[NemosMiner] multi algo profit switching NVIDIA/CPU miner

[Lubrifiant]

I'm waiting for zergpool into nemosminer.
I saw nemo created zerpool.ps in Pools folder. I think he's working on that

[MagicSmoker]

Btw I've been parallel testing my 5x1080 rig against two buddies and their 6x1080 rigs.

One's on Nicehash
One's on Nemosminer-Ahashpool
I'm on Zergpool, Neoscrypt port only

Nicehash guy after 4.5 days: 0.0083 BTC (a couple of hours downtime due to miner crashes)
Nemosminer guy: 0.0063 BTC (approx 12 hours downtime - various reasons, probably not Nemosminer related)
me: 0.006 BTC (more downtime than both above - and mined wrong fork on a shitcoin for the best part of a night - and I only have 5 GPUs, remember)

On that basis I think I did pretty well, and would -probably- have the highest profitability IF I managed to have a stable mining experience.

I will report as I go along, but I think a Nemosminer-Zergpool hybid could yield good results.

I was also testing Zergpool last week doing Neoscrypt and converting to BTC. At first the results were far better than anyone else, then 40% of my /confirmed/ BTC balance was taken back because of that same shitcoin fork (I guess my single GTX 1080 ended up mining that one for a greater percentage of time than you).

I will likely give Zergpool a second chance because the operator - who goes by pinpins here - seems like a decent enough guy, just in a bit over his head, and not charging a pool usage fee makes it difficult to cover the costs when your pool continues to mine a coin well after it hard forks.

[cesheet]

I'm waiting for zergpool into nemosminer.

Download the file, fix line 13 to say $zergpool_Host = "zergpool.com" and create a new start file (e.g. copy from zpool) or change existing to -PoolName ahashpool,zergpool and choose your algos. Runs fine. A lot of switching however, the statistics are not reliable enough with this small miner base.

[X299]

NemosMiner-v2.4.1

zpool  hashrefinery  ahashpool  miningpoolhub  nicehash

https://github.com/nemosminer/NemosMiner-v2.4.1/releases/download/v2.4.1/NemosMiner-v2.4.1.zip
 
tested with 6x 1060 3gb & 6x 1080ti rigs

We who use Miningpoolhub.com, when will we also have this algorithm?  ethash
This version Nemo 2.4.1, does not have this algorithm included.

[Finzi]

I'm waiting for zergpool into nemosminer.

Download the file, fix line 13 to say $zergpool_Host = "zergpool.com" and create a new start file (e.g. copy from zpool) or change existing to -PoolName ahashpool,zergpool and choose your algos. Runs fine. A lot of switching however, the statistics are not reliable enough with this small miner base.

When you say to "fix line 13", you are refereing to which file?

[Lubrifiant]

I'm waiting for zergpool into nemosminer.

Download the file, fix line 13 to say $zergpool_Host = "zergpool.com" and create a new start file (e.g. copy from zpool) or change existing to -PoolName ahashpool,zergpool and choose your algos. Runs fine. A lot of switching however, the statistics are not reliable enough with this small miner base.

Wow, looks like it's working, thank you
starting to bench on zergpool wit nemosminer currently

When you say to "fix line 13", you are refereing to which file?

zergpool.ps1 in Pools folder

[cryptonere]

I just got a 4 card rig up and running the other day (still waiting to find 2 more in stock) and I was able to benchmark and get NemosMiner going just fine for about 12 hours.  Now when running the miner, it keeps showing Lyra2RE2 at the top of my profitable list at around $300/day with the rest in the $4-10/day range.  Of course this is automatically defaulting all of my mining to Lyra2RE2 only and won't correct itself.  Is there an issue with the information it's pulling in or a reason why my benchmark could have changed itself but won't correct?

[millsys]

I just got a 4 card rig up and running the other day (still waiting to find 2 more in stock) and I was able to benchmark and get NemosMiner going just fine for about 12 hours.  Now when running the miner, it keeps showing Lyra2RE2 at the top of my profitable list at around $300/day with the rest in the $4-10/day range.  Of course this is automatically defaulting all of my mining to Lyra2RE2 only and won't correct itself.  Is there an issue with the information it's pulling in or a reason why my benchmark could have changed itself but won't correct?

Yes Lyra2RE2 has been showing bad profit data, remove from batch

[Klexicon]

For those of you mining Zergpool, are you keeping in the algos without many miners?  It looks like that pool is only good for Neoscrypt and Nist5 right now due to the long time to find a block on the other algos (Phi, X17, Blake2s, etc.). 

[sundownz]

I notice that 2.4.1 seems to be running 2x longer than what I enter for INTERVAL.

So if I set 240-seconds it actually runs for 480-seconds before switching.

Anyone else notice this ?

[millsys]

I notice that 2.4.1 seems to be running 2x longer than what I enter for INTERVAL.

So if I set 240-seconds it actually runs for 480-seconds before switching.

