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

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-03-01Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-01

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

Toncoin Fees To Drop 6x As Network Moves Toward Feeless Transactions

Telegram founder Pavel Durov announced that the Toncoin (TON) network will reduce transaction fees by six times in one week, lowering the cost to just 0.00039 TON (approximately $0.0005). This fee reduction is part of the "Make TON Great Again" (MTONGA) roadmap and will remain fixed regardless of network congestion. The update follows a recent upgrade that made the network 10 times faster and transactions nearly instant. Durov also hinted that future steps aim to make most transactions fully feeless. Although Telegram discontinued formal involvement with TON due to regulatory issues, Durov remains a strong supporter. Currently, Toncoin is trading around $1.30, down over 8% in the past week.

bitcoinist30 хв тому

Toncoin Fees To Drop 6x As Network Moves Toward Feeless Transactions

bitcoinist30 хв тому

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbit38 хв тому

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbit38 хв тому

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit1 год тому

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit1 год тому

Analyst Reveals Accumulation Level For Dogecoin Before It Rallies To $2

A crypto analyst, Crypto Patel, predicts that Dogecoin (DOGE) could rally to $2, despite currently trading below $0.10. The analyst identifies a key accumulation zone between $0.07 and $0.09, where DOGE has repeatedly tested support without breaking down. Based on a bi-weekly chart using Elliott Wave theory, DOGE is in a Wave 4 consolidation phase within a descending channel. A bounce from this support is expected to trigger a Wave 5 rally, projecting a 2,767% surge toward $2. Price targets are set sequentially at $0.50, $1, and $2, with a stop-loss below $0.048. For a bullish trend reversal, DOGE must break above the $0.10 resistance level, which was recently rejected in April. Analysts emphasize that market conditions and a confirmed higher high are critical for the projected uptrend.

bitcoinist2 год тому

Analyst Reveals Accumulation Level For Dogecoin Before It Rallies To $2

bitcoinist2 год тому

Weekly Editor's Picks (0418-0424)

Weekly Editor's Picks (0418-0424) provides in-depth analysis on key developments across macro trends, crypto markets, and policy. Key topics include the oil market nearing a physical supply crisis due to shipping disruptions, even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens. In crypto, reports cover global consumer crypto adoption, a data-driven strategy for trading volatile altcoins, and the state of VC funding. Prediction markets like Polymarket are analyzed not as pure event-guessing games but as systems where understanding legalistic rules creates an edge. Major DeFi protocol Aave is criticized for poor crisis management amid a $300M exploit, while the controversial structure of World Liberty Financial is examined. Other highlights include policy updates like the CLARITY Act, Ethereum’s, airdrop opportunities, and weekly recaps of major incidents like the Kelp DAO hack and SpaceX's AI disclosures.

marsbit2 год тому

Торгівля

Спот

Ф'ючерси