You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When using multiple pool providers, there may be several pools for the same algorithm.
For example, I primarily want to use Hashcryptos. However, since many algorithms are unavailable, I plan to use ZergPool for everything else. Unfortunately, I can't eliminate the overlaps unless I do it manually. In my opinion, it would be useful to add a preferred pool status or some kind of pool provider ranking system to address this situation when there are many overlapping pools.
Example - Ranking:
Hashcryptos
ZergPool
Zpool
In this case, the system would prioritize pools from Hashcryptos for each algorithm. If an algorithm is not supported on HashCryptos, then it would fall back to the next pool provider. Therefore, an algorithm would be mined on Zpool only if it does not exist in HashCryptos and ZergPool.
I'm not sure how easy this is to implement, but I thought it would be a nice addition.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When using multiple pool providers, there may be several pools for the same algorithm.
For example, I primarily want to use Hashcryptos. However, since many algorithms are unavailable, I plan to use ZergPool for everything else. Unfortunately, I can't eliminate the overlaps unless I do it manually. In my opinion, it would be useful to add a preferred pool status or some kind of pool provider ranking system to address this situation when there are many overlapping pools.
Example - Ranking:
In this case, the system would prioritize pools from Hashcryptos for each algorithm. If an algorithm is not supported on HashCryptos, then it would fall back to the next pool provider. Therefore, an algorithm would be mined on Zpool only if it does not exist in HashCryptos and ZergPool.
I'm not sure how easy this is to implement, but I thought it would be a nice addition.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: