Ex-Ripple CTO Makes Big Statement On XRP and Bitcoin Differences

@media only screen and (min-width: 0px) and (min-height: 0px) { div[id^=“wrapper-sevio-6a57f7be-8f6e-4deb-ae2c-5477f86653a5”]{width:320px;height:100px;} } @media only screen and (min-width: 728px) and (min-height: 0px) { div[id^=“wrapper-sevio-6a57f7be-8f6e-4deb-ae2c-5477f86653a5”]{width:728px;height:90px;} }

Crypto analyst ALLINCRYPTO highlighted comments from David Schwartz, former Ripple CTO, in which he outlined why XRP and the XRP Ledger were designed differently from Bitcoin and the practical meaning of those differences.

The focus of the explanation was not market positioning, but the underlying technical architecture that governs how each network processes transactions, reaches consensus, and manages reliability over time.

Schwartz began by establishing that XRP is the native digital asset of the XRP Ledger and that its design choices were made deliberately to address limitations observed in early blockchain systems.

He contrasted this approach with Bitcoin’s original proof-of-work model, emphasizing that performance characteristics such as speed, cost, and predictability are direct outcomes of architectural decisions rather than secondary optimizations.

Throughput, Reliability, and Ledger Performance

A central point raised was transaction throughput. Schwartz explained that the XRP Ledger is capable of processing roughly 1,500 transactions per second, a figure that significantly exceeds Bitcoin’s base-layer capacity.

He added that the network has demonstrated long-term operational stability, noting that tens of millions of ledgers have closed successfully without systemic failure. This history, he argued, provides evidence that the system is not only fast in theory but reliable in real-world conditions.

He also addressed ledger closure times, explaining that XRP Ledger closes at a consistent interval of roughly four seconds. This consistency, according to Schwartz, stands in contrast to Bitcoin’s block production process, which targets a ten-minute average but can vary widely due to its probabilistic nature.

The predictability of ledger closure was presented as a critical feature for applications that require certainty around transaction finality.

Consensus Design and Distributed Agreement

Schwartz devoted significant attention to the distinction between proof-of-work and the distributed agreement model used by the XRP Ledger. He explained that federated Byzantine agreement allows participants to collectively agree on transaction ordering and execution without relying on computational competition.

This approach, he stated, removes much of the randomness inherent in mining-based systems, resulting in more predictable network behavior.

He also provided historical context, noting that when XRP was introduced, Bitcoin was essentially the only widely known digital asset. As such, several design choices represented early innovations rather than incremental changes to existing models.

Transaction Views and System Integrity

Another technical feature discussed was the use of transaction “views” rather than direct ledger modification. Schwartz explained that transactions operate on a temporary view of the ledger, producing a modified view that can be analyzed before final acceptance.

This mechanism allows the system to detect rule violations before changes are finalized, reducing the risk of certain failure scenarios.

He referenced past incidents in the digital asset industry, including notable protocol failures and forks, to illustrate how this type of design could prevent losses caused by unforeseen execution flaws.

In presenting these points, Schwartz framed XRP Ledger’s architecture as an attempt to address known weaknesses observed in earlier blockchain systems, rather than a direct attempt to replicate Bitcoin’s design philosophy.

Disclaimer*: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are advised to conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.*