[Awesome Miner] - Powerful Windows GUI to manage and monitor up to 200000 miners

[GoRdiE]

Hello patrike, I have a curious problem.

I have the AM installed on two PCs in two different locations. In one of them, the AM was corrupted in the update and I could not recover the settings, so I copied the configuration I had in one PC in another and then adapt it conveniently, since both PCs maintain different rigs and different VGA's.

The problem is that everything is fine except for a detail that can not be solved. I'll explain: I keep several previous versions of CriptoDredge because some algos go better with older versions. Logically they are configured as User defined custom software such that:

https://i.imgur.com/tv5ewjZ.jpg

The issue is that I have these errors with any something when the miner starts in benchmark. If I start it in managed miner I do not have this problem. It only happens to me with the CriptoDredge and the installation of the software has been clean, directly from github. I also have this for the T-Rex but with T-rex all is fine and I do not have these problems. Do you know why this happens to me?

https://i.imgur.com/Fo0nGkb.jpg

Regards

[1713459118]

1713459118

[1713459118]

1713459118

[1713459118]

1713459118

[1713459118]

1713459118

[trucobit]

Hello Patrike, this is the second time I'm going to suggest the same thing. It's not because of taste or usability. It is by absolute necessity.

There is a big problem with CTM, if right now you look with CTM its difficulty and even hashnet of XVG, VEIL, BCI, for example those three, you will see that they are out of reality. It gives very different numbers to reality. The best thing that CTM has is the amount of exchange and the prices that also get them well. For example in Grin29 I had to correct their mistakes with 2.1 of profit.

However CC currency data such as difficulty, nethas, rewards, is usually much more accurate, but in prices and exchanges does not have the level of CTM. The problem with CC is that it keeps the price of the coins too long and adds fewer exchanges.

I am almost in the situation of deactivating CTM forever, but there are many currencies that it offers, but the data usually gives them badly. For example, I have been mining BCI with the CTM data but I was not really getting the difficulty data. I think CTM gets this data from other pools instead of the explorer, but CC does get the data from the explorer, but it does poorly with the exchanges.

I know you said it could be confusing for some users, I know, but it can always be explained and disabled by default.

It would be ideal for each currency, can choose the data of the currency (difficulty, hashnet, reward, blocking) of one provider and the prices and exchanges of another, that for each currency. In this way advanced users would have more control, because now both CC and CTM have advantages and disadvantages, and what I propose is that for advanced users to choose data and prices from different sites.

Please, look what I said, XVG, BCI, VEIL, XZC, are just some examples. Allow this function, which is activated from options in advanced, and that when activated, in the coins tab, by double clicking on a coin, have two selectors, one for the data and another for the price, if I choose for CTM prices I can choose between the exchanges. So I would have the best of each provider.

Right now the two fail for different reasons

CC, Against: fewer currencies, prices updated every so often, few exchanges to choose. virtues, the key data of the currency such as difficulty, hashnet, reward gets them perfect

CTM, currency data is a disaster, take data from other pools like zergpool, imagine the quality of data. But it does an excellent job in exchanges and updated prices very frequently and many exchanges.


I hope you have it in mind, for me the problem has become something personal, especially CTM, there are times that Karl even bothers if you correct too many coins, and I can not be constantly correcting the coins to this man.

I hope you think about it and see it as a great step forward, the better the data we manage, and how we can use it. Best results

Right now, with the price with so much waiting in CC makes me lose money
Right now with the lack of control of the data of the CTm currencies makes me lose money

If I mix the data, I have everything perfect.

[trucobit]

Another Issue Report:

Code:

Coin Properties -> Override global settings for exchange filters

sometimes does not work if coin is mapped to another algo in Options -> Statistics Providers -> Override coin algorithms

Workaround:

Code:

To have the exchange filter working, you must filter the exchange before remapping the coin's algo
if anytime you want to change the filtered exchange individually for the coin, you need to remove the mapping -> filter the unmapped coin -> recreate the mapping

example Strength Core - STR (Lyra2REv3)

Code:

CoinToMine.Today list algorithm as lyra2v3

to have the coin information, I created algo lyra2v3 then once coin appears after updating from the API,
mapped the coin to Lyra2REv3 for consistency purposes, however, STR has ticker conflict with (bloody) Poloniex
who uses STR for Stellar instead of where everyone uses XLM....so went through a whole bunch of trial and error to find this minor issue and workaround

@moopidoo what is your opinion about the possibility of mixing the data of the suppliers. You have not noticed your this comment from CC and CTM.

