This is the 5th article of Whistle, the last response to why Aptos and Sui won’t work
Author | Beichen
Originally, Steven was supposed to write an article to formally respond to “Mingjing Web3″‘s “Counterattack!” article. However, we were suddenly pulled into a group chat with six other authors, which led to a flood of questions and criticisms from different perspectives.
- How are ChatGPT and AI changing the podcast industry?
- MPC+AA is the path that Crypto wallets with a billion users must take for Mass Adoption.
- Facing 200 million dollars, 19-year-old Euler hacker hesitates for three weeks due to conscience.
After many rounds of ineffective communication, no consensus was reached. Once again, this fully illustrates an industry phenomenon – the perspective of software engineers and communication engineers are really not in the same realm!
The two sides of the argument have conflicting interests – the authors of the Move ecosystem are stakeholders of Aptos and Sui, while the newly established “Whistle” needs to challenge the industry giant to gain influence.
Therefore, out of consideration for politeness, patience was quickly exhausted, and both sides felt that the other was talking in circles. Therefore, Steven went to prepare for the next topic of explosive debate (about distributed infrastructure).
This article is the last response of “Whistle” to why Aptos and Sui won’t work. If there are any differences of opinion, we will organize a Twitter SBlockingce, where everyone can connect and battle live.
Let us give a preview of the bias that “Whistle” has constantly strengthened in this debate: Skilled bricklayers use their rich plastering experience to judge the mechanical structure of buildings.
About the Motivation for Creation
All disputes began with “Tech Reversal! Aptos and Sui are actually alliance chains, whose lives depend on the patience of capital,” and the other party believed that “the article contains a lot of black remarks about Aptos and Sui,” so they questioned the motivation from the beginning in the group discussion.
I think the name “Whistle” has already clearly shown our tone – we are making “whistle” sounds, which are “sharp”, not pleasant melodies.
As we expressed in the first article “Who are we at Whistle?”, our goal is to occupy the top influence in the next round of bull market in the crypto industry – like a fist, storing energy and smashing into the old pattern of the crypto industry!
Aptos and Sui are the projects that we think are severely overvalued in the old pattern. As for the motivation of the authors in the Move ecology, it is easy to understand.
Of course, it is low to evaluate from motivation, because standing on the moral high ground to deny the other party also dissipates the serious issues that were originally to be discussed. “Harsh Whistle” is not specifically blackened for walking the black and red route, after all, posting milk photos in the currency circle is the ultimate trump card for traffic (although mainly because we don’t have it…).
As for the money-making strategy, it is still recommended to hold U and wait for the bottom to be reached according to the current market conditions.
About the qualification for criticism
It is low to deny a person’s point of view from qualification, because it is simply to drive the other party off the table and then declare victory on its own.
Steven has been working on 5G communication for many years at Langxin, and has been involved in radio frequency and protocols. Does Steven have the qualifications to analyze blockchain? At least from the perspective of distributed systems, blockchains still need to follow the basic principles of communication system design solutions – how each unit in the system collaborates to make the communication system efficient and secure.
When we discuss whether the functions and technical implementation of a blockchain are problematic, Steven’s experience can come in handy. Ordinary software engineers not only do not have these experiences, but are not even aware that they do not have them.
This is why we invited Steven to make a series of comments on the mainstream public chains, which is equivalent to a senior architect evaluating the safety of these new buildings from the perspective of mechanical engineering, which I think will be beneficial to the industry.
There are many debates in the group about Steven’s qualifications. For example, someone suggested that Steven “read deeply about our profession’s classic works (that is, Database System Concepts and Distributed Database Systems) before arguing about database-related topics next time.”
This sentence is equivalent to me telling the other party: “Read the New Chinese Dictionary before arguing next time,” the problem is, then what… I think the effective expression should be to point out which word the other party wrote wrong and what the correct word is.
There are many arguments with the same logic, but they are from project documents, white papers, code, and even a reference in the document, rather than undergraduate textbooks. The problem is, what’s next…
The other party criticized Steven for reading less materials, but the materials they posted did not really answer the questions. I even doubt whether they have seen the links they threw over?
This kind of guerrilla sparrow warfare is really effective – it makes you overwhelmed by the overwhelming information thrown at you, and then the other party declares: Have you read it all, so you can easily conclude!
However, among all the materials cited by the other party, there is no evidence that can support their point of view (at least they did not specifically point out which sentence it is).
