XRP Ledger defends emergency patch for unlimited XRP bug

The XRP Ledger Foundation has defended its emergency security patch that addressed a bug capable of generating unlimited XRP. The developers explained that they could not wait for the usual two-week validator vote to resolve the issue without risking exposure to attackers. The fix was released on September 25, just three days after a bug bounty report, and took effect immediately on any server that implemented it.

This was the first time they bypassed the normal amendment process since it was introduced over a decade ago. XRPL developers stated, "With a normal amendment vote, the fix would have been public for weeks before it took effect, risking network security." The expedited patch raised concerns about the decentralized nature of the network.

XRPL's website claims it is a fully decentralized, public blockchain, a claim that has been crucial to its argument that XRP is not a security. However, Cyber Capital founder Justin Bons criticized the marketing of XRP to retail investors as decentralized as "straight-up fraud." The foundation clarified that the decision to skip the normal amendment process was made collaboratively by the Foundation, RippleX, core developers, and validators, after evaluating the severity of the bug.

Each validator and node operator has the choice of software to run, and the decision required more than 80% validator support with a normal amendment vote lasting two weeks. Protocol changes still go through amendments, according to the foundation. The bug was an integer overflow in the XRP Ledger's payment engine that had been present since 2015.

An attacker could exploit this by creating specially priced offers and sending a payment that consumed them all, resulting in newly created, spendable XRP. The vulnerability disclosure report confirmed that no public network had been exploited. The foundation also rejected claims that the coordinated upgrade signaled centralized control, stating that coordination does not equate to control and independent operators can reach the same conclusion without compromising their independence.