Blasphemer of the Move Cult: The mechanics of the building are faulty, it just hasn't collapsed

**This is Whistle’s 5th post, and the last response to why Aptos and Sui don’t work. **

Author | Beichen

It was originally planned that Steven would write an article to formally respond to “Mirror Web3”'s "Strike Back! 》, temporarily we were pulled into a group of 6 authors, and doubts from different people and angles came one after another.

** After several rounds of invalid communication, the two parties did not reach any consensus. **Once again fully illustrates an industry phenomenon-**The perspectives of software engineers and communication engineers are really not in the same dimension! **

There is a conflict of interest between the two parties in the debate—the authors of the Move ecosystem are stakeholders of Aptos and Sui, while the newly born “Whistle” needs to challenge the industry giants to gain influence.

So the patience out of polite considerations was quickly exhausted, and everyone felt that the other party was talking back and forth, so I stopped here and Steven went to prepare for the next topic of violent discussion (about distributed infrastructure).

This article is the last response of “Sharp Whistle” to why Aptos and Sui can’t work, if there is any disagreement, we will organize a Twitter Space, and everyone will directly communicate with each other on the spot.

A preview of the bias that “Whistle” is constantly strengthening in this debate: the most skilled masons use their rich experience in plastering to judge the mechanical structure of buildings. **

About Motivation of Creation

All the disputes started in "Reversing Technology! Aptos and Sui are actually alliance chains, and life depends on the patience of capital.” The other party thought that “the article contains a lot of remarks that smear Aptos and Sui”, so they began to question their motives in the group discussion.

I think the name of “sharp Whistle” has clearly shown our tonality - what we make is “whistle”, a “sharp” sound, not a melodious melody.

As we did in our first article, About Whistle, Who Are We? As expressed in ", our goal is to occupy the top influence of the crypto industry in the next round of bull market - like a fist, accumulating power to break into the old pattern of the crypto industry!

**Aptos and Sui are exactly what we think are grossly overvalued items in the old landscape. **As for the motives of the authors of the Move ecology, it is easy to understand.

Of course, it is a very low thing to evaluate from the perspective of motivation, because standing on the moral high ground and denying the other party also dissolves the serious issues that were originally to be discussed. “Sharp Whistle” is not going to smear it specifically for the sake of taking the black and red route. After all, posting milk photos in the currency circle is the ultimate trump card of traffic (although it is mainly because we don’t have…).

As for the money-making strategy, judging from the current market situation, it is recommended to wait and see to buy the bottom.

About qualifications for criticism

Denying a person’s point of view in terms of qualifications is lower than speculating on motives, because it is simply driving the other party off the poker table and then declaring victory by oneself.

Steven has done 5G communication in Lucent for many years, involving radio frequency and protocol, so is Steven qualified to analyze blockchain? At least from the perspective of distributed systems, the blockchain still needs to follow the basic principles of the communication system design scheme-how to cooperate between the various units in the system, so as to finally make the communication system both efficient and secure.

Steven’s experience can come in handy when we discuss the functions designed by a certain blockchain and whether there are problems with the technical implementation. And ordinary software engineers not only don’t have these experiences, they don’t even realize that they don’t have them.

This is why we invited Steven to make a series of comments on the current mainstream public chains, which is equivalent to a senior architect evaluating the safety of these new buildings from the perspective of mechanical engineering. I think it will be somewhat beneficial to the industry benefit.

A lot of the debate in the group was about Steven’s qualifications. For example, someone suggested that Steven “before arguing about database-related topics next time, read the classics in our field (ie “Database Concepts” and “Distributed Database s”) in depth.”

This sentence is logically equivalent to me telling the other party: “Before you quarrel next time, read the “Xinhua Dictionary” first.” The **problem is,then…**I think it is an effective expression It should be to directly point out which word the other party wrote wrong and what the correct word is.

There were still a lot of verbal disputes with the same logic in the follow-up, but the undergraduate textbooks were replaced by project documents, white papers, codes, and even a reference in the documents. The question is, what then…

The other party criticized Steven for not reading enough information, but the information they posted did not really answer the question. I even wondered if I had read the link they sent me?

This kind of guerrilla style of sparrow warfare is really effective-it makes you drown in the sea of information that is constantly thrown over you and struggle to cope, and then the other party declares: Have you read everything, so you can easily draw a conclusion!

