Bitcoin breaking news: Ripple CTO David Schwartz denied claims that the XRP Ledger is a centralized network controlled by the company. He said the Unique Node List doesn’t give Ripple unchecked power, comparing the idea to a Bitcoin miner creating coins from nothing. Schwartz also said there are no confirmed cases of censorship or malicious reordering on the XRPL, unlike Bitcoin and Ethereum.

TL;DR:

• Ripple’s CTO David Schwartz rejected Justin Bons’ accusations, who claimed the XRPL operates as a centralized network under corporate control.
• Schwartz argued that the UNL mechanism does not grant Ripple absolute power, comparing the argument to claiming a miner can create BTC out of thin air.
• The executive noted that, unlike Bitcoin and Ethereum, the XRPL has no confirmed cases of censorship or malicious transaction reordering.

---

David Schwartz, CTO Emeritus of Ripple, publicly rejected the claimsmade by Cyber Capital founder and CIO Justin Bons, who argued that the XRP Ledger operates as a centralized network under direct corporate control. Schwartz described the accusations as “objectively absurd” and characterized them as technically incorrect and misleading.

The exchange began when Bons urged users to reject a series of blockchains he considers centralized, including XRPL, which he referred to directly as “Ripple.” He also included Stellar, Canton, Algorand, and Hederaon that list. His main argument targeted the XRPL’s Unique Node List(UNL) mechanism, which he described as a system granting the company “absolute power and control” over the network’s consensus, claiming that validators require permission to participate and that deviating from the recommended list could trigger forks.

Ripple: Decentralization Is Not a Matter of Majorities

Schwartz responded by comparing Bons’ argument to the claim that a miner holding majority hash power in Bitcoin could mint billions of BTC at will. In practice, not even dominant miners can violate protocol rules without the agreement of the rest of the network. Through that analogy, Schwartz underscored that influence does not equal control, and that the XRPLoperates through distributed validatorsand a consensus mechanism, without unilateral corporate authority.

When Bons argued that XRPL and Bitcoin share similar vulnerabilities, pointing out that a coordinated majority of validators could censor transactions or execute double spending, Schwartz rejected the comparison. He explained that XRPL nodes verify transactions independently and do not accept double spending or censorship unless explicitly configured. In the event of a coordinated attack, the worst-case scenario would be a temporary network halt, not the approval of fraudulent transactions.

The CTO also highlighted an important operational distinction: while Bitcoin and Ethereum miners and validators frequently reorder, delay, or prioritize transactions, there is no confirmed case of malicious censorship or reordering on the XRPL. “None of this has ever happened to an XRPL transaction, and it’s hard to imagine how it could,” Schwartz stated.

A Debate with No End

Criticism over XRPL’s centralization is nothing new. Schwartz had already responded to similar remarks from Caitlin Long, CEO of Custodia Bank, noting that the networkoperates with more than 1,000 independent nodes. Regarding Ripple’s large XRP holdings, he noted that there is no evidence the company intends to use its reserves, largely locked in escrow, to harm retail participants.

Market data supports that point: Ripple’s escrow releases have not historically triggered sustained bearish reactions, and XRP price movements tend to follow broader crypto market trends.