David Schwartz, former CTO of Ripple, recently argued that Bitcoin’s decentralization does not come from its use of the PoW mechanism.
Schwartz’s latest comments followed a recent event where a single mining entity showed significant control. This led to discussions about how secure and balanced Bitcoin’s network truly is with the Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism.
Key Points
- Foundry USA, the largest Bitcoin mining pool, recently mined 7 consecutive Bitcoin blocks, leading to a chain reorganization and raising concerns about mining concentration.
- Vet, an XRPL validator, noted that Foundry USA’s hashrate is near the profitability threshold for selfish mining, suggesting large miners could exploit the system.
- David Schwartz argued that Proof-of-Work is itself a centralizing force, and Bitcoin must continuously work to maintain decentralization.
- Schwartz explained that changing the mining algorithm could weaken trust in Bitcoin’s immutability, but leaving it unchanged could rely too much on miner behavior.
- He stressed that the Bitcoin community may choose to live with the issue for now, as fixing it prematurely could lead to even bigger problems.
Schwartz Speaks on Growing Concerns in Bitcoin Mining
Schwartz’s recent comments came in response to concerns raised by Vet, an XRPL validator. Notably, Bitcoin proponents still see PoW as a force of decentralization, but recent events show that mining power may be becoming more concentrated.
Specifically, Vet pointed out in a recent post that Foundry USA, the largest Bitcoin mining pool in the world, mined 7 Bitcoin blocks in a row, which raised concerns about how much control one mining group could have.
This led to a quick blockchain reorganization involving Antpool and ViaBTC, something that can happen when competing chains briefly exist. Some network participants suggested this dominance could result in a possible case of selfish mining, where a miner tries to gain an advantage by holding back blocks.
Responding to these concerns, Schwartz argued that Bitcoin’s decentralization does not come directly from PoW. Instead, he said PoW can actually push the system toward centralization, meaning the network must keep working to stay decentralized.
It really demonstrates a point that I’ve made several times which is that bitcoin’s decentralization doesn’t come from its use of PoW, rather PoW is a centralizing force bitcoin has to keep fighting against.
— David ‘JoelKatz’ Schwartz (@JoelKatz) March 23, 2026
“Bitcoin’s decentralization doesn’t come from its use of PoW,” the former Ripple CTO said, “rather, PoW is a centralizing force bitcoin has to keep fighting against.”
Concerns Around Selfish Mining
Vet also showed concerns about how Bitcoin handles these situations. He explained that chain reorganizations are a major weakness, as they show that transactions do not have absolute finality. He said, in contrast, the $XRP Ledger does not face the same type of reorganization risks, boasting true final settlement.
Further, the XRPL validator noted that Foundry USA’s hashrate is close to the level where selfish mining could become profitable, based on several academic studies. This raises the risk that large miners could take advantage of the system if it becomes beneficial for them. As a result, he stressed that the Bitcoin network needs to spread mining power more evenly.
Notably, Schwartz suggested that the issue presented a conundrum for the community. He explained that changing the mining algorithm could show that Bitcoin’s rules are not as fixed as many believe. At the same time, leaving things unchanged could mean the network depends too much on large players acting in good faith.
Bitcoin and XRPL Consensus Mechanisms
For context, Bitcoin uses the PoW mechanism, where miners compete to solve complex problems, and the longest chain becomes the valid one. While this method is slow, costly, and energy-intensive, Bitcoin proponents insist that it remains secure and decentralized.
On the other hand, the $XRP Ledger uses the Ripple Protocol Consensus Algorithm. In this system, trusted validators agree on transactions within seconds using a supermajority vote. This allows for faster and more efficient processing. However, the Bitcoin community argues that relying on a set of validators can also lead to centralization.
