The use of this site and the content contained therein is governed by the Terms of Use. When you use this site you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms hereof and such terms as may be modified from time to time.
All text, graphics, audio, design and other works on the site are the copyrighted works of nasscom unless otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.
Content on the site is for personal use only and may be downloaded provided the material is kept intact and there is no violation of the copyrights, trademarks, and other proprietary rights. Any alteration of the material or use of the material contained in the site for any other purpose is a violation of the copyright of nasscom and / or its affiliates or associates or of its third-party information providers. This material cannot be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted or distributed in any way for non-personal use without obtaining the prior permission from nasscom.
The nasscom Members login is for the reference of only registered nasscom Member Companies.
nasscom reserves the right to modify the terms of use of any service without any liability. nasscom reserves the right to take all measures necessary to prevent access to any service or termination of service if the terms of use are not complied with or are contravened or there is any violation of copyright, trademark or other proprietary right.
From time to time nasscom may supplement these terms of use with additional terms pertaining to specific content (additional terms). Such additional terms are hereby incorporated by reference into these Terms of Use.
Disclaimer
The Company information provided on the nasscom web site is as per data collected by companies. nasscom is not liable on the authenticity of such data.
nasscom has exercised due diligence in checking the correctness and authenticity of the information contained in the site, but nasscom or any of its affiliates or associates or employees shall not be in any way responsible for any loss or damage that may arise to any person from any inadvertent error in the information contained in this site. The information from or through this site is provided "as is" and all warranties express or implied of any kind, regarding any matter pertaining to any service or channel, including without limitation the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement are disclaimed. nasscom and its affiliates and associates shall not be liable, at any time, for any failure of performance, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, delay in operation or transmission, computer virus, communications line failure, theft or destruction or unauthorised access to, alteration of, or use of information contained on the site. No representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever are made as to the accuracy, adequacy, reliability, completeness, suitability or applicability of the information to a particular situation.
nasscom or its affiliates or associates or its employees do not provide any judgments or warranty in respect of the authenticity or correctness of the content of other services or sites to which links are provided. A link to another service or site is not an endorsement of any products or services on such site or the site.
The content provided is for information purposes alone and does not substitute for specific advice whether investment, legal, taxation or otherwise. nasscom disclaims all liability for damages caused by use of content on the site.
All responsibility and liability for any damages caused by downloading of any data is disclaimed.
nasscom reserves the right to modify, suspend / cancel, or discontinue any or all sections, or service at any time without notice.
For any grievances under the Information Technology Act 2000, please get in touch with Grievance Officer, Mr. Anirban Mandal at data-query@nasscom.in.
Hyperledger, Corda, and Ethereum are all blockchain platforms which are used for the creation and tracking of cryptocurrencies. Let’s take a moment to contrast Hyperledger, Corda, and Ethereum to see how they work. While different frameworks showcase the advantages of technology based on distributed ledgers, they have radically different concepts of application and vision. In this article, we will attempt to demystify the pros and cons of the uses for each of the three applications. Hyperledger, Corda vs Ethereum is a comparison that details the expanse and capacity of distributed ledger technologies.
The case studies of both Fabric and Corda are developed for practical purposes, whereas Corda’s cases are used in the financial sector. For this reason, Corda develops its solutions to retirement age, whereas Fabric chooses targets many industries. Ethereum presents itself as completely independent of any certain field of application. However, in contrast to Fabric, it is not modularity that differentiates it but the provision of a generic platform for all types of transactions and applications.
Participation of peers
With traditional centralized data storage, only the owner controls the database, such as a ledger. As a consequence, the owner publishes which data is entered and which can post other entries. DLT renders this transfer of data radically different, with simultaneous “peers” holding a copy of the data and naturally permitted to make contributions. Distributed data storage involves nodes or peers that participate in it. The difficulty arises with regard to ensuring all nodes agree to a common fact, such as a ledger’s validity, so that changes made by one node can be transferred to all peer nodes in the network. One of the chief goals of consensus is to find a common reality for all nodes in the network.
