“Bitcoin Was Rolled Back Too,” Ripple CTO Pushes Back Against Centralization Attacks
“Bitcoin Was Rolled Back Too,” Ripple CTO Pushes Back Against Centralization Attacks
Ripple Chief Technology Officer David Schwartz pushed back hard against claims that the loss of early records on the XRP Ledger (XRPL) proves centralization, emphasizing the true meaning of decentralization by citing historical cases from Bitcoin (BTC).
According to crypto-focused outlet U.Today on February 10 (local time), Schwartz strongly responded to criticism that missing early XRP Ledger history is evidence of centralization. He argued that the handling of flaws related to the XRPL genesis block is instead a textbook example of decentralized governance without a central authority. Referring to XRP as XRP at first mention, he offered a technical explanation addressing claims raised by Bitcoin advocate Bram Kanstein regarding the absence of early records.
At the heart of the controversy is XRP Ledger block number 32,570, which resulted from a server software bug at the network’s launch in June 2012 that caused the loss of roughly the first week of data. Kanstein argued that because records begin at block 32,570 rather than block 1, XRP must have always been a centralized project. Schwartz countered that the decision to accept the flaw without artificial intervention itself demonstrates the characteristics of a decentralized network.
Schwartz then turned the centralization criticism back toward Bitcoin by citing past incidents. He pointed to two occasions, including the 2010 value overflow bug, when Bitcoin carried out coordinated rollbacks that effectively rewound the network, stressing that such actions represent far stronger evidence of centralization than the XRP case. He highlighted that Bitcoin’s immutability ultimately depended on human intervention, underscoring the complexity behind decentralization debates.
The XRP Ledger has operated with block 32,570 as the effective genesis point for all public history servers. Despite the loss of early records, the state of the network was preserved and carried forward, and it has since successfully closed more than 70 million ledgers, demonstrating its stability. Schwartz made it clear that the decision to maintain system continuity rather than artificially restore records was based on consensus among network participants.
The controversy has once again brought to the surface a long-standing dispute within the digital asset ecosystem over how decentralization should be defined. Schwartz’s rebuttal suggests that the way a network handles technical flaws cannot serve as a simple barometer of centralization. As debates over the centralization of Ripple and XRP continue, this defense, grounded in technical reasoning, is expected to play an important role in shaping market confidence going forward.
Disclaimer: This article is for investment reference only, and no responsibility is assumed for investment losses based on it. The content should be interpreted solely for informational purposes.
<저작권자 ⓒ 코인리더스 무단전재 및 재배포 금지>
|
  많이 본 기사
English 많이 본 기사
|
