- Bons critiques XRPL’s UNL as permissioned and prone to coordination risks.
- Schwartz says XRPL consensus blocks double-spends and curbs validator control on honest nodes.
- Debate centers on censorship risk, validator lists, and XRP’s claim to permissionless design.
A public dispute over the design and decentralization of the XRP Ledger has grown between crypto researcher Justin Bons and Ripple Chief Technology Officer David Schwartz, drawing renewed attention to how the network achieves consensus and whether it can be considered permissionless.
Bons argued that XRPL relies on a Unique Node List (UNL), which he described as effectively permissioned because divergence from the published list could result in a fork. He stated that this structure gives influence to entities associated with XRP, including the Ripple Foundation and the company itself.
Bons also claimed that permissioned elements undermine credible neutrality and suggested that regulatory pressure, such as compliance with sanctions lists, could create conditions for censorship.
In response, Schwartz rejected the assertion that Ripple or affiliated entities have “absolute power” over the chain. He said XRPL does not function the same way as Bitcoin and that each node independently counts validator agreement.
According to Schwartz, an honest node would not accept a double-spend or censorship attempt simply because a validator supported it. He added that while validators could conspire to halt the chain from the perspective of honest nodes, they could not double-spend under XRPL’s design.
Schwartz further stated that XRPL uses consensus rounds approximately every five seconds, during which validators vote on whether transactions should be included in the current ledger version. He explained that the UNL exists to prevent malicious actors from overwhelming the network with fake validators or withholding participation, rather than to exercise governance control.
Comparisons With Bitcoin and Ethereum
Bons responded that selecting a new UNL would present a logistical challenge and argued that publishing validator lists represents a centralized solution to that problem. He compared this to proof-of-work systems, where coordination emerges through mining incentives rather than a curated validator list.
Schwartz maintained that XRPL was intentionally designed so that Ripple could not control it, citing regulatory constraints as a reason the company avoided retaining such authority. He said that any attempt to censor or double-spend would undermine trust in the network and its long-term viability.
Related: XRP Network Design Faces New Questions as Native Staking Debate Resurfaces
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