I would like to know your opinion.

[moppidoo]

Hello patrike, I have a curious problem.

I have the AM installed on two PCs in two different locations. In one of them, the AM was corrupted in the update and I could not recover the settings, so I copied the configuration I had in one PC in another and then adapt it conveniently, since both PCs maintain different rigs and different VGA's.

The problem is that everything is fine except for a detail that can not be solved. I'll explain: I keep several previous versions of CriptoDredge because some algos go better with older versions. Logically they are configured as User defined custom software such that:



The issue is that I have these errors with any something when the miner starts in benchmark. If I start it in managed miner I do not have this problem. It only happens to me with the CriptoDredge and the installation of the software has been clean, directly from github. I also have this for the T-Rex but with T-rex all is fine and I do not have these problems. Do you know why this happens to me?



Regards

Hi Gordie,

It doesn't just happens to you, I experienced the same on CD older versions (for the same reason as you, some algos works better, and some algos I'd like to keep using but removed from newest) as well. Manually running the miners are fine, but benchmarking is not possible as it errored out just like your screenshot.

[moppidoo]

@moopidoo what is your opinion about the possibility of mixing the data of the suppliers. You have not noticed your this comment from CC and CTM.

I would like to know your opinion.

Hi trucobit,

The points for the pros and cons CC, WTM vs CTM, you've already stated in your observation are fairly correct and I'll elaborate a bit more.

after having a taste at running private pool of 30 odd coins on the Yiimp (thx to cryptopool.builders' script and hardwork (also pool op for thepool.life yiimp pool)). The main flaw came from Yiimp (and MPOS I believe)'s returned profitability data via their API, which sadly, is what CTM's coin stats are based on.

You see, the pools reports not the current block's mining info for the coin, but the last found block on the entire coin's network, this is what's causing the issue, instead of riding the low difficulty, you are instead likely be mining the peak difficulty (some coins' like to adjust difficulty every single block and DGW didn't make it any better), I have been mining on "current" difficulty settings for the past few months, and while in theory, I should be on the favor side of statistics (scoring entire block rewards more often at low difficulties...etc). It didn't work out as good as I thought it could if the coin I'm mining is using pool reported (outdated) data, from CTM for this very reason.

But running a pool with 30 odd sh*tcoins, you get a taste of how difficult it is to maintain (forks, swaps, bugs in code....lack of dev communication, or dev simply scammed ppl for some MN hype), it's going to be a full time job for multiple ppl, and not one person. So you can't blame Karl (who is also working a full-time job, CTM was just his hobby, and it is totally free(mium)), as he had to maintain hundreds of coins, granted coins data are bogus as it came from the pools and it is largely not his to maintain to fullest extent, but like you said, he did exceptionally good job to provide exchange data and that is equally exhausting and time consuming.

So if you ask me about the idea of mixing data from CC/CTM, I would say I vote no, I like CTM's variety, I simply run out of many (potentially profitable) GPU coins to mine if I only rely on CC,WTM (sadly, I don't own any ASICs, FPGA) and my electricity is not free nor $0.02 per kWh.....

I would however, agree with your previous proposal to patrike, about potentially picking up where AMCU has left off, or completely overhauling it and code it in his own way (AMCU is not open source) as AM's core or plugin module, vs the 2, I think it's best that Patrike spends time on improving core functionalities of AM instead of spending time on a "workaround".

***
AM's Balance feature already utilizes (customizable) explorer data to report wallet balance, hopefully patrike can work from this module's code to expand functionality to fetch difficulty and mining related data for the coins too.
***

that's my 2 cents.

Cheers,

[patrike]

Well, I'm the man with the suggestions.

There is a situation that I can not avoid, I give you a REAL example so that you understand it and see if the suggestion is interesting or not.

There are coins that have little hash, are in their final phase or are coins that are only profitable up to a certain hash. The real example would be Xfox or AZART. I have them added and I have even measured the profit, but what happens to me is that when it enters into auto profit and the currency is the first one in profits, all my rigs enter at the same time. But when they all enter, the profit goes down so much that it stops being profitable, and that soon causes a change. Then again AZART becomes profitable again, and everything goes into the auto profit mode, and again the profir falls because it is too much hash.

