Patent Grant
11625694
The present invention relates to distributed, peer-to-peer ledgers and, in particular, blockchain technologies. The invention also relates in part to tokenisation and security techniques, and secure mechanisms for transferring entities and/or ownership of entities via a blockchain. It may comprise a method of performing secure transactions between different parties over a blockchain.
A blockchain is a peer-to-peer, 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 (Tx) 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. 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 research is the use of the blockchain for the implementation of “smart contracts”. These are computer programs designed to automate the execution of the terms of a machine-readable contract or agreement. Unlike a traditional contract which would be written in natural language, a smart contract is a machine executable program which comprises rules that can process inputs in order to produce results, which can then cause actions to be performed dependent upon those results.
Another area of blockchain-related interest is the use of ‘tokens’ (or ‘coloured coins’) to represent and transfer real-world entities via the blockchain. A potentially sensitive or secret item can be represented by the token which has no discernable meaning or value. The token thus serves as an identifier that allows the real-world item to be referenced from the blockchain. Tokenisation techniques can be used in respect of many different types of contexts where security, anonymity and cross-platform compliance are important. One such application area is financial applications, although the present invention is not limited to use in relation to financial transactions.
In this document we use the term ‘blockchain’ to include all forms of electronic, computer-based, distributed ledgers. These include, but are not limited to consensus-based 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.
The invention is defined in the appended claims.
The present invention may provide solutions for the secure control and/or transfer or exchange of an asset via a blockchain. Herein, the term “entity” may be used interchangeably with “asset”. Additionally or alternatively, the invention may enable control and/or transfer of ownership of the asset. This may be a digital or virtual asset such as a smart contract, or a real-world/physical asset. The asset may be a right such as a licence or right to use or some sort of right relating to some type of property. The invention may use tokenisation techniques to facilitate this control or transfer. The invention may enable the transfer/exchange to be performed in a secure manner, incorporating the use of cryptographic keys, while not requiring any alteration of the underlying blockchain protocol. The invention may use techniques for embedding metadata in a script associated with a blockchain transaction (Tx).
The invention provides, not least: enhanced optimisation of memory usage for electronic transfers, improved security and data integrity through the use of hashing techniques, improved security through the removal of a need for a trusted third party, and enhanced anonymity of data. It may also provide improved communication mechanisms to enable disparate or distinct parties to identify each other and/or exchange data via the novel methods and/or architectures provided by the invention. This list of advantages is not limiting or exhaustive.
The invention may require the interaction and inter-communication of various distinct and separate computer-based resources, such as one or more user devices and a distributed computer system (blockchain) which includes computing nodes arranged to execute blockchain-related software and protocols.
The invention may provide a computer implemented method of performing an exchange of entities. The exchange may be made between a first user and a second user. It may be an exchange made over a computer network. The network may be a blockchain-implemented network. The term “user” may refer to a human user or a computer-based resource. The invention may provide an exchange control method for controlling the exchange or two or more entities. It may provide a tokenisation method for the exchange of digital entities. The invention may be described as a blockchain-implemented method.
The method may comprise the steps of:
The script may also comprise a cryptographic key associated with a third party.
Additionally or alternatively, the method may comprise the following steps:
receiving, from a first user over a communications network, a first invitation to perform the exchange, the first invitation comprising a first set of metadata associated with the invitation, wherein the first set of metadata comprises an indication of entities to be exchanged and a first set of conditions for the exchange; and/or
generating a first script, the first script comprising: the first set of metadata, a first user public key (P1A) associated with the first user, wherein the first user public key (P1A) is a cryptographic pair with a first user private key (V1A), and a first third-party public key (P1T) associated with a first third-party, wherein the first third-party public key (P1T) is a cryptographic pair with a first third-party private key (V1T); and/or hashing the first script to generate a first script hash; sending, over a first network the first script and the first script hash; and/or
sending, over a second network, a first invitation transaction for inclusion on a peer-to-peer (P2P) distributed ledger, the first invitation transaction comprising an indication of a first quantity of an encrypted, electronically transferrable digital asset to be transferred and the first script hash.
Thus, the hash of the (redeem) script may be provided within, or associated with, a blockchain transaction. This may be a P2SH transaction in accordance with the Bitcoin protocol, or another functionally equivalent transaction type in another blockchain protocol. The hash of the script may serve as a look-up key to a hash table or other storage resource. This storage resource may be a public domain repository of invitations. The storage resource may comprise the look-up key (ie the hash) and all the fields from the metadata which, in combination, define the invitation. The look-up key may be a hash of the rest of the record i.e. a hash of the concatenated metadata values. In a preferred embodiment, the metadata may comprise a pointer or other reference to the location of a contract associated with a token. The contract may be stored in a separate storage resource. The invitation (as defined by the metadata in the storage resource) may be linked to the blockchain transaction via the hash.
