Ripple Exec Clears The Air On Blocked XRP Transactions – When Does It Happen?

bitcoinistPublicado a 2026-03-01Actualizado a 2026-03-01

Resumen

Former Ripple CTO David Schwartz clarified that Ripple cannot block transactions or freeze wallets on the XRP Ledger (XRPL). He explained that valid transactions can only be prevented if users collectively change the network’s validity rules. Schwartz also refuted claims that the XRPL is centralized due to Ripple’s Unique Node List, stating that such assertions are "objectively nonsensical." He emphasized that the XRPL was intentionally designed to be decentralized, ensuring that no single entity, including Ripple, can control or censor transactions. Schwartz noted that even if Ripple had such power, using it would destroy trust in the network. He also addressed comparisons to Bitcoin, highlighting key differences in how consensus is achieved between the two networks.

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.

XRP is currently trading at $1.29. Chart: TradingView

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

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat did former Ripple CTO David Schwartz clarify about the ability to block transactions on the XRP Ledger?

ADavid Schwartz clarified that there is no way to prevent valid transactions on the XRP Ledger unless users collectively agree to change the validity rules to make them invalid.

QAccording to Schwartz, who has the ability to lock and unlock escrows on the XRP Ledger?

AAnyone who wants to escrow tokens can lock them in escrow, and once an escrow expires, anyone can unlock it.

QHow did Schwartz respond to claims that the XRP Ledger is centralized due to Ripple's 'Unique Node List'?

ASchwartz described these claims as 'objectively nonsensical,' explaining that the XRP Ledger was carefully designed to be decentralized and that Ripple cannot control it.

QWhat key difference did Schwartz highlight between the XRP Ledger and Bitcoin regarding network control?

ASchwartz stated that the XRP Ledger and Bitcoin don't work the same way, noting that on XRPL, one can count validator agreement, and validators won't agree to double-spend or censor without a specific reason.

QWhy did Schwartz mention that it would not make sense for Ripple to censor transactions or double-spend, even if they had the power?

AHe explained that doing so would destroy trust in the XRP Ledger, which is against Ripple's interests, and they designed the ledger specifically to avoid having such control.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Bitcoin Miners Are Waving the White Flag, But Their Stocks Are Soaring

Bitcoin miners are capitulating as evidenced by a sustained drop in network hash rate and a record-steep 19.9% decline in mining difficulty, signaling the shuttering of unprofitable machines. However, in a significant divergence from historical patterns, the stocks of publicly traded mining companies have soared, with one major player gaining over 430% in the past year, even as BTC's price fell roughly 46%. This surge is largely attributed to these companies pivoting toward the more lucrative AI narrative. Simultaneously, miners face a structural squeeze. Daily block reward revenue in BTC terms has hit a new all-time low following the latest halving, with current dollar-denominated daily revenue around $30 million compared to a longer-term average of ~$40 million. Fee revenue remains negligible, covering less than one block's subsidy over a 28-day average and accounting for only about ten minutes of the network's daily security budget. This capitulation cycle is unique: miner stress and crypto price weakness have decoupled due to alternative revenue streams (AI), while the long-term reliance on increasing bitcoin prices to offset shrinking subsidies continues, with fee income still far from filling the impending gap.

marsbitHace 1 min(s)

Bitcoin Miners Are Waving the White Flag, But Their Stocks Are Soaring

marsbitHace 1 min(s)

Will the Fed Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Crypto and U.S. Stocks Withstand the Pressure?

The market's expectation for a September Fed rate hike surged dramatically in early August, jumping from under 50% to over 80% within a week. This shift followed a contentious July FOMC meeting, where a 9-3 vote to hold rates revealed growing dissent from hawkish members advocating for an immediate hike to combat persistent inflation. The primary catalyst for this repricing is rising oil prices, driven by renewed geopolitical tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, which threaten global supply. Energy costs directly influence inflation metrics, making the upcoming July CPI report (due August 12th) a critical data point. If it shows inflation reaccelerating, the probability of a September hike will solidify. For Bitcoin and crypto assets, this is typically bearish news. Bitcoin continues to behave as a high-beta, liquidity-sensitive risk asset. A rate hike raises the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets and could drive capital toward money markets, pressuring crypto prices in the short term. However, historical patterns suggest that if a hike is perceived as the end of a tightening cycle rather than the start, any negative price impact may be brief. U.S. stocks, particularly crypto-linked equities like Coinbase and growth-oriented tech stocks, are also vulnerable. Higher rates increase discount rates in valuation models, putting pressure on high-multiple companies. This coincides with a pivotal tech earnings season where investor focus has shifted from massive AI capital expenditure to tangible revenue and cash flow generation. Companies with negative cash flow and weak growth narratives could face heightened volatility if borrowing costs rise in September. In summary, a September Fed hike has evolved into a mainstream market scenario. Key factors to watch are oil prices, the July CPI report, and Fed communications, which will determine the final decision and its impact on volatile crypto and equity markets.

marsbitHace 1 min(s)

Will the Fed Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Crypto and U.S. Stocks Withstand the Pressure?

marsbitHace 1 min(s)

A 'Overlooked' Market Event: Joint US-Japan-South Korea Intervention, Rare US Treasury Involvement, and Bessent's Quiet 'Market Rescue'?

