Custom devfee, kinda..?

[siforek]

I want to do something similar to the claymore devfee where I can have a couple rigs mine to a different wallet address for a few minutes/hours a day. Anyone else done this? Ideas/suggestions?
Thanks!

[1714048074]

1714048074

[doktor83]

no i never thought about this wow you are so smart

[Undefined31415]

I want to do something similar to the claymore devfee where I can have a couple rigs mine to a different wallet address for a few minutes/hours a day. Anyone else done this? Ideas/suggestions?
Thanks!

You could use task scheduling software to automatically close one instance of your mining software and start a new one with the different wallet address.

[miakama]

I want to do something similar to the claymore devfee where I can have a couple rigs mine to a different wallet address for a few minutes/hours a day. Anyone else done this? Ideas/suggestions?
Thanks!

You could use task scheduling software to automatically close one instance of your mining software and start a new one with the different wallet address.

You can use
start  ZecMiner64.exe -ftime 5 -asm 1 -retrydelay 3 -i 6  -zpool  ssl://eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3443 -zwal tXX.rig1 -zpsw x -mport 3333

timeout /t 99
taskkill /im  "ZecMiner64.exe" /f
timeout /t 5
start  ZecMiner64.exe -ftime 2 -asm 1 -retrydelay 3 -i 6  -zpool  ssl://eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3443 -zwal t2XX.rig1 -zpsw x -mport -3333

timeout /t 9999
taskkill /im  "ZecMiner64.exe" /f
goto loop

[siforek]

Ok so basically write a cron job to stop, switch, start & vise versa. I figured that much, just wondered if anyone had done it otherwise.

[siforek]

no i never thought about this wow you are so smart

Not exactly helpful or constructive, but you're right, I am very smart

[ntsdm1]

lol it actually does not sound hard!
and i know a guy who makes programs like that
i will ask him and see what he says..
good luck finding the answers!

[jareso]

The simpliest way is to run 2 instances of mining program. One with high intensity the other one with very low intensity, each mining to it's own/different address all the time.
Miner with low enough intensity will not eat much hashrates from the miner with high intensity, so the one with low intensity can be actually considered "custom devfee".

Doing it this way can be actually even better and more profitable than letting miner to switch addresses every hour or so.

Btw. depending on algorithms and settings, sometimes running two instances of miner program on the same hardware can be even more profitable – the algorithms will not eat much hashrates from each other, if any! So when those hashrates are added together they can be even higher and more profitable in the end!
Hence, that's probably the way how Claymore came to it, that it can be more profitable to run two instances/threads on the same rig.

It works even with any regular single miners. Just run two instances of your favorite miner on the same rig with various algorithms at the same time and see.
If one algorithm is memory heavy and the other one is core heavy, the resulting profitability will be higher in the end when income is added together.  

[coinfoundry]

The simpliest way is to run 2 instances of mining program. One with high intensity the other one with very low intensity, each mining to it's own/different address all the time.

That's a pretty bad idea as those two instances will now be fighting over CPU and GPU resources not being aware of each other. Don't do this, ever.

[jareso]

The simpliest way is to run 2 instances of mining program. One with high intensity the other one with very low intensity, each mining to it's own/different address all the time.

That's a pretty bad idea as those two instances will now be fighting over CPU and GPU resources not being aware of each other. Don't do this, ever.

Funny, I do this all the time, running two instances of the same miner program, at the same time, on the same hardware, both instances using the same GPUs, with different algorithm settings and intensities.
One algorithm memory heavy the other one core heavy, both mining to my own wallets and in the end I make more when those incomes are added together, than if I was just mining single algorithm with only one single miner instance.

I really don’t care whether those two instances are "fighting", as you say, or whether they "like" it or not, or what they do.
All I care is that my rig is running rock stable and in the end I make more – that's what matters to me when mining.

But of course everyone is free to do what he believes is best for him and his rig.

[Undefined31415]

The simpliest way is to run 2 instances of mining program. One with high intensity the other one with very low intensity, each mining to it's own/different address all the time.

That's a pretty bad idea as those two instances will now be fighting over CPU and GPU resources not being aware of each other. Don't do this, ever.

Funny, I do this all the time, running two instances of the same miner program, at the same time, on the same hardware, both instances using the same GPUs, with different algorithm settings and intensities.
One algorithm memory heavy the other one core heavy, both mining to my own wallets and in the end I make more when those incomes are added together, than if I was just mining single algorithm with only one single miner instance.

I really don’t care whether those two instances are "fighting", as you say, or whether they "like" it or not, or what they do.
All I care is that my rig is running rock stable and in the end I make more – that's what matters to me when mining.

But of course everyone is free to do what he believes is best for him and his rig.

Dual mining gives mixed results. With a certain pair of algorithms and certain hardware, you may make more. You might also make less.

However, running two instances of the mining software for the same algorithm isn't going to give the kind of a boost you might find from dual mining.

Additionally, for this application, running two instances simultaneously 24/7 would make it far more inconvenient to customize the main:secondary hashing ratio, whereas setting fixed times for each simplifies the distribution of proceeds between the two recipients.

