TLDR
- Ripple CTO David Schwartz defended the XRP Ledger’s genesis against claims of centralization following a dispute with Bitcoin advocate Bram Kanstein.
- Kanstein argued that XRP’s history should start at Ledger 32,570, citing the loss of earlier ledgers as evidence of centralization.
- Schwartz countered by stating that the decision not to alter the network after the glitch showed decentralization in action.
- Schwartz compared XRP’s handling of the glitch to Bitcoin’s past centralization incidents, such as the 2010 rollback.
- Schwartz emphasized that Bitcoin also faced moments where human intervention was needed to resolve critical issues.
A dispute between Ripple CTO David Schwartz and Bitcoin advocate Bram Kanstein has reignited the debate over the decentralization of the XRP Ledger (XRPL). Kanstein has argued that the XRP Ledger’s history starts at Ledger 32,570, pointing to this as evidence of its centralization. Schwartz, in turn, defended the handling of the “genesis glitch,” comparing it to past Bitcoin incidents to emphasize XRPL’s decentralization.
David Schwartz Responds to Centralization Allegations
Bram Kanstein recently raised concerns about the XRP Ledger’s decentralization, suggesting that the network’s history should not begin at Ledger 1, but rather at Ledger 32,570. This began when a bug in the XRP Ledger’s early software led to the loss of the first 32,569 ledgers. Kanstein believes that this lost history reveals the centralized nature of XRP, as the problem was fixed with an altered starting point for the network.
David Schwartz, Ripple’s CTO, rejected these claims in a recent exchange. Schwartz explained that the decision not to modify the network after the glitch was proof of decentralization in action. He stated, “The decision in this incident was not to make any coordinated changes and just live with it.” He highlighted the lack of intervention as an example of XRPL’s resilience and decentralized nature.
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.
— David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) February 9, 2026
Bitcoin’s Centralization Incidents Compared
Schwartz also drew comparisons between XRP and Bitcoin, emphasizing that Bitcoin had faced similar challenges. He referred to the 2010 Bitcoin bug, which required a coordinated rollback of the Bitcoin network, and the 2013 value overflow incident. Schwartz believes these events show that Bitcoin has also experienced moments of centralization, particularly when stakeholders made critical decisions to alter the network.
“The biggest one I was thinking of was the coordinated 2010 rollback,” Schwartz added, pointing out that Bitcoin’s history also includes instances of human intervention. He suggested that such actions, while necessary for the Bitcoin network’s survival, demonstrate that no blockchain is entirely immune to centralization when critical issues arise. Schwartz’s point was clear: even Bitcoin’s decentralization has been tested during challenging moments
