Agent-based turing complete transactions integrating feedback within a blockchain system (2024)

Abstract:

This invention relates generally to blockchain implementations and is suited for, but not limited to, use with the Bitcoin blockchain. A method of using a blockchain to control a process executing on a computing resource, the method comprising: executing a loop on the computing resource, and using a state of the blockchain to influence the execution of the loop, wherein the process: is an automated voting process; or comprises a distribution or an allocation of one or more tokens to a voter, wherein each token is associated with an amount of cryptocurrency.

Inventors:

Wright, Craig Steven (London, GB)
Savanah, Stephane (London, GB)

Application Number:

17/542157

Publication Date:

07/09/2024

Filing Date:

12/03/2021

View Patent Images:

Download PDF 12032677

Export Citation:

Click for automatic bibliography generation

Assignee:

nChain Licensing AG (Zug, CH)

International Classes:

G06F21/52; G06F21/64; G06N7/00; G06Q20/06; G06Q20/38; H04L9/00; H04L9/06; H04L9/08; H04L9/32

US Patent References:

11663609N/AMay, 2023Christidis et al.
11455378N/ASeptember, 2022Wright et al.
11372455N/AJune, 2022Gauthier, Jr.
20210409489N/ADecember, 2021Speasl et al.
11188907N/ANovember, 2021Vijayvergia et al.
11115196N/ASeptember, 2021Triandopoulos et al.
20210194677N/AJune, 2021Pourzandi et al.
20210056070N/AFebruary, 2021Kakavand et al.
20200285935N/ASeptember, 2020Song et al.
20200250176N/AAugust, 2020Padmanabhan
10719816N/AJuly, 2020Kurani
10659223N/AMay, 2020Wright et al.
20200026785N/AJanuary, 2020Patangia et al.
20190392536N/ADecember, 2019Rice
20190392118N/ADecember, 2019Elden et al.
20190378139N/ADecember, 2019Stribady et al.
10516527N/ADecember, 2019Machani et al.
10510053N/ADecember, 2019Armstrong
20190349733N/ANovember, 2019Nolan et al.
20190340352N/ANovember, 2019Peeters et al.
20190305863N/AOctober, 2019Fayyad
20190266132N/AAugust, 2019Rubenstein
20190238334N/AAugust, 2019Nakamura
20190229911N/AJuly, 2019Allen
20190220859N/AJuly, 2019Weight et al.
10354325N/AJuly, 2019Skala et al.
20190199531N/AJune, 2019Staples
20190188793N/AJune, 2019Molinari
20190158470N/AMay, 2019Wright et al.
20190149337N/AMay, 2019Savanah et al.
20190130368N/AMay, 2019Li
20190080406N/AMarch, 2019Molinari
20190080404N/AMarch, 2019Molinari
20190080321N/AMarch, 2019Mundis et al.
20190034936N/AJanuary, 2019Nolan
20190014094N/AJanuary, 2019Le Saint
20180376318N/ADecember, 2018Wang et al.
20180367298N/ADecember, 2018Wright et al.
20180349572N/ADecember, 2018Chen et al.
20180341648N/ANovember, 2018Kakavand et al.
20180285840N/AOctober, 2018Hasan
10068228N/ASeptember, 2018Winklevoss et al.
20180247191N/AAugust, 2018Katz et al.
20180240107N/AAugust, 2018Andrade
20180225431N/AAugust, 2018Ikarashi et al.
10050779N/AAugust, 2018Alness et al.
20180176222N/AJune, 2018Bhaskar et al.
20180176017N/AJune, 2018Rodriguez et al.
20180146367N/AMay, 2018Altin et al.
20180131512N/AMay, 2018Gajek
20180123780N/AMay, 2018Karashi
9961030N/AMay, 2018Murphy et al.
20180109377N/AApril, 2018Fu
20180034810N/AFebruary, 2018Pe'Er et al.
20180025670N/AJanuary, 2018Ikarashi et al.
20170324715N/ANovember, 2017Frincu et al.
20170324663N/ANovember, 2017Menase
20170316390N/ANovember, 2017Smith et al.
20170308580N/AOctober, 2017Naganuma et al.
20170300877N/AOctober, 2017Mann et al.
20170250801N/AAugust, 2017Chen et al.
20170243214N/AAugust, 2017Johnsrud et al.
20170243193N/AAugust, 2017Manian et al.
20170228547N/AAugust, 2017Smith et al.
20170200137N/AJuly, 2017Vilmont
20170187535N/AJune, 2017Middleton et al.
20170185527N/AJune, 2017Ueda
20170178263N/AJune, 2017Kraemer et al.
20170178237N/AJune, 2017Wong
20170169403N/AJune, 2017Zhang
20170154391N/AJune, 2017Watkins et al.
20170154331N/AJune, 2017Voorhees
9673975N/AJune, 2017Machani
20170148016N/AMay, 2017Davis
20170132621N/AMay, 2017Miller et al.
20170124348N/AMay, 2017Pourzandi et al.
9641338N/AMay, 2017Sriram et al.
20170116608N/AApril, 2017Forzley et al.
20170109540N/AApril, 2017Heiman et al.
20170103385N/AApril, 2017Wilson, Jr.
20170091764N/AMarch, 2017Lloyd et al.
20170091750N/AMarch, 2017Maim
20170091148N/AMarch, 2017Takahashi
20170083910N/AMarch, 2017Kraemer et al.
20170083907N/AMarch, 2017McDonough et al.
20170075877N/AMarch, 2017Lepeltier
20170061833N/AMarch, 2017Joye et al.
20170061138N/AMarch, 2017Lambert
20170046806N/AFebruary, 2017Haldenby et al.
20170046792N/AFebruary, 2017Haldenby et al.
20170046698N/AFebruary, 2017Haldenby et al.
20170046693N/AFebruary, 2017Haldenby et al.
20170046668N/AFebruary, 2017Rowley et al.
20170046664N/AFebruary, 2017Haldenby et al.
20170024817N/AJanuary, 2017Wager et al.
20170017936N/AJanuary, 2017Bisikalo et al.
20170012948N/AJanuary, 2017Peeters et al.
20170011394N/AJanuary, 2017Kumar et al.
20170005804N/AJanuary, 2017Zinder
20160381010N/ADecember, 2016Bhandari et al.
20160379208N/ADecember, 2016Deliwala et al.
20160352518N/ADecember, 2016Ford et al.
20160350749N/ADecember, 2016Wilkins et al.
20160344543N/ANovember, 2016Alness et al.
20160342994N/ANovember, 2016Davis
20160342984N/ANovember, 2016Thomas et al.
20160342977N/ANovember, 2016Lam
20160337124N/ANovember, 2016Rozman
20160337119N/ANovember, 2016Hosaka et al.
20160335924N/ANovember, 2016Karashi et al.
20160335533N/ANovember, 2016Davis et al.
20160321434N/ANovember, 2016McCoy et al.
20160294562N/AOctober, 2016Oberheide et al.
20160292672N/AOctober, 2016Fay et al.
20160283941N/ASeptember, 2016Andrade
20160275492N/ASeptember, 2016Brickell et al.
20160275294N/ASeptember, 2016Irvine
20160269182N/ASeptember, 2016Sriram et al.
20160261690N/ASeptember, 2016Ford
20160261565N/ASeptember, 2016Lorenz et al.
20160261408N/ASeptember, 2016Peddada et al.
20160260171N/ASeptember, 2016Ford et al.
9436923N/ASeptember, 2016Sriram et al.
20160234026N/AAugust, 2016Wilkins et al.
20160210617N/AJuly, 2016Leger
20160203572N/AJuly, 2016McConaghy et al.
20160203522N/AJuly, 2016Shiffert et al.
20160162897N/AJune, 2016Feeney
20160149878N/AMay, 2016Pogorelik et al.
20160140335N/AMay, 2016Proulx et al.
20160132684N/AMay, 2016Barbas et al.
9350549N/AMay, 2016Lumb
20160098723N/AApril, 2016Feeney
20160092988N/AMarch, 2016Letourneau
20160092870N/AMarch, 2016Salama et al.
20160086175N/AMarch, 2016Finlow-Bates et al.
20160085955N/AMarch, 2016Lerner
20160071108N/AMarch, 2016Caldera et al.
20160065370N/AMarch, 2016Le Saint et al.
9298806N/AMarch, 2016Vessenes et al.
20160055583N/AFebruary, 2016Liberty et al.
20160055511N/AFebruary, 2016Chidella et al.
9258130N/AFebruary, 2016Hwang et al.
9251531N/AFebruary, 2016Sarkissian
20160028552N/AJanuary, 2016Spanos et al.
20160027229N/AJanuary, 2016Spanos705/51
20160026918N/AJanuary, 2016Barbieri et al.
20150381729N/ADecember, 2015Manohar et al.
20150379510N/ADecember, 2015Smith
20150363777N/ADecember, 2015Ronca et al.
20150363773N/ADecember, 2015Ronca et al.
20150363770N/ADecember, 2015Ronca et al.
20150363768N/ADecember, 2015Melika et al.
20150356523N/ADecember, 2015Madden
20150350171N/ADecember, 2015Brumley
20150349958N/ADecember, 2015Indell
20150348017N/ADecember, 2015Allmen
9209980N/ADecember, 2015Bowman et al.
20150332395N/ANovember, 2015Walker et al.
20150332224N/ANovember, 2015Melika et al.
20150324789N/ANovember, 2015Dvorak et al.
20150324764N/ANovember, 2015Van Rooyen et al.
20150310497N/AOctober, 2015Valin et al.
20150304302N/AOctober, 2015Zhang
20150302401N/AOctober, 2015Metral
20150296570N/AOctober, 2015Altamura et al.
20150294425N/AOctober, 2015Benson
20150278780N/AOctober, 2015Vaidyanathan et al.
20150269570N/ASeptember, 2015Phan et al.
20150262140N/ASeptember, 2015Armstrong
20150262139N/ASeptember, 2015Shtylman705/37
20150256347N/ASeptember, 2015Tseng et al.
20150254639N/ASeptember, 2015Radu
20150254463N/ASeptember, 2015Ryhorchuk et al.
20150244690N/AAugust, 2015Mossbarger713/171
20150213433N/AJuly, 2015Khan705/71
20150206106N/AJuly, 2015Yago705/68
20150205929N/AJuly, 2015Brama
20150188700N/AJuly, 2015Ben Saied et al.
20150188698N/AJuly, 2015Tsai
20150170112N/AJune, 2015DeCastro
20150154562N/AJune, 2015Emmerson
20150120569N/AApril, 2015Belshe et al.
20150120567N/AApril, 2015Van Rooyen705/59
20150095648N/AApril, 2015Nix
20150089616N/AMarch, 2015Brezinski et al.
20150086020N/AMarch, 2015Harjula380/279
20150066748N/AMarch, 2015Winslow et al.
20150052369N/AFebruary, 2015Koning et al.
20150039470N/AFebruary, 2015Crites
20150006386N/AJanuary, 2015Tebbe
20140330923N/ANovember, 2014Baptist et al.
8855318N/AOctober, 2014Patnala et al.
20140270401N/ASeptember, 2014Irwin et al.
20140250006N/ASeptember, 2014Makhotin et al.
20140223580N/AAugust, 2014Neivanov et al.
20140195425N/AJuly, 2014Campos et al.
20140188719N/AJuly, 2014Poornachandran et al.
20140129844N/AMay, 2014Johnson et al.
20140129441N/AMay, 2014Blanco et al.
20140108473N/AApril, 2014Nowoczynski et al.
20140082358N/AMarch, 2014Nakhjiri et al.
20140068246N/AMarch, 2014Hartley et al.
20140046792N/AFebruary, 2014Ganesan
20140012751N/AJanuary, 2014Kuhn et al.
20130318588N/ANovember, 2013Metzger
20130318578N/ANovember, 2013Palagummi
20130305333N/ANovember, 2013Katzer et al.
20130305057N/ANovember, 2013Greco et al.
20130304642N/ANovember, 2013Campos
20130287210N/AOctober, 2013Matsuda et al.
20130198104N/AAugust, 2013Parker
8522011N/AAugust, 2013Spalka et al.
8520855N/AAugust, 2013Kohno et al.
20130191632N/AJuly, 2013Spector et al.
20130177157N/AJuly, 2013Li et al.
20130159413N/AJune, 2013Davis et al.
20130103945N/AApril, 2013Cannon et al.
20130077783N/AMarch, 2013Anshel et al.
20130061049N/AMarch, 2013Irvine
8401185N/AMarch, 2013Telang
20130051552N/AFebruary, 2013Handschuh et al.
20130034642N/AFebruary, 2013Eckstrom
20130030941N/AJanuary, 2013Meredith et al.
20120331287N/ADecember, 2012Bowman et al.
20120290830N/ANovember, 2012Resch et al.
20120284794N/ANovember, 2012Trent et al.
20120243687N/ASeptember, 2012Li et al.
20120233674N/ASeptember, 2012Gladstone et al.
20120214441N/AAugust, 2012Raleigh
20120198228N/AAugust, 2012Oberheide et al.
20120100833N/AApril, 2012Gao
8166481N/AApril, 2012Dadiomov et al.
20120039474N/AFebruary, 2012Ho
20120011362N/AJanuary, 2012Lambert
20110311051N/ADecember, 2011Resch380/47
20110307698N/ADecember, 2011Vanstone
20110246766N/AOctober, 2011Orsini et al.
20110208970N/AAugust, 2011Brown et al.
20110208790N/AAugust, 2011Brown et al.
20110202773N/AAugust, 2011Ghouti et al.
7929702N/AApril, 2011Brown et al.
20110058672N/AMarch, 2011Sannino et al.
7912747N/AMarch, 2011Sachedina
20110022854N/AJanuary, 2011Macchetti et al.
20110016510N/AJanuary, 2011Matsuda et al.
20100268778N/AOctober, 2010Kim et al.
20100241848N/ASeptember, 2010Smith et al.
20100228973N/ASeptember, 2010Dancer et al.
20100217986N/AAugust, 2010Schneider
20100199095N/AAugust, 2010Ho
20100172501N/AJuly, 2010Tian et al.
20100150341N/AJune, 2010Dodgson et al.
20100146292N/AJune, 2010Shi et al.
20100134848N/AJune, 2010Lynggaard et al.
20100131755N/AMay, 2010Zhu et al.
20100131752N/AMay, 2010Flegel
20100054480N/AMarch, 2010Schneider
20100054458N/AMarch, 2010Schneider
20100042839N/AFebruary, 2010Ho
20100037055N/AFebruary, 2010Fazio et al.
20100031369N/AFebruary, 2010Grummt
20100023771N/AJanuary, 2010Struik
20100005302N/AJanuary, 2010Vishnu et al.
20090282243N/ANovember, 2009Rose et al.
20090161876N/AJune, 2009Sherkin
20090074179N/AMarch, 2009Futa et al.
20090048979N/AFebruary, 2009Al-Herz et al.
20090022311N/AJanuary, 2009Vanstone et al.
20080288773N/ANovember, 2008Nguyen et al.
20080285759N/ANovember, 2008Shaw
20080263357N/AOctober, 2008Boyen
20080195499N/AAugust, 2008Meredith et al.
20080144836N/AJune, 2008Sanders et al.
20080137857N/AJune, 2008Bellare et al.
20080101596N/AMay, 2008Cerruti et al.
20080082817N/AApril, 2008Takahashi et al.
20080048022N/AFebruary, 2008Vawter
20070288320N/ADecember, 2007Cooper et al.
20070276836N/ANovember, 2007Chatterjee et al.
20070269040N/ANovember, 2007Yuval et al.
20070265978N/ANovember, 2007Kahn et al.
20070223706N/ASeptember, 2007Gantman et al.
20070192842N/AAugust, 2007Beaulieu et al.
20070165843N/AJuly, 2007Lauter et al.
20070055880N/AMarch, 2007Auter et al.
20060248114N/ANovember, 2006Anderson
20060242038N/AOctober, 2006Giudilli
20060179319N/AAugust, 2006Krawczyk
20060173788N/AAugust, 2006Nath Pandya et al.
7095851N/AAugust, 2006Scheidt
20060161485N/AJuly, 2006Meldahl
20060156013N/AJuly, 2006Beeson
20060153368N/AJuly, 2006Beeson
20060153365N/AJuly, 2006Beeson
20060034494N/AFebruary, 2006Holloran
20060023887N/AFebruary, 2006Agrawal et al.
7006633N/AFebruary, 2006Reece
7003665N/AFebruary, 2006Dultz et al.
20050138374N/AJune, 2005Zheng et al.
20050094806N/AMay, 2005Jao et al.
6876745N/AApril, 2005Kurumatani
20050071283N/AMarch, 2005Randle et al.
20040252831N/ADecember, 2004Uehara
6819766N/ANovember, 2004Weidong
20040193890N/ASeptember, 2004Girault
20040190181N/ASeptember, 2004Hikosaka et al.
6792530N/ASeptember, 2004Qu et al.
6785813N/AAugust, 2004Vanstone et al.
20040111484N/AJune, 2004Young et al.
20040078775N/AApril, 2004Chow et al.
20040049687N/AMarch, 2004Orsini et al.
6704870N/AMarch, 2004Vanstone et al.
20040030932N/AFebruary, 2004Juels et al.
6662299N/ADecember, 2003Price, III
20030188153N/AOctober, 2003Demoff et al.
6618483N/ASeptember, 2003Vanstone et al.
20030081785N/AMay, 2003Boneh et al.
20030048906N/AMarch, 2003Vora et al.
20030046202N/AMarch, 2003Knapp
20030026432N/AFebruary, 2003Woodward
20020198791N/ADecember, 2002Perkowski
6490352N/ADecember, 2002Schroeppel
20020112171N/AAugust, 2002Ginter et al.
20010050990N/ADecember, 2001Sudia
6286098N/ASeptember, 2001Wenig et al.
6141420N/AOctober, 2000Vanstone et al.
6122736N/ASeptember, 2000Vanstone et al.
6118874N/ASeptember, 2000Okamoto et al.
6078667N/AJune, 2000Johnson
6061449N/AMay, 2000Candelore et al.
5933504N/AAugust, 1999Vanstone et al.
5920630N/AJuly, 1999Wertheimer et al.
5896455N/AApril, 1999Vanstone et al.
5889865N/AMarch, 1999Vanstone et al.
5867578N/AFebruary, 1999Brickell et al.
5761305N/AJune, 1998Vanstone et al.
5600725N/AFebruary, 1997Rueppel et al.
5535276N/AJuly, 1996Ganesan