A number of advantages are provided by the invention, some of which are now described. Firstly, because information regarding the exchange is included in metadata securely embedded in a distributed ledger, the exchange can be carried out securely on a peer-to-peer basis, thereby making a trusted third party unnecessary. This in turn avoids the need for a large amount of sensitive information about both parties to the exchange to be held by any third party such as a service provider, which in turn avoids the risks associated with that third party's security being compromised. This advantage is provided while also preserving anonymity of the transactions. Since the first script is hashed, it would be impracticably difficult to change the values of the metadata without causing a change in the corresponding hash values of the script. This also enables the terms of the transaction to be verified by the parties, since they are locked on a publicly available distributed ledger, which enables the integrity of the transactions to be trusted. The advantage is also provided that the first metadata can be embedded in one or more of the places available for public keys in the first script, thereby enabling nodes not suitable for processing the metadata to simply transmit the script to a further node, as opposed to blocking its progress. This in turn improves computational efficiency of the related transactions. A further advantage is provided that control data can be incorporated into the metadata, for example an access code for a barrier in the case of a token representing a ticket for a venue or a travel ticket or voucher. The metadata may also contain a pointed to an off-block repository of the details of the exchange, thereby enabling less memory and/or processing resources to be used in processing the related transactions. A yet further advantage is provided that the token can be divided, enabling two or more transaction outputs, each of which can relate to tokenised or untokenised electronically transferrable digital asset.
The sending over the first network may comprise publishing the first script and the first script hash on a distributed hash table (DHT) distributed across a first network
The P2P distributed ledger may be the Bitcoin block chain. Alternatively, the P2P distribution ledger may be another cryptocurrency ledger or block chain.
Preferably, the method further comprises receiving, over a communications network, a second invitation to perform the exchange from a second user, the second invitation comprising a second set of metadata associated with the invitation, wherein the second set of metadata comprises the indication of entities to be exchanged and a second set of conditions for the exchange, one or more of the second set of conditions matching one or more of the first set of conditions; generating a second script, the second script comprising: the second set of metadata, a second user public key (P2A) associated with the second user, wherein the second user public key (P2A) is a cryptographic pair with a second user private key (V2A), and a second third-party public key (P2T) associated with a second third-party, wherein the second third-party public key (P2T) is a cryptographic pair with a second third-party private key (V2T); hashing the second script to generate a second script hash; broadcasting, on the second network, a second invitation transaction for inclusion on the P2P distributed ledger, the second invitation transaction comprising an indication of a second quantity of a cryptocurrency to be transferred and the second script hash.
The second script and the second script has may be sent over a third network. Advantageously, this includes publishing the second script and the second script hash on the P2P DHT. In doing so, a record of the second invitation can be provided. Alternatively, the second script and the second script hash may be published on a website or stored privately. The first and third networks may be the same network. Equally, the first and second network and/or the second and third networks may be the same network.
The sending over the first network may comprise sending the first script and the first script hash to the second user.
The method may further comprise generating a first exchange transaction for inclusion on the P2P distributed ledger, the first exchange transaction comprising: the first script, the first user private key (V1A), the first third-party private key (P1T), a first input provided from an output of the first invitation transaction, and an first output indicating an first quantity of a first entity to be transferred to the second user; and broadcasting, on the second network, the first exchange transaction. Additionally or alternatively, the method may further comprise generating a second exchange transaction for inclusion on the P2P distributed ledger, the second exchange comprising: the second script, the second user private key (V2A), the second third-party private key (P2T), a second input provided from an output of the second invitation transaction, and a second output indicating a second quantity of a second entity to be transferred to the first user; and broadcasting, on the second network, the second exchange transaction.
Alternatively, there may be a single transaction for the exchange. As such, the method may comprise: generating a first exchange transaction for inclusion on the P2P distributed ledger, the first exchange transaction comprising: the first script, the first user private key (V1A), the first third-party private key (P1T), the second script, the second user private key (V2A), the second third-party private key (P2T), a first input provided from an output of the first invitation transaction, a second input provided from an output of the second invitation transaction, a first output indicating a first quantity of a first entity to be transferred to the second user, and a second output indicating a second quantity of a second entity to be transferred to the first user; and broadcasting, on the second network, the first exchange transaction.
The generating of the first exchange transaction may comprise sending the first script to the first user for signing with the first user private key (V1A); receiving the first script from the first user signed with the first user private key (V1A); sending the first script signed for signing with the first third-party private key (P1T); and receiving the first script from the first third-party signed with the first third-party private key (P1T).
Alternatively, the generating of the first exchange transaction may comprise sending the first script to the second user for signing with the second user private key (V2A); receiving the first script from the second user signed with the second user private key (V1A); sending the first script to the second third-party for signing with the second third-party private key (P2T); and receiving the first script from the second third-party signed by the second third-party private key (P2T).