Summary: The United States, Japan, and South Korea executed their largest coordinated foreign exchange intervention in nearly 30 years. The action targeted depreciation pressure on the Japanese yen and South Korean won. This move is seen as a significant effort by the US to stabilize the financial markets of its key allies and prevent the spillover of risks. Key details: * Japan reportedly intervened on July 30 using approximately 8.45 trillion yen (about $52.8 billion). South Korean authorities also intervened that day, selling dollars to support the won. * Notably, the US Treasury Department intervened directly in yen markets for the first time in roughly 30 years. The New York Fed, reportedly acting on behalf of the Treasury, sold euros to buy yen via Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley on July 31. Analysts view the use of the euro-yen pair as a way to alleviate yen pressure without adding selling pressure to the US dollar. * Prior to the action, the New York Fed conducted "rate checks" on both USD/JPY and EUR/JPY, a newer signaling tool that falls between verbal and physical intervention. The intervention is interpreted as going beyond traditional currency stabilization. Analysts, such as Michael Hartnett of Bank of America, suggest it resembles a "Price Keeping Operation" for the AI era. The core US objectives are perceived to be: 1. Preventing rapid yen depreciation from triggering a sharp rise in Japanese government bond yields. 2. Containing financial stress from spreading across Asian markets like South Korea and Japan. 3. Reducing the risk of disorderly capital flows impacting the US bond market. This coordinated action underscores the importance of Japan and South Korea as critical partners in the US semiconductor and AI supply chain. Stabilizing their financial markets is seen as vital to mitigating risks to the broader tech industry and the US market itself. The intervention coincides with market pressures, including the KOSDAQ index hitting a low since October 2022. While seen as a move to control volatility, some analysts caution it may not fundamentally reverse existing market trends.

marsbitHace 5 min(s)

A 'Overlooked' Market Event: Joint US-Japan-South Korea Intervention, Rare US Treasury Involvement, and Bessent's Quiet 'Market Rescue'?

marsbitHace 5 min(s)

Will the Federal Reserve Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Cryptocurrencies and US Stocks Bear the Pressure?

In early August 2024, market expectations for a September Federal Reserve rate hike surged dramatically, from below 50% to over 80%, driven by renewed inflation concerns. This shift followed a contentious July FOMC meeting where a 9-3 vote to hold rates revealed a growing hawkish faction advocating for an immediate hike, citing prolonged above-target inflation. The key catalyst is escalating conflict near the Strait of Hormuz, which has pushed oil prices up approximately 20% in July, threatening to reignite inflation. The next critical data point is the July CPI report on August 12th; a hot reading could solidify hike expectations. For crypto assets, particularly Bitcoin, this represents near-term pressure. Bitcoin continues to exhibit high-beta, risk-on characteristics, making it sensitive to tightening liquidity and higher opportunity costs. However, historical precedent suggests that if a hike is perceived as the cycle's end rather than its start, the negative impact may be brief, with markets quickly pivoting to anticipate future rate cuts. U.S. stocks, especially crypto-linked equities like Coinbase and high-valuation tech stocks, face amplified volatility. Higher rates increase discount rates in valuation models, pressuring growth stocks. This coincides with a pivotal tech earnings season where investor focus has shifted from massive AI capital expenditures to demonstrable revenue and cash flow generation. Companies with negative cash flows and weak growth narratives could see severe pressure if a September hike materializes, as financing costs would rise. Key indicators to watch include oil prices, upcoming inflation data, and Fed commentary at events like the Jackson Hole symposium.

Odaily星球日报Hace 5 min(s)

Will the Federal Reserve Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Cryptocurrencies and US Stocks Bear the Pressure?

Odaily星球日报Hace 5 min(s)

How Likely is it for TradeXYZ to Go Solo from Hyperliquid?

The article analyzes the possibility of TradeXYZ, a dominant project on Hyperliquid's HIP-3 real-world asset (RWA) perpetual contracts market, splitting off to build its own independent trading platform. With TradeXYZ commanding over 90% of HIP-3 volume and over 35% of Hyperliquid's total open interest, its leverage and influence are significant. The primary motive for a split is seen as capturing the underlying protocol fees, of which TradeXYZ currently receives only half. However, several factors strongly discourage such a move. First, replicating Hyperliquid's high-performance infrastructure would be challenging and could degrade TradeXYZ's product quality. Second, Hyperliquid serves as a crucial distribution channel, with most users accessing TradeXYZ's liquidity through its frontend. Third, the close, trusting relationship between the founders of both projects makes a hostile "betrayal" unlikely. The conclusion is that a split would likely result in a lose-lose scenario. Hyperliquid would lose its main growth narrative and see its valuation impacted, while TradeXYZ would face immense technical hurdles, lose its primary user channel, and damage its reputation. Instead of a full separation, the more probable path is for TradeXYZ to negotiate better terms while deepening integration, focusing on enhancing its own brand and user ownership.

marsbitHace 56 min(s)

How Likely is it for TradeXYZ to Go Solo from Hyperliquid?

marsbitHace 56 min(s)

Trading

Spot