Topic: Hash Auger 2.9.7.5 Mining Manager and Switcher for NVIDIA GPUs - page 14. (Read 8755 times)

I just hear about this miner, I have a question about  miner fee, something I didnt like with nemos was that if the rig restarts 5 times in a day you end paying the fee 5 times in a day, how hash auger handles the fees? its for true 24 hrs? or the fee runs like nemos after the 1 hr mining?

A quick note for any users looking to tune their difficulty settings.  The Manual Difficulty and Difficulty % cannot be used at the same time for a given algorithm - only one or the other. The difference between the two options is that the Manual Difficulty is a parameter sent to the pool that specifies a static difficulty level. In contrast, the Difficulty % is used by supported miners to adjust the automatic difficulty level assigned by the pool.  For example, a Difficulty % of 95 will have the mining software decrease the assigned difficulty level by 5%.

Thanks for your feedback. I am working on ways to make it more convienent for users to keep track of earnings over time. Since this information is available though other sources, it has been less of a development priority for me. I’ve been focusing on configuration options that allow users to optimize the performance of their rigs. However I recognize the convienence of having more earnings information displayed in the UI. While these enhancements won’t be 1.9.4, they will be included in the software in the near future.

Given the volatility of the value of Bitcoin and other cryptocoins, I am not a fan of calculating profit in dollars or any other fiat currency as the accuracy depends heavily on the current exchange rate. Plus, without keeping track of electricty costs, one cannot really calculate profit, only revenue. Perhaps MOAMiner keeps track of each card's wattage and the user's electricity rate, but Hash Auger currently does not. That being said, I will be making it more convenient to keep track of revenues in the near future.

Would it be possible to add something like revenue over the past 24 hours?  It's hard trying to calculate whether I'm actually being profitable.  Maybe just add a "Profit" area with stats?  I kind of like the way MOAMiner does it.

Thank you for trying the software. Sorry to hear you are having issues with downloading CPUMiner. If you have Windows Defender or another anti-virus software running, you most likely need to create an exclusion for the HashAuger\Miners folder. Unfortunately, some mining software has been inaccurately labeled as threats because they have been misused by malware. Without an exclusion on the folder, Windows Defender will quarantine or delete the mining software every time Hash Auger attempts to install it.

If you have any questions on how to add an exclusion in Windows Defender or if the problem continues after you do, please let me know.

Greetings,

I just downloaded HashAuger 1.9.3 today and am running the benchmarking.   I am getting interesting errors stating that cpuminer needs to be downloaded and hasn't finished and to restart the software, I don't have any indication it's trying to do so at all.  and all the benchmarking is failing due to there not being a miner available.  is there something I can do to download cpuminer that you've added to the software?

[2018-05-26 8:11 PM] Error: Cannot find the executable file for the cpuminer miner. Please restart Hash Auger to download the miner package again.

I'm glad to hear that your earnings are doing better than what they were the last time you posted. So far the Build Bigger Shares option has improved my earnings on Blazepool as well. It is good to see that BlockMasters responded relatively quickly to the concerns about their estimates and you can definitely tell that they put some work into their updated version. Given that some pools simply ignore such concerns, that does say something about the pool and its admins.

After enabling larger shares for Blazepool, I'm up to about 0.00124424 a day according to their site.  It's about what I was making before mining just Ravencoin.

I think i'll try to add Blockmasters into the mix and see what the daily average is after that.  The update they did looks nice.

To give a quick update on this, BlockMasters just updated their pool and according to the author of the post about their estimate accuracy, they are now lower than most other pools. It will be interesting to watch how their estimates compare with those of other pools over time.

The author makes some compelling points. There may be technical reasons for some of the discrepancies. We will just have to see how the pool responds. Unfortunately, they are not the only pool to have had to face that type of allegation. I haven’t had any issues with payouts from them and the actual prices seem more closely aligned  with those of similar pools than their estimates. I just wanted to let you know about those issues since you said you were going to try that pool.

I haven't made any changes to intensity as I wanted to see what the default values do, but I will look into that.  Thanks.


Just read that thread and that looks bad for BlockMasters.  I'm not sure if i want to use a pool that inflates prices.

I genuinely want to see all users of the software benefit from using it and it is unfortunate that it has taken awhile to find the optimal configuration for your rig. Maybe in the future and based on ongoing feedback from users, it will be easier to define more general guidelines for new users based on hardware configurations and user preferences.

Another suggestion is that if you are using Z-Enemy miner as the preferred miner for any of the algorithms it supports, you may want to follow the developer's recommendations for intensity settings found here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/zealotenemy-z-enemy-nvidia-gpu-miner-ver262-kawpow-ravencoin-3378390  Some of the miner's default settings are not the recommended values.  If you change the intensity settings for a preferred miner, you may want to consider locking that miner if you are using the Change Preferred Miners Automatically advanced configuration setting.

In regards to BlockMasters, you may want to read this post https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/blockmastersco-is-probably-artificially-increasing-their-current-estimate-4101412 to see what others have been saying about their price estimates. I don't agree with everything being said in that thread, but I have found that the actual prices are closer to my expectations than some of the current estimates.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions, it is much appreciated.