Foreign References:

AU2016100059A4March, 2016
CA2867765A1April, 2016
CN1262007AAugust, 2000
CN101447980AJune, 2009
CN102144371AAugust, 2011
CN102938036AFebruary, 2013
CN103440209ADecember, 2013
CN103795529AMay, 2014
CN103927656AJuly, 2014
CN104320262AJanuary, 2015
CN104331516AFebruary, 2015
CN104620535AMay, 2015
CN104704504AJune, 2015
CN105204802ADecember, 2015
CN105306194AFebruary, 2016
CN106022917AOctober, 2016
CN106411503AFebruary, 2017
DE102010002241B4March, 2012
EP1477882November, 2004
EP2237473October, 2010
EP2538606December, 2012
EP2975570January, 2016
EP3010176April, 2016
FR3018370A1September, 2015
FR3018377A1September, 2015
FR3018378A1September, 2015
FR3018379A1September, 2015
JPH11239124AAugust, 1999
JPH11289324AOctober, 1999
JP2000502553AFebruary, 2000
JP2001195479AJuly, 2001
JP2002026895AJanuary, 2002
JP2004192587AJuly, 2004
JP2004246882ASeptember, 2004
JP2006293764AOctober, 2006
JP2007036910AFebruary, 2007
JP2007067631AMarch, 2007
JP2007242221ASeptember, 2007
JP2008136063AJune, 2008
JP2008146601AJune, 2008
JP2009105824AMay, 2009
JP2009171292AJuly, 2009
JP2009526411AJuly, 2009
JP2010503320AJanuary, 2010
JP2010219912ASeptember, 2010
JP2011082662AApril, 2011
JP2011211461AOctober, 2011
JP2012515393AJuly, 2012
JP2014068140AApril, 2014
JP2014153583AAugust, 2014
JP2015536617ADecember, 2015
JP5858506B1February, 2016
JP2019512909AMay, 2019
KR20110012085AFebruary, 2011
KR101544722B1August, 2015
KR101579232B1January, 2016
RU2015108134AOctober, 2016
RU2015109271AOctober, 2016
TW201202975AJanuary, 2012
WO/2005/096542A1October, 2005
WO/2005/107141A1November, 2005
WO/2007/113040A1October, 2007
WO/2012/039474A1March, 2012
WO/2012/054785A1April, 2012
WO/2013/034278A2March, 2013
WO/2013/053058A1April, 2013
WO/2015/127789A1September, 2015
WO/2015/142765A1September, 2015
WO/2015/171580A1November, 2015
WO/2015/175854A2November, 2015
WO/2015/188151A1December, 2015
WO/2015/194798A1December, 2015
WO/2016/022864A2February, 2016
WO/2016/137360A2September, 2016
WO/2016/137499A1September, 2016
WO/2016/161073A1October, 2016
WO/2017/006134A1January, 2017
WO/2017/112664A1June, 2017

Other References:

Vayngrib, “DHT hardening,” GitHub, https://github.com/tradle/about/wiki/DHT-hardening, Feb. 2, 2015 (last updated May 21, 2015) [retrieved Dec. 13, 2018], 5 pages.
Vayngrib, “Future, operating business on chain,” Github.com, May 4, 2015 [retrieved Jan. 30, 2017], https://github.com/tradle/about/wiki/Future,-operating-business-on-chain, 9 pages.
Vietnamese Office Action dated Sep. 27, 2018, Patent Application No. 1-2018-03358, filed Feb. 16, 2017, 2 pages.
Walport et al., “Distributed Ledger Technology: beyond block chain—A report by the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser,” United Kingdom Government Office for Science, Dec. 2015, 88 pages.
Watanabe et al., “Blockchain contract: A complete consensus using blockchain,” IEEE 4th Global Conference on Consumer Electronics, Oct. 27, 2015, 3 pages.
Weller et al., “CounterpartyXCP/Documentation: Protocol Specification,” Github.com, Jan. 25, 2015 (last edited Jun. 17, 2019) [retrieved Jan. 13, 2020], https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/Documentation/blob/master/Developers/protocol_specification.md, 10 pages.
White, “How Computers Work,” Que Publishing 7th Edition, Oct. 15, 2003, 44 pages.
Whitequark, “#bitcoin-wizards on Jul. 30, 2015—irc logs at whitequark.org,” whitequark.org, https://irclog.whitequark.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-07-30, Jul. 30, 2015 [retrieved Dec. 12, 2018], 8 pages.
Wikipedia, “Counterparty (platform),” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, last edited Dec. 6, 2019 [retrieved Jan. 13, 2020], https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterparty_(platform), 2 pages.
Wikipedia, “Shamir's Secret Sharing,” Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia, Jan. 20, 2017 version [retrieved on Jan. 9, 2019], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamir's_Secret_Sharing&oldid=761082071, 6 pages.
Wikipedia, “Shamir's Secret Sharing,” Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia, Mar. 6, 2016 version [retrieved on Jun. 24, 2019], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamir's_Secret_Sharing&oldid=708636892, 6 pages.
Willet et al., “Omni Protocol Specification (formerly Mastercoin),” Github, Nov. 5, 2013 [retrieved May 12, 2020], https://github.com/OmniLayer/spec/blob/9978cc3984ae0b6e51216c4ae74042fc4097b993/README.md, 69 pages.
Willoms et al., “Using blockchain to save and verify software licensing,” Bitcoin Forum, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=671435.0, Jun. 30, 2014 [retrieved Dec. 13, 2018], 3 pages.
Wood, “Ethereum: A Secure Decentralised Generalised Transaction Ledger: Final Draft—Under Review,” Etereum Project Yellow Paper, http://tech.lab.carl.pro/kb/ethereum/yellowpaper, Apr. 2014, 32 pages.
Wright, “Registry and Automated Management Method for Blockchain Enforced Smart Contracts,” U.S. Appl. No. 15/138,717, filed Apr. 26, 2016.
Wuille, “Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets,” Github, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/ab90b5289f0356282397fa9b8aa47d2238a7b380/bip-0032.mediawiki, Feb. 12, 2016 (retrieved Mar. 23, 2017), 9 pages.
Yaokai et al., “Experimental evaluation of the next-generation cryptocurrency platform Ethereum,” CSS2015 Computer Security Symposium 2015 Proceedings 2015(3):1151-1158, Oct. 14, 2015.
Zhang et al., “AntShare Trading Platform,” Github.com, Jun. 3, 2016 (last edited Aug. 21, 2016) [retrieved Jan. 30, 2017], https://github.com/AntShares/AntShares/wiki/Whitepaper-1.1, 9 pages.
Zyskind et al., “Decentralizing Privacy: Using a Blockchain to Protect Personal Data,” 2015 IEEE CS Security and Privacy Workshops, May 21, 2015, 5 pages.
Zyskind et al., “Enigma: Decentralized Computation Platform with Guaranteed Privacy,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1506, Jun. 10, 2015, 14 pages.
Goldfeder et al., “Escrow Protocols for Cryptocurrencies: How to Buy Physical Goods Using Bitcoin,” retrieved from http://stevengoldfeder.com/papers/escrow.pdf, Jul. 26, 2018, 27 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 3, 2018, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2018/053289, 10 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report dated Jun. 12, 2017, Patent Application No. GB510912, 6 pages.
UK IPO Search Report dated Oct. 9, 2017, Patent Application No. GB1707788.4, 6 pages.
Drwasho, “Openbazaar Documentation”, Github, Jun. 2015, 53 pages.
Bluematt, “Contract”, Bitcoin Wiki, Oct. 22, 2015, 12 pages.
UK IPO Search Report dated Dec. 21, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1607484.1, 4 pages.
Gutoski et al., “Hierarchical Deterministic Bitcoin Wallets That Tolerate Key Leakage”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNSC, vol. 8975), Jan. 1, 2015, 9 pages.
Mirzadeh et al., “CPFP: An Efficient Key Management Scheme for Large Scale Personal Networks”, IEEE, 2008, 6 pages.
Menezes et al., “Handbook of Applied Cryptography,” CRC Press, Oct. 16, 1996, 811 pages.
Deloitte, “Blockchain Technology A Game-changer in Accounting”, Mar. 2016, 5 pages.
I2012 et al., “MinAddress : Now remember your addresses easily,” BitCoinTalk, Sep. 16, 2014 (retrieved Jun. 16, 2020), https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=774741.150;wap2, 3 pages.
Ken K., “Tutorial 1: Your first contract,” Ethereum.org, Dec. 2014, https://web.archive.org/save/_embed/https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/1634/tutorial-1-your-first-contract/p1, 22 pages.
Kens et al., “Cryptocontracts Will Turn Contract Law Into a Programming Language ,” Hacker News, Feb. 23, 2014, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7287155, 12 pages.
Killerstorm et al., “Transcript for #bitcoin-dev Sep. 3, 2012,” BitcoinStats, http://www.bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2012/09/03, Sep. 3, 2012 [retrieved Dec. 21, 2018], 14 pages.
Koblitz et al., “Cryptocash, Cryptocurrencies, and Cryptocontracts,” Designs, Codes and Cryptography 78 (1):87-102, publication available online Oct. 1, 2015, print publication Jan. 2016.
Kosba et al., “Hawk: The Blockchain Model of Cryptography and Privacy-Preserving Smart Contracts,” IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 22, 2016, 31 pages.
Kravchenko, “Distributed multi-ledger model for financial industry,” Github.com, Oct. 21, 2015 [retrieved Jan. 30, 2017], https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust/blob/master/topics-andadvance-readings/DistributedMulti-ledgerModelForFinancialIndustry.md, 2 pages.
Krawczyk, “HMQV: A High-Performance Secure Diffie-Hellman Protocol,” Annual International Cryptology Conference 2005, Aug. 14, 2005, first disclosed online Jul. 5, 2005, 66 pages.
Krellenstein, “The Counterparty Protocol,” GitHub, https://github.com/jsimnz/Counterparty/blob/master/README.md, Jan. 8, 2014 [Dec. 12, 2018], 4 pages.
Lebeau, “An Ethereum Journey to Decentralize All Things,” retrieved from https://medium.com/@SingularDTV/an-ethereum-journey-to-decentralize-all-things- 8d62b02e232b#.r6n9w8kqh, Jul. 11, 2016, 10 pages.
Luu et al., “Demystifying Incentives in the Consensus Computer,” ISBN, Oct. 2015, 14 pages.
Mainelli, “Blockchain: why smart contracts need shrewder people,” Banking Technology, Apr. 4, 2016 [retrieved Jan. 30, 2017], http://www.bankingtech.com/461572/blockchain-why-smart-contracts-need-shrewderpeople/, 3 pages.
Maxwell et al., “Deterministic wallets,” Bitcoin Forum, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=19137.0;all, Jun. 18, 2011 [retrieved Dec. 10, 2018], 104 pages.
McCorry et al., “Authenticated Key Exchange over Bitcoin,” International Conference on Research in Security Standardisation 2015, Dec. 15, 2015, 18 pages.
Menezes et al., “Handbook of Applied Cryptography: pp. 33, 38,” CRC Press, Oct. 16, 1996, 3 pages.
Mezzomix et al., “Angebot: BTC (2-aus-3) Multisig Escrow (Treuhandabwicklung),” Bitcoin Forum, Feb. 9, 2014, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=456563.0, 7 pages.
Michalko et al., “Decent Whitepaper,” retrieved from http://forklog.net/decent-finalizes-its-decentralized-content-distribution-platform/, Nov. 2015, 20 pages.
Michalko, “Decent Finalizes its Decentralized Content Distribution Platform,” retrieved from http://forklog.net/decent-finalizes-its-decentralized-content-distribution-platform/, Dec. 14, 2016, 2 pages.
Mike et al., “Contract,” Bitcoin Wiki, Oct. 22, 2015 version (first disclosed May 22, 2011) [retrieved May 12, 2020], https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Contract&oldid=59172, 11 pages.
Minsky et al., “Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines Chapter 14: Very Simple Bases for Computability,” Prentice Hall, Inc, 1967, 29 pages.
Mrbandrews, “Bitcoin Core 0.11 (ch 2): Data Storage,” Bitcoin Wiki, Jan. 13, 2016 (last revision Jan. 21, 2016) [retrieved May 8, 2020], https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin_Core_0.11_(ch_2): Data_storage&oldid=60024, 10 pages.
Mülli, “A Decentralized Bitcoin Exchange with Bitsquare—Attack Scenarios and Countermeasures,” University of Zurich Department of Informatics Communication Systems Group Master Thesis, Jul. 30, 2015, 61 pages.
Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,” Bitcoin, Oct. 31, 2008, https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, 9 pages.
Noizat et al., “Blockchain Electronic Vote,” retrieved from https://www.weusecoins.com/assets/pdf/library/blockchain-electronic-vote.pdf, Apr. 29, 2015, 9 pages.
Noizat, “Handbook of Digital Currency Chapter 22: Blockchain Electronic Vote,” Elsevier Inc., David Lee Kuo Chuen (ed.), May 2015, 9 pages.
NXT, “Voting,” nxt.org, website archived on Feb. 18, 2016 [retrieved May 31, 2022], https://web.archive.org/web/20160218021746/https://nxt.org/what-is-nxt/voting/, 3 pages.
Openchain, “Home Page,” openchain.org, Dec. 22, 2015 [retrieved May 8, 2020], https://web.archive.org/web/20151222083734/https://www.openchain.org/, 18 pages.
Openssl Wiki, “Elliptic Curve Diffie Hellman,” OpenSSL, https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Elliptic_Curve_Diffie_Hellman, Mar. 10, 2014 [retrieved Dec. 10, 2018], 5 pages.
Openssl Wiki, “EVP Key Agreement,” OpenSSL, https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/EVP_Key_Agreement, Apr. 28, 2017 [retrieved Dec. 10, 2018], 2 pages.
Perry, “Tapeke: Bitcoin Accounting for Non-Accountants,” http://codinginmysleep.com/tapeke-bitcoin-accounting-for-non-accountants/, Jan. 21, 2015, 1 page.
Poon et al., “The Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments,” https://www.bitcoinlightning.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/lightning-network-paper.pdf, Jan. 14, 2016 [retrieved Dec. 10, 2018], 59 pages.
p*rnin, “Deterministic Usage of the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA),” Request for Comments: 6979, Independent Submission, Aug. 2013, 79 pages.
Pour, “Bitcoin multisig the hard way: Understanding raw P2SH multisig transactions,” Dec. 20, 2014, https://www.soroushjp.com/2014/12/20/bitcoin-multisig-the-hard-way-understanding-raw-multisignature-bitcoin-transactions/, 19 pages.
Reddit, “Could Microsoft use the blockchain as a license key for it's software?,” r/Bitcoin, Sep. 7, 2015 [retrieved May 8, 2020], https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jz09c/could_microsoft_use_the_blockchain_as_a_license/?st=iw26pndq&sh=b862bf7d, 2 pages.
Reiner et al., “Bitcoin Wallet Identity Verification Specification,” diyhpluswiki, http://diyhpl.us/-bryan/papers2/bitcoin/armory-verisign -bitcoin-wallet-identityspecification pdf, Feb. 27, 2015 (retrieved Jan. 27, 2016), 24 pages.
Rockwell, “BitCongress—Process for Blockchain Voting & Law,” retrieved from http://generalbitcoin.com/BitCongress_Whitepaper.pdf, Feb. 12, 2016, 8 pages.
Ryepdx et al., “Answer to ‘What is the Global Registrar?’,” Ethereum Stack Exchange, Feb. 26, 2016 [retrieved Jan. 30, 2017], http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/1610/what-is-the-global-registrar, 3 pages.
Sams, “Ethereum: Turing-complete, programmable money,” Cryptonomics, Feb. 1, 2014, https://cryptonomics.org/2014/02/01/ethereum-turing-complete-programmable-money, 4 pages.
Sanchez, “Marketplaces,” GitHub, Jun. 10, 2015 [retrieved May 12, 2020], https://github.com/drwasho/openbazaar-documentation/blob/master/04%20Marketplaces.md, 37 pages.
Sanchez, “Protocol,” Github, https://github.com/drwasho/openbazaar-documentation/blob/master/03%20Protocol.md, Jun. 15, 2015, 53 pages.
Sanchez, “Ricardian Contracts in OpenBazaar,” Github, https://gist.github.com/drwasho/a5380544c170bdbbbad8, Jan. 2016, 12 pages.
Sardesai, “Coinffeine: A P2P Alternative to Centralised Bitcoin Exchanges,” Cryptocoins News, Mar. 2, 2014 [retrieved Feb. 14, 2017], https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/coinffeine-p2p-alternative-centralised-bitcoin-exchanges/, 5 pages.
Satoshi et al., “Connection Limits,” Bitcoin Forum, Aug. 9, 2010, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741.0;prev_next=prev, 2 pages.
Scott, “Counterparty to Create First Peer-to-Peer Digital Asset Exchange Platform,” Cointelegraph, https://cointelegraph.com/news/counterparty_to_create_first_peer_to_peer_digital_asset_exchange_platform, Apr. 10, 2014 [retrieved Dec. 12, 2018], 2 pages.