Generating the second exchange transaction may comprise sending the second script to the second user for signing with the second user private key (V1A); receiving the second script from the second user signed with the second user private key (V1A); sending the second script to the second third-party for signing with the second third-party private key (P2T); and receiving the second script from the second third-party signed with the second third-party private key (P2T).
The method may further comprise sending a prompt to one or more of the first and second users to accept an exchange before generating or broadcasting the first and/or second exchange transactions.
The first third-party may be an escrow service provider or a token issuer. The second third-party may be an escrow service provider or a token issuer.
The method may further comprise sending a request to the first third-party for the first third-party public key; and receiving the first third-party public key from the first third-party.
The method may further comprise sending a request to the second third-party for the second third-party public key, and receiving the second third-party public key from the second third-party.
One or more of the first transaction, the second transaction, the third transaction and the fourth transaction may utilise the pay-to-script-hash (P2SH) transaction protocol.
One or more of the first redeem script hash and the second redeem script hash may be Base58 encoded or may be a SHA-256 hash.
The entities being exchanged may be bitcoin, contracts, goods or services. Where the first and/or second entity is a contract, the contract may be for fiat currency, title deeds, tickets, goods or services a combination of all five.
Conditions for the exchange may comprise one or more range limits on one or more prices related to the exchange, an exchange rate, a deadline for fulfillment of the first invitation, and/or a limitation on the geographical area for the exchange to take place.
Embodiment(s) of the invention may comprise a technique for embedding metadata in a (blockchain) transaction, comprising the steps of:
The digital asset (B1) may be a quantity of cryptocurrency eg Bitcoin. The redeem script may be provided within a locking script of the transaction output TxO. The metadata may be provided in the redeem script at a location which is designated in a blockchain protocol as a location for a cryptographic key. This provides the advantage that the metadata can be transferred without the need for any alteration to the underlying blockchain protocol. Nodes operating the protocol will be agnostic to the use of the metadata in place of the cryptographic key.
The method may further include the step of submitting the transaction Tx to a blockchain. In effect, the cryptocurrency (B1) may thus be locked on the blockchain in association with the token. The quantity of cryptocurrency (B1) can only be spent (redeemed) upon provision of an unlocking script which meets the requirements of the locking script for the output TxO. In particular, a redeem script must be presented which, when hashed, matches the hash provided in the locking script of TxO. As the locking script for output TxO comprises the hash of the redeem script which in turn includes the token (in the metadata), the cryptocurrency (B1) is associated with the token. Upon presentation of the correct unlocking (redeem) script, ownership of the cryptocurrency (B1) may be transferred to the redeeming party or user i.e. it is spent.
The invention may provide a computer-implemented system arranged and configured to implement any method described above. Any feature(s) mentioned above in relation to one aspect or embodiment may be used in relation to any other embodiment or aspect. Any feature mentioned in relation to a method of the invention may apply equally to a corresponding, implementing system and vice versa.
Embodiments of the present invention will now be described, by non-limiting example only, with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:
State of the art methods of performing common financial transactions, such as a payment into another person's bank account or a foreign currency exchange, incur cost in both transaction fees and time delay. In contrast, transactions in electronic currencies such as bitcoin can be processed at a much faster rate (i.e. minutes rather than days) and for far less cost (in the order of a few cents per transaction rather than tens of dollars).
There exists a need for a quicker and cheaper way of performing and keeping a permanent record of day-to-day transactions, both financial and non-financial. It is important to note, that the invention is not limited to use with, or advantages for, financial applications. Instead, the present invention generally relates to methods and apparatus for utilising a P2P distributed ledger, such as the Bitcoin blockchain, to enable parties to offer, request and exchange any type of entity of value. Methods described herein enable the entry of an invitation (or order) to perform an exchange of entities as well as the enactment of the actual exchange on acceptance of an invitation. Embodiments therefore provide for a permanent record of all steps of an exchange process to be maintained. Further, each stage in the process (offer, acceptance and exchange) can be secured using cryptographic locking techniques similar to those used in transactions of cryptocurrencies. Methods described herein can also be used to exchange any type of entity. Examples of such entities include but are not limited to bitcoins, fiat currencies, contracts, goods and services. By “cryptocurrency” is meant an encrypted, electronically transferrable digital asset such as, but not limited to, Bitcoin.
Exchanges such as Coinffeine (http://www.coinffeine.com/) which involve the use of blockchain technologies are known in the art. However, such prior art arrangements still rely on traditional models, and also rely on third-party sources, escrows, and other multi-currency non-bank accounts/processors in order to operate. These known arrangements achieve their decentralisation through their business models, rather than through technical innovations and cryptographic techniques (as per the present invention).