However, among all the materials listed by the other party, there is no evidence to support their point of view (at least they themselves did not specify which sentence it is).

**The purpose of using sparrow warfare in debates is not to clarify the logic itself, the purpose is to “harass me” and then “tire the enemy”. **In a way, the outcome is already decided, obviously the other side has won!

Blockchain standards

The opponent is in “Counterattack!” "In the article, 12 questions are listed, and new questions are constantly being thrown out in the group.

Steven published a subversive opinion (in fact, it should be common sense) in the 4,000-word interview, and then they used Wittgenstein-like geniuses to patiently search for language ambiguities and gaps in the 4,000-word interview, and then launched attack.

**They only avoided the core point of controversy - what is the argument that Aptos and Sui are blockchains and public chains? **

Steven’s violent theory is that “Aptos and Sui have neither blocks nor chains.” He believes that the chain structure is the blockchain, and Aptos and Sui are typical alliance chains. **

Wubuku, the founder of the low-code Dapp development platform dddappp, countered: Aptos has blocks, but Sui does not have the concept of blocks. ledger", not a specific data structure".

**Then, since there are no more blocks, what kind of blockchain is it called? ** Realizing the vision of Web3 is indeed not the only way to have a linked list structure, so you don’t have to use the banner of the blockchain. The martial arts team, anti-rape team, and the Eighth Route Army are all anti-Japanese armed forces, so there is no need to regard both the martial arts team and the anti-rape team as the Eighth Route Army.

In the accounting process of the blockchain (whether it is the UTXO model of Bitcoin or the Account model of Ethereum), every state machine state change is written consistently after reaching a consensus, and the public chain of the Libra system There is no strict and unified management of the global state. The final result of this is: **Blockchain bookkeeping is a new field, while the public chain of the Libra series is an updated version. **

The counterattack of the other party is to hold on to the “updated version”: “Ethereum’s ledger state model State Tree can also modify existing data, and the UTXO on the Bitcoin chain will be deleted when it is used.” But the problem is that Ethereum has four tree structures at different levels such as storage, execution, and state to achieve consensus. The State Tree only acts as a snapshot, and the core transaction function of Ethereum is not an updated version.

The reason why this kind of response is an invalid response is that its function is not to refute the argument positively, but to dispel the argument ** by avoiding the important ones, just like speculating on motives and questioning qualifications.

There are many debates on this core issue, most of which are minor disputes. I think “how is the plaster on the wall” does not affect “how is the mechanical structure of the building”.

Steven believes that if it is not a linked list structure, it is not a blockchain. Aptos and Sui are relational databases with version numbers (I don’t mean that relational databases are bad, but they are really not blockchains). Moreover, the high performance they are proud of comes at the expense of decentralization and security. Then ** the traditional centralized system plus a little cryptography is enough, and the security is not necessarily lower than Aptos and Sui . **

**About **the boundary between alliance chain and public chain

After determining the standard of the blockchain, the next point of controversy is whether Aptos and Sui are public chains or alliance chains.

We believe that Aptos and Sui are not blockchains developed all the way from Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin, but relational databases borrow a bit of blockchain stuff** (mainly tokens****)* *, Let’s count it as a blockchain, but it’s closer to a consortium chain. Steven believes that from the account model to the consensus algorithm, they are all the practice of the alliance chain.

There are many counterattacks from the other party on this point, including standard discussions and various deconstruction issues of sparrow tactics (the crowd said “you must not have read the white paper/official document/references/blog carefully”, and then sent a link Come here and let yourself find the answer, but they can’t point to a strong counter point…).

Let’s not waste time on sparrow wars (because I have already wasted it…), focus on the core controversy - what is the boundary between the alliance chain and the public chain?

The other party agreed that there is no entry threshold for the nodes of Aptos and Sui, so they are public chains.

And Steven is concerned about the degree of decentralization behind the appearance, that is to say, whether the chain can run by itself when the project party is gone. **Due to design reasons, Aptos and Sui will impose certain restrictions on nodes (too many nodes will affect the consensus efficiency), and the concentration of nodes is easy to be attacked.

I think Steven’s standard is more scientific, because according to the other party’s logic, you would think that Hufu Smart Chain (HSC) is also a public chain, but it is obviously a private chain with a public chain skin. **In fact, it cannot be judged only based on the entry threshold of nodes. For example, although Solana has no entry threshold, it has a strong influence on nodes, which has deviated from the public chain in essence.