I'm going with Blazepool and Blockmasters with "build larger shares" on both and "use mine coin" on Blockmasters.  I'm no using the "actual price instead of estimates" yet, but we'll run with this for a day or so and see what it is like tomorrow.  Hopefully things look better.  I really want to use your program as you are a very responsive dev and seem to be genuinely interested in helping.  Thank you.

I understand the skepticism and appreciate the fact you have given me the opportunity to respond to your concerns.  Based on my own experience, mining with one bigger pool and one smaller pool helps with earnings as you not as likely to be trapped following each pool's mining patterns. Also, based on my testing with BlazePool and Zergpool, the Build Bigger Shares option helps to get more earnings with coins that are slower to payout, such as Raven.  Of course I cannot guarantee it will work for everyone due to differences in rigs plus luck and the whims of the cryptomarkets. 

But here are my results from the last 24 hours on Blaze with up to 9 GPUs (mostly 1080s - but two aren't mining full time since they turn my home office into an oven during the day): https://imgur.com/a/76E78Mr.  I was paid out yesterday and enabled the Build Larger Shares option on all my rigs about 12 hours ago.  Keep in mind, as I mentioned before, I spread my mining work thin across a few pools to increase my test coverage of the software, so I am not mining solely on Blazepool.

Yeah, I was using Zergpool's MC Parameter, but that's seem to matter too much.  I think I'll just switch back to Blazepool and see how that goes.


I did have Blazepool and Ahashpool enabled for a day and saw similar low profits.  I've used Hashrefinery in the past, and I may switch to that as Ahashpool is actually almost as big as Blazepool at this point.  If your theory about having a bigger and smaller pool is correct, then I will switch to something with less than 1000 miners, such as Hashrefinery.


Interesting.  I've enabled this on Blazepool and will see if it makes a difference.

Obviously that is a disappointing result.  Despite the drop in the value of BTC and the hit on earnings caused by the Verge attack, you should be earning more than that.  Some people have questioned the timeliness of the estimates provided by Zergpool (both on this thread and on the pool's thread), so you may want to Use Actual Prices Instead of Estimates for that pool.  Personally, I prefer using the MC Parameter rather than Auto-Switch ports on Zergpool (and BlockMasters) because the estimates are based on each coin's value and not the average for the entire port.

Also, since BlazePool and Zergpool are similarly sized, most users tend to use one or the other. What can happen is that since both pools are popular, many miners will chase the most profitable coin on each pool. When you have both pools enabled, more often than not you will be switching between the ports that have the most miners - which means higher difficulty and lower shares in rewards.  If you stick to either BlazePool or Zergpool and then add a smaller pool such as AHashPool, BlockMasters, HashRefinery or StarPool, you are better positioned to build bigger stakes in coins whose values are rising rather than smaller shares in coins whose values have peaked.

I'm always looking at ways to help users improve their earnings. The latest release, 1.9.2 includes a new pool option to build bigger shares in coins that I would recommend using for either BlazePool or Zergpool.  The situation is that some of the more popular algorithms (Neoscrypt, x16, Phi for example) on these pools have so many miners that if you just mine these ports when the prices are high, you usually end up with a really small share in the next block reward - fractions of a percent. While still profitable, you could be earning a little more by investing some more mining time in these coins.  This new feature tells the software to delay switching work based on price when it estimates that your current stake in the next block for the current algorithm is very low.   It can definitely help your earnings on bigger pools even if you may switch work a little less frequently.

Seems like the problem with Zergpool is fixed, but I have something seriously wrong with my setup.  On my rig, I can usually make about $10 a day mining just Ravencoin, but with HashAuger, I'm making about $3 day.  I have no idea what it could be.  I have Blazepool and Zergpool enabled (made $1.50 over night, approx. 12 hours) and all algorithms working.  I have price spike limits set at about 2 times average price range for each card, minimum price switch at 15% and pool refresh at 15 minutes.  It really is confusing as to why my earnings are so low.   I know BTC is down a bit, but it shouldn't affect me that much.  Do you have any ideas?

Z-Enemy released a service update to their miner after I released Hash Auger 1.9.1 yesterday.  I will be including this newest version of Z-Enemy in Hash Auger 1.9.2. However, I can confirm that this latest release of Z-Enemy is compatible with the current version of Hash Auger. Any users who would like to take advantage of Z-Enemy's Phi performance improvements can replace the contents of their Z-Enemy-110 folder with the files from the service release.  Users may also want to follow Z-Enemy's advice and increase the intensity of Phi for that miner to 21 using the Benchmarks tab in Hash Auger.  

To follow-up, I switched more of my rigs to mine on Zergpool earlier today, both with the auto-switch ports as well as individual coins using the MC parameter.  I haven't run into any errors mining so far, so you may want to try mining on that pool again to see if you connect this time. The attack on Verge last night caused a lot of issues with a lot of pools, so they have had some issues on the their end.  If you see the issue again, please try copy and paste the exact error message so I can better troubleshoot the issue.

Version 1.9.1 fixes the issue with not being able to disable specific algorithms on MiningPoolHub.  After you upgrade, you should be able to disable everything but Equihash on that pool if that is still your intent.

I will test that pool as soon as I can to see if I can reproduce the issue. Aside from communication errors, I am not sure what the issue might be as the only difference to the software is the pool’s stratum server url. I am currently testing a fix for disabling specific algorithms on MiningPoolHub. If any adjustments are needed for Zergpool, I’ll include them with that fix in 1.9.1