Sevareid et al., “Use Case Asset Depository,” Github.com, Jan. 11, 2016 version (last edited May 5, 2016) [retrieved Jan. 30, 2017], https://github.com/hyperledger/hyperledger/wiki/Use-Case-Asset-Depository, 4 pages.
Snow et al., “Factom: Business Processes Secured by Immutable Audit Trails on the Blockchain Version 1.2,” factom.com, Apr. 25, 2018, 38 pages.
Stampery, “Features: Blockchain-based data certification at your fingertips,” Stampery.com, https://stampery.com/features/, archived Mar. 5, 2016 [retrieved Nov. 3, 2016], 4 pages.
Sullivan et al., “Peer-to-peer Affine Commitment using Bitcoin,” Carnegie Mellon University, Jun. 17, 2015, 54 pages.
Swan, “Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy,” O'Reilly, Feb. 2015, 149 pages.
Swanson, “Great Chain of Nos. Chapter 3: Next Generation Platforms,” Great Wall of Numbers, Mar. 4, 2014 [retrieved Jan. 30, 2017], http://www.ofnumbers.com/2014/03/04/chapter-3-next-generation-platforms/, 25 pages.
European Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC dated Jul. 1, 2019, Application No. 17707121.4-1218, filed Feb. 14, 2017, 6 pages.
Extended European Search Report dated Jul. 18, 2018, Patent Application No. 18166910.2-1218, filed Feb. 16, 2017, 8 pages.
Familiar et al., “Transcript for #bitcoin-dev Mar. 27, 2015,” BitcoinStats, http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2015/03/27, Mar. 27, 2015 [archived version Jun. 27, 2016], 11 pages.
Fimkrypto, “Fimk 0.6.4 Released,” Github.com, Feb. 11, 2016 [retrieved Jan. 30, 2017], https://github.com/fimkrypto/fimk/releases, 17 pages.
Flood et al., “Contract as Automaton: The Computational Representation of Financial Agreements,” Office of Financial Research Working Paper No. 15-04, Mar. 26, 2015, 25 pages.
Fotiou et al., “Decentralized Name-based Security for Content Distribution using Blockchains,” retrieved from, Mobile Multimedia Laboratory, Department of Informatics, Apr. 14, 2016, 6 pages.
Franco, “Understanding Bitcoin: Cryptography, Engineering and Economics,” Wiley, ISBN: 978-1-119-01916-9, Oct. 2014, 144 pages.
Friedenbach et al., “Freimarkets: extending bitcoin protocol with user-specified bearer instruments, peer-to-peer exchange, off-chain accounting, auctions, derivatives and transitive transactions,” Version v0.01, http://freico.in/docs/freimarkets-v0.0.1.pdf, Aug. 24, 2013 [retrieved Dec. 12, 2018], 25 pages.
Friedenbach, “[Bitcoin-development] New Output Script Type,” Linux Foundation, Sep. 14, 2013, https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-September/003256.html, 2 pages.
Fuchita, “Special Topic: Innovation and Finance, Blockchain and Financial Transaction Innovation,” Nomura Capital Market Quarterly 19-2(74):11-35, Nov. 1, 2015.
Fujimura et al., “Bright: A Concept for a Decentralized Rights Management System Based on Blockchain,” 2015 IEEE 5th International Conference on Consumer Electronics-Berlin (ICCE-Berlin), Sep. 6, 2015, 2 pages.
Gautham, “Bitwage Makes Bitcoin Payroll Easier with New Features,” NewsBTC, Mar. 9, 2016 (retrieved Jun. 16, 2020), https://www.newsbtc.com/2016/03/09/bitwage-makes-bitcoin-payroll-easier-new-features/, 4 pages.
Gennaro et al., “Threshold-Optimal DSA/ECDSA Signatures and an Application to Bitcoin Wallet Security,” International Conference on Applied Cryptography and Network Security, Jun. 9, 2016, 42 pages.
Gitbook, “Ethereum Frontier Guide,” Gitbook (Legacy), Feb. 4, 2016, 293 pages.
Github, “Bitcoin/Bips,” retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20150307191218/https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki, Apr. 5, 2014, 4 pages.
Github.com, “Dual Key Stealth Address”, About Shadow, https://github.com/shadowproject/Shadow-Docs/blob/88501b5ba019780ef9a62d26678932c54a434e08/source/index.md, Mar. 10, 2016, 27 pages.
Goldfeder et al., “Securing Bitcoin Wallets via a New DSA/ECDSA threshold signature scheme,” manuscript, https://www.cs.princeton.edu/˜stevenag/threshold_sigs.pdf, 2015 [retrieved Jun. 21, 2018], 26 pages.
Goldfeder et al., “Securing Bitcoin wallets via threshold signatures” Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy, Mar. 28, 2014, 11 pages.
Goldfeder et al., “Threshold signatures and Bitcoin wallet security: A menu of options,” Freedom to Tinker, May 23, 2014 [retrieved Nov. 16, 2020], https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2014/05/23/threshold-signatures-and-bitcoin-wallet-security-a-menu-of-options/, 3 pages.
Gutoski et al., “Hierarchical deterministic Bitcoin wallets that tolerate key leakage (Short paper),” Financial Cryptography and Data Security: 19th International Conference, FC 2015, Revised Selected Papers, Jan. 26, 2015, 9 pages.
Hacker News, “Cryptocontracts Will Turn Contract Law into a Programming Language,” retrieved from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7287155, Feb. 23, 2014, 12 pages.
Hao, “On Robust Key Agreement Based on Public Key Authentication,” International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, Jan. 25, 2010, 12 pages.
Harayama et al., “Key escrow method of personal decryptographic key by using elliptic curve calculation,” Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers (IEICE) Technical Report 109(85):91-96, Jun. 11, 2009.
Hearn, “Distributed markets,” Bitcoin Wiki, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Distributed_markets, Jul. 11, 2015 [retrieved Sep. 20, 2016], 5 pages.
Herbert et al., “A Novel Method for Decentralised Peer-to-Peer Software License Validation Using Cryptocurrency Blockchain Technology,” Proceedings of the 38th Australasian Computer Science Conference, Jan. 27, 2015, 9 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 10, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050861, 11 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 12, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050818, 10 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 12, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050829, 9 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 12, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050866, 10 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 21, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050820, 12 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 26, 2017, International Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050865, filed Feb. 16, 2017, 9 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 3, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050824, filed Feb. 14, 2017, 13 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 3, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050827, 10 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 3, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050827, 13 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 29, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050821, 10 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 29, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050821, 13 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 30, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050819, 13 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 30, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050825, 9 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 29, 2017, International Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050815, filed Feb. 14, 2017, 10 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 31, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050856, filed Feb. 16, 2017, 11 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 31, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050867, 11 bages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 31, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050979, filed Feb. 21, 2017, 11 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 31, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050980, 12 pages.
Japanese Notice of Reason(s) for Rejection dated Mar. 30, 2021, Patent Application No. 2018-539890, 8 pages.
Japanese Notice of Reason(s) for Rejection dated Mar. 30, 2021, Patent Application No. 2018-539893, 6 pages.
Japanese Office Action dated Feb. 16, 2021, Patent Application No. 2018-539331, 7 pages.
Japanese Office Action dated Jan. 22, 2019, Patent Application No. 2018-516682, filed Feb. 16, 2017, 14 pages.
Japanese Office Action dated Oct. 6, 2020, Patent Application No. 2018-539865, 14 pages.
Japanese Office Action dated Oct. 8, 2019, Patent Application No. 2018-539895, 9 pages.
Jesionek et al., “BIP0032: Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets,” GitHub, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki, Jan. 2014, 9 pages.
Abeikverdi et al., “Generating interactive, secure multiple ECC key pairs deterministically,” StackExchange, http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/25191/generating-interactivesecure-multiple-ecc-key-pairs-deterministically, Apr. 23, 2015 [retrieved Dec. 26, 2016], 2 pages.
Akutsu et al., “Taking on the challenge of creating epoch-making services that impress users. For services that can share the excitement of competitions around the world,” NTT Technical Journal 27(5):10-14, May 1, 2015.
Allison, “Symbiont's Adam Krellenstein: There's really only two smart contract systems—Ethereum's and ours,” International Business Times, https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/symbionts-adam-krellenstein-theres-really-only-two-smart-contract-systems-ethereums-ours-1530490, Nov. 25, 2015 [retrieved Dec. 12, 2018], 4 pages.
Alonso et al., “Digital Economy Outlook,” BBVA Research, Oct. 2015, https://www.bbvaresearch.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/10/Digital_Economy_Outlook_Oct15_Cap1.pdf, 16 pages.
Andersen, “Blockchain Technology: A game-changer in accounting?,” Deloitte & Touche GmbH Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, Mar. 2016, 5 pages.
Andresen et al., “Relay OP_Return data TxOut as standard transaction type. #2738,” Github, Jun. 4, 2013, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2738, 12 pages.
Anonymous, “Bitcoin Core 0.11 (ch 2): Data Storage—Bitcoin Wiki,” retrieved from https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index/php?title=Bitcoin_core-0.11_(ch_2): Data_Storage, Jan. 16, 2016, 10 pages.
Anonymous, “Bitcoin Developer Guide,” Bitcoin Project, https://web.archive.org/web/20160515171209/https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide, May 15, 2016 [retrieved Mar. 13, 2019], 55 pages.
Anonymous, “Bitcoin Stats,” retrieved from http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2015/03/27, Mar. 27, 2015, 11 pages.
Anonymous, “Bitsquare—The decentralised bitcoin exchange,” Bitsquare.io, Jan. 3, 2016 , 14 pages.
Anonymous, “Homepage,” website operational as of 2017 [retrieved Nov. 30, 2020], https://www.coinffeine.com/, 2 pages.
Antonopoulos et al., “Bitcoin Book,” GitHub, retrieved from https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook, Jun. 8, 2017, 4 pages.
Antonopoulos, “Mastering Bitcoin—Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies,” O'Reilly Media, Inc., Dec. 20, 2014, 282 pages.
Australian Office Action for Application No. 2017223158, dated Jun. 22, 2021, 7 pages.
Bitcoin Forum, “Counterparty—Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance”, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.0, Feb. 1, 2014, 7 pages.
Bitcoininvestor.com, “All-Star Panel: Ed Moy, Joseph VaughnPerling, Trace Mayer, Nick Szabo, Dr. Craig Wright,” YouTube, https://youtu.be/LdvQTwjVmrE, Bitcoin Investor Conference, Oct. 29, 2015 [retrieved Dec. 12, 2018], 1 page.
Bitfreak! et al., “Understanding Stealth Addresses/Payments,” Bitcoin Forum, Jun. 10, 2015 (retrieved Jun. 16, 2020), https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1086498.0, 8 pages.
Bitfury Group, “Smart Contracts on Bitcoin Blockchain,” BitFury Group Limited, Aug. 13, 2015 (updated Sep. 4, 2015), http://bitfury.com/content/5-white-papers-research/contracts-1.1.1.pdf, 20 pages.
Block_Chan, “Tweet dated Nov. 7, 2018,” Twitter, Nov. 7, 2018, https://twitter.com/block_chan/status/1060336404163584000, 1 page.
Bluematt, http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2015/03/16.
Bradbury, “Developers Battle Over Bitcoin Block Chain,” Coindesk, http://www.coindesk.com/developers-battle-bitcoin-block-chain/, Mar. 25, 2014, 3 pages.
Brown et al., “Standards for Efficient Cryptography 1: Elliptic Curve Cryptography Version 2.0,” Certicom Research, May 21, 2009, 144 pages.
Brown et al., “Standards for Efficient Cryptography 2: Recommended Elliptic Curve Domain Parameters Version 2.0,” Certicom Research, Jan. 27, 2010, 37 pages.
Brown, “On Distributed Satabases and Distributed Ledgers”, Thoughts on the Future of Finance, Nov. 8, 2016, https://gendal.me/page/3/, 44 pages.
Burgess et al., “The Promise of Bitcoin and the Blockchain,” Consumers' Research, Jul. 13, 2015, 97 pages.
Buterin et al., “Ethereum Development Tutorial,” GitHub, Jul. 1, 2014 [retrieved Jul. 20, 2021], https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/ethereum-development-tutorial/0c1f501ea03a787910049b03723f1bfd7a14c9c6, 13 pages.
Buterin, “Bitcoin Multisig Wallet: The Future of Bitcoin,” Bitcoin Magazine, Mar. 13, 2014 [retrieved May 12, 2020], https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/multisig-future-bitcoin-1394686504, 7 pages.
