Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake’s recent comments on Cardano’s security model have drawn a response from Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson. Speaking on the Paul Barron Network show, Drake discussed Ethereum’s proposed Beam Chain upgrade. The upgrade aims to enhance Ethereum’s consensus layer with faster finality and zero-knowledge proof integration.
During the show, Drake addressed questions like, “Is liquid staking an immediate threat to Ethereum?” and “Is Cardano’s staking model superior to Ethereum’s?” These discussions sparked misconceptions about Cardano’s security model, prompting Hoskinson to clarify the network’s unique approach.
Hoskinson Highlights Bitcoin-Inspired Security Model
Hoskinson responded to Drake’s claims via a post on X, stating, “I guess he doesn’t understand how Nakamoto consensus works or Ouroboros, for that matter. Cardano’s security model was inspired by Bitcoin’s design. We don’t have BFT-style rounds.” This statement emphasized the difference between Cardano’s security model and traditional Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) protocols.
Unlike BFT protocols, Cardano’s security approach avoids the need for slashing—a mechanism used in Proof-of-Stake (PoS) networks like Ethereum to penalize validators for infractions such as double signing. Instead, Cardano achieves 50% Byzantine resistance, further strengthening its security framework.
Cardano’s Finality Approach Sets It Apart
One key distinction is Cardano’s method of finality. Unlike Ethereum, Cardano’s network does not finalize two conflicting checkpoints. Theoretical discrepancies can be resolved within 36 hours, but in practice, most issues are resolved in just 40 seconds.
Related article: Cardano (ADA) Exclusion Sparks Criticism from Hoskinson on Blockchain Bias
This efficient process demonstrates the robustness of Cardano’s network, challenging misconceptions about its staking model. Hoskinson also noted his surprise at the Ethereum research community’s apparent disregard for Cardano’s advancements. Despite Cardano’s seven-year presence, Ethereum’s scientists have not engaged with its research. This lack of interaction has led to misunderstandings about Cardano’s capabilities and its approach to network security.
Community Corrects Misconceptions
X users joined the discussion by clarifying the Paul Barron Network’s portrayal of Cardano’s staking model. They highlighted that Cardano’s system does not rely on slashing. Instead, its consensus mechanism avoids inconsistencies that would require punitive measures.
Related article: Charles Hoskinson Unveils Key Updates in Hydra Development
Unlike Ethereum’s reliance on slashing to discipline validators, Cardano’s design prevents the need for it altogether. These clarifications underline a fundamental difference between Cardano’s and Ethereum’s staking models.
Cardano’s method provides a more stable and secure network, rooted in principles inspired by Bitcoin’s original design. This approach strengthens its position in ongoing debates about blockchain security and finality.