The suggestion would be, when defining the pool of the currency, that there would be a field that tells AM how many maximum rigs can be in that currency. For example AZART I would put 2, therefore only 2 rigs would enter to mine that currency, the rest would not enter. If I left it blank, it would behave as usual.

When we play with shitcoins this happens many times, I enter and cause the fall of profit, because everything comes in. Being able to specify the maximum number of RIGS (any of which I have), that would give me more control when mining these small coins and not cause the profit myself and also cause excessive changes.

It can be done by creating different groups pools assigned to each rig, but that would make the management of AM more difficult and more difficult. I hope you like the suggestion that comes in handy to mine these coins that are in their final phase or that give few rewards and when a hash is exceeded, they stop being profitable. Is that right now the only thing I do is disable them, but I would like to control it with an option like the one I have indicated.

I do not know if the rules could do the same, I looked and I think not.

I hope you understand and I hope you consider it.

Thanks for the suggestion. What would be nice as well is if the profit switcher looks at the Network Hashrate for a coin and compare it with your hashpower. If it's a very small coin and you have a significant number of miners, your combined hashrate will have a real impact on the coin difficulty.

However, I think this will have to be a more long term item as it also will require some design changes.

[patrike]

Awesome Miner version 6.2.7

 GPU mining
  - Added CryptoNight Turtle algorithm
 Features
  - Added Notes field to Coin Properties
 Integration
  - Nicehash CryptoNightV4 (CryptoNightR) pool added
  - Improved SrbMiner support to allow customization of algorithm to support via the Managed Software configuration
 User interface
  - Coins can be hidden via the context menu on the Coins tab
  - Coin list in Pool Properties will not include disabled algorithms
  - Mining pools using a specific coin can be accessed via the context meny on the Coins tab
 Mining softare
  - TeamRedMiner 0.4.1
  - BMiner 15.3.1
  - TT-Miner 2.1.16
 Corrections
  - Correction to pool balance for pools added using the Predefined Pools concept
  - Correction to tar.gz-file extract function on Linux

Hi Patrike,

Thank you for the quick implementation for the UI improvements, it's greatly appreciated!

small issue though, can we also have the right click menu for coins that are in the AM's DB but no stats from API provider?

To elaborate, right now the context menu only works if the coin has information retrieved from API (block time, reward, height, nethash...etc) the coins that were created and set in options as not to delete when they are not in the API any more still shows in the coins list (only visible columns -> Coin, Algorithm) and in this case, I'd love to hide them but they will not have the context menu available when RMB clicked on.

Scenario Example:

Code:

GinCoin (GIN)

Original Algo -> Lyra2z
New Algo -> X16rt

cannot hide GIN:Lyra2z without going through Options since cannot activate context menu or have alternative button action to achieve result

Best Regards,

Thanks for the feedback. I will make a change for this in the next release. Right now the "Hide" menu item is disabled if no coin stats are found, but simply leaving it enabled in that case will resolve the scenario.

[patrike]

Another Issue Report:

Code:

Coin Properties -> Override global settings for exchange filters

sometimes does not work if coin is mapped to another algo in Options -> Statistics Providers -> Override coin algorithms

Workaround:

Code:

To have the exchange filter working, you must filter the exchange before remapping the coin's algo
if anytime you want to change the filtered exchange individually for the coin, you need to remove the mapping -> filter the unmapped coin -> recreate the mapping

example Strength Core - STR (Lyra2REv3)

Code:

CoinToMine.Today list algorithm as lyra2v3

to have the coin information, I created algo lyra2v3 then once coin appears after updating from the API,
mapped the coin to Lyra2REv3 for consistency purposes, however, STR has ticker conflict with (bloody) Poloniex
who uses STR for Stellar instead of where everyone uses XLM....so went through a whole bunch of trial and error to find this minor issue and workaround

Today Awesome Miner first apply the exchange filtering and later on the algorithm modifications. It should really be the other way around. I will make this change in the next release.

After upgrading to the next version, please note that for any coins that you manually mapped to a new algorithm, you may have to open the Coin Properties and redefine the Exchange Filter.

