David Schwartz Calls XRP Ledger Control Claims “Nonsensical”

TLDR

• David Schwartz rejected claims that Ripple controls the XRP Ledger and called the allegations objectively nonsensical.
• Justin Bons argued that Ripple’s Unique Node List creates centralized influence over validator consensus.
• Schwartz said nodes independently choose trusted validators and cannot be forced to accept double-spending.
• Bons compared potential validator coordination on XRP Ledger to a 51 percent attack on Bitcoin.
• Schwartz maintained that no single entity can rewrite history or inflate XRP supply on the network.

David Schwartz rejected claims that Ripple controls the XRP Ledger during a public dispute on X. He responded to Cyber Capital founder Justin Bons, who questioned the network’s decentralization. The exchange renewed debate over validator governance and consensus design in crypto networks.

Schwartz, Ripple’s former chief technology officer, addressed allegations that Ripple influences validator coordination. Bons argued that Ripple’s published Unique Node List creates centralized control. However, Schwartz called that claim “objectively nonsensical.”

XRP Ledger Governance Dispute Intensifies

Bons stated that reliance on a Unique Node List makes the XRP Ledger permissioned. He wrote that any divergence from the list would cause a fork. He argued that this setup grants Ripple effective control over consensus outcomes.

Schwartz rejected that interpretation and compared it to a Bitcoin mining majority claim. He said, “This is as objectively nonsensical as claiming someone with a majority of mining power can create a billion Bitcoins.” He added that nodes independently count validator agreements before confirming transactions.

Bons clarified that he did not accuse Ripple of inflating XRP supply. However, he argued that coordinated validators could censor transactions or attempt double-spending. He compared this risk to a 51% attack on Bitcoin’s proof-of-work system.

Schwartz responded that XRP Ledger uses a distinct consensus mechanism. He said nodes will not accept double-spends unless operators choose to override safeguards. He acknowledged that validators could halt the network from an honest node’s perspective.

He maintained that attackers still could not rewrite history or inflate supply. He said users could adopt a new Unique Node List if trust breaks down. He compared that remedy to Bitcoin users changing mining algorithms.

Broader Debate Over Decentralization Standards

Bons extended his criticism beyond Ripple and targeted other networks. He argued that blockchains without proof-of-work or proof-of-stake rely on authority. He grouped Ripple, Stellar, Hedera, Algorand, and Canton as centralized systems.

He claimed that foundation-published validator lists influence governance decisions. He wrote that institutional players prefer structured oversight over fully permissionless systems. He asserted that credible neutrality exists only on permissionless networks.

Schwartz countered that XRP Ledger allows nodes to select trusted validators freely. He said no single entity can control consensus or rewrite transaction history. He stated, “We carefully and intentionally designed XRPL so that we could not control it.”

He added that the design prevents ownership or unilateral authority. Community members joined the discussion and debated decentralization metrics. One user argued that mining concentration weakens Bitcoin’s decentralization.

The post David Schwartz Calls XRP Ledger Control Claims “Nonsensical” appeared first on CoinCentral.