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:

11663609	N/A	May, 2023	Christidis et al.
11455378	N/A	September, 2022	Wright et al.
11372455	N/A	June, 2022	Gauthier, Jr.
20210409489	N/A	December, 2021	Speasl et al.
11188907	N/A	November, 2021	Vijayvergia et al.
11115196	N/A	September, 2021	Triandopoulos et al.
20210194677	N/A	June, 2021	Pourzandi et al.
20210056070	N/A	February, 2021	Kakavand et al.
20200285935	N/A	September, 2020	Song et al.
20200250176	N/A	August, 2020	Padmanabhan
10719816	N/A	July, 2020	Kurani
10659223	N/A	May, 2020	Wright et al.
20200026785	N/A	January, 2020	Patangia et al.
20190392536	N/A	December, 2019	Rice
20190392118	N/A	December, 2019	Elden et al.
20190378139	N/A	December, 2019	Stribady et al.
10516527	N/A	December, 2019	Machani et al.
10510053	N/A	December, 2019	Armstrong
20190349733	N/A	November, 2019	Nolan et al.
20190340352	N/A	November, 2019	Peeters et al.
20190305863	N/A	October, 2019	Fayyad
20190266132	N/A	August, 2019	Rubenstein
20190238334	N/A	August, 2019	Nakamura
20190229911	N/A	July, 2019	Allen
20190220859	N/A	July, 2019	Weight et al.
10354325	N/A	July, 2019	Skala et al.
20190199531	N/A	June, 2019	Staples
20190188793	N/A	June, 2019	Molinari
20190158470	N/A	May, 2019	Wright et al.
20190149337	N/A	May, 2019	Savanah et al.
20190130368	N/A	May, 2019	Li
20190080406	N/A	March, 2019	Molinari
20190080404	N/A	March, 2019	Molinari
20190080321	N/A	March, 2019	Mundis et al.
20190034936	N/A	January, 2019	Nolan
20190014094	N/A	January, 2019	Le Saint
20180376318	N/A	December, 2018	Wang et al.
20180367298	N/A	December, 2018	Wright et al.
20180349572	N/A	December, 2018	Chen et al.
20180341648	N/A	November, 2018	Kakavand et al.
20180285840	N/A	October, 2018	Hasan
10068228	N/A	September, 2018	Winklevoss et al.
20180247191	N/A	August, 2018	Katz et al.
20180240107	N/A	August, 2018	Andrade
20180225431	N/A	August, 2018	Ikarashi et al.
10050779	N/A	August, 2018	Alness et al.
20180176222	N/A	June, 2018	Bhaskar et al.
20180176017	N/A	June, 2018	Rodriguez et al.
20180146367	N/A	May, 2018	Altin et al.
20180131512	N/A	May, 2018	Gajek
20180123780	N/A	May, 2018	Karashi
9961030	N/A	May, 2018	Murphy et al.
20180109377	N/A	April, 2018	Fu
20180034810	N/A	February, 2018	Pe'Er et al.
20180025670	N/A	January, 2018	Ikarashi et al.
20170324715	N/A	November, 2017	Frincu et al.
20170324663	N/A	November, 2017	Menase
20170316390	N/A	November, 2017	Smith et al.
20170308580	N/A	October, 2017	Naganuma et al.
20170300877	N/A	October, 2017	Mann et al.
20170250801	N/A	August, 2017	Chen et al.
20170243214	N/A	August, 2017	Johnsrud et al.
20170243193	N/A	August, 2017	Manian et al.
20170228547	N/A	August, 2017	Smith et al.
20170200137	N/A	July, 2017	Vilmont
20170187535	N/A	June, 2017	Middleton et al.
20170185527	N/A	June, 2017	Ueda
20170178263	N/A	June, 2017	Kraemer et al.
20170178237	N/A	June, 2017	Wong
20170169403	N/A	June, 2017	Zhang
20170154391	N/A	June, 2017	Watkins et al.
20170154331	N/A	June, 2017	Voorhees
9673975	N/A	June, 2017	Machani
20170148016	N/A	May, 2017	Davis
20170132621	N/A	May, 2017	Miller et al.
20170124348	N/A	May, 2017	Pourzandi et al.
9641338	N/A	May, 2017	Sriram et al.
20170116608	N/A	April, 2017	Forzley et al.
20170109540	N/A	April, 2017	Heiman et al.
20170103385	N/A	April, 2017	Wilson, Jr.
20170091764	N/A	March, 2017	Lloyd et al.
20170091750	N/A	March, 2017	Maim
20170091148	N/A	March, 2017	Takahashi
20170083910	N/A	March, 2017	Kraemer et al.
20170083907	N/A	March, 2017	McDonough et al.
20170075877	N/A	March, 2017	Lepeltier
