{"id":113519,"date":"2019-09-12T06:31:43","date_gmt":"2019-09-12T13:31:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cryptoslate.com\/?p=113519"},"modified":"2026-04-25T06:16:20","modified_gmt":"2026-04-25T05:16:20","slug":"fork-xrp-ledger-ripple-acts-maliciously","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cryptoslate.com\/fork-xrp-ledger-ripple-acts-maliciously\/","title":{"rendered":"How to fork XRP Ledger if Ripple acts maliciously (and why it won’t work)"},"content":{"rendered":"

If Ripple<\/a> acts maliciously token holders could, theoretically, fork the XRP<\/a> Ledger. In fact, this is one of the features that makes the network decentralized, argues CTO David Schwartz<\/a>. Here\u2019s how to actually do it and why it ultimately raises concerns around Ripple\u2019s control over XRP.<\/p>\n

How to fork XRP Ledger<\/h2>\n

In a technical discussion last week, Ripple CTO David Schwartz revealed it\u2019s relatively easy to fork XRP Ledger.<\/p>\n

If a group of nodes adopts the same UNL, which doesn\u2019t include any nodes outside of their group, then that would allow them to do the equivalent of a fork, agreed<\/a> Schwartz. This would create an entirely new tradeable asset using the history of the XRP Ledger from that point forward.<\/p>\n

Schwartz added<\/a> that \u201cthe forked off group could then make any code and amendment changes that they wanted.\u201d<\/p>\n

A successful fork could allow a group to make enormous changes to a blockchain. Like in Bitcoin<\/a>, those who control code changes and amendments could, for example, create new coins<\/a> or increase the supply cap.<\/p>\n

In December of last year, Schwartz clarified<\/a> that forking XRP Ledger is even easier than forking a proof-of-work (PoW) coin like Bitcoin.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf a group wants to fork the XRP ledger, all they need to do is agree on system rules and roughly agree on validators that will follow those rules. It's much easier than forking a PoW chain because you don't need miners and you don't become insecure if you can't incentivize them.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Holding Ripple accountable<\/h2>\n

The ability to fork the XRP Ledger is critical because it\u2019s one of the primary arguments David Schwartz and others backing XRP use to defend its decentralization. Ripple is emphatic that XRP Ledger is, in fact, not controlled by the corporation.<\/p>\n

Any two groups who don\u2019t agree can fork the XRP Ledger, says<\/a> Schwartz:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf nobody agreed with Ripple, Ripple would have to choose between being alone on a worthless network or giving in.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In a heated debate with crypto venture capitalist Ari Paul<\/a>, David Schwartz describes<\/a> the ability to fork as one of the most “important” aspects of decentralization.<\/p>\n

\u201cI do think that fork freedom which ensures value creators can't be coerced into running with rules they don't like is one of the most important aspects of decentralization.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

However, it seems practically implausible to fork the XRP Ledger, raising questions over the nature of Ripple\u2019s control over XRP. To better understand this dynamic, it's important to understand the nuances of XRP Ledger\u2019s consensus algorithm.<\/p>\n

Primer on Ripple Protocol Consensus Algorithm<\/h2>\n

XRP Ledger has a unique method<\/a> of consensus, known as Ripple Protocol Consensus Algorithm (RPCA). Like Bitcoin<\/a>, anybody can spin up a node and begin participating as a \u201cvalidator<\/a>\u201d on XRP Ledger. Unlike Bitcoin, these validators are not financially incentivized.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you run an XRP Ledger server to participate in the network, the additional cost and effort to operate a validator is minimal. This means that additional incentives, such as the mining rewards in Bitcoin, are not necessary,\u201d states the technical FAQ<\/a>. \u201cThe primary incentive to run a validator is to preserve and protect the stable operation and sensible evolution of the network.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Reaching consensus on XRP Ledger<\/h2>\n

For XRP Ledger, consensus is determined through agreement between parties running the Ripple Server software<\/a>. Each node running this software is called a \u201cserver\u201d in Ripple\u2019s technical documents<\/a>. Each server maintains<\/a> a list of other nodes they trust \u201cnot to collude in an attempt to defraud the network,\u201d called the unique node list<\/a> (UNL).<\/p>\n

Consensus requires 80 percent of a server's UNL to agree on a transaction. All transactions that meet the 80 percent threshold are included in the ledger and finalized. Overall, if 80 percent or more of \u201ctrusted\u201d nodes cannot reach consensus then finalization of the ledger halts until the threshold is achieved.<\/p>\n

For comparison, Bitcoin nodes come to consensus on the state of the ledger based on \u201cblock height,\u201d which abstractly represents the chain which has had the most mining power support it. Assuming a miner successfully mines a block, they can include whatever transactions they wish (usually based on the attached fee amount) as long as those transactions are valid<\/a> based on the rules of the network<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

There are so many other advantages to our approach. Cheaper. Faster. No unconfirmations or double spends. Better censorship resistance. Security not dependent on token value. What do you do in a PoW system if you don't like the rules 51% of hashing power wants?<\/p>\n

— David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) June 8, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n