The present invention incorporates the use of tokenisation techniques. Contracts may be exchanged using the system by way of tokens. In summary, a token is an exchangeable entity which represents a contract. The contract may take one of several forms. For example, the contract may confer a right upon the holder or denote ownership of property. The value of the token may be contractually specified and is linked to the underlying BTC amount via a ‘pegging rate’. The token is exchangeable via a novel type of transaction using a cryptocurrency protocol such as the bitcoin protocol. The bitcoin value on the transaction acts as a token representing a rights contract in digital form. The contract itself may be stored on the blockchain or may be kept in a publicly accessible off-block location, or may be held privately by the parties to the contract depending on the particular embodiment. Where the contract is not stored on the blockchain, a blockchain transaction (Tx) may store a unique pointer, identifier or other reference to the contract.
Tokens may be divisible. A divisible token is one in which the value on the transaction output can be subdivided into smaller amounts which can be allocated across multiple new tokens. Examples of divisible tokens include tokens for fiat currency or for shares in a race horse, real estate etc. Divisible contracts may be defined as those that specify a non-zero pegging rate. In other words, the token value is tied to the underlying bitcoin value. Alternatively, tokens may be non-divisible. A non-divisible token is a contract that specifies the holder's rights in terms of a fixed value, e.g. a contract to redeem a house or AU$1000. Non-divisible tokens are therefore not linked to the value of the underlying bitcoin.
Tokens must be digitally signed by a token issuer to be valid. The issuer may, for example be an authority such as a Registrar of Title deeds. The issuer may issue a token to a user in return for payment. That token may then give the user the right to exercise the contract linked to the token, whether the contract represents the right to redeem fiat currency or for a service to performed.
Examples of tokens in accordance with the above, include the following:
Tokens must specify the value of a share, e.g., 1 share=10 cents CAD, 1 share=1 rupiah, or 1 share=1% ownership of an item or property (race horse, house, etc.).
Whilst embodiments described below may refer specifically to recording transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain (or simply the blockchain), it will be appreciated that the present invention may be implemented using any P2P distributed ledger. The blockchain is used below to describe aspects of the invention for simplicity only due to its high level of standardization and large quantity of associated public documentation.
As is well known in the art, the blockchain is a transaction ledger which is distributed across networked, participating nodes. A full copy of a currency's block chain contains every transaction ever executed in the currency. Thus, a continuously growing list of transactional data records is provided. Since each transaction entered onto the block chain is cryptographically enforced, the blockchain is hardened against tampering and revision, even by operators of the data store nodes.
In embodiments of the present invention, instead of or in addition to being used in its designed function of storing a record of transactions representing payments of Bitcoins (or other cryptocurrency) from one party to another, the blockchain is used in a novel manner to enable a transfer of entities or assets between parties. The exchange transfers control and/or ownership of the digital entity from one party to another. In order to achieve this, the invention provides a mechanism for holding and recording invitations (or orders) to perform an exchange of one or more entities. The invention thus provides a novel and advantageous communication solution which is conducted via the blockchain.
As mentioned above, any type of entity or asset is exchangeable. These may be physical, “real world” entities, or virtual, digital entities. Examples of entities which may be exchanged include Bitcoins, tokens (representing any type of transferrable contract), and goods and services of any type. Tokens may represent a contract conferring specified rights upon the holder to be redeemed for fiat currency (virtual banknotes), to denote ownership of property (e.g., title deeds), or grant access to an event (tickets), to name a few of many examples. Goods and services may include new or second hand products, labour (e.g., charged by the hour), complete jobs (e.g., mowing the lawn), to name a few of many examples.
The exchange service provider 104 provides exchange services to a plurality of users, including the first user 106 and the second user 108. The issuer 112 is optional to the network 102, as denoted by broken lines. As will be discussed in more detail below, the issuer 112 is required only when exchange of tokens is involved.
In some embodiments, the network 102 is the internet. Accordingly, other parties (not shown) may be party to the network 102. All parties to the network 102 are able to communicate with all other parties to the network 102. Hosted on the network 102 are a peer-to-peer distributed hash table (P2P DHT) and a peer-to-peer distributed ledger (P2P DL). It will be appreciated that some or all of the parties shown in the system 100, together with those not shown, may act as host nodes to both or either of the P2P DHT and the P2P DL.
Structure of an Invitation
An invitation may be structured include various parameters or codes. These can be used for various purposes, eg matching invitations as described in more detail below. In one or more embodiments, the following structure may be used:
One purpose of the exchange service provider 104 is to provide a gateway for users 106, 108 to place invitations (or orders) on both the P2P DHT and the P2P DL. Whilst users 106, 108 of the network 102 may themselves place invitations on both the P2P DHT and the P2P DL, the exchange service provider 104 provides a simplified interface to improve the efficiency with which invitations are generated and to reduce the dangers associated with direct handling of transactions on a distributed ledger, such as the bitcoin ledger (e.g., losing transactions etc.) as the skilled person will appreciate. In addition to enabling the publishing of user invitations on the P2P DHT and P2P DL, the exchange service provider may perform one or more of the following additional services:
A single service provider 104 is shown in the system 100 of
In addition to the exchange service providers 104, an escrow service provider 110 (or escrow for short) may be party to the network 104. The escrow service provider 110 enables a user's offer to be held (i.e. the amount offered is reserved) until a transaction is settled, or under certain conditions to cancel an order and have returned anything that was offered in an invitation. The escrow service provider 110 acts as a neutral third party, trusted by two parties of a transaction, to provide an escrow service for transactions. Thus, the system allows users participating in a final transaction to have a guarantee that the user making an offer can fulfil the offered amount (in bitcoins or tokens).