[patrike]

Hello patrike, I have a curious problem.

I have the AM installed on two PCs in two different locations. In one of them, the AM was corrupted in the update and I could not recover the settings, so I copied the configuration I had in one PC in another and then adapt it conveniently, since both PCs maintain different rigs and different VGA's.

The problem is that everything is fine except for a detail that can not be solved. I'll explain: I keep several previous versions of CriptoDredge because some algos go better with older versions. Logically they are configured as User defined custom software such that:

The issue is that I have these errors with any something when the miner starts in benchmark. If I start it in managed miner I do not have this problem. It only happens to me with the CriptoDredge and the installation of the software has been clean, directly from github. I also have this for the T-Rex but with T-rex all is fine and I do not have these problems. Do you know why this happens to me?

Regards

Hi Gordie,

It doesn't just happens to you, I experienced the same on CD older versions (for the same reason as you, some algos works better, and some algos I'd like to keep using but removed from newest) as well. Manually running the miners are fine, but benchmarking is not possible as it errored out just like your screenshot.

I found out the scenario where it's failing. If you define your own Managed Software and select CryptoDredge, Awesome Miner didn't understand that this CryptoDredge should have the same limitations on benchmarking as the predefined CryptoDredge.

In the Benchmark dialog, you have a setting for "Benchmark without a pool (if supported)". This is not supported by CryptoDredge so in all cases when you benchmark CryptoDredge, Awesome Miner will pass a pool to be used.

The bug: For a user defined Managed Software that is based on CryptoDredge, Awesome Miner didn't consider the benchmark limitations of CryptoDredge and tried to run it similar to how CcMiner do offline benchmarking without a pool. The result is that the benchmark failed, because CryptoDredge was missing the pool information.

Workaround: Uncheck "Benchmark without a pool (if supported)"

The next release of Awesome Miner will correct this scenario to make sure that even for user defined CryptoDredge software, Awesome Miner will always pass a pool and don't try offline benchmarking. Thanks for reporting the issue!

[patrike]

@moopidoo what is your opinion about the possibility of mixing the data of the suppliers. You have not noticed your this comment from CC and CTM.

I would like to know your opinion.

***
AM's Balance feature already utilizes (customizable) explorer data to report wallet balance, hopefully patrike can work from this module's code to expand functionality to fetch difficulty and mining related data for the coins too.
***
Cheers,

Thanks to both of you for all feedback.

I think the first step here is to allow at least Difficulty to be loaded via a custom URL. I assume this is the most problematic property to get right and if you manually find another source where it could be loaded from, it would make sense to bring it in. For some coins there can also be variations in Block Reward.

I will expore this a bit more and get back with an update later on.

[moppidoo]

@moopidoo what is your opinion about the possibility of mixing the data of the suppliers. You have not noticed your this comment from CC and CTM.

I would like to know your opinion.

***
AM's Balance feature already utilizes (customizable) explorer data to report wallet balance, hopefully patrike can work from this module's code to expand functionality to fetch difficulty and mining related data for the coins too.
***
Cheers,

Thanks to both of you for all feedback.

I think the first step here is to allow at least Difficulty to be loaded via a custom URL. I assume this is the most problematic property to get right and if you manually find another source where it could be loaded from, it would make sense to bring it in. For some coins there can also be variations in Block Reward.

I will expore this a bit more and get back with an update later on.

Thank you patrike for considering this, this would be of great help, as for other properties (block reward, developer fee, MN portion of the block rewards etc) that are usually not available via popular explorer such as ones based on Iquidus, I agree more planning is needed to save time and achieve a better result (talking about potentially getting block info right off the local running node via RPC API).