Buterin, “Introducing Ethereum Script 2.0”, Ethereum Foundation Blog, Feb. 3, 2014, 9 pages.
Buterin, “Secret Sharing DAOs: The Other Crypto 2.0,” Ethereum Blog, Dec. 26, 2014 [retrieved Nov. 21, 2019], https://ethereum.github.io/blog/2014/12/26/secret-sharing-daos-crypto-2-0/, 10 pages.
Campagna et al., “Standards for Efficient Cryptography 4: Elliptic Curve Qu-Vanstone Implicit Certificate Scheme (ECQV) Version 1.0,” Certicom Research, Jan. 24, 2013, 32 pages.
Charlon et al., “Open-Assests-Protocol,” Github.com, Nov. 17, 2015 [retrieved Jan. 30, 2017], https://github.com/OpenAssets/open-assets-protocol/blob/master/specification.mediawiki, 5 pages.
Christidis et al., “Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things,” IEEE Access 4(1):2292-2303, May 10, 2016.
Coinprism, “80 bytes OP_Return explained,” Coinprism Blog, http://blog.coinprism.com/2015/02/11/80-bytes-op-return/, Feb. 11, 2015 [retrieved Dec. 21, 2018], 8 pages.
Corallo, “[Bitcoin-development] Relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (was CLTV proposal),” Linux Foundation, https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/007858.html, May 4, 2015 [retrieved Dec. 12, 2018], 3 pages.
Counterparty, “Home Page,” Counterparty, copyright 2018 [retrieved Jan. 13, 2020], counterparty.io, 3 pages.
Countyparty, “The Counterparty Protocol,” retrieved from https://github.com/jsimnz/Counterparty/blob/master/README.md, Jan. 8, 2014, 6 pages.
Crpit.com, FYJC Mumbai 11th Online Admission 2021—Part-1, 2 Admission Form (mumbai. 11thadmission.Org.in), https://crpit.com, Jul. 6, 2021 8 pages.
Danda et al., “hd-wallet-addrs,” GitHub, https://github.com/dan-da/hd-wallet-addrs, Dec. 30, 2015 [retrieved Mar. 11, 2016], 7 pages.
Danda et al., “Is there any service/api for deriving HD wallet addresses from a master public key?,” StackExchange, http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/38887/is-there-any-service-api-for-deriving-hdwallet-addresses-from-a-master-public-k, Jul. 30, 2015, 2 pages.
Danda, “Help / FAQ,” MyBitPrices, https://mybitprices.info/hd-wallet-addrs.html, Jan. 1, 2016 [retrieved Mar. 11, 2016], 4 pages.
Das, “As Exchanges Pause Withdrawals, Chinese Bitcoin Investors Switch to P2P Trading,” CCN, Feb. 13, 2017 [retrieved May 12, 2020], https://www.ccn.com/chinese-bitcoin-investors-switch-p2p-trading-exchanges-pause-withdrawals/, 4 pages.
Dash et al., “bips/bip-0047.mediawiki,” Github, Feb. 24, 2016 (retrieved Jun. 16, 2020), https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/15c0b250cb5b77eba3ea709b082d7da6a310d991/bip-0047 mediawiki, 16 pages.
Decker, “[BIP] Normalized transaction IDs,” Bitcoin-Dev, https://bitcoin-development.narkive.com/DjOYjEig/bip-hormalized-transaction-ids, Oct. 19, 2015 [retrieved Dec. 12, 2018], 16 pages.
Dixon, “True peer-to-peer currency exchange?,” DGC Magazine, Jul. 2, 2013 [retrieved May 12, 2020], http://dgcmagazine.com/true-peer-to-peer-currency-exchange/, 6 pages.
Dorier, “Colored Coins and Ricardian Contracts,” Coinprism Blog, Dec. 10, 2014 [retrieved Jan. 30, 2017], http://blog.coinprism.com/2014/12/10/colored-coins-and-ricardian-contracts/, 9 pages.
Drcode,“New Kid on the Blockchain,” Hacker News, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11372455, Mar. 28, 2016 [Dec. 12, 2018], 32 pages.
Durback, “Standard BIP Draft: Turing Pseudo-Completeness,” Bitcoin-Dev, Dec. 10, 2015, https://bitcoin-development.narkive.com/uRciVtAQ/standard-bip-draft-turing-pseudo-completeness, 11 pages.
Eragmus et al., “Time to lobby Bitcoin's core devs: “SF Bitcoin Devs Seminar—Scalability to billions of transactions per day, satoshi-level Micropayments, near-zero risk of custodial theft, & Instant transactions” . . . but only w/ a malleability-fixing soft fork,” Reddit r/bitcoin, https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2z2191/time_to_lobby_bitcoins_core_devs_sf_bitcoin_devs/, Mar. 14, 2015 [Dec. 12, 2018], 21 pages.
Ethereum, “EIP-20: Token Standard,” retrieved from https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-20, Nov. 19, 2015, 5 pages.
European Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC dated Jan. 2, 2020, Patent Application No. 18166910.2-1218, filed Feb. 16, 2017, 4 pages.
Taiwanese Office Action mailed Apr. 12, 2021, Patent Application No. 109142412, 5 pages.
Taiwanese Office Action mailed Jul. 28, 2020, Patent Application No. 106105709, 9 pages.
Taiwanese Office Action mailed Oct. 7, 2020, Patent Application No. 106105713, 4 pages.
Tasca et al., “Digital Currencies: Principles, Trends, Opportunities, and Risks,” ECUREX Research Working Paper, Sep. 7, 2015 (Oct. 2015 version), 110 pages.
Third-Party Submission Under 37 CFR 1.290 mailed Jun. 12, 2019, U.S. Appl. No. 16/078,605, filed Aug. 21, 2018, 31 pages.
Third-Party Submission Under 37 CFR 1.290 mailed Jun. 12, 2019, U.S. Appl. No. 16/079,089, filed Aug. 22, 2018, 19 pages.
TIMEISNOW77724 et al., “Help understanding counterparty, thanks in advance!,” Reddit r/counterparty_xcp, https://www.reddit.com/r/counterparty_xcp/comments/2qntze/help_understanding_counterparty_thanks_in_advance/, Dec. 28, 2014 [retrieved Dec. 11, 2018], 4 pages.
Toomim, “P2pool as prior art for nChain's Turing Complete Transactions patent—or, how to patent all blockchain apps without anybody noticing,” Medium, Sep. 3, 2018, https://medium.com/@j_73307/p2pool-as-prior-art-for-nchains-turing-complete-transactions-patent-or-how-to-patent-all-40f3d429eaa4, 13 pages.
Tuesta et al., “Smart contracts: the ultimate automation of trust?,” BBVA Research Financial Inclusion Unit, Oct. 2015, 5 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Apr. 25, 2016, Patent Application No. 11603117.1, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 11 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Feb. 17, 2017, Patent Application No. 1604493.5, 8 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed May 24, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1605571.7, filed Apr. 1, 2016, 3 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed May 9, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603112.2, 6 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed May 9, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603114.8, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 2 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed May 9, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603114.8 , 2 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Nov. 14, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1607063.3, 8 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Nov. 30, 2016, Patent Application No. 1607058.3, filed Apr. 22, 2016, 7 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Oct. 10, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1607484.1, filed Apr. 29, 2016, 5 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Sep. 30, 2016, Patent Application No. 1606630.0, filed Apr. 15, 2016, 7 pages.
UK Expanded Commercial Search Report mailed Jun. 15, 2016, Patent Application No. 1605026.2, 5 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Dec. 12, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1606630.0, filed Apr. 15, 2016, 4 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Dec. 15, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1607063.3, 6 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Jan. 13, 2017, Patent Application No. 1604498.4, 8 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Jun. 14, 2016, Patent Application No. 1607249.8, 4 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Jun. 27, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603123.9, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 11 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Jun. 27, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603125.4, 11 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Jun. 27, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603125.4, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 11 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Jun. 28, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603122.1, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 12 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Jun. 6, 2016, Patent Application No. 1604497.6, filed Mar. 16, 2016, 6 pages.
Search Summary Report mailed Jun. 9, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603114.8 , 4 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Jun. 9, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603117.1, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 12 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed May 16, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603125.4, 8 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed May 20, 2016, Patent Application No. 1605026.2, 4 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Dec. 21, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1607058.3, 3 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Dec. 21, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1607058.3, filed Apr. 22, 2016, 3 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Dec. 23, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1604495.0, 5 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Dec. 28, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1604497.6, filed Mar. 16, 2016, 4 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Dec. 5, 2016, Patent Application No. 1607249.8, 4 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Dec. 6, 2016, Patent Application No. 1604493.5, 6 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Dec. 6, 2016, Patent Application No. 1607482.5, 5 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Jan. 25, 2017, Patent Application No. 1605026.2, 3 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Jan. 3, 2017, Patent Application No. 1604498.4, 4 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Jul. 26, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603114.8, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 5 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Jul. 4, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603125.4, 6 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Jul. 4, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603125.4, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 6 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Jul. 5, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603123.9, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 5 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Oct. 17, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603117.1, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 5 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Oct. 21, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603112.2, 4 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Oct. 26, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603122.1, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 4 pages.
UK IPO Search Report mailed Sep. 9, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1605571.7, filed Apr. 1, 2016, 5 pages.
Lazarovich, Amir, “Invisible Ink: Blockchain for Data Privacy”, May 8, 2015, 85 pages.
Zindros, Dionysis, “A Pseudonymous Trust System for a Decentralized Anonymous Marketplace”, web-of-trust.md, https://gist.github.com/dionyziz/e3b296861175e0ebea4b, Jul. 2, 2014, 30 pages.
Subramanian, et al., “The State of Cryptocurrencies, Their Issues and Policy Interactions”, International Information Management Association, vol. 24, No. 24, Numnber 3, 2015, pp. 25-40.
Greenspan, Dr. Gideon, “MultiChain Private Blco*kchain”, White Paper, Jun. 2015, 17 pages.
Swanson, Tim, “Watermarked Tokens and Pseudonymity on Public Blockchains”, Nov. 4, 2015, 78 pages.
Manabu Takata et al., “NIKKEI BP Mook, FinTech Revolution, Financial Common Sense Dissolved by Technology”, Nikkei Business Publications, Inc., Jan. 27, 2016, ISBN: 978-4-8222-7188-6, pp. 44-47.
Atsushi Takeda et al., “System Architecture for Decentralized Authentication in P2P Network”, IPSJ SIG technical Reports, Information Processing Society of Japan, Jun. 12, 2008, vol. 2008 No. 54, [ISSN] 0919-6072, pp. 63-68.
Bitfury Group, “Public Versus Private Blockchains”, Part 2: Permissionless Blackchains, in collaboration with Jeff Garzik, Version 1.0, Oct. 20, 2015, 20 pages.
Gauthierdickey, et al. “Secure Peer-to-Peer Trading in Small and Large Scale Multiplayer Games”, Multimedia Systems, Apr. 29, 2014, 13 pages.
Feng et al., “A Next Generation Cryptocurrency Platform Ethereum and Its Evaluation”, Oct. 14, 2015, 12 pages.
Ramaswami, U., et al., “Genotype and Phenotype in Hypochondroplasia”, 1998, Mosby, Inc., 5 pages.
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Jan. 18, 2017, Patent Application No. GB510135, filed Mar. 16, 2016, 5 pages.
Wikipedia, “Public-key Cryptography”, Zosterops (talk contribs), Jul. 5, 2015, Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public-key_cryptography$oldid=670016308, 14 pages.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., “IEEE P1363, D1-pre Draft Standard for Public Key Cryptography”, Prepared by the 1363 Working Gorup of the C/MSC Committee, Jun. 2009, 362 pages.