[siforek]

A lot of good ideas, things to consider, thanks!
I'm considering it because I'll be running 2 of my buddies rigs & wanted to dynamically mine to a "power bill" wallet so to speak, with a config indicating how long to mine there based on average power usage/cost. I like to automate as much as possible, BUT I could just subtract the power fees once a month too.

Still I'm sure there's many reasons one would want to do this.

[Supercoiner111]

yeah two instances but specify different gpu and then it would go to different wallets - once configured....

[Undefined31415]

yeah two instances but specify different gpu and then it would go to different wallets - once configured....

The main problem with that method is that it limits the ability to distribute earnings between the wallets. Suppose I have a system of 2 powerful cards. Then the only option to split using this method is to entirely dedicate one card for the secondary address. Even if we scale this up to a large number of cards, or even a large number of cards each with smaller individual hashpower, the problem is that I can only split based on assigning a whole number of cards to mine towards each address.

If the 24/7 performance of a whole number of cards happens to line up well with the required payments for the "power bill" wallet, then sure, this would be fine. Otherwise, you'll end up over or undershooting by quite a lot. Splitting by time would offer more flexibility, at the cost of losing a little bit of mining time at the stop/start period(s).

A lot of good ideas, things to consider, thanks!
I'm considering it because I'll be running 2 of my buddies rigs & wanted to dynamically mine to a "power bill" wallet so to speak, with a config indicating how long to mine there based on average power usage/cost. I like to automate as much as possible, BUT I could just subtract the power fees once a month too.

Still I'm sure there's many reasons one would want to do this.

For your purpose, I personally wouldn't attempt to automate this. I'm assuming your power bill is based on USD, and attempting to allocate some of the hashpower/time such that your "power bill" wallet receives something close to the USD value would be rather difficult. This is simply due to a combination of fluctuations in both the difficulty and ZEC/USD conversion rates. (Not to mention the apparent randomness associated with mining makes it impossible to predict the exact number of blocks/shares that you receive rewards for, although estimates over the course of a month aren't too shabby.) If your system cannot take that into account, you'll be left updating it manually, and/or manually correcting for when you took too much or too little.

You might be better off reaching an informal agreement with your friend(s), perhaps agreeing to ignore the power bill entirely in exchange for some fixed amount of hashpower or mining time per month, or even just agreeing to a flat ZEC payment each month, if direct USD isn't convenient.

[siforek]

yeah two instances but specify different gpu and then it would go to different wallets - once configured....

The main problem with that method is that it limits the ability to distribute earnings between the wallets. Suppose I have a system of 2 powerful cards. Then the only option to split using this method is to entirely dedicate one card for the secondary address. Even if we scale this up to a large number of cards, or even a large number of cards each with smaller individual hashpower, the problem is that I can only split based on assigning a whole number of cards to mine towards each address.

If the 24/7 performance of a whole number of cards happens to line up well with the required payments for the "power bill" wallet, then sure, this would be fine. Otherwise, you'll end up over or undershooting by quite a lot. Splitting by time would offer more flexibility, at the cost of losing a little bit of mining time at the stop/start period(s).

A lot of good ideas, things to consider, thanks!
I'm considering it because I'll be running 2 of my buddies rigs & wanted to dynamically mine to a "power bill" wallet so to speak, with a config indicating how long to mine there based on average power usage/cost. I like to automate as much as possible, BUT I could just subtract the power fees once a month too.

Still I'm sure there's many reasons one would want to do this.

For your purpose, I personally wouldn't attempt to automate this. I'm assuming your power bill is based on USD, and attempting to allocate some of the hashpower/time such that your "power bill" wallet receives something close to the USD value would be rather difficult. This is simply due to a combination of fluctuations in both the difficulty and ZEC/USD conversion rates. (Not to mention the apparent randomness associated with mining makes it impossible to predict the exact number of blocks/shares that you receive rewards for, although estimates over the course of a month aren't too shabby.) If your system cannot take that into account, you'll be left updating it manually, and/or manually correcting for when you took too much or too little.

You might be better off reaching an informal agreement with your friend(s), perhaps agreeing to ignore the power bill entirely in exchange for some fixed amount of hashpower or mining time per month, or even just agreeing to a flat ZEC payment each month, if direct USD isn't convenient.

My friend doesn't really care what I do. If I say "you made this much this month" he trusts me. He did just hand me $15k in cash to build rigs so.. It's more a matter of making things easy/automated for myself as much as possible. For now I can just subtract the equivalent coin every month for the power bill but it would be nice if I could even setup automatic exchanges from the power bill wallet to send $ to a bank account where the power bill is automatically deducted from. That part wouldn't be too difficult, it's getting a reasonably accurate figure once a month to that wallet.

I'm thinking maybe just automate a payment from the mining wallet to the power bill wallet once a month. That way the move & cash out are relatively close to each other so the value won't change too much in the time it take to verify + sell the coin for USD.

While right now I can easily do this all manually, after 100-200+ GPUs I'm gonna want to automate as much as possible. Using different cards for different wallets isn't a bad idea but seems a bit more complicated than other methods. Then again if 1 card in every 7 covered the power that'd be pretty nice.