As with exchange service providers, more than one escrow may be party to the network 104. Users of the P2P exchange system 100 may also choose which escrow provider they use, if and when they use one. In some embodiments, the services of the escrow 110 may be incorporated into those of the exchange service provider 104 or vice versa. In such case, a separate escrow may not be required.
In addition to the above, the system 100 may also comprise an issuer 112. An issuer 112 may be involved where the transaction involves the exchange of a token. In such circumstances, the process involves the issuer signing the token. Every transaction involving the transfer of a token preferably involves the issuer 112. In embodiments described herein, the issuer's signature is required in the invitation transaction, in which the token is offered and held in escrow. The issuer's signature may also be required in the exchange transaction, in which the payment of the token is made to the counterparty.
An important aspect of embodiments of the present disclosure is the ability to embed metadata concerning an invitation to perform an exchange in a bitcoin transaction (or other cryptocurrency transaction) as well as the ability to embed metadata concerning an actual exchange, in a bitcoin or other cryptocurrency transaction. Embodiments described herein use multi-signature pay to script hash (P2SH) type transactions to enable such metadata embedding as described below.
(i) Redeem Script in P2SH in General
As background, in a standard pay-to-script-hash method of the bitcoin protocol, the redeem script may take the form of:
<NumSigs PubK1 PubK2 . . . PubK15 NumKeys OP_CHECKMULTISIG>
where
To redeem the above redeem script, at least a number “m” of signatures corresponding to the public keys are required. In some examples, the order of the public keys is important and the number “m” out of “n” signatures for signing must be done in sequence. For example, say that “m” is two and the number of public keys “n” is fifteen. Say that two signatures are available for use, say Sig1 (corresponding to PubK1) and Sig 15 (corresponding to PubK15), the redeem script must be signed by Sig1 first followed by Sig15.
(ii) Embedding Metadata in a P2SH
The inventors have realised that metadata may be embedded in a P2SH in one or more of the 15 places available for the public keys in the redeem script.
For example, the P2SH may take the form of:
<NumSigs Metadata1 Metadata2 . . . PubK1 PubK2 . . . NumKeys OP_CHECKMULTISIG>
where
By placing, in a redeem script, metadata corresponding to conditions of an invitation, details of a contract associated with a token, and/or other information associated with an exchange, the hash of such information will be included in the P2P distributed ledger. This embedding method can be summarised as:
Thus, the use of multi-signature P2SH bitcoin transactions in embodiments of the present invention offers several advantages. Firstly, they enable an invitation transaction to carry a metadata payload. Secondly, they facilitate the use of escrow services in an exchange transaction. Thirdly, where tokens are transferred in an exchange, they allow an exchange transaction to carry metadata associated with the one or more tokens being exchanged. Also, the underlying blockchain protocol is agnostic to the fact that metadata is being transmitted via the transaction. Therefore, no change is required to the blockchain protocol to convey this information.
Metadata may include a description or keyword describing an offer or request in an invitation transaction. Metadata may also include conditions associated with the invitation. For example, a deadline date may be attached to the invitation which may specify a time and/or date by which the order must be fulfilled. Where a deadline condition is provided with an invitation transaction, a cancellation transaction may be generated which spends the same BTC amount and contains a locktime representing the deadline for the exchange to take place. The cancellation transaction may be prevented from being distributed on the P2P DL until the locktime. If the exchange does not take place by the deadline, the cancellation transaction is added to the P2P DL and effectively pays back the payer and or service provider. If the exchange takes place before expiry of the deadline, the exchange transaction may spend the amount, creating a double-spend that hits the P2P DL ahead of the time-locked cancellation transaction, thereby blocking the cancellation transaction. In some embodiments, the metadata may not include a deadline, but instead the cancellation transaction can be solely responsible for cancelling the original invitation transaction. Alternatively, the deadline metadata condition may not automatically cause the spending of a cancellation transaction. In other words, the deadline may be a soft deadline which remains at the payer's control. This deadline may, therefore, be extended by a party simply allowing it to lapse and still accept late matching invitations. Equally, a service provider may still attempt to match off an expired order if it remains unspent.
Instead of locking in the cancellation transaction at the same time as placing the invitation transaction, a user may wait until after the deadline and manually enter the cancellation transaction if and when he so wishes.