About the timing diagram of the state machine

The design ideas of Aptos and Sui are chaotic, and the decentralization and security are seriously insufficient. The answer to all arguments is actually how the sequence diagram of the state machine works. **

Although many technical experts on the other side asked us to read Sui’s documents/white papers, it is embarrassing that none of them clearly explained how the timing diagram of the state machine works.

When we asked for further clarification, one author said: “I laughed - because you read their white paper, you can’t construct its timing diagram in your mind, so they are the alliance chain? The chain is there, The “realization” is already there. do not doubt”……".

According to the logic of this friend, **does not have construction drawings, only the load-bearing wall with ceramic tiles can be seen with the naked eye, and the structure behind the load-bearing wall is unknown, but the building has not yet collapsed, so It can be concluded that the load-bearing wall is useful. **What is the difference between this and “God’s miracle has already manifested, why don’t you convert quickly?”

This kind of debate has risen to the stage of belief, how can I refute it? **I have to admit that I am a heretic and a blasphemer of the Move religion. **

Another student thought, “The timing diagram of the state machine is to discuss security issues according to my understanding, and has nothing to do with the division and evaluation of the public chain. Because logically, the timing diagram has nothing to do with whether it is a public chain. Two pieces of information mixed together.”

**I suggest that this student who suggested that Steven read undergraduate database textbooks read the books he recommended. **

In short, the logic of many counterattacks in this sparrow war is equivalent to that the masons saw that the plaster on the wall was evenly spread and the building had not collapsed, so they accused the architect who pointed out that the building mechanics of the building was problematic—after all, the mud Bricklayers also have to pick up work in this building.

I think the most direct way to counterattack is to come up with real construction drawings (sequence diagrams of state machines) and on-site acceptance (using code to speak), and analyze the safety of buildings from the perspective of building mechanics. Welcome to slap Steven in the face!

Summarize

"Reversing technology! Most of the controversies caused by this article (such as the 12 questions in “Strike Back!”) are nothing more than: “Why didn’t you explain XXX clearly?”.

As a 4,000-word article, we clearly express our views and give concise explanations accordingly, which is enough, but it is certainly not enough to elaborate on the project. In fact, none of Sui’s documents/white papers clearly explain how the sequence diagram of his state machine works, and he still needs to rely on the brain supplement of his laughing friend.

The other party thinks that what we express is an “opinion” rather than a “fact”, but the problem is Our opinion is a reasonable speculation based on known facts. If you disagree, please find new facts to falsify, otherwise it is Using one “point of view” to refute another “point of view”.

This technical debate ended in failure, which is enough to show 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 compliments can be summed up as “Look, how high-performance it is! Although its security is relatively low, it is not important!” This is equivalent to ** mud The reason why the bricklayer judged whether the whole building was solid was: Look, the plaster is really evenly spread! **

In-depth understanding of the mechanical structure of the blockchain (distributed system) requires a relatively complex knowledge system, and it must be at least a semester course for non-professionals to understand. If you are interested, we can consider paying for knowledge, but it is not necessary…

But at least we should be in awe of the concept of distributed systems. Professional things are left to professional people. Masons don’t do the work of architects, and architects don’t spend time discussing the construction details of plastering.

Many of the controversies this time are due to the inaccuracy of our relatively objective expressions (such as “technology is biased towards the alliance chain” and “the official theory will control the number of nodes”), then simply **remove the degree adverb, and we will only publish violent comments in the future , opinions/beliefs are not responded to. **

Finally, let me repeat the two key theories that we still firmly believe in.

1. Libera is an unfinished product, a relational database with a version number. And **Aptos and Sui are projects developed from the corpse of Libra. They directly use the existing technology in their hands as a selling point and then build a project. **It cannot solve the problem of landing in any scene.

2. The narrative of Aptos and Sui is very appealing to those who have just come from Web2, because they can only understand the two concepts of “high performance” and “large-scale ease of use”, not from the area The logic of block chain/crypto/Web3 sets out to create a new species with vitality.

The third violent theory can also be deduced from the above two violent theories, which is also the theme of the next series of “Sharp Whistle”, that is, the myth about the top VC should be disenchanted! **There can only be two explanations for their investment in Aptos and Sui, either they approve of this direction, or they feel that someone will take over. Do they vote for less junk projects?

By the way, Whistle’s next article will be about their Helium pitch.