Key Takeaways:
- Ripple CTO Emeritus, David Schwartz, claimed that Bitcoin is a “technological dead end” and upgrades do not count towards its success.
- His words were made in the context of a discussion regarding decentralization, history of the XRP Ledger, and governance of Bitcoin.
- Schwartz cited previous incidents in Bitcoin and emphasized that market dominance is not necessarily associated with technical innovation.
The long-term technologist at Ripple David Schwartz has invigorated the debate among crypto circles with his unsparing opinions on the direction Bitcoin is taking. His remarks, posted on X, quickly spread among XRP and Bitcoin supporters as discussions around decentralization resurfaced.
Not really. I think bitcoin is largely a technological dead end for the same reason the dollar is. The technology just doesn’t seem to matter all that much to its success, at least not at the blockchain layer.
— David ‘JoelKatz’ Schwartz (@JoelKatz) February 12, 2026
Read More: White House Crypto Talks Heat Up as Ripple CLO Signals Bipartisan Push for Market Law
Schwartz Questions Bitcoin’s Technology Narrative
Schwartz responded to a user asking whether he would ever return to Bitcoin development. His answer was direct: he doesn’t see Bitcoin’s blockchain layer evolving in ways that significantly shape its success.
He likened Bitcoin to the U.S. dollar, and said that, when an asset is sufficiently acceptable, network effects outweigh technological progress. To him, the control of Bitcoin over the industry seems to be more perception-based than active protocol-level innovation.
The declaration revived a longstanding debate in Crypto on whether Bitcoin should focus more on stability or accelerate a rapid technical development. On the one hand, minimal changes could be regarded as a strength, but, on the other hand, it suppresses experimentation by critics.
Read More: Ripple and Aviva Investors Announce Tokenized Funds on XRP Ledger
Decentralization Debate Resurfaces Around XRP Ledger
The discussion began when an online allegation explained historical XRP Ledger as a sign of centralization. Schwartz responded by arguing that coordinated changes were not involved in the incident and, thus, they were not comparable to those shown in the past.
He pointed to the previous instances in the history of Bitcoin, such as a much-debated rollback of 2010, to attempt to prove that coordination in times of crisis is not specific to any one blockchain. His stance was that classifying that one network was centralized and disregarding similar occurrences on another network aids in telling an incorrect story.
Centralization vs. Governance
Another issue brought up by Schwartz was the addition of features being an indication of centralizing control. He indicated that innovation is not sufficient to indicate centralization, but critics might be sure to take coordinated upgrading.
The difference, he alluded to, is seen in the nature of the decision-making process and if the participants are compelled to adhere to it.
The comments failed to drive markets, but they increased the talk on the long-term direction of Bitcoin. Other observers see the slower pace of upgrade of Bitcoin as purposeful, maintaining security and predictability. Some hold that other networks such as XRP Ledger are making progress in being efficiency-oriented and faster to develop.