20170061833	N/A	March, 2017	Joye et al.
20170061138	N/A	March, 2017	Lambert
20170046806	N/A	February, 2017	Haldenby et al.
20170046792	N/A	February, 2017	Haldenby et al.
20170046698	N/A	February, 2017	Haldenby et al.
20170046693	N/A	February, 2017	Haldenby et al.
20170046668	N/A	February, 2017	Rowley et al.
20170046664	N/A	February, 2017	Haldenby et al.
20170024817	N/A	January, 2017	Wager et al.
20170017936	N/A	January, 2017	Bisikalo et al.
20170012948	N/A	January, 2017	Peeters et al.
20170011394	N/A	January, 2017	Kumar et al.
20170005804	N/A	January, 2017	Zinder
20160381010	N/A	December, 2016	Bhandari et al.
20160379208	N/A	December, 2016	Deliwala et al.
20160352518	N/A	December, 2016	Ford et al.
20160350749	N/A	December, 2016	Wilkins et al.
20160344543	N/A	November, 2016	Alness et al.
20160342994	N/A	November, 2016	Davis
20160342984	N/A	November, 2016	Thomas et al.
20160342977	N/A	November, 2016	Lam
20160337124	N/A	November, 2016	Rozman
20160337119	N/A	November, 2016	Hosaka et al.
20160335924	N/A	November, 2016	Karashi et al.
20160335533	N/A	November, 2016	Davis et al.
20160321434	N/A	November, 2016	McCoy et al.
20160294562	N/A	October, 2016	Oberheide et al.
20160292672	N/A	October, 2016	Fay et al.
20160283941	N/A	September, 2016	Andrade
20160275492	N/A	September, 2016	Brickell et al.
20160275294	N/A	September, 2016	Irvine
20160269182	N/A	September, 2016	Sriram et al.
20160261690	N/A	September, 2016	Ford
20160261565	N/A	September, 2016	Lorenz et al.
20160261408	N/A	September, 2016	Peddada et al.
20160260171	N/A	September, 2016	Ford et al.
9436923	N/A	September, 2016	Sriram et al.
20160234026	N/A	August, 2016	Wilkins et al.
20160210617	N/A	July, 2016	Leger
20160203572	N/A	July, 2016	McConaghy et al.
20160203522	N/A	July, 2016	Shiffert et al.
20160162897	N/A	June, 2016	Feeney
20160149878	N/A	May, 2016	Pogorelik et al.
20160140335	N/A	May, 2016	Proulx et al.
20160132684	N/A	May, 2016	Barbas et al.
9350549	N/A	May, 2016	Lumb
20160098723	N/A	April, 2016	Feeney
20160092988	N/A	March, 2016	Letourneau
20160092870	N/A	March, 2016	Salama et al.
20160086175	N/A	March, 2016	Finlow-Bates et al.
20160085955	N/A	March, 2016	Lerner
20160071108	N/A	March, 2016	Caldera et al.
20160065370	N/A	March, 2016	Le Saint et al.
9298806	N/A	March, 2016	Vessenes et al.
20160055583	N/A	February, 2016	Liberty et al.
20160055511	N/A	February, 2016	Chidella et al.
9258130	N/A	February, 2016	Hwang et al.
9251531	N/A	February, 2016	Sarkissian
20160028552	N/A	January, 2016	Spanos et al.
20160027229	N/A	January, 2016	Spanos	705/51
20160026918	N/A	January, 2016	Barbieri et al.
20150381729	N/A	December, 2015	Manohar et al.
20150379510	N/A	December, 2015	Smith
20150363777	N/A	December, 2015	Ronca et al.
20150363773	N/A	December, 2015	Ronca et al.
20150363770	N/A	December, 2015	Ronca et al.
20150363768	N/A	December, 2015	Melika et al.
20150356523	N/A	December, 2015	Madden
20150350171	N/A	December, 2015	Brumley
20150349958	N/A	December, 2015	Indell
20150348017	N/A	December, 2015	Allmen
9209980	N/A	December, 2015	Bowman et al.
20150332395	N/A	November, 2015	Walker et al.
20150332224	N/A	November, 2015	Melika et al.
20150324789	N/A	November, 2015	Dvorak et al.
20150324764	N/A	November, 2015	Van Rooyen et al.
20150310497	N/A	October, 2015	Valin et al.
20150304302	N/A	October, 2015	Zhang
20150302401	N/A	October, 2015	Metral
20150296570	N/A	October, 2015	Altamura et al.
20150294425	N/A	October, 2015	Benson
20150278780	N/A	October, 2015	Vaidyanathan et al.