Primary Examiner:

Murphy, Brant J.

Attorney, Agent or Firm:

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Parent Case Data:

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/078,628, filed Aug. 21, 2018, entitled “AGENT-BASED TURING COMPLETE TRANSACTIONS INTEGRATING FEEDBACK WITHIN A BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEM,” which is a 371 Nationalization Patent Application of International Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050821, filed Feb. 14, 2017, entitled “AGENT-BASED TURING COMPLETE TRANSACTIONS INTEGRATING FEEDBACK WITHIN A BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEM,” which claims priority to United Kingdom Patent Application No. GB1603114.8, filed Feb. 23, 2016, entitled “AGENT-BASED TURING COMPLETE TRANSACTIONS INTEGRATING FEEDBACK WITHIN A BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEM,” and claims priority to United Kingdom Patent Application No. GB1603112.2, filed Feb. 23, 2016, entitled “BLOCKCHAIN IMPLEMENTED COUNTING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USE IN SECURE VOTING AND DISTRIBUTION,” the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

Claims:

The invention claimed is:

1.

A method of using a blockchain to control a process executing on a computing resource, the method comprising:executing a loop on the computing resource; andusing a state of the blockchain to influence the execution of the loop, wherein the process:i) is an automated voting process; orii) comprises a distribution or an allocation of one or more tokens to a voter, wherein each token is associated with an amount of cryptocurrency.

2.

The method according to claim 1, wherein information relating to at least one iteration of the loop is stored in a transaction on the blockchain.

3.

The method according to claim 1, the method further comprising: generating a cryptographic hash of code relating to the loop; andstoring the cryptographic hash within a transaction on the blockchain.

4.

The method according to claim 1, wherein the computing resource is arranged to monitor the state of the blockchain for a transaction comprising a cryptographic hash of code relating to the loop.

5.

The method according to claim 1, the method further comprising, for each iteration of the loop:evaluating a condition and performing at least one action based on the outcome of the evaluation, wherein the at least one action comprises:causing at least one transaction to be written to the blockchain; and/orcausing an off-blockchain action to be performed.

6.

The method according to claim 5, wherein the condition relates to:data received, detected, or generated by the computing resource; orthe state of the blockchain.

7.

The method according to claim 1, wherein the computing resource is:i) an off-blockchain resource, separate from the blockchain; and/orii) arranged to implement a control stack of a Turing Machine; and/oriii) arranged to use the blockchain as a non-erasable tape of a Turing machine; and/oriv) arranged to monitor:the state of the block chain;a value generated or received by the computing resource; and/ora data or signal source provided off the blockchain.

8.

The method according to claim 1, the method further comprising:i) using the blockchain as a storage component for data, instructions, or a pointer to data and/or instructions; andii) using a computing resource as a control flow management component for a Turing complete process, the computing resource being arranged to execute a looping mechanism.

9.

The method according to claim 1, the method further comprising:restarting the loop at a specified iteration if the computing resource finds a predetermined hash of a portion of code in a transaction within the blockchain,wherein information relating to the iteration is specified using metadata provided within, or in association with, the transaction.

10.

The method according to claim 1, wherein code for the loop is:hard-coded into or on the computing resource;stored in a private or publicly available file; and/orstored as an entry on a private or public hash table file; and/ora static code block with hard-coded variables or at least one parameter; and/oris associated with or comprises at least one parameter that is:populated, initialised or instantiated with a single value of any data format;a portion of code;retrieved from metadata in a blockchain transaction or from a source external to the computing resource;retrieved from a database, or a private or public file or hash table; and/orpopulated using values that are accessed using at least one pointer to a data source, wherein the at least one pointer is stored as metadata in a transaction on the blockchain.

11.

The method according to claim 1, wherein the computing resource comprises or is in communication with a registry which enables the computing resource to access a pre-stored version of a subroutine,wherein the registry stores:i) a cryptographic hash of code relating to the loop; andii) information indicative of a location where a copy of the code can be accessed from.

12.

The method according to claim 1, the method further comprising:using a blockchain transaction to update code for the loop so that an existing code is replaced with a new code, wherein:i) the transaction is a multi-signature P2SH transaction; orii) the method further comprises the step of storing a hash of the existing code and a hash of the new code.

13.

The method according to claim 1, the method further comprising:using the state of the blockchain to influence the execution of the loop by monitoring a current state of the blockchain for transactions matching a start or triggering condition, a repeat condition, or a stop condition.

14.

The method according to claim 1, wherein:the loop executing on the computing resource is based on a Turing complete language; andthe blockchain is associated with a blockchain protocol or a functionally limited scripting language that do not natively support an incorporation of control structures into code written in that language.

15.

A computer-based system comprising:a processor; andmemory that stores computer-executable instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the system to perform the method according to claim 1, and to use the blockchain to control a process executing on the computing resource.

Description:

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/078,628, filed Aug. 21, 2018, entitled “AGENT-BASED TURING COMPLETE TRANSACTIONS INTEGRATING FEEDBACK WITHIN A BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEM,” which is a 371 Nationalization Patent Application of International Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050821, filed Feb. 14, 2017, entitled “AGENT-BASED TURING COMPLETE TRANSACTIONS INTEGRATING FEEDBACK WITHIN A BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEM,” which claims priority to United Kingdom Patent Application No. GB1603114.8, filed Feb. 23, 2016, entitled “AGENT-BASED TURING COMPLETE TRANSACTIONS INTEGRATING FEEDBACK WITHIN A BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEM,” and claims priority to United Kingdom Patent Application No. GB1603112.2, filed Feb. 23, 2016, entitled “BLOCKCHAIN IMPLEMENTED COUNTING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USE IN SECURE VOTING AND DISTRIBUTION,” the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

This invention relates generally to consensus-based electronic ledgers, and in particular to blockchain implementations and technologies. The invention is particularly suited, but not limited to, use with the Bitcoin blockchain and for applications such as device/system control, process control, distributed computing and storage.

In this document we use the term ‘blockchain’ to include all forms of consensus-based electronic, computer-based, distributed ledgers. These include, but are not limited to blockchain and transaction-chain technologies, permissioned and un-permissioned ledgers, shared ledgers and variations thereof. The most widely known application of blockchain technology is the Bitcoin ledger, although other blockchain implementations have been proposed and developed. While Bitcoin may be referred to herein for the purpose of convenience and illustration, it should be noted that the invention is not limited to use with the Bitcoin blockchain and alternative blockchain implementations and protocols fall within the scope of the present invention.

A blockchain is a consensus-based, electronic ledger which is implemented as a computer-based decentralised, distributed system made up of blocks which in turn are made up of transactions. Each transaction is a data structure that encodes the transfer of control of a digital asset between participants in the blockchain system, and includes at least one input and at least one output. Each block contains a hash of the previous block to that blocks become chained together to create a permanent, unalterable record of all transactions which have been written to the blockchain since its inception. Transactions contain small programs known as scripts embedded into their inputs and outputs, which specify how and by whom the outputs of the transactions can be accessed. On the Bitcoin platform, these scripts are written using a stack-based scripting language.

In order for a transaction to be written to the blockchain, it must be “validated”. Network nodes (miners) perform work to ensure that each transaction is valid, with invalid transactions rejected from the network. Software clients installed on the nodes perform this validation work on an unspent transaction (UTXO) by executing its locking and unlocking scripts. If execution of the locking and unlocking scripts evaluate to TRUE, the transaction is valid and the transaction is written to the blockchain. Thus, in order for a transaction to be written to the blockchain, it must be i) validated by the first node that receives the transaction—if the transaction is validated, the node relays it to the other nodes in the network; and ii) added to a new block built by a miner; and iii) mined, i.e., added to the public ledger of past transactions.

Although blockchain technology is most widely known for the use of cryptocurrency implementation, digital entrepreneurs have begun exploring the use of both the cryptographic security system Bitcoin is based on and the data that can be stored on the Blockchain to implement new systems. These include but are not limited to:

    • Storing metadata
    • Implementing digital tokens
    • Establishing contracts that are signed with digital signatures.

It would be highly advantageous if the blockchain could be used for automated tasks and processes which are not limited to the realm of cryptocurrency. Such solutions would be able to harness the benefits of the blockchain (e.g. a permanent, tamper proof records of events, distributed processing etc) while being more versatile in their applications.

One area of current interest within the blockchain community is Turing Completeness, and specifically how to facilitate Turing Complete behaviour into blockchain technologies, which have been designed to restrict functionality for security reasons.

It is disputed whether Bitcoin scripting language is Turing complete because it does not natively support complex flow control functionality, for example, loops to occur. One advantage of this restriction is that the programs have predictable execution times. Another significant advantage of limiting the Bitcoin scripts to linear or tree-like decision tasks is that this avoids infinite loops, which can be used as a means of launching exploits such as a denial of service (DoS or DDoS) attack. As a result of this limitation, Bitcoin scripts are often limited to being used for linear tasks rather than more complex applications such as the control of automated tasks, device management, etc.

The Ethereum blockchain platform approaches this issue by incorporating a “built in” Turing complete language called Solidity. This language is native to the Ethereum platform so that scripts written in Solidity can include control flow mechanisms such as loops. However, Ethereum has suffered from several attacks and exploits.

There also remains a desire within a significant portion of the blockchain community to preserve the use of the limited scripting languages in relation to blockchain technologies due to the security concerns mentioned above, and because of the widespread use and familiarity of the Script language used by Bitcoin.

Thus, it is desirable to provide a solution which facilitates Turing-complete functionality such as looping mechanisms and other complex control structures to be integrated or combined with blockchain scripts, while avoiding the damaging effects of potential security weaknesses such as infinite loops. Such a solution would provide numerous benefits including:

    • Enabling the automation of complex blockchain-related transactions;
    • Controlling the metadata stream that is recorded onto the Blockchain
    • Extending the functionality and applications of blockchain platforms which do not rely on or incorporate purposefully Turing complete languages
    • Such an improved solution has now been devised. The present invention provides a solution which comprises the novel combination of a blockchain coupled with a parallel computing resource which enables the emulation, simulation and/or incorporation of loops and other Turing-complete functionality outside the typical blockchain script. In turn, this facilitates numerous applications for automated tasks relating to, for example, distributed data storage, distributed computing and the control of drones, or any IoT (Internet of Things) devices. Such applications may include using the blockchain for metadata storage, managing digital tokens and establishing contracts.

Thus, in accordance with the present invention there is provided a solution as defined in the appended claims. In accordance with the invention there may be provided a (process) control method and corresponding system. The invention may be referred to as a blockchain-implemented control method/system. It may control an automated task or process.

The invention may be arranged to use a blockchain to emulate/simulate Turing completeness. Additionally or alternatively, the invention may enable applications which involve Turing complete control mechanisms to be executed on a blockchain platform.

Additionally or alternatively, the invention may be described as a method or system arranged to use a blockchain and/or one or more blockchain transactions to control a process executing on an off-block computing resource. Thus, the invention comprises an arrangement wherein distinct computing components, which are functionally and architectural different from each other, are arranged to interact so as to provide a novel technical result. The interaction of the different computing systems (computing resource and blockchain) results in a highly powerful control solution.

From the perspective of the computing resource, the invention provides the advantage of a permanent, tamper-proof record of the execution of the program. From the blockchain perspective, the invention provides an improved blockchain implementation because it enables Turing-complete behaviour to be at least partially simulated via use of the blockchain, which in turn enables more functionally complex blockchain-based applications to be deployed. This is all achieved while maintaining the use of the limited scripting language for the blockchain transactions. The scripting language may be limited (restricted) in that its design or implementation prevents or at least does not natively support the incorporation of complex control flow mechanisms such as loops into code written in that language. The instructions set of the language i.e. the “commands” or “op-codes” that the programmer can use, may be arranged such that it does not include commands for complex flow control mechanisms.

The blockchain may be associated with, or used with, a blockchain protocol which comprises a limited language. This may be a scripting language. The invention may extend the functionality of a limited scripting language for the execution of tasks using the blockchain.

The invention may use the state of the blockchain to execute a loop-based process. The loop-based process may be performed on a computing resource operating in parallel to the blockchain network. The computing resource may be distinct from (not part of) the blockchain network. The computing resource may be referred to as an “oracle” or a “bot”.

This enables the blockchain protocol to utilise a functionally limited scripting language while allowing control flow mechanisms such as looping mechanisms to be implemented off the blockchain. This novel combination enhances the versatility of blockchain technology while preserving security.

The method may comprise the steps of:

    • executing a loop on a computing resource; and
    • using the state of the blockchain to influence the execution of the loop.

Additionally, or alternatively, the invention may comprise the step of implementing a Turing machine using a blockchain with code references provided in one or more transactions and/or blocks (of transactions).