Anyone else notice this ?

should be using 30 second interval with -ActiveMinerGainPct 3 added to batch, will switch 'as needed'

[madgpt]

Loading BTC rate from 'api.coinbase.com'..
Loading pool stats..
Error contacting pool, retrying..

Loading BTC rate from 'api.coinbase.com'..
Loading pool stats..
Error contacting pool, retrying..

[HardBlockMiner]

I will likely give Zergpool a second chance because the operator - who goes by pinpins here - seems like a decent enough guy, just in a bit over his head, and not charging a pool usage fee makes it difficult to cover the costs when your pool continues to mine a coin well after it hard forks.

Even the pools with high fees wont cover the costs of mining the wrong side of a fork.

[dragonmike]

I will likely give Zergpool a second chance because the operator - who goes by pinpins here - seems like a decent enough guy, just in a bit over his head, and not charging a pool usage fee makes it difficult to cover the costs when your pool continues to mine a coin well after it hard forks.

Even the pools with high fees wont cover the costs of mining the wrong side of a fork.

...but it could happen to them too. Which would be a double-whammy.
Go figure...

[MagicSmoker]

I will likely give Zergpool a second chance because the operator - who goes by pinpins here - seems like a decent enough guy, just in a bit over his head, and not charging a pool usage fee makes it difficult to cover the costs when your pool continues to mine a coin well after it hard forks.

Even the pools with high fees wont cover the costs of mining the wrong side of a fork.

Yeah, I didn't write what I meant to write when I wrote that... 

What I meant was that some of the bigger pools - hashrefinery comes to mind - have some way of detecting a hard fork (maybe seeing two or more orphaned blocks in a row?) and then shut down that coin/port/whatever. Minimizing the damage, then, if not compensating anyone for shares lost to the hard fork itself.

[HardBlockMiner]

I will likely give Zergpool a second chance because the operator - who goes by pinpins here - seems like a decent enough guy, just in a bit over his head, and not charging a pool usage fee makes it difficult to cover the costs when your pool continues to mine a coin well after it hard forks.

Even the pools with high fees wont cover the costs of mining the wrong side of a fork.

Yeah, I didn't write what I meant to write when I wrote that... 

What I meant was that some of the bigger pools - hashrefinery comes to mind - have some way of detecting a hard fork (maybe seeing two or more orphaned blocks in a row?) and then shut down that coin/port/whatever. Minimizing the damage, then, if not compensating anyone for shares lost to the hard fork itself.

I'd agree with that a bit.  I think they're set up to where if they get more than 50% of the blocks for a period of time it shuts it down.  The bad part about mining the wrong side of a fork is they don't orphan you keep getting the blocks and it drives up the pool profitability and everyone switches over to mine that algo and no one is actually making money.

The worst part is it's never when you're actually sitting there watching or have access to your rigs so you can switch them over to something else (at least for me) it always seems to happen to me when I'm out with no means to do anything about it.

[MagicSmoker]

Even the pools with high fees wont cover the costs of mining the wrong side of a fork.

Yeah, I didn't write what I meant to write when I wrote that... 

What I meant was that some of the bigger pools - hashrefinery comes to mind - have some way of detecting a hard fork (maybe seeing two or more orphaned blocks in a row?) and then shut down that coin/port/whatever. Minimizing the damage, then, if not compensating anyone for shares lost to the hard fork itself.

I'd agree with that a bit.  I think they're set up to where if they get more than 50% of the blocks for a period of time it shuts it down.  The bad part about mining the wrong side of a fork is they don't orphan you keep getting the blocks and it drives up the pool profitability and everyone switches over to mine that algo and no one is actually making money.

Ah, so that's how they do it. I thought there might be some cross-checking of the block height with other pools, but a sudden change in found blocks - a heuristic approach - makes a lot of sense and doesn't rely on there being other pools.

FWIW, I gave you my one sendable merit for this; don't spend it all in one place! 

The worst part is it's never when you're actually sitting there watching or have access to your rigs so you can switch them over to something else (at least for me) it always seems to happen to me when I'm out with no means to do anything about it.

So true, and also network failures... they always seem to happen right after I go to sleep.

[Boffinboy24]

I notice that 2.4.1 seems to be running 2x longer than what I enter for INTERVAL.

So if I set 240-seconds it actually runs for 480-seconds before switching.

Anyone else notice this ?

Yes, I’ve noticed this behaviour. Pretty sure it came with 2.4.1. It corresponded to Nemo increasing benchmark times and I believe it is intended because if you look at benchmark times being 8 minutes and the first run is for 4 minutes (240 sec) it would need to run twice. I don’t know if it applies after benchmark run. I have made my benchmarks read only to allow multiple instances and therefore anytime I restart nemosminer it treats it as a benchmark.

[airwalker_]

Just wanted to say what a shitty day it is for all crypto. December and most of January were incredible - now garbage. Sometimes it's chicken, sometimes it feathers.

[yashart]

Just wanted to say what a shitty day it is for all crypto. December and most of January were incredible - now garbage. Sometimes it's chicken, sometimes it feathers.

agreed