Advertisement
AD

Ripple’s CTO Emeritus Defends XRP Genesis Against Centralization Claims

Tue, 10/02/2026 - 6:16
Former Ripple Chief Technology Officer David Schwartz has fired back at critics who claim the XRP Ledger’s "missing" early history is proof of centralization.
Advertisement
Ripple’s CTO Emeritus Defends XRP Genesis Against Centralization Claims
Cover image via U.Today
Read U.TODAY on
Google News
Advertisement

A long-standing debate over the decentralization of the XRP Ledger (XRPL) reignited late Sunday night with a dispute between prominent Bitcoin advocate Bram Kanstein and Ripple CTO David Schwartz.

Kanstein has recalled that the ledger’s history does not begin at "Ledger 1," but rather at "Ledger 32,570." He views this as proof that XRP is, and has always been, a centralized project.

Schwartz, however, has argued that handling of the XRP genesis "glitch" was actually an example of decentralized inaction. Moreover, the architect behind the XRPL has compared this with two famous Bitcoin incidents that he believes displayed way more centralization. 

HOT Stories
Ripple’s CTO Emeritus Defends XRP Genesis Against Centralization Claims Crypto Market Review: Shiba Inu (SHIB) out of Hell, Moment Ethereum (ETH) Investors Have Waited For, Dogecoin (DOGE) Zero Added

"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 said.

Advertisement

What is XRP Ledger 32,570?

When the XRP Ledger was launched in June 2012, a bug in the early server software caused the headers for the first week of ledgers to be improperly saved. As a result, Ledgers 1 through 32,569 were permanently lost.

You Might Also Like

The state of the ledger was preserved and carried forward, but the history for that first week vanished.

Advertisement

Ledger 32,570 became the effective "Genesis" point for all public history servers.

Bitcoin's incidents 

In his retort, Schwartz claimed that Bitcoin had "at least two incidents that showed way more centralization," referring to moments where Bitcoin’s stakeholders actively intervened to fix critical bugs.

Schwartz has confirmed that he was specifically referring to the value overflow bug.

"But I think you could make a good argument that it does. The biggest one I was thinking of was the coordinated 2010 rollback," he said.

This is the most critical bug in Bitcoin’s history, often cited by critics to prove that Bitcoin’s immutability relies on human intervention.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to daily newsletter

Recommended articles

Our social media
There's a lot to see there, too