BURROW IN HYPERLEDGER EXPLAINED
Explore what Hyperledger Burrow is, how it works, and how it differs from other blockchain platforms in the Hyperledger ecosystem.
Hyperledger Burrow is a unique, permissioned blockchain client that forms part of the broader Hyperledger project, hosted by the Linux Foundation. Originally contributed by Monax (formerly known as Eris Industries), Burrow is distinguished in the Hyperledger ecosystem as being the first blockchain client to support the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), making it compatible with Ethereum-based smart contracts written in Solidity.
Burrow is designed to provide a modular blockchain system, focusing on simplicity, speed, and deterministic transaction finality. It is written in the Go programming language and is optimised for ease of use in permissioned, consortium-based blockchain deployments. While supporting the EVM, Burrow also integrates its native permissioning and governance features tailored for enterprise environments.
As one of several frameworks in the Hyperledger suite, Burrow differs significantly from others like Hyperledger Fabric or Hyperledger Iroha by offering a lightweight, single binary deployment that combines consensus, smart contract execution, and permissioned governance in a coherent stack.
Its primary use cases have revolved around industries seeking Ethereum compatibility within a permissioned context, such as financial services, legal tech, and enterprise identity management. The deterministic smart contract execution offered by Burrow ensures consistency across nodes, which is a critical requirement for regulated environments.
Key characteristics of Hyperledger Burrow include:
- Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) compatibility
- Permissioned network design
- Built-in governance and access control mechanisms
- Single binary for full-node operations
- Consensus algorithm based on Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT)
Although Burrow is no longer under active development, it laid important groundwork for hybrid Ethereum-permissioned blockchain integrations, influencing other projects within and beyond the Hyperledger framework.
While Hyperledger Burrow and Hyperledger Fabric both serve enterprise blockchain needs, they address different priorities and adopt distinct architectural philosophies. Understanding these distinctions is critical for organisations deciding between Hyperledger frameworks for developing and deploying distributed ledger technologies (DLTs).
1. Consensus and Transaction Finality
Hyperledger Burrow employs a Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) consensus algorithm known as Tendermint. This enables instant, deterministic finality of transactions, meaning once a block is added, it is final and cannot be reversed. Such a model is well-suited for use cases requiring regulatory compliance and auditability.
In contrast, Hyperledger Fabric supports a pluggable consensus model where the components of the system—ordering, endorsing, and committing nodes—are decoupled. This offers flexibility in system configuration, but transaction finality may not be as straightforward as in Burrow.
2. Smart Contract Language
One of Burrow’s most distinctive features is its support for Ethereum-compatible smart contracts written in Solidity. This allows developers familiar with Ethereum to easily transition to or experiment with Burrow in a permissioned setting. Fabric uses its own approach to smart contracts (termed "chaincode"), which can be written in general-purpose programming languages like Go, Java, or JavaScript.
3. Network Topology and Node Operation
Burrow offers a lightweight, unified node implementation in a single binary, simplifying deployment and maintenance. This contrasts sharply with Fabric, which requires multiple components (peers, ordering service, certificate authorities) to be operated and managed independently.
4. Permissioning and Governance
While both frameworks are designed with permissioned networks in mind, Burrow’s model integrates permissioning mechanisms directly into the node software. Fabric provides a more modular permissioning setup via access control lists and configurable identity providers, granting more customisation at the cost of complexity.
5. Target Use Cases
Burrow is particularly attractive to organisations seeking to leverage Solidity-based smart contracts within a private, regulated environment. Use cases have included legal contracts, financial instruments, and hybrid blockchain experiments.
Fabric’s strengths lie in enterprise integration, offering complex supply chain, insurance, and healthcare solutions via its rich, modular design. Its flexibility is highly regarded among systems integrators and developers building customised DLT networks.
In summary, while both frameworks provide strong permissioned blockchain capabilities, Burrow is best seen as a specialised, EVM-compatible platform tailored for organisations wanting narrow, lightweight blockchain functionality with Ethereum interoperability, whereas Fabric excels as a fully-featured enterprise blockchain development toolkit.
Hyperledger Burrow’s initial draw stemmed from its seamless Ethereum compatibility within a permissioned network. Organisations interested in testing Solidity-based contracts, or bridging public and private blockchain environments, often chose Burrow for its simplicity, speed, and determinism.
Use Cases:
- Legal and Governance Applications: Law firms and legal tech startups used Burrow to encode smart contracts related to legal documents and digital agreements, benefiting from the deterministic execution guaranteed by the BFT consensus mechanism.
- Financial Services: Burrow was used in pilot projects involving digital asset tokenisation, interbank settlement mechanisms, and regulatory sandboxes to show use cases combining Ethereum logic with enterprise-level permissioning.
- Academic and Research Projects: Universities and blockchain research groups employed Burrow to study hybrid blockchain implementations and test deployment configurations.
- Enterprise Ethereum Integration: Companies experimenting with Ethereum-based dApps could deploy them in Burrow to validate performance under a permissioned model, facilitating proofs of concept without resorting to public networks.
Development and Status:
It’s important to note that as of recent developments, Hyperledger Burrow is in a maintenance-only mode and is no longer under active development. The last major updates focused on ensuring compatibility with the broader Hyperledger ecosystem and resolving critical issues.
The project’s codebase remains available under open source licensing, preserved for archival, educational, and fork-based purposes. While active improvements have ceased, Burrow has significantly contributed to standardising BFT consensus and EVM integration within permissioned environments. Its legacy continues through newer projects in the Ethereum and Hyperledger communities that seek to bridge EVM with enterprise use cases.
Alternatives and Migration Considerations:
For organisations currently considering Burrow or looking to migrate, other frameworks such as Hyperledger Besu (also supporting EVM and developed specifically for Ethereum compatibility) or even Hyperledger Fabric (for more customised enterprise deployments) may prove suitable depending on infrastructure requirements and development goals.
In summary, Hyperledger Burrow played a pivotal role in the evolution of blockchain for business, especially where Ethereum smart contracts were a key requirement within a controlled environment. Its innovations laid a foundation for subsequent advancements bridging smart contract platforms with enterprise controls.