***
To start with for example, would you consider design it in a way such that it's something custom selectable from JSON results (this was where AMCU falls short and many users had issues in the beginning):

TRAID coin (Neoscrypt, POW/POS/MN), example explorer difficulty API response https://explorer.traid.tv/api/getdifficulty

Code:

{
  "proof-of-work": 8.84396638,
  "proof-of-stake": 822141.35406081
}

because there are some differences (albeit similar) each explorer outputs API results according to available query methods, can we consider they are all selectable drop-down lists of fields, and have AM's UI let end users choose which one is the difficulty field?

eg. (taking result from above)

Field selection popup/modal dialogue

Code:

Data Field | Value
proof-of-work | 8.84396638 <-- user select this one, and it maps to coin's difficulty to override API provider's data
proof-of-stake | 822141.35406081

This also can lay a foundation for (if there are) future plans if AM can get those info from locally running wallet node(s) where the RPC-JSON responses are common, below is example from a coin with founder (dev) fee + MN payment in each block:

Argoneum (AGM) - PHI2

getblocktemplate method:

Code:

{
    "capabilities": [
        "proposal"
    ],
    "version": 536870912,
    "rules": [],
    "vbavailable": [],
    "vbrequired": 0,
    "previousblockhash": "0000000001e2d6eeb2302311c6c9d67306ac097ecfc85bec1444b272cdb0ce8f",
    "transactions": [],
    "coinbaseaux": {
        "flags": ""
    },
    "coinbasevalue": 3000000000,
    "longpollid": "0000000001e2d6eeb2302311c6c9d67306ac097ecfc85bec1444b272cdb0ce8f49205",
    "target": "000000000802c700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
    "mintime": "2019-03-15 00:18:51 +0000",
    "mutable": [
        "time",
        "transactions",
        "prevblock"
    ],
    "noncerange": "00000000ffffffff",
    "sigoplimit": 20000,
    "sizelimit": 1000000,
    "curtime": "2019-03-15 00:28:29 +0000",
    "bits": "1c0802c7",
    "height": 183959,
    "founderreward": {
        "founderpayee": "M8CbM4XHV35PsEQKKQBPqbUNaA6u5JLbNU",
        "amount": 150000000
    },
    "founder_reward_enforced": true,
    "masternode": {
        "payee": "MMbHPeo6yW3eNuHZrDY5A1rAB71cmAuVmX",
        "script": "76a91496303fec2012b961fc2f3b1c09e1c201ee4b618288ac",
        "amount": "2017-07-14 02:40:00 +0000"
    },
    "masternode_payments_started": true,
    "masternode_payments_enforced": true,
    "superblock": [],
    "superblocks_started": false,
    "superblocks_enabled": false
}

sample block reward distribution block height 183959:

Code:

Blockhash
ce47ac697e1ebf82ceab5c6d7ccd93a926b892b68c9c5e29af902a7a3c099933

Generation (Mined)
M8CbM4XHV35PsEQKKQBPqbUNaA6u5JLbNU (1.5)
MMbHPeo6yW3eNuHZrDY5A1rAB71cmAuVmX (15)
MQA3A3WNBh1gWu6UkgxdYpBem6gLzhNRdJ (13.5)

as you can see from the above results:

Block reward = 30 AGM ( "coinbasevalue": 3000000000 )
MasterNode Payment Portion = 50% block reward ( actual value not specified in this JSON response ) but coin specs in this case is fixed = 15 AGM
Miner Reward = 13.5 AGM
Founder (Dev) Fee = 1.5 AGM

Code:

"founderreward": {
        "founderpayee": "M8CbM4XHV35PsEQKKQBPqbUNaA6u5JLbNU",
        "amount": 150000000
    }

This is just one of many variations you can get from the wallet RPC on particular blockchain's info which is accurate and up to date, but since every coin dev tend to make little modifications here and there, the ability to target response field and response values to coin's properties would be greatly helpful and flexible.

of course, all that (except getting difficulty from explorer API) are not something to be expected any time soon, but I thought it might assist in the planning phase if they were to be considered in the future to be implemented into AM, so the UI and workflow can be intuitive and user friendly.

Best Regards,

[sxemini]

How can I set a timer on the starting of the miner if I kill the process?

I set a time out on using /timeout 190 but after around 60 seconds it still starts the miner

Any ideas?

Use curl and api and let the zilminer stopping and starting the miner via api. so you get no errors and so on. I have asked if someone need an explanation. But there was no interest.

[Marvell2]

How can I set a timer on the starting of the miner if I kill the process?

I set a time out on using /timeout 190 but after around 60 seconds it still starts the miner

Any ideas?

Use curl and api and let the zilminer stopping and starting the miner via api. so you get no errors and so on. I have asked if someone need an explanation. But there was no interest.

hmm I’ve heard of curl but I’m on windows , is it even available on there? There should be an easy way via option
Or template to ad a delay to the miner start process via awesomeminer,.

