color: var(color-red-500)

by

<a href="https://tech-oracle.com/xrp-usd/">Ripple</a> architect says XRPL can go underground if states attack

David Schwartz, the former Chief Technology Officer of Ripple, explained how the XRP Ledger could handle a large-scale cyberattack aimed at its validators, those who run the network, or the network’s fundamental systems.

Summary

  • David Schwartz said XRPL could adapt if state pressure targeted validators or network operators.
  • The plan points to Tor, I2P and reserve nodes as possible tools during extreme attacks.
  • The debate follows recent XRPL upgrade, validator and decentralization discussions across the ecosystem.

Schwartz raised these points while talking about the resilience of blockchains against oppressive governments. The conversation centered on how a blockchain might fare if authorities began shutting down its servers or pressuring those who run them.

That approach probably wouldn’t work well unless it discouraged anyone from running a validator. Operators would likely just be replaced, and validators could become anonymous by using networks like Tor. However, it would definitely cause significant disruption. If that were to occur…

— David ‘JoelKatz’ Schwartz (@JoelKatz) May 31, 2026

He acknowledged that intelligence agencies might be able to cause temporary problems. However, he believes maintaining long-term control would be difficult, as the XRP Ledger’s software, the network’s validators, and its overall structure are adaptable and can be modified.

This plan is seen as a last-resort option for the XRPL network. It’s not intended for everyday use, but rather as a safeguard in case of serious physical or legal threats.

Schwartz argues that a public blockchain can evolve its rules if its community – users, developers, and those who run it – collectively decide changes are necessary for its continued operation.

Tor and I2P enter XRPL discussion

The suggested emergency plan involves using privacy networks like Tor and I2P to obscure some of the communication processes that keep the XRPL network running. This would help protect those who operate the network from being easily identified or targeted.

This system would keep running transactions on its most powerful servers. If some of those servers were attacked or went offline, backup resources would automatically take their place.

Adding another, simpler layer could make it easier to handle lists of approved validators. This layer would only run when necessary and could hide information by using anonymous routing.

The aim is to maintain agreement among participants while also making it harder for any single government to easily identify everyone involved.

XRPL validator design remains the core issue

The XRP Ledger (XRPL) employs a special system where each server on the network independently chooses which other servers it trusts. These trusted servers work together to verify transactions. This is different from systems like Bitcoin and many others that rely on computing power or how many tokens someone owns to keep the network secure.

As crypto.news previously covered, David Schwartz recently explained that the XRPL network has undergone more significant, technically complex upgrades – often referred to as ‘hard forks’ – than many longer-established blockchains. He attributed this to how the network is upgraded and its reliance on ‘smart transactors’.

Additional reports explained XRPL’s Negative UNL feature. This system helps the network continue functioning smoothly even if some of its trusted operators become unavailable or malfunction.

These capabilities are important to the current discussion because Schwartz’s proposed emergency plan relies on the XRPL network’s ability to keep running even if parts of its system fail or are damaged.

Governance debate grows around XRP

As I’ve been following the development of XRPL, I’ve noticed they’re consistently working on improving its core infrastructure. The latest update, version 3.1.3, focused on resolving some key issues within areas like NFTs, Permissioned Domains, Vaults, and the Lending Protocol. It’s a sign they’re actively refining these features.

Schwartz recently discussed concerns about Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin and how it’s managed. According to crypto.news, he explained that while RLUSD can be used for settlements, it isn’t entirely independent because Ripple has the ability to freeze or reclaim tokens if legally required.

This difference is important when talking about XRP Ledger. Unlike stablecoins, XRP doesn’t depend on a central authority that could block transactions or freeze funds. However, the XRPL still relies on its underlying software, the people who verify transactions (validators), and the agreement of its users to function properly.

David Schwartz’s warnings about a potential “Doomsday” scenario don’t indicate that the XRP Ledger is currently under attack. Instead, they illustrate how the network’s original designer believes it would perform if faced with exceptionally high stress.

Read More

2026-05-31 13:54