The post Vitalik Buterin Says Ethereum Remains Secure Despite Recent Network Glitch appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Ethereum Ethereum’s recent hiccup in transaction finalization sparked worry in some corners of the community — but network architects insist the episode shows strength, not fragility. Vitalik Buterin addressed fears following a Prysm client bug that briefly slowed Ethereum’s ability to finalize blocks. In his view, finality is an assurance layer, not the backbone of the system. Blocks can continue to be created and executed even if that certainty is paused. Key Takeaways Vitalik Buterin says temporary loss of finality doesn’t break Ethereum’s security. Experts note Ethereum simply behaves like Bitcoin during those periods — probabilistic, not deterministic. Delays mainly affect bridges and L2s, not the core chain, and are solved through better system design. “The dangerous scenario,” he suggested, is not a delayed stamp of approval — it’s a chain approving the wrong history. So long as that doesn’t happen, catching up later is acceptable. Ethereum Behaves More Like Bitcoin During These Moments Blockchain researchers echoed the sentiment. Fabrizio Romano Genovese — an Oxford PhD and Ethereum protocol specialist — noted that many blockchains don’t even attempt deterministic finality. Bitcoin, for example, operates on probability: its history grows harder to rewrite over time, but never fully impossible. What happened to Ethereum during the incident, he said, wasn’t insecurity — it simply “temporarily reverted to Bitcoin-style guarantees.” The Chain Isn’t the Problem — Secondary Systems Are Where delays do matter is in the services built on top. Cross-chain bridges, rollups, and settlement networks often depend on instant finality. Without fallback systems, they may pause asset transfers or message routing. Polygon, for instance, maintained normal operation but slowed withdrawals from Ethereum, waiting for confirmation certainty to return. Its messaging protocol held transactions in queue — no reversals, just delays. Delays Should Be Designed For Genovese argued that interruptions aren’t a fault… The post Vitalik Buterin Says Ethereum Remains Secure Despite Recent Network Glitch appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Ethereum Ethereum’s recent hiccup in transaction finalization sparked worry in some corners of the community — but network architects insist the episode shows strength, not fragility. Vitalik Buterin addressed fears following a Prysm client bug that briefly slowed Ethereum’s ability to finalize blocks. In his view, finality is an assurance layer, not the backbone of the system. Blocks can continue to be created and executed even if that certainty is paused. Key Takeaways Vitalik Buterin says temporary loss of finality doesn’t break Ethereum’s security. Experts note Ethereum simply behaves like Bitcoin during those periods — probabilistic, not deterministic. Delays mainly affect bridges and L2s, not the core chain, and are solved through better system design. “The dangerous scenario,” he suggested, is not a delayed stamp of approval — it’s a chain approving the wrong history. So long as that doesn’t happen, catching up later is acceptable. Ethereum Behaves More Like Bitcoin During These Moments Blockchain researchers echoed the sentiment. Fabrizio Romano Genovese — an Oxford PhD and Ethereum protocol specialist — noted that many blockchains don’t even attempt deterministic finality. Bitcoin, for example, operates on probability: its history grows harder to rewrite over time, but never fully impossible. What happened to Ethereum during the incident, he said, wasn’t insecurity — it simply “temporarily reverted to Bitcoin-style guarantees.” The Chain Isn’t the Problem — Secondary Systems Are Where delays do matter is in the services built on top. Cross-chain bridges, rollups, and settlement networks often depend on instant finality. Without fallback systems, they may pause asset transfers or message routing. Polygon, for instance, maintained normal operation but slowed withdrawals from Ethereum, waiting for confirmation certainty to return. Its messaging protocol held transactions in queue — no reversals, just delays. Delays Should Be Designed For Genovese argued that interruptions aren’t a fault…