Correct me if I'm wrong, but is mining only done via the Parallax client?
You can mine with your CPU using the built-in Parallax client miner, or mine with GPU using Ethminer on either your local node (solo mining) or on mining pools. If we proceed with the proposed change (option #2 in above post), initial mining will be primarily be done via CPU using the built-in Parallax miner in the early days of the network. But still possible to GPU mine as long as Ethminer - or any other Ethash mining software - is adjusted to the "laxhash" specs. If we continue with #2 I'm going to eventually release a compatible GPU miner, along with the complete "laxhash" specs for easier pool integration.
Frankly, although there aren't many POW coins, it seems the Parallax project is a copy of everything related to Bitcoin + EVM-compatible chain, with no unique features or anything that makes mining it better than Bitcoin and since POS options are more profitable, I don't expect it to generate much buzz.
From a technological standpoint, I'd say you are correct. Parallax, at its current stage, does not offer any technical innovations in comparison to other EVM-based chains. However, if you're willing to dive deeper into a philosophical discussion, things can get interesting. I do think that proof-of-work and the fork choice rules implemented in Bitcoin are the optimal solution to the double-spending problem without compromising other aspects that make it a decentralized and permissionless peer-to-peer cash system. Not many people understand Satoshi's real invention wasn't digital money, but rather the solution to the double-spending problem that don't require any trust at all in the network participants. Going deeper into the rabbit hole, I think that the 10-minute block timing proposed by Satoshi wasn't arbitrarily chosen.
He wrote an e-mail to the cryptography mailing list with the following:
...
They use a proof-of-work chain to solve the problem. Once each general receives whatever attack time he hears first, he sets his computer to solve an extremely difficult proof-of-work problem that includes the attack time in its hash. The proof-of-work is so difficult, it's expected to take 10 minutes of them all working at once before one of them finds a solution. Once one of the generals finds a proof-of-work, he broadcasts it to the network, and everyone changes their current proof-of-work computation to include that proof-of-work in the hash they're working on. If anyone was working on a different attack time, they switch to this one, because its proof-of-work chain is now longer.
After two hours, one attack time should be hashed by a chain of 12 proofs-of-work. Every general, just by verifying the difficulty of the proof-of-work chain, can estimate how much parallel CPU power per hour was expended on it and see that it must have required the majority of the computers to produce that much proof-of-work in the allotted time. They had to all have seen it because the proof-of-work is proof that they worked on it. If the CPU power exhibited by the proof-of-work chain is sufficient to crack the password, they can safely attack at the agreed time.
...
He says that the Byzantine General Problem is solved once the solution is hashed by a chain of 12 proofs-of-work. In a more practical example, this means that the solution to the double spending is only considered valid after a set period of time, or rather by how many blocks are on top of a given transaction. Most other proof-of-work altcoins our there don't get that, if you reduce the block times the solution to the double-spending problem would theoretically require more blocks to be considered solved. For example, if we consider a theoretical PoW block chain with 5-minute block target, in Satoshi's view it would require 2 hours for a transaction to be hashed by a chain of 24 proofs-of-work and only then be considered safe from a double-spending perspective.
The rabbit hole is more deeper than that, but maybe that's for another day.
About proof-of-stake though, these chains aren't decentralized at the first place in my opinion. There are several extreme theoretical cases where a PoS system can fail, whereas a PoW chain wouldn't. Yes, the monetary incentives might be better than mining. Nothing wrong in choosing a PoS over PoW chain if you're only interested in monetary returns. But from a conceptual stand-point, proof-of-stake is not something I consider ideal solution to a permissionless and decentralized peer-to-peer cash system.
Other altcoins went even further with PBFT - or variants - for their consensus. These are strictly permissioned systems where a set of validators control the network. Not going to develop more on those.
To conclude this extremely long answer I want to acknowledge that, in its current state, Parallax doesn't offer any technical breakthroughs. However, I think the crypto landscape is flooded with complex solutions to nothing, as a digital cash system
must be strictly decentralized, permissionless, peer-to-peer and scarce in its nature. The vision I have for Parallax is clear: an open source protocol for P2P programmable cash system. This means it must always follow the Nakamoto rules, must be decentralized, must be permissionless and ultimately it must be scarce. Parallax unites the best of both worlds: the Nakamoto consensus introduced by Satoshi; and a turing-complete scripting system introduced by Vitalik. I've not seem this combination anywhere else. I don't know where we will be in a few years from now in terms of adoption, and that's not under my control. But I'm happy I can share my thoughts about what I think digital money should ultimately be.
