Former Ripple Chief Technology Officer (CTO) David Schwartz has addressed speculation that the crypto firm can block transactions on the XRP Ledger (XRPL). He explained the only way this could happen amid claims that the network is centralized.
Ripple CTO Emeritus Explains How An XRP Transaction Can Be Blocked
In an X post, the former Ripple CTO said that there is no way to prevent valid transactions on the XRP Ledger unless users agree to change the validity rules to make them invalid. Schwartz made this statement in response to whether Ripple or he, as one of the original developers, can freeze a wallet and prevent a transaction.
Meanwhile, in response to who can unlock and lock escrows, the former Ripple CTO said that anyone who wants to escrow tokens can lock them in escrow. Once an escrow expires, anyone can unlock it. Schwartz also addressed claims that the XRPL Ledger was centralized because Ripple has a “Unique Node List,” which effectively makes the validators permissioned.
The former Ripple CTO described the claims that the crypto firm could have absolute power and control of the chain as “objectively nonsensical.” He noted that this is similar to claiming that someone with a majority of mining power can create a billion BTC. Justin Bons, Cyber Capital’s founder, who made the claim, explained that he meant Ripple could double-spend or censor the network, similar to someone holding a majority of mining power on the Bitcoin network.
Schwartz rebutted this claim, stating that the XRP Ledger and Bitcoin don’t work the same. He noted that on the XRPL, one can count the number of validators that agree with one’s node. The former Ripple CTO added that a node will not agree to double-spend or censor unless there is a particular reason why the validator wants to do so.
XRPL ‘Carefully’ Designed To Be Decentralized
The former Ripple CTO reiterated that they carefully and intentionally designed the XRP Ledger so that they could not control it. He explained that they did so, given the regulatory environment and practical realities of being a company and having investors. As such, there was no guarantee that they would always have control over their own actions.
Schwartz gave an example of how Ripple must honor U.S. court orders, as it cannot refuse such requests. As such, they decided from the onset that they did not want control over the XRP Ledger and that it would be to their benefit not to have control. He also mentioned that it would not make sense if Ripple ever censored transactions or double-spent, even if they had the power to do so, because if they ever did, it would destroy trust in the XRPL.
Featured image from GitHub, chart from TradingView
