Ripple CTO Explains Why Bitcoin Cannot Be Replicated in the Ongoing Bitcoin vs. Gold Debate

The long-running debate comparing Bitcoin and gold has resurfaced, sparked by a discussion between Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) and well-known gold supporter Peter Schiff. Their exchange revived a familiar question that has followed Bitcoin for years, if Bitcoin is just software, can someone simply copy the code and create another version that works the same?

Ripple’s Chief Technology Officer, David Schwartz, stepped in to answer this question in a simple and direct way. His message was clear, it is easy to copy Bitcoin’s code, but it is impossible to copy Bitcoin itself. This distinction forms the heart of the conversation and helps explain why Bitcoin remains unique even in a world with thousands of other cryptocurrencies.

The discussion began when a viewer argued that Bitcoin is not truly special because its code can be duplicated.

Schwartz challenged this idea by asking how something can be both new and “exactly the same.” If a copy does exist, he added, it does not change the nature of the original Bitcoin at all.

His response highlights the most misunderstood part of Bitcoin’s design. The code is only one piece of the system. Bitcoin’s real value comes from its global network of miners, users, developers, exchanges, long-term holders, and the economic activity built around it. This community has spent more than sixteen years building trust in Bitcoin. No new copy could recreate this history or the global recognition that now defines Bitcoin as the first widely accepted digital asset.

The CZ–Schiff Discussion

 

 

To understand why Schwartz’s point became so important, it helps to look at the earlier exchange between CZ and Peter Schiff.

Schiff believes gold is superior because it has physical uses and longstanding industrial demand. He argues that Bitcoin is simply a digital asset whose value exists only because people believe in it. In his view, this makes it vulnerable because belief can shift over time.

CZ responded by explaining how difficult gold is to use in the modern world. He shared an example of receiving a gold bar as a gift and realizing he could not divide or verify it without special equipment. In contrast, Bitcoin can be divided into tiny units, transferred instantly, and verified by anyone with a smartphone. Its supply is transparent and fixed, while gold’s total supply is unknown and constantly changing through new discoveries. CZ’s main point was that Bitcoin offers a level of clarity and efficiency that gold cannot match, especially in a digital global economy.

One of the strongest arguments in Bitcoin’s favor is its fully transparent supply. Anyone can see how many Bitcoin exist, how many remain to be mined, and exactly when new Bitcoin enter circulation. This level of transparency creates confidence and predictability.

Gold, by comparison, has an uncertain supply. New gold deposits continue to be discovered, extraction methods change, and large holders can influence supply by choosing to release or store gold. This lack of clarity affects gold’s long-term predictability.

Bitcoin’s fixed 21 million supply limit is one of its most powerful characteristics. It is a rule enforced by the entire network, and no authority can change it.

Why Bitcoin Cannot Simply Be Recreated

The idea that Bitcoin can be replicated because its code can be copied ignores the deeper structure of how value is formed. Bitcoin’s strength comes from its network security, the enormous amount of computing power securing it, the number of users who trust it, and the global liquidity built over more than a decade.

A new copy may look similar on the surface, but it would have none of Bitcoin’s miners, no history, no market confidence, and no real economic activity behind it. That is why Schwartz stated that copying the code does not create a new Bitcoin. It only creates another coin with no proven track record. The market has already chosen Bitcoin as the original version, and this recognition cannot be duplicated.

Schiff argued that digital tokens backed by gold may offer the best of both worlds, the efficiency of digital assets with the physical value of gold. Schwartz, however, noted that gold-backed tokens still depend on custodians, audits, storage facilities, and regulatory control.

Bitcoin does not rely on trust in a company or vault. It allows people to hold an asset directly without asking anyone for permission or proof. This independence is central to what makes Bitcoin valuable.

Bitcoin’s Uniqueness Lives in Its Network

Schwartz’s comments help simplify a complex topic. Anyone can copy Bitcoin’s code, but no one can copy its massive global network, its history, its security, or the confidence it has earned over sixteen years. These elements are what truly define Bitcoin, not just the software that runs it.

The renewed debate between CZ and Schiff shows that Bitcoin and gold serve different purposes in the financial world. Gold offers physical stability, while Bitcoin offers digital transparency, mobility, and a predictable supply. Schwartz’s explanation brings the discussion back to the core truth, Bitcoin’s value comes from the world that has formed around it, something no replica could ever recreate.

As Bitcoin continues to grow and gold maintains its historical position, which asset do you believe will play the bigger role in the future of global finance and why?