20150269570	N/A	September, 2015	Phan et al.
20150262140	N/A	September, 2015	Armstrong
20150262139	N/A	September, 2015	Shtylman	705/37
20150256347	N/A	September, 2015	Tseng et al.
20150254639	N/A	September, 2015	Radu
20150254463	N/A	September, 2015	Ryhorchuk et al.
20150244690	N/A	August, 2015	Mossbarger	713/171
20150213433	N/A	July, 2015	Khan	705/71
20150206106	N/A	July, 2015	Yago	705/68
20150205929	N/A	July, 2015	Brama
20150188700	N/A	July, 2015	Ben Saied et al.
20150188698	N/A	July, 2015	Tsai
20150170112	N/A	June, 2015	DeCastro
20150154562	N/A	June, 2015	Emmerson
20150120569	N/A	April, 2015	Belshe et al.
20150120567	N/A	April, 2015	Van Rooyen	705/59
20150095648	N/A	April, 2015	Nix
20150089616	N/A	March, 2015	Brezinski et al.
20150086020	N/A	March, 2015	Harjula	380/279
20150066748	N/A	March, 2015	Winslow et al.
20150052369	N/A	February, 2015	Koning et al.
20150039470	N/A	February, 2015	Crites
20150006386	N/A	January, 2015	Tebbe
20140330923	N/A	November, 2014	Baptist et al.
8855318	N/A	October, 2014	Patnala et al.
20140270401	N/A	September, 2014	Irwin et al.
20140250006	N/A	September, 2014	Makhotin et al.
20140223580	N/A	August, 2014	Neivanov et al.
20140195425	N/A	July, 2014	Campos et al.
20140188719	N/A	July, 2014	Poornachandran et al.
20140129844	N/A	May, 2014	Johnson et al.
20140129441	N/A	May, 2014	Blanco et al.
20140108473	N/A	April, 2014	Nowoczynski et al.
20140082358	N/A	March, 2014	Nakhjiri et al.
20140068246	N/A	March, 2014	Hartley et al.
20140046792	N/A	February, 2014	Ganesan
20140012751	N/A	January, 2014	Kuhn et al.
20130318588	N/A	November, 2013	Metzger
20130318578	N/A	November, 2013	Palagummi
20130305333	N/A	November, 2013	Katzer et al.
20130305057	N/A	November, 2013	Greco et al.
20130304642	N/A	November, 2013	Campos
20130287210	N/A	October, 2013	Matsuda et al.
20130198104	N/A	August, 2013	Parker
8522011	N/A	August, 2013	Spalka et al.
8520855	N/A	August, 2013	Kohno et al.
20130191632	N/A	July, 2013	Spector et al.
20130177157	N/A	July, 2013	Li et al.
20130159413	N/A	June, 2013	Davis et al.
20130103945	N/A	April, 2013	Cannon et al.
20130077783	N/A	March, 2013	Anshel et al.
20130061049	N/A	March, 2013	Irvine
8401185	N/A	March, 2013	Telang
20130051552	N/A	February, 2013	Handschuh et al.
20130034642	N/A	February, 2013	Eckstrom
20130030941	N/A	January, 2013	Meredith et al.
20120331287	N/A	December, 2012	Bowman et al.
20120290830	N/A	November, 2012	Resch et al.
20120284794	N/A	November, 2012	Trent et al.
20120243687	N/A	September, 2012	Li et al.
20120233674	N/A	September, 2012	Gladstone et al.
20120214441	N/A	August, 2012	Raleigh
20120198228	N/A	August, 2012	Oberheide et al.
20120100833	N/A	April, 2012	Gao
8166481	N/A	April, 2012	Dadiomov et al.
20120039474	N/A	February, 2012	Ho
20120011362	N/A	January, 2012	Lambert
20110311051	N/A	December, 2011	Resch	380/47
20110307698	N/A	December, 2011	Vanstone
20110246766	N/A	October, 2011	Orsini et al.
20110208970	N/A	August, 2011	Brown et al.
20110208790	N/A	August, 2011	Brown et al.
20110202773	N/A	August, 2011	Ghouti et al.
7929702	N/A	April, 2011	Brown et al.
20110058672	N/A	March, 2011	Sannino et al.
7912747	N/A	March, 2011	Sachedina
20110022854	N/A	January, 2011	Macchetti et al.
20110016510	N/A	January, 2011	Matsuda et al.
20100268778	N/A	October, 2010	Kim et al.
20100241848	N/A	September, 2010	Smith et al.
20100228973	N/A	September, 2010	Dancer et al.
20100217986	N/A	August, 2010	Schneider
20100199095	N/A	August, 2010	Ho
20100172501	N/A	July, 2010	Tian et al.