Conditions may also include one or more location conditions which may specify, for example, that a transaction(s) is only broadcast onto the P2P DHT if the location of the transactional broadcast is within X metres of specified coordinates. This ensures that the transaction can only take place at a specified location, for example, Bob's coffee shop.
A facility may exist that enables users to create their own new conditions and add them to the list of conditions by allocating them a previously unused condition-code. This facility may be resistant to abuse. For example, each service provider simply may make public their own table of conditions along with an associated condition-code and other parties to the system 100 can choose to adopt the same coding and may also add new ones of their own. Then if disputes arise due to, for example, re-use of condition code, the disputes may be resolved by the service provider or other users of the system 100.
Some examples of implementation of the present invention will now be described by way of example transactions between the first user 106 (referred to herein as Alice) and the second user (referred to herein as Bob). In this example the transaction is an exchange of tokenised Canadian dollars for bitcoin.
Posting an Invitation
In a first example, Alice wants to buy some tokenised Canadian dollars (CAD) for bitcoin. To advertise her interest, Alice contacts her exchange service provider 104 through, for example, a web interface or via an app running on a tablet or cell phone. As shown in
At step 208, Alice receives from the service provider 104 a redeem script which has been generated by the service provider 104 based on her selections and includes information concerning the entities Alice wishes to exchange and any conditions associated with the invitation. Because Alice has signed up to use the particular service provider 104, the service provider 104 may already have Alice's public key. Alternatively, Alice may provide her public key to the service provider 104 either during the initial selection, or in response to a request from the service provider 104.
Alice signs the redeem script at step 210 using her private key, which is a cryptographic pair to her public key, and at step 212 sends the signed redeem script back to the service provider 104 to be distributed. This process may be supported with the use of an app, which may itself be provided by the service provider 104.
The flow diagram 300 shown in
The redeem script is then sent to Alice for signing. Upon receipt of a signed redeem script from Alice, at step 308 the service provider 104 generates a hash of the signed redeem script.
The service provider 104 uses the hash in two ways. Firstly, at step 310, the service provider 104 lists the invitation details along with the hash on the publicly available P2P DHT. As mentioned above, this table employs the torrent technique so it is distributed rather than centralised and hence it will remain publicly accessible and safe from adulteration. Other service providers 104 are then able to access the invitation and list it on their own site (indeed, the service provider 104 may simply use the hash table as the sole repository and need not even maintain its own local database of invitations.
The second way the hash is used is to create a locking script of a bitcoin transaction, at step 312. This transaction spends an amount of Alice's bitcoins to a P2SH script requiring 2 signatures to unlock: Alice's signature and that of her nominated escrow service provider 110 (which, as mentioned above, might or might not be the same entity as the service provider 104). The purpose of this transaction is twofold. Firstly, the invitation is logged on the P2P DL. Any user or their service provider can verify that the invitation on the P2P DHT is legitimate by ensuring that there exists a matching transaction on the P2P DL (via the matching hash values). Secondly, the transaction ‘locks’ the commitment made by Alice in her invitation; the amount of bitcoin Alice is offering in exchange for tokenised CAD is the amount spent by the order transaction. Thus, it can be verified that the order is backed by sufficient funds.
Pairing Matching Invitations
In a second example, Bob wants to sell some of his tokenised CAD for BTC and has independently listed his own invitation either using the same or a different service provider to the service provider 104 used by Alice. Bob's order, too, has been listed on the hash table and embedded in a P2P DL transaction as described with reference to
Referring to
The exchange service provider 104 may run a matching algorithm operable to identify a full or partial match between Alice's and Bob's invitations. At step 402, the exchange service provider 104 scans the P2P DHT for matching entity details. During the scans, the service provider 104 checks for a match between the entity details of Alice's and Bob's invitations. If a match is not found at step 404, then the process returns to step 402 and the exchange service provider 104 continues to scan the P2P DHT for matching entity details. If a match is found at step 404, the process 400 continues to step 406 where a check is made for a match between one or more of the conditions of each of Alice and Bobs' invitations. If no match is found at step 406, the process returns to step 402. If a match between one or more conditions is found then the process moves to step 408 in which the exchange service provider 104 attempts to create and finalise a transaction between Alice and Bob.
A direct match of all conditions in the two invitations may not be required at step 406 for a positive match to be confirmed. Indeed, the process 400 may only require that some of the conditions match. Additionally or alternatively, one or more the conditions need not fully match. For example, if conditions being compared are exchange rates proposed in each condition, the process 400 may confirm a positive match provided the rates are within a predetermined threshold range of each other. For example, if Alice proposes a minimum rate condition of 4×10−5 tokenised CAD/satoshi and Bob's equivalent minimum proposed rate is 3.9×10−5 tokenised CAD/satoshi, the process may still confirm a condition match even though Bob's offered rate doesn't quite satisfy Alice's original requirements. In such circumstances, upon match, Alice may be given an option to accept. It will be appreciated that if Bob's equivalent minimum proposed rate is 4.1×10−5 tokenised CAD/satoshi, then the condition would be satisfied. In another example, the conditions might be respective values for goods and services proposed in an offer and request. The process 400 may again confirm a positive match provided the two values are within a predetermined threshold range of each other. In each case, the predetermined threshold range may be, for example, a discrete value or a percentage of the offer value or request value.
