It just occurred to me. Wouldn't it be cool to have, as an option, all miners locally combined to equal one big hashing miner? What ever the number, you have them combined so they all receive work and report completed work 'yays' to the pool?
Instead of the pool seeing 10 different miners and combining and averaging them on that end, do it locally and have the pool see only 1 miner that is the equivalent of 10 hashers-hashing
Instead of the pool seeing 10 different miners and combining and averaging them on that end, do it locally and have the pool see only 1 miner that is the equivalent of 10 hashers-hashing
lol, cgminer does this. That's why so many of us want to use cgminer and not 50 instances of cpuminer.
Can someone else using cgminer confirm this claim? lolololololololololrofllololteeheeheeheehee
So are you solo mining or pool mining?
What does their end see? All 20 individual miners reporting hash rates and shares or...
only 1 instance / 1 miner reporting the sum total of hashes and shares of all 20 miners - AS ONE miner?
Please specify.
Thanks
w2014
Okay, thanks.
So the question still remains. Is it advantageous to do it that way or to have each miner reporting separately to the pool to there be added up and tallied?
I mean, is it more profitable to combine total hash rates etc. at the origin point (local) or at the receipt point? Or does it matter at either way?
Does one method make more money than the other?
That's the point of this discussion, after all
Wolfey2014
I don't think it matters, shares are accumulated at the user level, not the worker level on all the pools im familiar with.
Most PPLNS pools try to discourage pool-hopping by spreading out the payout for shares over a broad timeframe (rounds).
Your earnings start small for any given hashrate because you don't have recent history, then over time (rounds) the earnings grow per share as long as you keep mining. If you go away and come back later, then you have to start over again building up the earnings.
I would think it's better to combine multiple GPU's and/or GSD's into "rigs" and assign a given rig as a "worker".
However, I can see that if you have 20-40 GSD's on as a single worker, it may be difficult to notice slight variations in performance indicating a possible issue with one or more GSDs.
If your "worker" houses (probably) 10 or less GSDs, then it would be easier to notice any variation in KH/s...
Just my 0.02BTC
Thanks!
Very good and useful insight!
Wolfey2014
!!!
