1231/5000
Another way that I can think of for patrike, is to create a new type of rule, where I for each rig tells you to make the same coin as the Rig3.
That is, it can be done without changing the interface and only adding the possibility in rules
But as this is very necessary and few people realize it and lose money every day with this problem. from my point of view, it would be appropriate for it to be something more in sight.
But I am content with a new type of rule that I can say,
The rig 1, makes the currency of the rig 3
the rig 2, makes the mneda of the rig 3
The rig 4 makes the same coin from the rig 3
The rig 5 makes the same coin as the rig 3
in this way, each rig, using its own profile, will be limited to mining the same currency as the rig 3. And that same rule when activating it should deactivate the auto swtich in that rig, so that there is no interference.
I try to contribute ideas, although I believe that theirs is to implement it well in view, so that all users use it easily and stop losing coins as we do most of them.
Knowing the problem with the Exchanges, Awersome miner has to give the tools to eliminate or minimize that problem for the good of the users that we trust in the program.
I think be bottom line here is that you request a feature in the profit switcher where it in fact doesn't do profit switching for a while - instead you want it to mine on a specific pool that you point out.
I don't think there needs to be a concept of "follow" another rig - you might as well just select 4 miners (or a group), then right click and say that you want to force them to a specific pools for a period of time. Then it would either automatically revert to do profit switching after a day, or until you cancel this temporary pool selection.
Today these features are not part of the profit switcher today, as it only looks at the profit. If you only want to make the change for a while, an ugly workaround would be to define a very high profit factor on a pool, and the profit switcher will run in that direction.
1. your first response is to flee from the problem, I have very well adjusted the time after many tests, but that does not mean that everyone will work in the same currency. If the time is very wide as you suggest to get to the minimum, the currency over the low minutes of performance because many bots enter as AW and increases the difficulty. OSea is not an option, because I lose efficiency by raising the time to reach the minimum and lose other good coins.
2- This other idea of being forced into a group is not the solution either, because then the program loses much of its essence if I have to be constantly watching. That is not the concept, understand it. I do believe that there is room for a group to behave as a group, all to the same currency in auto swtich, but all to the same currency.
3.- The third option is not valid either, because basically it does not guarantee that all the rigs will be mined to the same currency, and at the same time, I am making amends to mine coins that can be profitable if the market goes down and the rule makes that does not mine them I mean, that's not an option either.
The way I do it is not what I decide, I just ask for something that does that, be it one way or another, I just give small examples as if it were a brainstorming.
With the maximum of my respects. I think it's an option, and the keyword is option, which would be very good for advanced users or for extra configurations. Because to more configuration options, who studies it well, will earn more money. I think that it is a fundamental point that a group of rigs all mine the same coin, many problems are solved like that. I want apart from reaching the minimum of each currency and not losing coins every day because a real solution is not implemented, I want this way to enter a pool with all the machines, have greater participation in each block.
I hope you think about it more carefully, it does not have to be complicated, it's an option that by default can be disabled, but I and other people, users of this program think that it lacks that option.
By the way, today I sold a copy to a referral and it is not reflected in the affiliate panel, I hope that only this cacheado to 24 hours and tomorrow the sale reflected.
I hope you think more about this topic. It is not an option that annoys anyone or complicates the program, the other way around, it gives more flexibility of configuration to advanced users, and in my case and more people I see it as indispensable.
I hope you do not hate me for insisting, we both want the best program.
IMHO, priority of things to be done is concisely like this:
Problem/Bug = Urgent
Feature Request = Non-Urgent
of course, then it boils down into more detailed priority rank as seen fit at dev's discretion, as Patrike already mentioned multiple times that he keeps a list of ideas and feature requests to be implemented as per popularity.
In your description, you have described it as both, that it is a feature you'd like to see, but is is a "problem" to you, that it makes you lose coins (perhaps money?) since you quoted "fleeing from problem" as well as "finding solution"...which there wouldn't need to be one if there wasn't a "problem". This kind of made a feature request like a demand for result, option that sounded more like obligation and responsibility. It can at least be done with due courtesy and manners.
***
To have a less ugly workaround, I suggest you use the already available HTTP api to achieve what you are asking, I'm 1000% sure it can be done easily even with novice technical and coding background, and if you have moderate+ coding background, it can probably be done elegantly with the C# scripts within AM itself.
personally, I'm enjoying the HTTP API and the ability/flexibility that it allows me to define a whole new dimension of more complex rule triggers for profit switching automation.
PS. A better way of asking maybe along the line of
Hi Patrike, how easy (if possible) would it be to add the following rule that it detects the [PoolID] of [minerA] and set the following Action - custom pool override [minerX].[poolID] = [minerA].[poolID] as a variable that can be referenced?
I understand the concept of urgent by bug or less urgent new features.
What I have written is not you, you do not need to answer me. I'm very glad that you know C #, but I did not, nor did I see a notice that it was necessary when buying the program. I also have extensive knowledge in other fields that you may not have.
If I say that you run away from the problem, it's because that's really how I see it, you should not even get angry. If you really want to collaborate, make me the C # lines that do what I ask.
Not only do I lose money and coins, this happens to the vast majority of users, most do not even realize it. Seen in this way, for me if it is a problem because the program is not adapted to the reality of the Wallets, and as I say most people who use it, the same case happens to me.
If you had spent your time doing a script in C # to collaborate with the community instead of answering me, I have not asked for anything, you do not need to answer me, you are not responsible for the program. Just answer me to see how great and unique you are and how well you do it blah blah blah blah
So your answer is useless, and it is perfectly that the NUMEROUS bugs have priority, and this is not a bug, it is a behavior not taken into account according to the circumstances of the current wallets.
Do not waste more time answering if you are not giving solutions, we know that you are very very smart and others are very very very dumb, the problem is that we charge the same fools and ready, but then some things are only for the very clever ones through c #.
I put it another way. How much do you charge me to do the c # to work like this, and the other users of Awesome who screw up losing coins, is not very ethical but if that is how you work here, then we will work like that.
I also have other requests that I take for granted that there is no hurry and I do not know if they will be done as simple statistics, because taking the current HAshrate and multiplying by 30, is not a statistic. I do not give this much importance to LOSE COINS EVERY DAY, both I and the other users of this program. For me it is not a bug, it is a lack that does not have such a basic option, and that I remember every day, because all users can not be losing coins every day.
I invite those who read these lines to look at what they mine and see if they enter the Wallet exchange, they will get a big surprise of the amount of money they lose per day for not reaching the minimum and when the solution is something very easy , and when people who know c # have time to write me but not to share a Script that helps.
I keep repeating that it is a big problem, I will repeat it here and there where I talk about this program as its great failure and the lack of such a simple option.
IF unless I knew if it would give some solution, but the programmer fled with invalid options and a blah blah that is useless.
