware cannot sequentially process all possible values before someone, somewhere, finds a block and forces new work to be started. 2³² is a huge, huge number...

Sorry to be bouncing you around the Forum but since you are inquiring about the nuts and bolts of how mining works you might want to move this discussion to the Development & Technical area of the Forum where you will get more eyeballs looking at your questions.

No. As explained before the software feeding work to a miner DOES NOT ALLOW THAT. All miners pointed at the same pool or private node get different work unless you screw with the code on your experimental node. If a pool does it (sends same work to multiple miners) then whoever operates it is a idiot.

All solo mining means is that you and you alone get the block reward regardless of you mining to your own private node or a pool allowing solo mode such as Kano's or -ck's. The work mechanisms sending/receiving work are the same as mining at a regular pool. The difference between Solo vs shared (pool) mining is more of just an accounting thing. This Help topic from Kano's site may help you understand.

As Kano and I have said in 2 other threads you started: NO!
Solo or otherwise the pool software assigns different ID's and therefore work to the miners. If you are talking about their speed - still no because a miner's hashrate varies quite a bit as it is running. Even any given single miner will have different hash rates and results each time it gets new work.

The only possible way multiple miners would have overlapping results would be if you setup your own BTC node for experimenting and hacked it to not assign different ID's. Which by the way would be a terrible thing to do on the BTC main net. If you decide to screw around like that - use TestNet, that is what it is for...

When buying a transformer, avoid anything called a "travel converter " or "international travel converter" that look like this. Been there, done that and they are CRAP which will burn out very quickly. They are not able to sustain anything near their supposed ratings.

Only use ones that are either commercial or industrial grade such as these as they are properly designed and made to deliver rated power 24x7x365.

AwesomeMiner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=676942.msg7668661#msg7668661 I've used it for several years for monitoring my farm and it can do all you ask about.

Bullshit.
Your statement would only be valid if China had a national grid system like North America (excluding Texas) and most of the EU have. A national grid lets a country generate power in one area for use in another, if one area has too much generating capacity power can be sent to regions where there is not enough generating capacity.

China does not have a national grid so during the rainy seasons the hydroelectric dams are now running far below capacity because there are no miners to take up the excess power. With no grid system that potential power production is now wasted and water is just being dumped downstream vs going through a dam's turbines/generators. That is why officials in Sichuan tried to get the CCP to allow mining to continue until the rainy season is over.

Yes it does. The question is a non-existent case that will never occur.

The pool will NOT send the same work... If it does then there is something seriously wrong with their software...

It is not a hardware ID. It is an ID generated by the pool when a miner connects to it.

As far as I know, Slush begat the Braiins team to develop Stratum V2 and BoS to work with it. The Braiins group recently bought/rebranded the original Slush company.

The key point folks here are getting to is that running a miner much less several requires setting up significant power circuits and is not something most folks can, much less should attempt, to do by themselves. It requires working with a licensed electrician to safely spec and install the needed circuit breakers, wiring, and sockets.

Odds are Kano will be piping in eventually but suing Bitmain in China back then was a non-starter. He did do some work for them regarding the S1 but shelved it after BM refused to address the terrible performance of their FPGA driver. Beyond that, for a time both he and -ck did bug BM enough that as they released new miners Bitmain eventually (several months after release) *would* publish their source code for miners up to the early S9's.

I might add that Kano does have better performing versions of firmware for the S1 & S3's on his dl site. Also of course has the full source code for them there as well.

Yes, Braiins is 'Kano Approved' as an original work. Don't know how much is just a re-write of cgminer using a different language (Rust) and how much is new 'clean' code but the key point is that Braiins published the source code.

Well, he is doing all that he can. He and -ck are not about to give cgminer to the FSF who are the only ones with the resources to go after violators. All he can do is 'shame' them. In the past already has made mention in their respective support threads of Bitmain, Inno, MicroBt and others violating the license but that is beating a dead horse especially since the other major (and Primary) developer (-ck) could care less. Canaan has been the one exception in that they DO (or least, did) publish their modified source code. That leaves nagging programmers who should know better and support the ideals of what Open Source is supposed to stand for.

How would they feel if someone decompiled or just repackaged  their code after adding a few tweaks to it and then proceeded to make money off of it? Pretty safe bet that said programmers would be highly miffed...

Mining software?
ASIC-based Bitcoin miners are stand-alone devices that do not use 'mining software', they are not crapcoin miners based on using a PC and GPU's. The only software (such as AwesomeMiner) used is for monitoring. All you do is open the miner web GUI, enter pool & user information, save/apply and run them.

100% verifiable code yes. It's already available. Hardware is another story because there are VERY few Foundries in the world that are capable of making decent speed CPU's and at least one of them will be making the actual chips (and support chips).

That means the Foundries must be trusted to not fiddle with the chip designs and put in backdoors at the request of governments. So far, that is NOT an issue with Intel (edit: being a separate stand-alone bit of logic on the same dies as the CPU, ME *can/is* one but can also be disabled), TSMC, Samsung and Global. btw: that is the whole point about the US and EU blocking/restricting Huawei and other China-owned makers of network and other communications gear being sold/used in their jurisdictions - the chips and gear are pretty much wholly produced in China so major concerns about backdoors there.

edit: found that Intel's ME *can* be disabled. More explicit description courtesy of bleeping computer is here.

Since you are so against Intel's ME, just use a PC based on the ARM or AMD or other non-Intel CPU's... Problem sort of solved.

Only catch is that the CPU's require compilers to translate the OS code into the CPU-specific microcode which is doing the actual data manipulations in a CPU. Those compilers are based on code libraries that come from the CPU makers. So... in many ways there is still proprietary closed-source code being ran.

That said, yes there *are* "Open Source" CPU architectures out there. A quick article about is here. Also just do a search for "open source CPU" to find a lot more about it.

Only 1 problem with that -- considering that miners get paid for processing blocks, changing the algo to make it 'CPU friendly' would mean that gazillions more miners would be cheaply brought online and difficulty would still skyrocket as a way to keep to the existing rewards schedule. If the algo is changed to keep diff low the network could easily be swamped with miners vying to get the finder reward or more likely and worse yet, bad actors easily DOSing the pools/nodes or applying 51% attacks..

The existing POW format prevents all of that by making it exceeding difficult & expensive to attack the network..