The computing resource may be any processor-based device or system. It may, for example, be a server or plurality of servers. It may be a standalone or a distributed resource. The blockchain may be the Bitcoin blockchain or any other blockchain-related platform. The blockchain may be a consensus-based distributed ledger.

Information relating to at least one iteration of the loop may be stored in a transaction on the blockchain. The information may be stored as metadata in the transaction. The loop may contain a “If condition then action” (ICTA) instruction.

The method may further comprise the step of generating a cryptographic hash of code relating to the loop and, preferably, storing the cryptographic hash within a transaction on the blockchain. The code may be a code block containing a control flow statement, such as an “If condition then action” statement. The code block may be a portion of code such as a whole or partial subroutine (e.g. function, method, procedure). The control flow statement may control or influence how the loop executes e.g. number of iterations.

The computing resource may be arranged to monitor the state of the blockchain for a transaction comprising a cryptographic hash of code relating to the loop.

The method may further comprise the steps:

for each iteration of the loop:

evaluating a condition and performing at least one action based on the outcome of the evaluation, wherein the at least one action comprises:

    • causing at least one transaction to be written to the blockchain; and/or
    • causing an off-blockchain action to be performed.

The condition may be used to monitor any value, signal or input, regardless of where, how or by whom it is generated, either on or off the blockchain. The condition may relate to data received, detected or generated by the computing resource; and/or the state of the blockchain. The condition may be described as a “trigger”. It may be or relate to a particular state of the blockchain, or an event detected off-block (e.g. a date or temperature reading, etc.), or a combination of both.

The Action may include sending a signal to cause an event off clock, or broadcasting a new transaction, or a combination of both. The index may be maintained (i) off block within the computing resource (“Manager”) or may be (ii) a value stored within a transaction that is then broadcast.

(i) and (ii) represent two alternative ways to maintain the control data.

The computing resource may be arranged to monitor:

    • the state of the blockchain; a value generated or received by the computing resource;
    • and/or a data or signal source provided off the blockchain.

The method may comprise the steps of:

    • i) using the blockchain as a storage component for data, instructions or a pointer to data and/or instructions; and
    • ii) using a computing resource as a control flow management component for a Turing complete process, the computing resource being arranged to execute a looping mechanism.

Thus, the blockchain may serve as the non-erasable tape of a Turing machine. The computing resource may serve to control the flow of execution of the process, implementing a loop and extending the functionality of the scripting language.

The method may further comprise the step of restarting (respawning) the loop at a specified iteration. The loop may be restarted if the computing resource finds a predetermined hash of a portion of code in a transaction within the blockchain. The portion of code may relate to the body of the loop. It may comprise an ICTA statement.

The computing resource may respawn the loop at each iteration. This may be performed in a variety of ways. For example, a code block for the loop may be:

    • hard-coded into the computing resource itself;
    • stored in a private or publicly available file;
    • stored as an entry on a private or public hash table file;
    • or a combination of the above.

The code block may be static with hard-coded variables or may be static but contain parameter(s) that can be populated. The parameters may be single values of any data format, or could be small chunks of code, or combinations of the above. The parameters may be populated by retrieving them directly from metadata in a transaction (e.g., bitcoin transaction) or from an external source such as an internal database or a private/public file or hash table or any combination of the above. Pointers to the external source of parameter values may be stored in metadata in a transaction.

The information relating to the iteration may be specified using metadata provided within, or in association with, the transaction.

The computing resource may comprise or be in communication with a registry, database, repository, or other storage facility which enables the computing resource to access a pre-stored version of the subroutine. The registry may store:

    • i) a cryptographic hash of code relating to the loop; and
    • ii) information indicative of a location where a copy of the code can be accessed from.

The method may further comprise the step of using a blockchain transaction to update code for the loop so that the existing code is replaced with new code. Preferably, the transaction is a multi-signature P2SH transaction. A hash of the existing code and a hash of the new code may be stored.

The invention also provides a system for implementing any embodiment of the method described above.

The invention may provide a computer-based system. The system may be arranged to use a blockchain to control a process executing on a computing resource. Additionally, or alternatively, the system may be arranged to use (interact with) a blockchain to simulate or emulate Turing completeness, and/or enable tasks (applications) involving control flow structures such as loops to be performed via the blockchain.

The system may comprise:

    • a blockchain; and
    • a computing resource arranged to execute a loop such that execution of the loop is influenced by state of the blockchain.

Information relating to at least one iteration of the loop is stored in a transaction on the blockchain. Preferably, the information is stored as metadata in the transaction.

Preferably, the computing resource is arranged to generate a cryptographic hash of code relating to the loop. Preferably, the cryptographic hash is stored within a transaction on the blockchain. Additionally, or alternatively, the computing resource is arranged to monitor the state of the blockchain for a transaction comprising a cryptographic hash of code relating to the loop.

Preferably, for each iteration of the loop: a condition is evaluated and at least one action is performed based on the outcome of the evaluation; the at least one action comprising:

    • causing at least one transaction to be written to the blockchain; and/or
    • causing an off-blockchain action to be performed.

The condition may relate to data received, detected, or generated by the computing resource; or the state of the blockchain.

The computing resource may be arranged to monitor:

    • the state of the block chain;
    • a value generated or received by the computing resource; and/or
    • a data or signal source provided off the blockchain;

The blockchain may serve as a storage component for data, instructions, or a pointer to data and/or instructions. The computing resource may serve as a control flow management component for a Turing complete process, the computing resource being arranged to execute a looping mechanism. The blockchain may be arranged for operation with a limited language such as, for example, the Bitcoin Script language.

The loop may be restarted at a specified iteration if the computing resource finds a predetermined hash of a portion of code in a transaction within the blockchain. The information relating to the iteration may be specified using metadata provided within, or in association with, the transaction.

The computing resource may comprise or be in communication with a registry which enables the computing resource to access a pre-stored version of the subroutine. The registry may store:

    • i) a cryptographic hash of code relating to the loop; and
    • ii) information indicative of a location where a copy of the code can be accessed from.

The system may be configured to use a blockchain transaction to update code for the loop so that the existing code is replaced with new code. Preferably, the transaction is a multi-signature P2SH transaction. Preferably, the system is arranged to store a hash of the existing code and a hash of the new code.

Any feature described in relation to one aspect or embodiment of the invention may also be applicable in respect of any other aspect or embodiment. For example, any feature described in relation to the method may also be used in relation to the system, and vice versa.

These and other aspects of the present invention will be apparent from and elucidated with reference to, the embodiment described herein. An embodiment of the present invention will now be described, by way of example only, and with reference to the accompany drawings, in which:

FIG. 1 shows an illustrative use of the Blockchain as a non-erasable tape for the Turing machine;

FIG. 2 illustrates a subroutine that can be used by the Manager to implement a repeat loop in conjunction with a blockchain;

FIG. 3 shows an example of a ICTA (If Condition Then Action) code block which can be used in accordance with an embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 4 shows the bitcoin commands that allow users to move data in and out of the alternative stack, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 5 shows the Manager's code registry in accordance with an embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 6 shows metadata associated with the Manager's code block, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 7 shows metadata associated with the output at a particular iteration of the Manager's loop, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 8 shows a transaction script and metadata, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 9 shows an illustrative Manager software patching verification and audit trail; and

FIG. 10 shows an illustrative use of the present invention and shows an embodiment of a vote counting bot's repeat loop in pseudocode.

The following describes an illustrative embodiment which uses the Bitcoin Blockchain. However, other blockchain protocols and implementations may be used. The invention is not limited in this regard.

The present invention addresses the problem of how to facilitate Turing Completeness on an operationally limited blockchain platform (i.e. one which uses a scripting language that does not support complex control mechanisms), and therefore extend the uses or applications to which the blockchain can be put. Marvin Minsky (Minksy, et al., Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines, Prentice Hall, Inc, 1967) described how a non-erasable tape can be used to implement a machine that is Turing complete, and is able to execute any algorithm that can also be executed on a Universal Turing machine.

The present invention comprises a computing resource which operates in conjunction with the blockchain, using it as the non-erasable tape in the implementation of a Turing machine. This computing resource runs in parallel with the blockchain network, overseeing and handling the execution of a looping process. The looping process is designed to perform a given task such as, for example, the automation of a process or control of a device or system (for example control of an IoT device). The parallel resource monitors the state of the blockchain and can cause transactions to be written to the blockchain. Therefore, it may be referred to herein as “the Manager” for convenience of reference.

Features and advantages of the invention include:

    • Enabling the Blockchain to serve as a non-erasable tape of the Turing Machine
    • The function and implementation of a computer-based monitoring and management component (Manager) which operates alongside the Blockchain
    • Using the Manager as the instruction table of the Turing Machine
    • Managing the Manager using a code registry
    • Transaction metadata relating to the Manager's code and respawning of the loop
    • Using digital signatures to implement software updates to the Manager
    • A special implementation of the Manager using an alternate Blockchain.

With reference to FIG. 1, the present invention utilises the Blockchain as a non-erasable tape of the Turing Machine, with the following definitions and features:

    • 1. the Blockchain acts as the tape of the Turing Machine. Each transaction in the Blockchain represents a cell on the tape. This cell can contain symbols from a finite alphabet.
    • 2. The tape head can read information from the blocks that have already been written onto the Blockchain.
    • 3. The tape head can write new blocks, containing many transactions, to the end of the Blockchain. However, they cannot write onto blocks that already exist. As such, the Blockchain tape is non-erasable.
    • 4. Metadata for each transaction can be stored as part of a multi-signature pay-to-script-hash (P2SH) transaction.

An important function of the Manager is to act as an agent that monitors the current state of the Blockchain. It can also receive a signal or input from any off-block source.

Depending on the Blockchain state and/or a received input, the Manager may perform certain actions. The manager decides which action(s) are to be performed. These may or may not involve actions in the ‘real world’ (i.e. off block) and/or actions on the Blockchain (such as creating and broadcasting new transactions). The action that the Manager takes may be triggered by the Blockchain state or by some off-block input. The Manager may also decide on the next set of transactions to be broadcast to the Bitcoin network, and subsequently written to the Blockchain.

The Manager's action(s) run in parallel and simultaneously to the Bitcoin network. In a sense, this extends the function of the behaviorally-restricted Bitcoin script. This continuous monitoring implements the ‘loop’ control-flow constructs making the combined Manager and Blockchain system Turing Complete.

In accordance with an embodiment of the invention, the Turing Machine includes two stacks:

    • Data stack: This is represented by the Blockchain as described above.
    • Control stack: This is represented by the Manager function. This stores information relating to the repeat control-flow function.

The separation of the control stack from the data stack provides the advantage of preventing infinite loops from occurring within the blockchain (e.g., Bitcoin) core. This in turn mitigates denial-of-service attacks on the Bitcoin system.

The Manager manages and runs subroutines that are able to loop via any type of loop construct (e.g., FOR-NEXT; WHILE, REPEAT, UNTIL; etc). An illustrative embodiment described herein includes a process using one example of the ‘repeat’ construct (see FIG. 2). The user specifies the index (i) and the limit (J). These represent the current iteration number (typically counted starting from 0) and the total number of iterations of the repeat loop respectively.

For each iteration:

    • 1. The Index increments by 1. For the exit condition, the iterations will stop when the index reaches the limit
    • 2. A code block containing an “if condition then action” (ICTA) statement is executed; the action may be any action on or off the blockchain;
    • 3. A cryptographic hash of this subroutine is computed. This can be stored in the Blockchain as part of a transaction (Tx). Since the hash is unique to each code block, it will enable verification of which code has been used.

Thus, the body of the loop includes a code block. Each code block contains an “If condition then action” (ICTA) statement (see FIG. 3). This monitors the current state of the Blockchain for transactions matching the:

    • Start or triggering condition (e.g when a particular Bitcoin address reaches 10 BTC).
    • Repeat condition (i.e. a metadata or hash associated with the previous iteration).
    • Stop condition (i.e. last iteration of the loop).

