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 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.
Quote
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?
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?
