hodler

1 Mar 2026, 04:00

Ripple Exec Clears The Air On Blocked XRP Transactions – When Does It Happen?

Former Ripple Chief Technology Officer (CTO) David Schwartz has addressed speculation that the crypto firm can block transactions on the XRP Ledger (XRPL) . He explained the only way this could happen amid claims that the network is centralized. Ripple CTO Emeritus Explains How An XRP Transaction Can Be Blocked In an X post , the former Ripple CTO said that there is no way to prevent valid transactions on the XRP Ledger unless users agree to change the validity rules to make them invalid. Schwartz made this statement in response to whether Ripple or he, as one of the original developers , can freeze a wallet and prevent a transaction. Meanwhile, in response to who can unlock and lock escrows, the former Ripple CTO said that anyone who wants to escrow tokens can lock them in escrow. Once an escrow expires, anyone can unlock it. Schwartz also addressed claims that the XRPL Ledger was centralized because Ripple has a “Unique Node List,” which effectively makes the validators permissioned. The former Ripple CTO described the claims that the crypto firm could have absolute power and control of the chain as “objectively nonsensical.” He noted that this is similar to claiming that someone with a majority of mining power can create a billion BTC. Justin Bons, Cyber Capital’s founder, who made the claim, explained that he meant Ripple could double-spend or censor the network, similar to someone holding a majority of mining power on the Bitcoin network . Schwartz rebutted this claim, stating that the XRP Ledger and Bitcoin don’t work the same. He noted that on the XRPL, one can count the number of validators that agree with one’s node. The former Ripple CTO added that a node will not agree to double-spend or censor unless there is a particular reason why the validator wants to do so. XRPL ‘Carefully’ Designed To Be Decentralized The former Ripple CTO reiterated that they carefully and intentionally designed the XRP Ledger so that they could not control it. He explained that they did so, given the regulatory environment and practical realities of being a company and having investors. As such, there was no guarantee that they would always have control over their own actions. Schwartz gave an example of how Ripple must honor U.S. court orders, as it cannot refuse such requests. As such, they decided from the onset that they did not want control over the XRP Ledger and that it would be to their benefit not to have control. He also mentioned that it would not make sense if Ripple ever censored transactions or double-spent, even if they had the power to do so, because if they ever did, it would destroy trust in the XRPL. Featured image from GitHub, chart from TradingView

28 Feb 2026, 20:30

Iran Banks on Bitcoin and Stablecoins to Sidestep Sanctions and Finance Trade

Iran relies on crypto to sustain trade and bypass harsh international sanctions. Bitcoin mining and stablecoins underpin both official business and citizen finances. Continue Reading: Iran Banks on Bitcoin and Stablecoins to Sidestep Sanctions and Finance Trade The post Iran Banks on Bitcoin and Stablecoins to Sidestep Sanctions and Finance Trade appeared first on COINTURK NEWS .

28 Feb 2026, 17:18

Vitalik Buterin Unveils Ethereum’s Comprehensive Quantum Resistance Roadmap

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has shared a quantum resistance roadmap for the ecosystem. This follows the identification of post-quantum readiness as a critical consideration across several areas of development. Quantum Security Upgrades In a post shared on social media, Buterin outlined specific parts of the network that could face vulnerabilities from advances in quantum computing, including consensus-layer BLS signatures, data availability systems using KZG commitments and proofs, externally owned account signatures based on ECDSA, and application-layer zero-knowledge proofs such as KZG or Groth16. He went on to propose technical approaches to address these risk areas as part of a quantum resistance roadmap. For example, he suggested strengthening consensus-layer security by swapping BLS signatures for hash-based options like Winternitz variants, while using STARK-based aggregation to enable quick verification. Buterin explained that this is because the transition toward lean consensus and finality could reduce the number of required signatures per slot, potentially eliminating the need for aggregation in early stages. As part of this process, the network would also need to choose a long-term hashing method, selecting from several available options to ensure strong, reliable security in the future. The Ethereum developer also suggested changing how the protocol stores and shares data across the system by introducing a newer method that is designed to improve long-term security. However, he noted that this adjustment would require additional technical work to handle larger verification processes. Protocol-Level Adjustments For externally owned accounts, Buterin wants to introduce native account abstraction through EIP-8141, a change that would allow them to support multiple signature methods, including those designed to withstand quantum threats. Current ECDSA signature verification costs about 3000 gas, while quantum-resistant alternatives are far more resource-intensive and could require around 200,000 gas. Despite being expensive, he believes that ongoing improvements are expected to make them more efficient. Additionally, the protocol plans to use aggregation techniques that combine many signatures into a single verification step in the long term to reduce the overall network load. The roadmap also discusses proof systems, which play a role in validating transactions and applications on Ethereum. Similarly, while existing ZK-SNARK verifications are relatively efficient, quantum-resistant STARK proofs come with much higher costs. To address this, he outlined a solution under EIP-8141 that would allow multiple transaction checks to be bundled and verified through a single proof before reaching the blockchain, reducing on-chain computation and improving scalability. Last month, the Ethereum Foundation announced that the ecosystem’s next phase will prioritize expanding network capacity while maintaining long-term security and resilience. The post Vitalik Buterin Unveils Ethereum’s Comprehensive Quantum Resistance Roadmap appeared first on CryptoPotato .

