It should be possible to dominate both markets. If we could get SHA-256 hashrate to 50PH/s, then it would obviously make sense to cut fees in half. The problem we've always had is that announcing a permanent fee decrease might draw in a few customers who would then get really mad if hashrate didn't double. The system is not currently limited by performance and is expected to be able to support 150,000 workers, about 12 times the current number.strugmo wrote:I see ProHashing as the pool choice for Windows & Mac wallet holders. Please don't take it the wrong way. It's a massive slice of the market since - let's be real - crypto wouldn't be where it is today if every customer had to build every wallet on Ubuntu. Dominate that slice of the market, and you're the iTunes of mining. They are going to be willing to make the same trade-offs in mining that they make on their other technological choices ... ease of use, high degree of support availability and engagement, detailed product knowledge, a large and diverse user base, and so on.
The linux geeks are going to do what they always do... exercise as much maniacal control over every aspect of their world as they can, resulting in the inverse of the feature list above, but they get to decide on and micromanage builds, fees, tweaks and so on.
For me, fees are just baked into my daily decision making. Sometimes I mine elsewhere. It just really depends on our daily profit targets and how the numbers are playing. But the fees are part of the decision process. The real value proposition for me isn't that you pay in any coin, but that I can deliberately mine coins I don't want to hold or for which I don't want to set up a wallet.
It would be pretty easy to add hundreds of ERC20 tokens. Would you personally choose any of those tokens for payout if they were added?