20100150341	N/A	June, 2010	Dodgson et al.
20100146292	N/A	June, 2010	Shi et al.
20100134848	N/A	June, 2010	Lynggaard et al.
20100131755	N/A	May, 2010	Zhu et al.
20100131752	N/A	May, 2010	Flegel
20100054480	N/A	March, 2010	Schneider
20100054458	N/A	March, 2010	Schneider
20100042839	N/A	February, 2010	Ho
20100037055	N/A	February, 2010	Fazio et al.
20100031369	N/A	February, 2010	Grummt
20100023771	N/A	January, 2010	Struik
20100005302	N/A	January, 2010	Vishnu et al.
20090282243	N/A	November, 2009	Rose et al.
20090161876	N/A	June, 2009	Sherkin
20090074179	N/A	March, 2009	Futa et al.
20090048979	N/A	February, 2009	Al-Herz et al.
20090022311	N/A	January, 2009	Vanstone et al.
20080288773	N/A	November, 2008	Nguyen et al.
20080285759	N/A	November, 2008	Shaw
20080263357	N/A	October, 2008	Boyen
20080195499	N/A	August, 2008	Meredith et al.
20080144836	N/A	June, 2008	Sanders et al.
20080137857	N/A	June, 2008	Bellare et al.
20080101596	N/A	May, 2008	Cerruti et al.
20080082817	N/A	April, 2008	Takahashi et al.
20080048022	N/A	February, 2008	Vawter
20070288320	N/A	December, 2007	Cooper et al.
20070276836	N/A	November, 2007	Chatterjee et al.
20070269040	N/A	November, 2007	Yuval et al.
20070265978	N/A	November, 2007	Kahn et al.
20070223706	N/A	September, 2007	Gantman et al.
20070192842	N/A	August, 2007	Beaulieu et al.
20070165843	N/A	July, 2007	Lauter et al.
20070055880	N/A	March, 2007	Auter et al.
20060248114	N/A	November, 2006	Anderson
20060242038	N/A	October, 2006	Giudilli
20060179319	N/A	August, 2006	Krawczyk
20060173788	N/A	August, 2006	Nath Pandya et al.
7095851	N/A	August, 2006	Scheidt
20060161485	N/A	July, 2006	Meldahl
20060156013	N/A	July, 2006	Beeson
20060153368	N/A	July, 2006	Beeson
20060153365	N/A	July, 2006	Beeson
20060034494	N/A	February, 2006	Holloran
20060023887	N/A	February, 2006	Agrawal et al.
7006633	N/A	February, 2006	Reece
7003665	N/A	February, 2006	Dultz et al.
20050138374	N/A	June, 2005	Zheng et al.
20050094806	N/A	May, 2005	Jao et al.
6876745	N/A	April, 2005	Kurumatani
20050071283	N/A	March, 2005	Randle et al.
20040252831	N/A	December, 2004	Uehara
6819766	N/A	November, 2004	Weidong
20040193890	N/A	September, 2004	Girault
20040190181	N/A	September, 2004	Hikosaka et al.
6792530	N/A	September, 2004	Qu et al.
6785813	N/A	August, 2004	Vanstone et al.
20040111484	N/A	June, 2004	Young et al.
20040078775	N/A	April, 2004	Chow et al.
20040049687	N/A	March, 2004	Orsini et al.
6704870	N/A	March, 2004	Vanstone et al.
20040030932	N/A	February, 2004	Juels et al.
6662299	N/A	December, 2003	Price, III
20030188153	N/A	October, 2003	Demoff et al.
6618483	N/A	September, 2003	Vanstone et al.
20030081785	N/A	May, 2003	Boneh et al.
20030048906	N/A	March, 2003	Vora et al.
20030046202	N/A	March, 2003	Knapp
20030026432	N/A	February, 2003	Woodward
20020198791	N/A	December, 2002	Perkowski
6490352	N/A	December, 2002	Schroeppel
20020112171	N/A	August, 2002	Ginter et al.
20010050990	N/A	December, 2001	Sudia
6286098	N/A	September, 2001	Wenig et al.
6141420	N/A	October, 2000	Vanstone et al.
6122736	N/A	September, 2000	Vanstone et al.
6118874	N/A	September, 2000	Okamoto et al.
6078667	N/A	June, 2000	Johnson
6061449	N/A	May, 2000	Candelore et al.
5933504	N/A	August, 1999	Vanstone et al.
5920630	N/A	July, 1999	Wertheimer et al.
5896455	N/A	April, 1999	Vanstone et al.
5889865	N/A	March, 1999	Vanstone et al.
5867578	N/A	February, 1999	Brickell et al.
5761305	N/A	June, 1998	Vanstone et al.
5600725	N/A	February, 1997	Rueppel et al.
5535276	N/A	July, 1996	Ganesan