The ICTA statement enables the Manager to decide on the next transaction to make, based on the current state of the blockchain. Making the next transaction involves broadcasting the transaction onto the Bitcoin network and writing the new transaction onto the Blockchain. This acts as a record that this iteration has been executed. Once the transaction has been written onto the Blockchain, the Manager will subsequently find that the previous iteration has been executed and written onto the Blockchain and will execute the next iteration. The latter continues until the repeat loop exits when the index (i) reaches the limit (J) specified in the code block.

Each transaction is saved in the blockchain in a way that can be reused. In a Bitcoin implementation, each signature in a transaction is appended with a SIGHASH flag. This flag can take on different values, each indicating whether other parts of the transaction can be amended without involvement of the owner of this signature. A reusable transaction has the SIGHASH flag ‘SigHash_AnyoneCanPay’ in one of the transaction inputs. This permits anyone to contribute to the inputs of the transaction. This parameter enables the Manager's ICTA function to be executed and repeated multiple times and with different inputs. Use of the function can be restricted to authorised parties—for example, via copyright of the reusable transaction.

The ‘If condition’ section of the ICTA code block can monitor any type of condition. This is similar to other programming languages (e.g. C, C++, Java) and not limited to information stored on the Blockchain. Some example conditions are listed below:

    • Monitor the date and time (i.e., when a certain date and time are reached).
    • Monitor the weather (i.e., when the temperature is below 10° C. and it is raining).
    • Monitor social media (i.e., when I've received a message from my friend).
    • Monitor conditions of a contract or a trust (i.e., when company A buys company B).
    • Monitor news and events (i.e., when soccer team A wins a match).
    • Monitor information from the internet of things (i.e., when a light bulb needs replacing).
    • Monitor data from a mobile/wearable device (i.e., when a wearable step tracking device counts 10000 steps).
    • Monitor results from cloud computing (i.e., when a computation is completed and results are received).
    • Monitor remote data storage (i.e., if file still exists remotely).

The ‘Then action’ section of the ICTA code block can execute a number of actions. The invention is not limited with regard to the number or type of actions that can be taken. The action is not limited to a transaction on the Blockchain, although a transaction containing metadata related to the action may be written on the Blockchain.

The metadata can be of any form specified by the Manager. However, in accordance with one embodiment of the invention, the metadata may store a hyperlink to a file containing more data or instructions relating to the action. The metadata may store both a hyperlink to a hash table containing more data or instructions relating to the action along with a hash of the action that acts as the loop-up key for the hash table. An embodiment may use a link similar in style to the BitTorrent's magnet URL format.

A list of example actions is listed below.

    • Bitcoin transactions (i.e., send Bitcoins to a particular address).
    • Social media (i.e., send a message to a friend).
    • Trading (i.e., sell X shares).
    • Internet of things (i.e., switch off a light bulb).
    • Commerce (i.e., purchase an item online).
    • Online services (i.e., pay a monthly fee or pay for services requested using Bitcoin).

As the invention is not limited in respect of the nature, type or number of actions performed, it provides a highly versatile solution which may be applied to great advantage over a wide range of applications.

The Manager's control stack can be implemented in a number of ways that are specific to the needs of each user. For example, the repeat loop of the control stack can be based on any Turing Complete language. One possible choice of language is the Forth style stack-based language. An advantage of using this language is that it keeps the control stack consistent in programming style with the Bitcoin scripts which are already known and in wide usage.

The Bitcoin script contains commands, also called op codes, which enable users to move data onto an alternative stack, known as the ‘alt stack’.

The op codes are:

    • OP_TOALTSTACK—which moves data from the top of the main stack onto the top of the alt stack.
    • OP_FROMALTSTACK—which moves data from the top of the alt stack to the top of the main stack (See FIG. 4).

This enables data from intermediate steps of calculations to be stored in the alt stack, similar to the ‘memory’ function which allows data to be stored on the calculator. In accordance with an illustrative embodiment of the invention, the alt stack is used for configuring bitcoin scripts to solve small computation tasks and returning the results in the computation.

The Manager also manages a registry of all the codes that it owns and runs. This registry is structured like a lookup table or dictionary that maps a specific key to a specific value (see FIG. 5). The key and value pair is represented by the hash of the code block (H1) and the IPv6 address of where the code is stored respectively. To retrieve the code block using the key H1, the lookup table is used to retrieve the associated value (this is the location where the code is stored) and retrieves the source code accordingly.

The implementation of the code registry can vary. For example, the lookup table can be implemented using a locally managed list, or a P2P distributed hash table. The source code can be stored locally, remotely, or using a decentralized file storage system. This could be implemented with a magnet URI format or any link format that uses shared zero knowledge encryption.

Information required to respawn the Manager's loop at a particular iteration is stored as metadata in the transaction recorded on the Blockchain (see FIG. 6 and FIG. 7).

In this way, a transaction on the blockchain stores or provides access to information about a given iteration of the loop which is being executed on the Manager. This information can include the values of any variables associated with the loop, such as index i, and any other necessary information such as values for parameters used in the code block or location-related data specifying where further required information can be accessed.

The metadata itself is stored as part of a multi-signature pay-to-script-hash script (P2SH) in the transaction. See FIG. 8 for the script's format. The metadata recorded with the transaction also gives the ability to record an audit trail of how the code has been executed in the past.

There are several ways in which the Manager could respawn the repeat loop code block at each iteration. The code block might be hard-coded into the Manager itself or could be stored in a private or publicly available file or stored as an entry on a private or public hash table file, or a combination of the above. The code block could be static with hard-coded variables or could be static but contain parameter(s) that can be populated. The parameters could be single values of any data format, or could be small chunks of code, or be combinations of the above. The parameters could be populated by retrieving them directly from metadata in a transaction (e.g., bitcoin transaction) or from an external source such as an internal database or a private/public file or hash table or any combination of the above. Pointers to the external source of parameter values might be stored in metadata in a transaction.

The following steps provide one example of how the Manager can respawn a repeat loop code block at the ith iteration. In this example, the code registry is a hash table whereby the hash values act as look-up keys for the table and are stored in metadata on transactions.

    • 1. The Manager monitors the Blockchain for transactions that contain hashes of the code block that matches entries in the code registry.
    • 2. The Manager finds a transaction that contains the corresponding hash (H1).
    • 3. The Manager reads the ‘Metadata-CodeHash’, gets the CodeHash field to get H1 and uses it to retrieve the code (C1). If RIPEMD-160(SHA256(C1)) equals H1, the code has not been changed and it is safe to proceed to the next step.
    • 4. The Manager reads the ‘Metadata-CodeHash’ which stores the index I and respawns the code at the ith iteration. In other words, the loop is ‘reloaded’ at the appropriate iteration
    • 5. The signature of the User is included in the P2SH command to verify the origin of the metadata.
    • 6. The Manager reads the ‘Metadata-OutputHash’ and ‘Metadata-OutputPointer’ (see FIG. 6) to retrieve the output of the previous steps if these data are required for this iteration of the loop.

Multiple signatures may be required to unlock the transaction (e.g., the User, the Operating System, the Software Developer and the Software Vendor). This enables a digital rights management (DRM) system for managing the rights to operate the codes by all parties involved in the P2SH transaction.

Software updates and patches for code blocks that relate to the Manager are securely authorized using a multi-signature P2SH transaction (see FIG. 8). The multi-signature transaction records metadata of the old and new code blocks as shown in FIGS. 8 and 9. This makes a record of the changeover of the old code to the new code, thereby providing an audit trail of the software update. The Manager needs to store all hashes of the old and new blocks of source codes. The hash of the new and old source code blocks can be used to verify the integrity of the code files.

In accordance with an embodiment of the invention, multiple signatures are required to unlock the transaction (e.g., the User, the Operating System, the Software Developer and the Software Vendor). This provides a DRM system for managing software updates and patches for codes that are used by the Manager.

Unlike most software, which does not allow software to be updated while it is running, an advantage of the present invention is that software updates can occur in the middle of executing a loop. This provides a dynamic and responsive solution which can be reconfigured in real-time and with minimal disruption to the process which is being controlled by the invention.

The information captured on the Blockchain (see FIG. 8 and FIG. 9) can be used to update to the new code in the middle of a loop and start the next iteration step using the output metadata from the previous iteration from the old code.

The current Bitcoin scripting language does not allow loops to take place. This prevents would-be attackers from using Bitcoin payments to trigger continuous and automated actions which would otherwise require external intervention to halt them. However, as the Manager of the invention continuously monitors information on the Blockchain, this allows complex automated actions to be performed based on up-to-date information on the Blockchain in a safe manner.

The following illustrates how the Manager's control stack can be used to automate processes involving an automated and online vote counting bot. It should be noted that this is not restricted to “voting” in the sense of electoral or political voting, but can be used for any application in which selection or choice-making is involved. The term “vote” may simply be used to mean “selection” or “choice” or “indication.”

The vote counting bot is designed to facilitate fair and pseudo-anonymous voting, with the Blockchain recording an unalterable, permanent audit trail of the vote counting process. The vote counting bot is automated using the Manager's control stack and repeat loop (see FIG. 10). The following scenario illustrates how this operates.

There are 100 voters. If 57 unique “Yes” votes are received before 1 Jan. 2016, payments will be released to the Chair, Jason. The voting process is divided into two parts:

    • Token distribution
    • Counting

For the token distribution, 100 voting tokens are distributed to each authorized voter. Each token is represented by a (Bitcoin) public key and private key pair. This is distributed to each voter using a secret exchange protocol. Each Bitcoin public key and address is loaded with a small amount of Bitcoin representing one vote. The bot keeps the list of public keys associated with each authorized token and makes this list public before voting begins. To ensure voting cannot be rigged and that voting is anonymised, the list of private keys and the mapping between the voter's identity and their token is destroyed (i.e., never stored).

Having an anonymized and pre-authorized list of addresses provides other important benefits. It ensures that only those who are authorized can cast a valid vote. It can also facilitate the exclusion of any unwanted votes that originate from particular addresses (e.g., spammers, disqualified voters) without compromising the identity of the voters. To implement the counting process, the Manager runs a repeat loop. The list of addresses are to be kept in the bitcoin script, and transferred to the alternate stack for storage of data. Once an address has been counted, it is removed from the alternate stack and no longer added to the next transaction. The repeat loop stops when the list of address becomes empty.

Instead of using the integer index i to keep track of where the loop is currently at, the vote bot Manager uses it to store the intermediate value of the vote count. This ensures that the intermediate value of vote count is stored in the Blockchain. This provides an audit trail and shows that the vote counting process is fair.

If the amount of unique “Yes” votes received reaches 57, the agreed amount of Bitcoins will be paid to Jason's account. The cryptographic hash of the vote counting script, and the IPv6 address of where this script is stored, are released to the public. This means that the public has enough information to perform a recount, and ensure the vote counting process is fair and correct.

It should be noted that the above-mentioned embodiments illustrate rather than limit the invention, and that those skilled in the art will be capable of designing many alternative embodiments without departing from the scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims. In the claims, any reference signs placed in parentheses shall not be construed as limiting the claims. The word “comprising” and “comprises”, and the like, does not exclude the presence of elements or steps other than those listed in any claim or the specification as a whole. In the present specification, “comprises” means “includes or consists of” and “comprising” means “including or consisting of”. The singular reference of an element does not exclude the plural reference of such elements and vice-versa. The invention may be implemented by means of hardware comprising several distinct elements, and by means of a suitably programmed computer. In a device claim enumerating several means, several of these means may be embodied by one and the same item of hardware.

The mere fact that certain measures are recited in mutually different dependent claims does not indicate that a combination of these measures cannot be used to advantage.

<- Previous Patent (Secure hardware sign...)|Next Patent (Information processi...) ->
Agent-based turing complete transactions integrating feedback within a blockchain system (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Ray Christiansen

Last Updated:

Views: 6552

Rating: 4.9 / 5 (69 voted)

Reviews: 92% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Ray Christiansen

Birthday: 1998-05-04

Address: Apt. 814 34339 Sauer Islands, Hirtheville, GA 02446-8771

Phone: +337636892828

Job: Lead Hospitality Designer

Hobby: Urban exploration, Tai chi, Lockpicking, Fashion, Gunsmithing, Pottery, Geocaching

Introduction: My name is Ray Christiansen, I am a fair, good, cute, gentle, vast, glamorous, excited person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.