"XRPL is not truly censorship‑resistant; validators can block transactions"

No, colluding validators lose their standing once honest nodes remove them from trust lists, making broad censorship unfeasible.

Argument

Because the ledger relies on validator agreement, some argue that an orchestrated group could suppress or reorder transactions at will.

Response

The "XRPL isn’t censorship-resistant" knock because validators call the shots is a misread that crumbles under scrutiny. In the XRP Ledger’s consensus setup, every node—nearly 1,000 strong—curates its own VIP list of trusted validators. If a shady clique tries to block or monkey with legit transactions, honest nodes can just ditch them—yank those validators from their trust lists and keep rolling. Censorship only sticks if a fat chunk of the network’s in on the plot, and good luck corralling a sprawling, diverse crew into that kind of conspiracy. It’s not a house of cards; it’s a web with teeth.

Contrast that with proof-of-work’s Achilles’ heel: a mining pool with 51% of the hashrate can ghost transactions solo, no debate needed—just raw power. XRPL flips the script. No single outfit or small gang can choke the flow—consensus needs a supermajority of validators nodes actually trust, not a hash-rate flex. If a few go rogue, the network’s got nearly 1,000 eyes to spot it and cut them loose. Validators don’t rule; they’re hired help—mess up, and they’re fired by the crowd.

Decentralization’s the muscle here. Those nodes aren’t Ripple’s puppets—they’re run by a motley mix of outfits, devs, and users worldwide, each picking their own validator posse. Try censoring that, and you’re herding cats with a toothpick. The ledger’s built to shrug off bad actors—honest nodes pivot fast, keeping the chain clean. It’s not fragile; it’s antifragile—colluders don’t just fail, they lose their seat at the table. Censorship? More like a self-correcting buzzsaw.

References

See Also