All I want is to delay starting the miner back up when zilminer stops it .

[trucobit]

@moopidoo what is your opinion about the possibility of mixing the data of the suppliers. You have not noticed your this comment from CC and CTM.

I would like to know your opinion.

Hi trucobit,

The points for the pros and cons CC, WTM vs CTM, you've already stated in your observation are fairly correct and I'll elaborate a bit more.

after having a taste at running private pool of 30 odd coins on the Yiimp (thx to cryptopool.builders' script and hardwork (also pool op for thepool.life yiimp pool)). The main flaw came from Yiimp (and MPOS I believe)'s returned profitability data via their API, which sadly, is what CTM's coin stats are based on.

You see, the pools reports not the current block's mining info for the coin, but the last found block on the entire coin's network, this is what's causing the issue, instead of riding the low difficulty, you are instead likely be mining the peak difficulty (some coins' like to adjust difficulty every single block and DGW didn't make it any better), I have been mining on "current" difficulty settings for the past few months, and while in theory, I should be on the favor side of statistics (scoring entire block rewards more often at low difficulties...etc). It didn't work out as good as I thought it could if the coin I'm mining is using pool reported (outdated) data, from CTM for this very reason.

But running a pool with 30 odd sh*tcoins, you get a taste of how difficult it is to maintain (forks, swaps, bugs in code....lack of dev communication, or dev simply scammed ppl for some MN hype), it's going to be a full time job for multiple ppl, and not one person. So you can't blame Karl (who is also working a full-time job, CTM was just his hobby, and it is totally free(mium)), as he had to maintain hundreds of coins, granted coins data are bogus as it came from the pools and it is largely not his to maintain to fullest extent, but like you said, he did exceptionally good job to provide exchange data and that is equally exhausting and time consuming.

So if you ask me about the idea of mixing data from CC/CTM, I would say I vote no, I like CTM's variety, I simply run out of many (potentially profitable) GPU coins to mine if I only rely on CC,WTM (sadly, I don't own any ASICs, FPGA) and my electricity is not free nor $0.02 per kWh.....

I would however, agree with your previous proposal to patrike, about potentially picking up where AMCU has left off, or completely overhauling it and code it in his own way (AMCU is not open source) as AM's core or plugin module, vs the 2, I think it's best that Patrike spends time on improving core functionalities of AM instead of spending time on a "workaround".

***
AM's Balance feature already utilizes (customizable) explorer data to report wallet balance, hopefully patrike can work from this module's code to expand functionality to fetch difficulty and mining related data for the coins too.
***

that's my 2 cents.

Cheers,

Thank you Moppidoo for your explanations.

It is clear that obtaining yimp data as CTM does is not the best way and that CC obtains it from the explorer. I suppose this because I compare their data with the explorer and they tend to coincide almost always, the bad thing that CC takes a long time to update prices and there are few exhanges to choose from.

I do not use pool groups of 30, I use about 3 to 7 coins only, which usually change with the days as the coins move.

PArike receives the data of all the moneds from 4 sources, the power to mix them coin by coin seems to me the most logical. It is an advanced function that could be disconnected by default to avoid confusion. I've thought about it a lot and the combination of CC data and prices with CTM exchange is the best.

AM CU, it's fine, but even if they fix it, it has 2 problems

1.- It always gives you the highest price of the exchange, without being able to choose it, that is, it will give you the price of the rare exchange without volume with a high price. I already said that you could choose when defining the currency line the exchange

2.- You have to be attentive to the rewards, as the blocks progress the rewards vary, and you have to change them by hand, then remember to change them.

For the rest AM CU is very good, especially to add what others have not added.

In my opinion, the mix of optional data, currency data provider and, on the other hand, prices and exchanges, coin by coin, is the best option, and AM CU is an ideal complement to hand-pick the other items that do not they are added

But now we have that problem.

[trucobit]

Well, I'm the man with the suggestions.

There is a situation that I can not avoid, I give you a REAL example so that you understand it and see if the suggestion is interesting or not.