Consent-based, decentralized consensus has two modes. One is permissionless, and the other is permissioned. If participation is permissionless, anyone is allowed to participate in the network. This is a feature unique to public blockchains like Ethereum. Alternatively, if permissioned protocols are present then the participants are chosen well beforehand and hence there is restricted access to the network. It is valid for Fabric and Corda ecosystem participation, permissioned or permissionless. The mediating medium, whether top-down participation or open, has a profound impact on the way for consensus is reached.
Use cases
The three distributed ledger technologies differ regarding the way they use the use case and vision. Corda derives the majority of its use cases from the financial services industry, whereas Hyperledger Fabric seeks to provide modular, extensible architecture in any industry. Ethereum, meanwhile, regards itself as distant from any particular application.
Consensus
Ethereum
In Ethereum, reaching a consensus for all participants with regard to the order of all transactions taking place is very important. All participants are required to be a part of it, regardless of whether they are a part of that transaction or not. Failure to establish a definitive transaction order could actually lead to double-spend and there can occur two parallel transactions, whereby the same coins are being transferred to different recipients.
A consensus-mechanism can protect the ledger against any kind of fraudulent activities and becomes all the more important to be employed given that there are mutually distrusting and anonymous parties involved. In your current version of ethereum, this is a mechanism established by mining based on the proof-of-work (PoW) scheme. Thus, you must agree on one common ledger and all employees have access to all entries previously recorded. As a result, PoW has a negative impact on the system’s capacity to process transactions. Even anonymous, the records that are stored on the ledger are still accessible to all participants, so applications that need a higher degree of privacy are hindered.
Despite Fabric and Corda’s reliance on Proof of Work, a top-down consensus process is implemented in both cases to promote flexible information processing. A user can participate only in records of their choosing and enhance their security protections by interacting in a permission-eligible domain.
Fabric
The entire workflow is driven by a fabric’s knowledge of consensus. This includes proposing a deposit to the network, signing it, and processing the transaction. To some extent, Ethereumhas understood and prepared themselves for any given scenario, but the roles, tasks, and requirements in developing the consensus process are similar.
Within Fabric, nodes with different roles are marked. Coders are categorized as clients, peer, and orderer, whereas end-users are peer and order. Peers secure the ledger and receive alert messages from depositor-orderers about committing new transactions to the ledger. As an endorsement peer is a type they specifically have, their job entails approving of transactions by checking whether or not they fulfill the necessary and sufficient conditions (e.g. submission of required signatures). A channel of communication remains open for clients and peers by way of which messages pertaining to the transactions can be broadcasted. With respect to consensus in particular, the channel maintains consistency for all connected peers, broadcasting the same messages in the same logical order.
At this moment, there are deficiencies in the delivery of orders when many distrusted hierarchical orderers are hired. As a result, a consensus algorithm needs to be used to reach consensus despite difficulties, such as inconsistent order of messages, hence making redundant the circulation of the block chain tolerant. The algorithm employed by Fabric is pluggable, rendering it possible to have a variety of algorithms for various applications. For example, to insulate against certain kinds of abuse, algorithms based on the Byzantine fault-tolerant (BFT) paradigm may be used.
In this way, communication channels are limited to parties involved, which results in transactions being resolved without a need for consensus at address level, where transactions involving unrelated channels are recorded.
A fine-grained system of management and restricted access to transactions allows better performance, scalability and privacy.
Corda
Like Corda, involving the participants alone helps in reaching the consensus at transaction level. Subject to consensus is transaction validity and transaction uniqueness. Running the smart contract code that pertains to the transaction ensures the validity of a particular transaction and also by verifying all the needed signatures and making sure that there are no disputes between the parties regarding it.
Smart contracts
Smart contract code is just a computer program written in a specific programming language. It acts both as a software agent and delegate of the person who employed it with the intention that it fulfills certain obligations, exercises rights and takes control of assets within a distributed ledger in an automated way. As such, it takes on tasks and responsibilities in the distributed ledger world.
DLTs feature intelligent contracts in the sense of payment code that can be found in source codes in Go or Java for Fabric, in Solidity for Ethereum, and in Java or Kotlin for Corda. In Fabric, the term chaincode is used to refer to smart contracts.
