No, you and Con decided to fork the project because he was upset over the announcement of ASICs.
Yes, clearly-labelled alpha releases might be broken! That's to be expected. That's why they're alpha.

I don't lie. Anyone with a clue can clearly see that an occurance of bricking a controller with a test build clearly marked as possibly having that effect, is not remotely the same thing as "BFGMiner ... brick mining hardware", nor does one person mentioning the result as such make it "well known". Too bad you're too busy trolling to have a clue.

As usual, this is a lie.

BFGMiner has w64-related bugs fixed and officially supported.

You mean libusb just requires a non-standard driver on Windows.
It does on Linux, too, but libusb has a feature to request the standard driver shutdown (which you're using).

Thankfully, people who want sane FPGA/ASIC support can continue to use BFGMiner, the original FPGA/ASIC miner.
Who knows why anyone still uses your troll fork.

WR703N != Avalon

Thanks for testing! Can you elaborate on specifically how it is bricked? Were you able to communicate with it at all?
Failsafe is actually using the firmware, so if that works it suggests some kind of config conflict..

No, that's the unrealistic extreme upper limit. There is no upper limit besides that.
For a datacenter, 558 GB/mo is nothing anyway. The very cheapest of dedicated servers include 2500 GB.

I came up with 205 KB/sec, or 18 GB/day at the extreme case of difficulty 1 shares with full 1 MB block templates every 30 seconds.
In practice, 2 Th/s would probably be unusable at difficulty 1, so you would be using a variable difficulty pool which would use less bandwidth for submissions (which account for about 134 KB/sec of this estimate).

Not really.. you can degrade BFGMiner's stratum security with the --skip-security-checks parameter.

It varies by pool mainly. Pools that support variable difficulty should use approximately the same bandwidth regardless of hashrate.
Network difficulty has no effect on bandwidth.

Ignore the troll.

Not quite so easily. Due to the ridiculously small amount of flash, you can't install packages.
midnightmagic was successful at extracting the binaries/libraries and putting them in tmpfs to run, but that will be lost on reboot.

Not sure what "NEXT" is.. the Avalon driver in BFGMiner is basically a clean merge of xiangfu's codebase, so the differences are mostly the usual between cg and BFG: many more bugs fixed, reliable/working GBT support, more updated FPGA drivers, etc
There isn't really any good summary of these differences, but I did start a wiki page comparison of mining software that people can contribute things to.

Note that bfgminer does not have a web interface on OpenWrt yet, so you would be giving that up for now.
On the other hand, the build includes GNU Screen and the ncurses interfaces.

X6500 is a lot more "chatty" on USB, so maybe it's some kind of problem with power savings (X6500s preventing that from being active).

My hub has:

• Yubikey
• ZTEX 1.15x
• ModMiner
• Icarus
• BitForce Single (FPGA)
• (empty)
• X6500
• (empty)
• eZ430-Chronos-915 wireless programmer
• Samsung ML-2510 laser printer
• ZTEX 1.15y

As I mentioned, USB hub companies like to swap out the internals without changing model numbers, so there's basically no way to predict if you'd be buying the same hub I have.

Pretty sure the guy I bought it from ran it full of X6500s. I have a wide variety of devices on it now, maybe half of which are miners.

Do you run Linux? It might be useful to post what lsusb -vv shows for yours and compare it to mine.

Sadly, even if you find a model that works well, these manufs like to swap the internals out with no model number changes, so you can't be sure you're buying the same thing

Edit: With that in mind, a Satechi UH-12P I bought used has been working fine, though it's not perfect (it's missing some desirable features).

USB only supports/allows chaining hubs up to 5 deep. Often, your motherboard has at least one hub builtin (so 4 left). Most "USB hub" products with more than 3-4 ports are really just multiple 4 port hubs internally - so count as 2-3 each. On top of that, "USB hub" products are 99% garbage quality. Adding unreliable USB cables on top of that doesn't help either.

Looks like a broken driver. If you could post the card & driver/OpenCL versions that don't work, that could help for information collecting.

I think you're confused.. the only config "module" is the config file you have to write yourself (possibly based on the included example).

bump, nearing the decision date and that bitcoin reward is looking a bit more valuable

Any last-week submisisons?

It had nothing to do with luck, and all to do with your disinterest in doing anything other than censoring important information, and not even checking the Talk page for responses.

Yes, it is. They remain archived in the Talk page history.

Yet the example you gave is actually pretty much a good example of gibberish.

Litecoin is in fact a pump and dump. Your desire to censor that does not change that.

The point I meant to make is that this forum (BitcoinTalk) is basically 99% trolls, and productive community members avoid it for that reason.
It is not overly useful for real discussions.

First of all, it is not correct to say none of the current admins do anything. At least nanotube and sgornick have been proactive in managing the wiki recently.

It seems (from the Bitcoin Foundation thread) that the decision to make ripper234 an admin was done without any background check, and his self-nomination made with the intent to abuse power, an intention he has recently made explicit on reddit. Therefore, regardless of whether the Foundation is to manage the wiki or not (it currently does not), ripper234 should probably not be made an admin at this time.

Both proposals under "Future" are probably unnecessary. While certain people occasionally wage edit wars, usually to troll or censor others, the current wiki management seems to be working just fine for the most part. Perhaps a warning/ban rule should be established for the users who vandalise the wiki for trolling and/or censorship to avoid edit wars, but that seems to be the only real problem.

Regarding ripper234's proposed core rules...

• He is linking to a cleanup of the Talk page for Tonal Bitcoin, which was formerly filled with nonsensical trolling. This page was cleaned up to make room for actual discussions. Cleaning up of Talk pages is a fairly standard wiki practice. It is absurd to turn a standard practice into a rule violation.
• This is not Wikipedia. Citations may be preferrable for readers, but are not necessary ordinarily. Original research/creation is also common and necessary practice on this wiki. Points of view are subjective, and are effectively citations in and of themselves - it is absurd to censor a point of view simply because anyone disagrees with it.
• Edit wars are a symptom of trolls/censors getting away with their vandalism. Outright forbidding of them effectively only stops wiki correction (half the "edit war"), making the problem worse. If anything, the root cause should be addressed.

Finally, the wiki should not depend on this majority-rule-by-trolls forum. As long as bans are kept temporary, there shouldn't often be need of appeals; perhaps a special wiki page can be setup where banned users can post a request should there prove to be a need.