There are coins that have little hash, are in their final phase or are coins that are only profitable up to a certain hash. The real example would be Xfox or AZART. I have them added and I have even measured the profit, but what happens to me is that when it enters into auto profit and the currency is the first one in profits, all my rigs enter at the same time. But when they all enter, the profit goes down so much that it stops being profitable, and that soon causes a change. Then again AZART becomes profitable again, and everything goes into the auto profit mode, and again the profir falls because it is too much hash.

The suggestion would be, when defining the pool of the currency, that there would be a field that tells AM how many maximum rigs can be in that currency. For example AZART I would put 2, therefore only 2 rigs would enter to mine that currency, the rest would not enter. If I left it blank, it would behave as usual.

When we play with shitcoins this happens many times, I enter and cause the fall of profit, because everything comes in. Being able to specify the maximum number of RIGS (any of which I have), that would give me more control when mining these small coins and not cause the profit myself and also cause excessive changes.

It can be done by creating different groups pools assigned to each rig, but that would make the management of AM more difficult and more difficult. I hope you like the suggestion that comes in handy to mine these coins that are in their final phase or that give few rewards and when a hash is exceeded, they stop being profitable. Is that right now the only thing I do is disable them, but I would like to control it with an option like the one I have indicated.

I do not know if the rules could do the same, I looked and I think not.

I hope you understand and I hope you consider it.

Thanks for the suggestion. What would be nice as well is if the profit switcher looks at the Network Hashrate for a coin and compare it with your hashpower. If it's a very small coin and you have a significant number of miners, your combined hashrate will have a real impact on the coin difficulty.

However, I think this will have to be a more long term item as it also will require some design changes.

it's just a suggestion, for my good thanks for answering and having it in consideration for the future. I think you understood it perfectly.

[trucobit]

@moopidoo what is your opinion about the possibility of mixing the data of the suppliers. You have not noticed your this comment from CC and CTM.

I would like to know your opinion.

***
AM's Balance feature already utilizes (customizable) explorer data to report wallet balance, hopefully patrike can work from this module's code to expand functionality to fetch difficulty and mining related data for the coins too.
***
Cheers,

Thanks to both of you for all feedback.

I think the first step here is to allow at least Difficulty to be loaded via a custom URL. I assume this is the most problematic property to get right and if you manually find another source where it could be loaded from, it would make sense to bring it in. For some coins there can also be variations in Block Reward.

I will expore this a bit more and get back with an update later on.

it is as easy or difficult as obtaining it from the explorer of each coin, just like AM CU, which scrape each Explorer, but only supports 3 or 4, but when they have been updated, the scrape is no longer valid, it must be redefined to I can read.

You can not get the Yimp hashnet and difficulty data as CTM does, because that YIMP also has a delay when it comes to obtaining the data, and at the end there is a very large lag. CC if you get the data of the explorer, or at least that seems because it is usually very accurate to what the explorer of each currency, but fails in the prices and can not choose so many exchanges, it takes a long time to read the new prices .

If you obtain the data of everything through the APIs, we obtain the data of everything. That is to say, for this currency, the data of the currency of X supplier, and the price data of X supplier. In the currency tab, with double click on Tabs coins, and by default deactivated and with notices to read the information on the subject.

I give you a very clear example that you can check yourself. The formula to calculate the difficulty CTM on Grin29 is so far from reality, that its profit to correct it is 2.1. It has modified until the KArl blocking time but does not guess one. In the end I have mined with CTM and 2.1 of profit, now change to CC and you will see that if you put the profit to 1 it is the same data as CTM. It is crazy the data of difficulty, reward, blocking etc ... in CTM, it does not do well, only in prices and exchanges it makes it perfect.

I do not think that it is necessary according to my opinion to add a url to read the difficulty, if not the option to mix the data. For the newbies it will be like this now and it will not change anything. For the experts we can mix that data currency to currency. The data we have loaded each one when reading the apis, is how we use it, I think it would be the most efficient option.

AM CU would be good to add other coins that are not added.

Remember that in my group and especially me, we measure the coins, a minimum of 4 hours, and getting every 15 minutes of Awesome to see their forecast making the average and then compare it with the obtained. Yesterday with CTM BCI proit 0.65, it's crazy. That 0.65 is to correct the lag of CTM. because if I do not do it, BCI mine mine more times with a false benefit, to correct it by a test of 4 hours, I make everything stay in place, and that's when I realized the bad that is CTM data about difficulty, nethas, blocking etc ...

