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

bitcoinistPubblicato 2026-03-01Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-01

Introduzione

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

Domande pertinenti

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.

Letture associate

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight News13 min fa

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight News13 min fa

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbit29 min fa

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbit29 min fa

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Title: Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate A new technical proposal, BIP-110 (Reduced Data Temporary Softfork), has sparked a fundamental governance debate within the Bitcoin community. It aims to impose new consensus rules for one year to limit non-financial data (like inscriptions and Runes) on-chain, moving beyond simple node and miner policy filters to invalidate currently valid transactions. Supporters argue that default policies have failed due to workarounds, necessitating consensus-layer changes to protect Bitcoin's core monetary function from data spam. Critics, including Michael Saylor and Adam Back, contend this dangerously centralizes judgment, undermines permissionlessness, and sets a risky governance precedent. They advocate for market-based solutions like fees or Layer 2s instead. The debate exposes deeper tensions: miners are divided on activation; node operators assert their sovereignty; Bitcoin Core developers influence defaults without direct accountability; and large corporate holders like MicroStrategy now wield narrative influence. Technically, BIP-110 may not fully block data and carries a disclosed consensus bug risk. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a stress test, forcing the community to confront the unresolved question: who legitimately decides what Bitcoin is and how it evolves, amidst competing claims from miners, nodes, developers, and capital holders.

链捕手41 min fa

Mysterious Whale Bets $2.5 Billion on BTC Surpassing $72,000 by August, $70,000 Mark Becomes Key

An anonymous trader executed a large bullish spread on Deribit, buying 20,000 Bitcoin call options with a $70,000 strike price and simultaneously selling 20,000 calls with a $72,000 strike. The trade, with a notional value of $2.5 billion, expires on July 31st—just two days after the upcoming Federal Reserve policy meeting. This structure positions for Bitcoin's price to rise above $70,000 by expiry, capping gains at $72,000. Bitcoin currently trades around $64,289, requiring a roughly 9% surge to reach the lower strike. The trade faces immediate obstacles, including key on-chain resistance near $69,000 and volatile inflows into U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs, which have seen recent large daily outflows. Market predictions provide contrasting context, with some institutional analyses setting short-term support levels as low as $58,000-$59,000, while others maintain long-term bullish year-end targets. The outcome hinges on whether post-Fed demand can overcome these technical and ETF flow hurdles within the trade's brief 10-day window.

marsbit46 min fa

Mysterious Whale Bets $2.5 Billion on BTC Surpassing $72,000 by August, $70,000 Mark Becomes Key

marsbit46 min fa

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

Zcash, a privacy-focused cryptocurrency, has launched a new full node software called Zakura version 1.0.0. Developed by Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe and Dev Ojha, with private ZEC donations, its goal is to enable Zcash to process over 50,000 transactions per second (TPS)—matching the scale of Visa and Mastercard—while maintaining full transaction privacy and verifiability. This addresses a key bottleneck, as Zcash currently handles only about 1 private transaction per second. Zakura is a fork of the Zcash Foundation's Zebra node. It features chain pruning and snapshots, reducing disk usage and allowing new nodes to sync in under two minutes. It also offers compatibility with the legacy `zcashd` client interface. The scalability challenge stems from the large data size of privacy proofs. Bowe's Tachyon project aims to use recursive proofs to reduce consensus-layer data needs from ~500 MB/s to ~100 MB/s. For wallet scalability, Valar Group is researching Private Information Retrieval (PIR) tech to allow wallets to fetch their data privately. Zakura supports fast block propagation and the upcoming "Ironwood" network upgrade (NU6.3), scheduled for activation around July 28th. Ironwood was created to contain a critical inflation bug discovered in the Orchard shielded pool in May 2024. The fix uses "turnstiles" to trap any counterfeit ZEC created during the vulnerability period within the shielded pool, preventing it from entering circulation and restoring supply integrity.

marsbit56 min fa

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

marsbit56 min fa

Trading

Spot