28 Feb 2026, 14:15

U.S. Strikes on Iran Spark Debate Over Bitcoin Hashrate and Market Stability

Bitcoin mining in Iran is back in the spotlight after a viral X post on February 27 claimed the country runs a $1 billion operation that could be wiped out. The debate has split crypto observers, with some warning of a temporary hashrate shock and others dismissing the claims as exaggerated fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). Iran’s Mining Footprint and the Strike Scenario The discussion began when independent analyst Shanaka Anslem Perera posted that Iran mines Bitcoin at a theoretical cost of $1,320 per BTC using heavily subsidized electricity and then selling it at the current price near $68,000 to extract what he described as a 50x gross margin. He alleged that around 700,000 mining rigs consume roughly 2,000 megawatts daily, much of it tied to operations linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC. Perera tied the argument to sanctions, saying Bitcoin allows Iran to convert restricted energy resources into liquid capital beyond the reach of SWIFT prohibitions. A January 16 report by Chainalysis found that Iran’s total crypto activity exceeded $7.78 billion in 2025. Furthermore, the report said addresses linked to IRGC facilitation networks received more than $3 billion last year, up from just over $2 billion in 2024, and that activity often spiked during military or political crises. Nonetheless, critics quickly challenged the mining cost assumptions, with analyst Dasha calling the $1,320 figure “100% fake news,” arguing it relies on household electricity rates that cannot be achieved in practice due to blackouts and shortages. Hashrate Shocks Are Not New The objections did not stop there, as miner ZynxBTC dismissed the concern entirely: “Even if Iran controlled 5% of global hashrate (it doesn’t), and it went offline, the network would continue functioning normally.” Recent U.S. events support that argument. Earlier in the year, the network continued operating even after a severe winter storm forced major Texas miners offline, pushing the hashrate down from 1.133 ZH/s to 690 EH/s in just a couple of days. However, Perera argued that grid failure differs from voluntary shutdown. According to his analysis, with tensions brewing in the Middle East, a 7-to-10-day air campaign targeting Iranian military infrastructure would likely collapse electricity generation by an estimated 30% to 50%. He insisted that mining rigs require continuous power, and even brief outages could destroy active operations. As such, he postulated that a strike on Iran’s already fragile grid could see the country’s estimated 2% to 5% share of the global hashrate drop to zero within days, triggering a difficulty adjustment that would extend block times and temporarily spike transaction fees. As CryptoPotato reported , the US and Israel have already launched strikes on Iran earlier today. Still, others argued that the Bitcoin network has withstood even larger shocks, with researcher Furkan Yildirim noting that China removed more than half of the global hashrate in 2021, yet the network soon adjusted as miners relocated. “An Iranian grid failure would be a rounding error by comparison,” he tweeted. The post U.S. Strikes on Iran Spark Debate Over Bitcoin Hashrate and Market Stability appeared first on CryptoPotato .

28 Feb 2026, 12:04

TIA Technical Analysis 28 February 2026: Risk and Stop Loss

TIA risky at $0.30 in downtrend; bearish target $0.1432 (%52 drop) ahead of reward ($0.4593). High volatility, stops below $0.2691, position should be limited to %1 risk.

28 Feb 2026, 11:05

MARA Revenue Dips 6% in Q4 as Production Slows and Asset Values Tumble

Marathon Holdings’ Q4 2025 revenue declined 6% to $202.3 million, primarily due to a 14% drop in the average price of bitcoin mined. The company also reported a $1.7 billion loss in the quarter. Annual Revenue Growth In its latest financial report, Marathon Holdings revealed a 6% decrease in revenues, totaling $202.3 million for the