Retired Ripple CTO David Schwartz provided a scarce inside look at the company how could XRP Ledger do it? respond if it ever comes under pressure from a state-level entity.
The discussion began by asking whether an authoritarian regime could exploit or attack the XRP ledger by attacking its network of validators. Schwartz hasn’t completely dismissed the risk and according to him, if the pressure ever becomes severe enough, XRP Ledger could be reorganized around a more stalwart validator structure.
State-level attacks can only temporarily disrupt XRPL
The XRP ledger has operated without major interruptions on over 70 million closed ledgers, but its trustworthiness may soon be tested in ways its creators never expected, not least of which could be authoritarian regimes and state-level interference.
Schwartz he admitted it the threat to the blockchain network from state entities is real. He said state-level actors can cause fleeting disruptions to blockchains, including the XRP Ledger, but long-term damage is a completely different matter. Answers have been provided to the question regarding on social media platform X, where a member of the XRP community asked whether an authoritarian regime like Putin would co-opt or disrupt the UNL/validator network in order to weaponize the registry.
However, according to Ripple’s retired CTO, long-term control from external forces it would be much more tough if the wider XRPL community remains dynamic enough to respond. Ripple-enabled validators make up less than 20% of the entire network, which means any concentrated attack on Ripple’s own infrastructure will leave its set of validators intact.
The Survival of the XRPL network in this type of scenario, it would depend less on whether one of the validators is attacked and more on whether the network can continue to replace operators at risk or under pressure. An attack would only become truly solemn if a hostile actor could make people too afraid to run validators at all.
How the reorganization of the XRP ledger will affect the network
Schwartz also described a possible long-term change to the XRPL consensus structure in the event of an attack by an authoritarian regime. His example was a two-layer consensus algorithm, in which the inner layer would handle normal network activity and the outer layer would only act when the network needed to change the inner layer’s unique node list (UNL).
Internal validators would ensure the daily operation of the XRP ledger. If these validators were attacked or compromised, the effect would be minimal because they can be easily replaced. External validators would play a lighter and less habitual role, stepping in mainly when changes to the set of validators are needed.
It would also be more tough to target external validators because they wouldn’t have to consistently work in the same noticeable way. They could be lightweight, appear only when needed, and operate through anonymization services such as Tor or I2P.
Featured image from Adobe Stock, chart from Tradingview.com
Editorial process for bitcoinist is focused on providing thoroughly researched, correct and unbiased content. We adhere to exacting sourcing standards, and each page is carefully reviewed by our team of top technology experts and experienced editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance and value of our content to our readers.
