Complaining | Conflux is just an EVM-compatible BCH

This article is from Mars Finance, authored by TradingView.
Last night I saw Conflux questioning Polkadot, perhaps because I had a bit to drink, and I went on a rant against Conflux. But to be honest, I really can't stand the attitude of domestic public chains that resort to insults when they can't compete, making it seem like they are so impressive. Today, let's "criticize" Conflux, as I have been following Conflux for quite a while.

1) Academic projects with rejected papers. From its inception to now, Conflux has always touted its academic nature, even using its teachers for promotion. They eagerly wrote a paper and submitted it to a top conference, only to receive a rejection. Wow, with such a strong academic background, they got rejected on their first submission. What was the reason?
Currently known are two: one is that the algorithm plagiarized from a foreign research team and was exposed, but Conflux is still impressive, pointing out that there are flaws in others' algorithms, claiming they stand on the shoulders of giants. The other is that the algorithm simply cannot run on DAG; the reviewers are not fools. Your algorithm can only run on a tree, yet you insist on calling it DAG. Where's the academic rigor in that? Later, Conflux obediently changed its name to Tree Graph, and the paper only briefly mentioned DAG, claiming that their team discovered the structure is better called Tree Graph.

2) Abandoning DAG after starting with it. When Conflux was just starting out, it touted itself as a DAG project. The reason, I believe, is mainly that everyone was talking about scalability at the time, and Conflux claimed to have improved upon the GHOST protocol. However, the GHOST protocol was proposed for scaling DAG structures, while other DAG projects, such as those using transactions as single points in the graph, also adhered to the DAG structure. In fact, only trash projects like IOTA have tarnished the reputation of DAG. Conflux started with DAG as its foundation but abandoned the DAG structure due to its tarnished reputation and its own algorithm issues, which can be described as starting with enthusiasm and ending with abandonment.

3) Shifting to large block Epoch structure. Conflux prides itself on its DAG block structure, which can maintain a total ordering of transactions while improving the security efficiency during transmission, thus distinguishing itself from large block and other scaling methods. However, DAG introduces potential ambiguities in transactions, which is fatal for smart contract applications. The ordering of transactions and their correct execution are entirely different matters; sorting first and then ensuring correct execution is a significant test of developers' implementation capabilities, increasing the project's security risks. While it satisfies safer transmission, it compromises contract safety.
In this regard, Conflux creatively packed many blocks into a large Epoch, using Epoch as the standard for consistency. If I translate the word Epoch as large block, it makes it clearer for me to understand Conflux------Conflux is merely a BCH compatible with EVM in terms of data structure.

4) Only boasting TPS while avoiding contract security. The fatal test of DAG for smart contract applications also exposes a new problem: the handling of ambiguous transactions, which can easily lead to redundant transactions, significantly reducing effective TPS. Moreover, Conflux once promoted that it executed ETH transactions on its blockchain, claiming to meet TPS demands. Unfortunately, when I asked the community, the execution did not perform transaction logic validation; it was merely measuring TPS. How can such TPS claim to have run ETH? After all, ETH is built on block numbers, and it’s not something that can be run casually with just any Ethereum virtual machine.

In summary, I believe Conflux falls short when facing other excellent blockchain projects, overestimating its own blockchain project. The blockchain world needs an open technical community, not self-aggrandizing arrogance under the guise of academia.