In Corda, smart contracts consist of not only computer code but also incorporate legal prose. Therefore, smart contracts are legal prose that is written in such a way that they can be said and implemented within smart contract code. The reason is to give the code more legitimacy given that it is based in the associated legal prose. Both Fabric and Ethereum lack the ability to solve this problem.
Built-in currency
Created as part of the Ethereum system, ETH is a built-in cryptocurrency used for paying participant contributions to reach consensus around the total amount of new blocks to mine as well as to paying transaction fees. DApps can be built for Ethereum that let monetary transactions. Additionally, a digital token can be issued for particular use cases by creating a smart contract that complies with the predefined standard.
Both Fabric and Corda do not require a mining program to establish consensus. With Fabric, however, you can create a custom cryptocurrency or a digital asset through chaincode. With Corda, it’s not planned to create custom digital currencies or digital assets.
Summary: customized vs. generic platform
To summarize, analyzed DLTs span a spectrum. On one hand, there is Fabric and Ethereum. They are both highly flexible, yet contrasted. Ethereum’s powerful smart contract engine renders it a flexible platform for virtually any application. Ethereum, which offers an open mode of operation, does not allow the network to recognize scalability issues. Fabric helps solve scalability and security issues when it uses permissioned mode of operation specifically by means of its BFT algorithm and fine grained access control. Additionally, the modular design permits Fabric to be tailored to a wide variety of uses. An analog to a scalable toolkit can be drawn.
Corda has been purposefully built as a DLT platform for the financial services industry. Notably, it rests on the smart contract framework by supplementing it with customary legal documents.
Corda evidently focuses solely on financial services transactions, simplifying its architectural design in comparison to other fabrics. Because of this, it could offer a more out-of-the-box experience. However, it might also be possible that Fabric, because of its modularity, can operate like Corda’s feature set. Efforts are made by the community to integrate Corda into the Hyperledger project. Corda strives to be incorporated into the Hyperledger project.
Final thoughts
Hyperledger vs. Corda vs. Ethereum is a comparison with growth potential that is likely to proceed alongside the advancement of blockchain technology as well as new applications for emerging technologies.It’s worth keeping an eye on the evolution of the blockchain industry as more and more new applications emerge. However, the initial digital ledger technologies are very different from one another. On their vision and application, they are still very different. However, it’s significant to remember that the three cryptograms differ greatly, on the subject of technique as well as use.
That the contents of third-party articles/blogs published here on the website, and the interpretation of all information in the article/blogs such as data, maps, numbers, opinions etc. displayed in the article/blogs and views or the opinions expressed within the content are solely of the author's; and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of NASSCOM or its affiliates in any manner. NASSCOM does not take any liability w.r.t. content in any manner and will not be liable in any manner whatsoever for any kind of liability arising out of any act, error or omission. The contents of third-party article/blogs published, are provided solely as convenience; and the presence of these articles/blogs should not, under any circumstances, be considered as an endorsement of the contents by NASSCOM in any manner; and if you chose to access these articles/blogs , you do so at your own risk.
Zeeve is an enterprise-grade Blockchain Infrastructure Automation Platform. Join the growing list of clients that trust us with their Blockchain initiatives
The world of blockchain has now an explosion in the number of active decentralized applications and users engaging with them. However, this surge in usage has also exposed the limitations of legacy blockchain architectures and gave birth to new…
Introduction to Blockchain Development for Supply Chain Management:
Blockchain technology has rapidly gained prominence in various industries, offering innovative solutions to longstanding challenges. In the realm of supply chain management,…
Whether you are building a dApp or you want to enhance the functionality of your existing web3 applications– you must need indexed on-chain data from a range of blockchains and decentralized networks. However, querying data out of the blockchain’…
Diving deep into the nuances of both Public blockchains
Polygon PoS and Polygon zkEVM are two different public blockchains within the Polygon ecosystem, each with its own characteristics and role. In this article, we will explore the main…
Rollups and Parachains– both are viable solutions for tackling the scalability issue from blockchain ecosystems. However, these two scaling solutions are designed differently to serve specific enterprise needs. As we know, Rollups uses the…
ERPs or Enterprise Resource Planning play an integral role by smoothing automation that impacts business segments like accounts, invoicing, supply chains, product procurement and risk management. That’s why Richard Cline, Innovation Managing…