[savirh]

Hello Patrike, this is the second time I'm going to suggest the same thing. It's not because of taste or usability. It is by absolute necessity.

There is a big problem with CTM, if right now you look with CTM its difficulty and even hashnet of XVG, VEIL, BCI, for example those three, you will see that they are out of reality. It gives very different numbers to reality. The best thing that CTM has is the amount of exchange and the prices that also get them well. For example in Grin29 I had to correct their mistakes with 2.1 of profit.

However CC currency data such as difficulty, nethas, rewards, is usually much more accurate, but in prices and exchanges does not have the level of CTM. The problem with CC is that it keeps the price of the coins too long and adds fewer exchanges.

I am almost in the situation of deactivating CTM forever, but there are many currencies that it offers, but the data usually gives them badly. For example, I have been mining BCI with the CTM data but I was not really getting the difficulty data. I think CTM gets this data from other pools instead of the explorer, but CC does get the data from the explorer, but it does poorly with the exchanges.

I know you said it could be confusing for some users, I know, but it can always be explained and disabled by default.

It would be ideal for each currency, can choose the data of the currency (difficulty, hashnet, reward, blocking) of one provider and the prices and exchanges of another, that for each currency. In this way advanced users would have more control, because now both CC and CTM have advantages and disadvantages, and what I propose is that for advanced users to choose data and prices from different sites.

Please, look what I said, XVG, BCI, VEIL, XZC, are just some examples. Allow this function, which is activated from options in advanced, and that when activated, in the coins tab, by double clicking on a coin, have two selectors, one for the data and another for the price, if I choose for CTM prices I can choose between the exchanges. So I would have the best of each provider.

Right now the two fail for different reasons

CC, Against: fewer currencies, prices updated every so often, few exchanges to choose. virtues, the key data of the currency such as difficulty, hashnet, reward gets them perfect

CTM, currency data is a disaster, take data from other pools like zergpool, imagine the quality of data. But it does an excellent job in exchanges and updated prices very frequently and many exchanges.


I hope you have it in mind, for me the problem has become something personal, especially CTM, there are times that Karl even bothers if you correct too many coins, and I can not be constantly correcting the coins to this man.

I hope you think about it and see it as a great step forward, the better the data we manage, and how we can use it. Best results

Right now, with the price with so much waiting in CC makes me lose money
Right now with the lack of control of the data of the CTm currencies makes me lose money

If I mix the data, I have everything perfect.

+1

I agree with your idea ... I'm giving a lot of problems the failures with the difficulty of CTM, the developers should pay attention to the idea that you propose.

[trucobit]

this is the people in my telegram group that we all use awesome miner supporting me, because they are aware of the problem I pose and they like my solution

[Piggybox]

+1

[Piggybox]

Well, I'm the man with the suggestions.

There is a situation that I can not avoid, I give you a REAL example so that you understand it and see if the suggestion is interesting or not.

There are coins that have little hash, are in their final phase or are coins that are only profitable up to a certain hash. The real example would be Xfox or AZART. I have them added and I have even measured the profit, but what happens to me is that when it enters into auto profit and the currency is the first one in profits, all my rigs enter at the same time. But when they all enter, the profit goes down so much that it stops being profitable, and that soon causes a change. Then again AZART becomes profitable again, and everything goes into the auto profit mode, and again the profir falls because it is too much hash.

The suggestion would be, when defining the pool of the currency, that there would be a field that tells AM how many maximum rigs can be in that currency. For example AZART I would put 2, therefore only 2 rigs would enter to mine that currency, the rest would not enter. If I left it blank, it would behave as usual.

When we play with shitcoins this happens many times, I enter and cause the fall of profit, because everything comes in. Being able to specify the maximum number of RIGS (any of which I have), that would give me more control when mining these small coins and not cause the profit myself and also cause excessive changes.

It can be done by creating different groups pools assigned to each rig, but that would make the management of AM more difficult and more difficult. I hope you like the suggestion that comes in handy to mine these coins that are in their final phase or that give few rewards and when a hash is exceeded, they stop being profitable. Is that right now the only thing I do is disable them, but I would like to control it with an option like the one I have indicated.

I do not know if the rules could do the same, I looked and I think not.

I hope you understand and I hope you consider it.

+1