As stated previously, the transaction metadata for each or both of Bob and Alice's invitations may further comprise one or more location conditions which may specify, for example, that a transaction(s) is only broadcast onto the P2P DHT if the location of the transactional broadcast is within X metres of specified coordinates. This ensures that the transaction can only take place at a specified location, for example, Bob's coffee shop.
Once a match is found, and before completing the transaction, one or more intervening steps may be performed. These may include an alert to the parties that a match has been found, followed by a request to each or both parties for confirmation that they wish to proceed, etc. For example, as discussed above, where a condition is nearly but not fully met by one or more users, a match may still be recorded but not finalised until all parties are happy with the conditions of the invitations. This process may lead to counter offers to negotiate a final agreement on conditions, which may then lead to the generation of further invitations in accordance with processes described above.
The final exchange may be executed by creating one or more bitcoin transactions that spend the outputs of each invitation transaction. The inventors have found several novel methods of completing the transaction, which may depend on circumstances including but not limited to: the users involved in the transaction, the entities being exchanged, and the service providers and issuers involved in the transactions. Some examples of these methods are described below.
Following on from the examples described above with reference to
Referring first to the Alice-Bob transaction, the input 602 of this transaction is provided from the output of the invitation transaction which was placed on the P2P DL with Alice's invitation. Like the first transaction, the input script is signed by both Alice and the escrow service provider 110 (assuming Alice is happy for the transaction to proceed). The script unlocks the spent bitcoins which can then be output to a) Bob as his payment in return for the tokenised CAD (604), b) the exchange service provider 104 as payment for the exchange (606), and c) to Alice as change if any is due (608).
Referring now to the Bob-Alice transaction, this transaction has two inputs. The first input 610 of the transaction is provided from the output of the invitation transaction which was placed on the P2P DL with Bob's invitation. Because the input to this transaction is tokenised, the input script needs to be signed by both Bob and his token issuer. In this circumstance, the token issuer may also operate as an escrow, thereby withholding the funds until Bob (and optionally Alice) are satisfied with the transaction. The signed script unlocks the spent tokens which can then be output to a) Alice as payment in return for the BTX (612), and b) back to Bob as a change token to the value of the original token less the value sent to Alice (614). The second input 616 is from a previous bitcoin transaction of Bob's. This input is unlocked and output to a) the service provider 104 as payment for the exchange, b) the bitcoin miner as a fee for the exchange transaction and c) to Bob as change in bitcoin to the value of the original bitcoin input value less the service provider's 104 fee and the miner's fee.
The service provider's 104 fee for each transaction may be a slice of the value of the transaction. Alternatively or additionally, the fee may be a slice of the exchange rate spread between corresponding rate conditions presented in the two invitations. For example, where the offered rates overlap, the service provider 104 may fulfil both sides of the exchange at the asking rate of each and retain the difference as the fee. Alternatively or additionally, a flat fee (in satoshis, tokenised currencies or other) may be taken by the service provider 104.
Once the transaction has been completed, Bob and Alice's respective service providers may remove their invitation entries from the P2P DHT or enter a further entry which nullifies the original entry. For example, a service provider may simply leave the entry on the P2P DHT since the entry corresponds to a spend transaction, which implies that the invitation is no longer valid. Alternatively, a service provider may mark the transaction with a field that specifies that it has been spent. This may be a separate field on the DHT which corresponds to a particular entry but does not change the actual metadata associated with the invitation (this ensures that the script hash still matches the hash on the transaction). Alternatively, a service provider may delete the entry from the P2P DHT. However, a benefit of the P2P DHT is a permanent audit control for transaction using the system 100. Preferably, therefore, deletion of entries from the P2P DHT is prevented or deleted entries are archived so as to maintain a record of the entry. In one example, deleted entries are archived.
In the above example transaction, no puzzle is exchanged. In other words, the two transactions (Alice-Bob and Bob-Alice) are completely separate and discrete. It may be preferable in some cases, however, for the two transaction either to be valid or invalid.
In the above two example, two bitcoin transactions are performed to complete the exchange. Where possible, however, it is preferable to consolidate the above two transactions into a single bitcoin transaction. Doing so automatically locks together the two parts of the exchange and leads to a reduction in the overall fees paid by Alice and Bob for the transaction.