Foreign References:

AU2016100059A4	March, 2016
CA2867765A1	April, 2016
CN1262007A	August, 2000
CN101447980A	June, 2009
CN102144371A	August, 2011
CN102938036A	February, 2013
CN103440209A	December, 2013
CN103795529A	May, 2014
CN103927656A	July, 2014
CN104320262A	January, 2015
CN104331516A	February, 2015
CN104620535A	May, 2015
CN104704504A	June, 2015
CN105204802A	December, 2015
CN105306194A	February, 2016
CN106022917A	October, 2016
CN106411503A	February, 2017
DE102010002241B4	March, 2012
EP1477882	November, 2004
EP2237473	October, 2010
EP2538606	December, 2012
EP2975570	January, 2016
EP3010176	April, 2016
FR3018370A1	September, 2015
FR3018377A1	September, 2015
FR3018378A1	September, 2015
FR3018379A1	September, 2015
JPH11239124A	August, 1999
JPH11289324A	October, 1999
JP2000502553A	February, 2000
JP2001195479A	July, 2001
JP2002026895A	January, 2002
JP2004192587A	July, 2004
JP2004246882A	September, 2004
JP2006293764A	October, 2006
JP2007036910A	February, 2007
JP2007067631A	March, 2007
JP2007242221A	September, 2007
JP2008136063A	June, 2008
JP2008146601A	June, 2008
JP2009105824A	May, 2009
JP2009171292A	July, 2009
JP2009526411A	July, 2009
JP2010503320A	January, 2010
JP2010219912A	September, 2010
JP2011082662A	April, 2011
JP2011211461A	October, 2011
JP2012515393A	July, 2012
JP2014068140A	April, 2014
JP2014153583A	August, 2014
JP2015536617A	December, 2015
JP5858506B1	February, 2016
JP2019512909A	May, 2019
KR20110012085A	February, 2011
KR101544722B1	August, 2015
KR101579232B1	January, 2016
RU2015108134A	October, 2016
RU2015109271A	October, 2016
TW201202975A	January, 2012
WO/2005/096542A1	October, 2005
WO/2005/107141A1	November, 2005
WO/2007/113040A1	October, 2007
WO/2012/039474A1	March, 2012
WO/2012/054785A1	April, 2012
WO/2013/034278A2	March, 2013
WO/2013/053058A1	April, 2013
WO/2015/127789A1	September, 2015
WO/2015/142765A1	September, 2015
WO/2015/171580A1	November, 2015
WO/2015/175854A2	November, 2015
WO/2015/188151A1	December, 2015
WO/2015/194798A1	December, 2015
WO/2016/022864A2	February, 2016
WO/2016/137360A2	September, 2016
WO/2016/137499A1	September, 2016
WO/2016/161073A1	October, 2016
WO/2017/006134A1	January, 2017
WO/2017/112664A1	June, 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:

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:i) is an automated voting process; or

ii) comprises a distribution or an allocation of one or more tokens to a voter, wherein each token is associated with an amount of cryptocurrency.

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.

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.

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.

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/or

causing an off-blockchain action to be performed.

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

the state of the blockchain.

The method according to claim 1, wherein the computing resource is:i) an off-blockchain resource, separate from the blockchain; and/or

ii) arranged to implement a control stack of a Turing Machine; and/or

iii) arranged to use the blockchain as a non-erasable tape of a Turing machine; and/or

iv) 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 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; 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.

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/or

stored as an entry on a private or public hash table file; and/or

a static code block with hard-coded variables or at least one parameter; and/or

is 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/or

populated 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; and

ii) 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; or

ii) 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; and

the 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; and

memory 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 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 H₁and 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 i^thiteration. 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)

FAQs

What is Turing completeness in Blockchain? ›

What is Turing completeness? Turing completeness refers to a property of a system or programming language that is capable of performing any computation that can be computed by a Turing machine. A Turing machine is an abstract mathematical concept, considered the foundation of modern computers.

Discover More Details ›

What does it mean for a system to be Turing complete? ›

Turing completeness is a term in computer science that describes the ability of a system to compute any possible calculation or program, and can be used to describe modern programming languages (Python, C++, etc.). Turing complete describes a programmable system that can solve any computational problem.

Tell Me More ›

Which of the following is a characteristic of Turing completeness in blockchain? ›

Turing completeness is a fundamental notion in computer science that has significant consequences for blockchain-based smart contracts. It means that a system is globally programmable if it can carry out any calculation that a Turing machine can.

Know More ›

Is Bitcoin scripting language Turing? ›

Bitcoin Script is intentionally designed to be Turing incomplete. Turing completeness is a property of a system that can perform any computation that a Turing machine can. While Turing completeness allows for greater flexibility in programming languages, it also introduces potential security risks.

Learn More ›

What are the examples of Turing completeness? ›

1 Turing Completeness

For example, Excel spreadsheets are Turing complete. ...
The redstones in the game Minecraft define a language that is Turing-complete.
Conway's Game of Life (with a demo here ), a much more amusing form of automaton than the ones we have focused on in this course, is also Turing complete.

More items...

Jan 15, 2023

Keep Reading ›

What is the easiest way to prove Turing completeness? ›

To show that something is Turing-complete, it is enough to demonstrate that it can be used to simulate some Turing-complete system. No physical system can have infinite memory, but if the limitation of finite memory is ignored, most programming languages are otherwise Turing-complete.

How do you make a system Turing complete? ›

In general, for an imperative language to be Turing-complete, it needs:

A form of conditional repetition or conditional jump (e.g., while , if + goto )
A way to read and write some form of storage (e.g., variables, tape)

Jan 29, 2012

Which logic gates are Turing complete? ›

Theoretically speaking, an infinite number of NAND (inverted AND) logic gates can be used to build a Turing machine. This is because NAND and NOR are the universal logic gates. In the real world, one can never build a Turing complete machine because infinite memory does not exist.

What are the components of Turing? ›

In its simplest form, a general Turing machine model is composed of three important elements: an infinite input tape, a read/write head, and a finite control. The model of Turing machine is shown in Fig. 6.1.

See Details ›

Is Turing a programming language? ›

Turing is a high-level, general purpose programming language developed in 1982 by Ric Holt and James Cordy, at University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada.

What code language does Bitcoin blockchain use? ›

What language is Bitcoin Blockchain written in? The Bitcoin programming language, as per our experts, is written in C++.

Keep Reading ›

What is Bitcoin scripting in blockchain? ›

Bitcoin Script is the programming language used by Bitcoin to create smart contracts. It's a simple, stack-based language that allows users to create various conditions for spending their Bitcoin. In this blog, we'll cover the basics of Bitcoin Script, how it works, and some examples of its use.

Learn More Now ›

What is the Turing complete rule? ›

Like Life, Rule 110 with a particular repeating background pattern is known to be Turing complete. This implies that, in principle, any calculation or computer program can be simulated using this automaton. An example run of the rule 110 cellular automaton over 256 iterations, starting from a single cell.

Keep Reading ›

Why is the Bitcoin language not Turing complete? ›

Bitcoin is not considered Turing complete because its scripting language is intentionally designed to be limited in functionality.

Know More ›

Is halting problem Turing completeness? ›

The halting problem is a decision problem about properties of computer programs on a fixed Turing-complete model of computation, i.e., all programs that can be written in some given programming language that is general enough to be equivalent to a Turing machine.

Know More ›