The purpose of using sparrow warfare in a debate is not to clarify the logic itself, but to “disturb me” and then “exhaust the enemy”. To some extent, the victory or defeat has been divided. Obviously, the other party won!
About blockchain standards
The other party listed 12 questions and constantly threw new questions in the group chat in the article “Counterattack!”.
In the 4,000-word interview, Steven expressed his subversive views (actually it should be common sense), and then they patiently searched for linguistic ambiguities and gaps in the 4,000-word interview, and then launched an attack.
They only avoided the core point of controversy-what is the evidence that Aptos and Sui are blockchains and public chains?
Steven’s fierce theory is “Aptos and Sui have neither blocks nor chains”, and he believes that the linked list structure is the blockchain, and Aptos and Sui are typical alliance chain practices.
The founder of the low-code Dapp development platform Dddappp, Wubuku, counterattacked: Aptos has the concept of blocks, and Sui does not have the concept of blocks, but he believes that “the narrow definition of” blockchain “is not so important, and what is needed to achieve the Web3 vision is” decentralized ledger “, not some specific data structure.”
So, since there are no blocks, why is it called a blockchain? It is indeed not only a linked list structure to achieve the Web3 vision, so it is not necessary to wave the banner of blockchain. The warriors, the traitor squad, and the Eighth Route Army are all anti-Japanese armed forces. It is not necessary to regard the warrior and the traitor squad as the Eighth Route Army.
In the process of accounting on the blockchain (whether it is the UTXO model of Bitcoin or the Account model of Ethereum), every change in the state machine is written consistently after consensus is reached, while the Libra series of public chains does not have a rigorous unified management of the global state. The ultimate result of doing so is: The accounting of the blockchain is to add fields, while the Libra series of public chains is to update versions.
The rebuttal of the other party is to hold on to “updating version”: “The state model State Tree of Ethereum and the spent UTXO on the Bitcoin chain can also modify existing data.” But the problem is that Ethereum has four tree structures at different levels of storage, execution, and state to achieve consensus, and State Tree only plays the role of snapshots. The most core transaction function of Ethereum is not to update versions.
This kind of response is an invalid response, not because it positively refutes the point of view, but because it evades the point of view. , just like speculating motives and questioning qualifications.
There are many controversial points about this core issue, most of which are controversies on details. I think that “how well the wall is painted” does not affect “how the mechanical structure of the building is”.
Steven believes that if it is not a linked list structure, it is not a blockchain, and Aptos and Sui are relationship databases with version numbers (not that relational databases are not good, they are really not blockchains). And their proud high performance is traded for decentralization and security, so traditional centralized systems plus a little cryptography are enough, and may not be less secure than Aptos and Sui.
About the Boundary between Consortium Chains and Public Chains
After determining the standard of the blockchain, the next point of controversy is whether Aptos and Sui are public chains or consortium chains.
We believe that Aptos and Sui did not develop from Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin, but borrowed some things from the blockchain from relational databases (mainly tokens) , so they can be regarded as blockchains, but they are closer to consortium chains. Steven believes that their account model and consensus algorithm are all consortium chain practices.
Their rebuttals on this point are many, including standard discussions and deconstruction of issues using various tactical methods (they say, “You must not have read the white paper/official documents/references/blogs carefully,” and then send a link for you to find the answer yourself, but they can’t point out any strong counterpoints…)
Let’s not waste time on tactical maneuvers (because I already have…), and focus on the most core controversy – what is the boundary between alliance chains and public chains?
The other side unanimously believes that Aptos and Sui nodes have no admission threshold, so they are public chains.
Steven focuses on the degree of decentralization behind the facade, that is to say, when the project is gone, can this chain run on its own? Due to design reasons, Aptos and Sui will impose certain restrictions on nodes (too many nodes will affect consensus efficiency), and node concentration is easy to be attacked.
I think Steven’s criteria are more scientific, because according to the other side’s logic, you would think that Hu Fu intelligent chain (HSC) is also a public chain, but it is obviously a private chain with public chain skin. In fact, judgment cannot be based solely on node admission thresholds. For example, although Solana has no admission threshold, it has a strong influence on nodes and has fundamentally deviated from the public chain.
About the state machine timing diagram
The design ideas of Aptos and Sui are confused, and their decentralization and security are seriously inadequate. All the answers to the debate actually depend on how the state machine timing diagram operates.
