- XRPL’s “Ledger 32,570” origin sparks renewed centralization debate.
- David Schwartz says the genesis glitch showed decentralization inaction.
- Schwartz cites Bitcoin’s 2010 rollback as a strong example of centralization.
The prolonged debate over whether the XRP Ledger (XRPL) is truly decentralized has once again resurfaced. This time, the debate attained greater attention as it took place between Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz and Bitcoin advocate Bram Kanstein. Thus, this exchange on the X platform has also sparked attention on the long-standing XRP vs Bitcoin debate.
At the centre of the argument is the fact that the XRPL’s recorded history begins at Ledger 32,570 instead of Ledger 1. This is due to some technical issues during the blockchain’s early days in 2012. While critics see this as a sign of centralization, Schwartz pushed back, asserting that the incident actually showed a lack of coordinated control.
XRPL’s Missing Early History Sparks Centralization Clash
Former Ripple Chief Technology Officer David Schwartz has reportedly dismissed critics’ centralizations claims against the XRP Ledger. While the latest debate centred on the “missing” early records of the XRPL, Schwartz responded with decentralization claims.
The debate was initiated by the Bitcoin supporter, Bram Kanstein, who questioned the origin of the XRPL. He stated that the ledger’s recorded history does not start at “Ledger 1” but at “Ledger 32,570.” According to him, this is a key example of the centralized control of the blockchain ecosystem.
However, Schwartz disagreed, asserting that the way the network handles the early “genesis glitch” actually evidenced the opposite. He argued that during the issue, no one stepped in to make coordinated changes, and the network simply continued as it was.
Bitcoin vs XRP Debate Intensifies
Further, Schwartz referred to two major incidents involving Bitcoin. He posited that those incidents showed more signs of centralization than what happened with XRPL. His post read,
“Bitcoin had at least two incidents that showed way more centralization than this incident did, especially since the decision in this incident was *not* to make any coordinated changes and just live with it.”
He referred to historical incidents within the Bitcoin ecosystem when people behind the network interfered and fixed serious bug issues. He later confirmed that he was referring to the value overflow bug. He stated, “But I think you could make a good argument that it does. The biggest one I was thinking of was the coordinated 2010 rollback.”
The Bitcoin vs XRP debate has been going on for years, mostly centred on the idea of centralization and control. Bitcoin is often seen as the most decentralized cryptocurrency, with no company or group in charge. On the other hand, XRP has often faced criticism for Ripple’s early involvement in developing the XRPL.
The XRP community argues that the XRPL runs on a distributed network of independent validators and continues to operate even without Ripple’s direct control. This reflects Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin’s statement that true decentralization is a platform’s ability to withstand for decades even in the absence of its creators. As Times of Blockchain reported, Buterin states that “Ethereum itself must pass the walkaway test.”
The bug issue is considered one of the most serious problems Bitcoin has ever faced. BTC critics often cite this as evidence for the centralization of Bitcoin. However, BTC supporters stand firm in their belief that there is no one to control the platform.
