The core of the proposal seems to misunderstand or question the utility of a centralized pool, especially when such pools could simply adopt direct withdrawals via mechanisms like echas/lightning. A critical distinction made in the proposal is that an e-cash token representing a miner's share is not directly equivalent to a payout from the pool but rather must be redeemed multiple times, typically around eight times in the average case, to collect the full payout due upon the pool's successful discovery of a new block. This mechanism diverges significantly from conventional expectations where shares directly correlate with immediate payouts.

The introduction of this e-cash token system brings about several technical and economic considerations. From a technical viewpoint, the withdrawal method employed by the pool becomes somewhat irrelevant since the tokens themselves are not direct payouts but representations of a share that requires multiple redemptions. Economically, this setup hints at the creation of a market driven by the demand for more flexible payout schemes such as FPPS (Full Pay-Per-Share), which might become increasingly attractive as transaction fees begin to surpass block subsidies. This shift suggests that while the initial proposal might raise questions about its practicality or necessity, it inadvertently addresses a broader concern within the mining community regarding the sustainability and profitability of mining operations as network dynamics evolve.

In summary, the conversation elucidates a nuanced aspect of cryptocurrency mining, highlighting both the potential complexities introduced by innovative payout structures and the consequential shifts they may induce within the mining ecosystem. By dissecting the mechanics of the e-cash token and its intended function within the payout process, the dialogue opens up a broader discourse on how mining pools can adapt to changing economic landscapes and miner preferences without losing sight of the underlying technical requirements.