Although many technical experts on the other side asked us to read Sui’s documents/white papers, embarrassingly, none of these explained how the state machine timing diagram works.
When we asked for further clarification, one author said: “I laughed-because you read their white paper and can’t construct its timing diagram in your mind, so they are an alliance chain? The chain is there, the “realization” is already there. Don’t “doubt”…”
According to this friend’s logic, without a construction drawing, just by looking at the load-bearing wall with tiles attached to it, you don’t know the structure behind the load-bearing wall, but the building has not collapsed yet, so you can conclude that the load-bearing wall is useful. What is the difference between this and “God’s miracle has appeared, why don’t you convert?”
This argument has already risen to the level of faith. What else can I argue? I have to admit that I am a heretic and blasphemer of the Move cult.
In addition, another classmate believes that “the state machine timing diagram is based on my understanding of discussing security issues, and it has nothing to do with the evaluation of public chain division. Because logically, the timing diagram has little relevance to whether it is a public chain. Why do you mix these two pieces of information together?”
I suggest that this classmate who recommended Steven to read the database textbook for undergraduate students read his own recommended book carefully.
In short, many of the counterattacks in this sparrow war are like the plasterers looking at the wall surface and smearing it evenly, and the building has not collapsed, so they accuse the architect who pointed out that the building’s mechanical structure is problematic-after all, the bricklayers still have to work in this building.
I think the most direct way to fight back is to take out the real construction drawings (the timing diagram of the state machine) and on-site acceptance (speak with code), and analyze the safety of the building from the perspective of building mechanics. Welcome to slap Steven’s face!
Summary
The controversy caused by the article “Reverse Technology!” (such as the 12 questions in “Counterattack!”), most of them are just: “Why didn’t you make it clear about XXX?”
As a 4,000-word article, we clearly expressed our own opinions and gave concise explanations accordingly, which is enough , but the detailed explanation of the project is definitely not enough. In fact, Sui’s documents/white papers did not explain how their state machine timing diagram works, and they still need to rely on the imagination of a laughing friend.
The other party believes that what we have published is “opinions” rather than “facts”, but the problem is our opinions are based on reasonable speculation based on known facts. If you disagree, please find new facts to refute , otherwise, it is using one “opinion” to refute another “opinion”.
This technical dispute ended in failure, which is enough to illustrate how much the blockchain industry needs to interpret the underlying infrastructure from the perspective of communication technology.
Many people in this industry will be attracted by high-performance public chains, and the praise can be summarized as “Look, its performance is so high! Although its security is relatively low, it is not important!” This is equivalent to the reason why plasterers judge whether the entire building is solid is: Look, the plaster is really even!
Understanding the mechanics of blockchain’s distributed system requires a relatively complex knowledge system. To make it understandable to non-professionals, it would take at least a semester-long course. If interested, we could consider doing knowledge payment, but it’s not necessary…
However, at least we should have respect for the concept of distributed systems. Professional matters should be left to professionals. Bricklayers should not do the work of architects, and architects will not spend time discussing plastering details.
Many of the controversies this time are due to our relatively objective expressions not being precise enough (such as “the technology is biased towards the alliance chain” and “officially, the number of nodes will be controlled”), so let’s remove degree adverbs, and in the future, we will only publish outrageous statements, and we will not respond to opinions/beliefs.
Finally, we reiterate the two key outrageous statements that we still believe in.
1. Libra is an unfinished product, just a versioned relational database. Aptos and Sui are projects developed from the corpse of Libra, directly taking the existing technology as a selling point and then creating a project, but it cannot solve the problem of landing in any scenario.
2. The narrative of Aptos and Sui is very appetizing for those who have just come over from Web2 because they can only understand the two concepts of “high performance” and “large-scale ease of use” , rather than starting from the logic of blockchain/crypto/Web3 to create a viable new species.
From the above two outrageous statements, we can also derive the third outrageous statement, which is also the theme of the upcoming series of “Jarring Whistle,” namely, the myth of top VC needs to be dispelled! They invest in Aptos and Sui, which can only have two explanations: either they approve of this direction or they think someone will take over. Are they investing in less garbage projects?
By the way, the next article of “Jarring Whistle” is about their investment in Helium.
Like what you're reading? Subscribe to our top stories.
We will continue to update Gambling Chain; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!