Transactions Involving More than Two Parties
Transactions described above have been in relation to exchanges between two entities. It will, however, be appreciated that in some examples more than two entities may be involved in an exchange. Consider, for example, the following scenario. Alice wishes to exchange bitcoins for apples, but will only accept a minimum of 1000 apples. Bob wants to exchange apples for bitcoins, but can only supply 500 apples. Carol wants to exchange apples for bitcoins but can only supply 600 apples. In such a circumstance, the conditions of Alice's invitation cannot be satisfied by Bob or Carol individually. Together, however, Bob and Carol have 1100 apples and so can satisfy Alice's invitation conditions.
In another example, Alice wishes to exchange tokenised CAD for tokenised GBP, Bob wishes to exchange tokenised GBP for tokenised AUD, and Carol wishes to exchange tokenised AUD for tokenised CAD. No direct match exists between any two of the three parties, but combined, each of the invitations can be satisfied—Alice's tokenised CAD can go to Carol, Bob's tokenised GBP can go to Alice, and Carol's tokenised AUD can go to Bob.
Referring first to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Receiving a Selection from a User
In a variation of the example exchange described above with reference to
Users may then skip the process of entering their own prospective invitation on the P2P DHT, but instead choose to create an invitation which matches or nearly matches the order which they're interested in.
For example, carrying on from but in contrast to the previous example, Bob may find Alice's invitation on the P2P DHT via a browsing or searching interface, in which case Bob may enter his own invitation to match that of Alice's. Bob may do this in one of several ways. In one example, there may be a facility on the interface which displays Alice's order to ‘Accept’ her order. If Bob is a client of the same exchange service provider 104 as that which Alice used for the invitation, they may already have access to Bob's eWallet (public key etc.) and can thus create the matching order based on such information. Accordingly, the exchange service provider 110 may generate a redeem script for the matching invitation, send this to Bob for signing, receive the signed redeem script and enter the order onto the P2P DL in preparation for the transaction. If Bob is not a client of Alice's exchange service provider 104, a facility may be provided to allow Bob to enter the required information and authorisations that can then enable the Service provider to create Bob's matching order. The same process as that described above with reference to
The above example describes the exchange of BTC for tokenised CAD. However, it will be appreciated that the system 100 works for any type of exchange including, for example, BTC for token of any type (i.e. representing any contract, not just for currency contracts), token of any type for token of any other type, BTC for goods/services, tokens for goods/services, or goods/services for goods/services. Additionally and theoretically, the above process can be modified to exchange of BTC for BTC, although such an exchange has no real meaning.
Exchanging Goods/Services
A slight variation of the above described transaction process is required when goods/services are involved in the exchange.
In such a case, the transaction (of the goods and/or services) comprises a description of the goods or services involved in the exchange. Unlike a token, which is represented by a contract or title deed, the description does not form a contract.
The description may or may not uniquely identify the item. For example, where a physical item is involved in the transaction, the description may refer explicitly to a unique identifier associated with that physical item. Additionally or alternatively, description metadata may include one or more of the following: a) a general description of a desired item offered or requested, e.g., “dishwasher, <3 yo”, b) reference to a specific item for sale on an auction website, e.g., “second hand product put up for sale on an auction site”, c) any number of an item type, e.g., advertise 15 t-shirts for sale that can be bought as singles or any quantity up to 15, d) reference to cash, in any specified currency, e) description of labour and payment per single job completion or for regular lawn mowing (repeating job) with payment per repetition or hour, or f) one or more keywords, e.g. “dishwasher”.
As regards services, services may be backed by a contract as with a token. As such, a service may be divisible into shares, and non-divisible services may be considered as one-time jobs, i.e. divisible but comprising a single share (1 share). If the service is non-divisible, it may be treated as a token for the purposes of invitation and exchange. Where an item is backed by a token it is treated as a token for the purposes of both invitation and exchange and is exchanged in the same manner as other tokens, such as tokens for fiat currency.
An example of a transaction involving a physical item associated with a unique identifier will now be described. Similar to previous examples, in the present example, Alice has used her exchange provider to place an invitation on the P2P DL and P2P DHT. The invitation includes a description that she will buy a physical item having unique identifier XYZ123, which may relate to Rafael's masterpiece Deposition of Christ, for no more than 2500 BTC. Equally, Bob may have placed a matching invitation that he will sell item XYZ123 for no less than 2400 BTC. Alice may have browsed the P2P DL and found the item with item number XYZ123 and placed a matching order based on this information or, alternatively, Alice may have placed a generic invitation which was then matched by a third party, e.g., an exchange service provider, and subsequently a new invitation including the catalogue item number and description was made to match Bob's order.
For transactions involving unique IDs, it will be appreciated that such IDs must be unique not only to a particular exchange service provider, but also across the entire P2P DL, forever. Therefore, if the unique identifier is not totally unique to the device (e.g. the devices serial number) then the exchange service provider may generate a unique identifier for the device. To ensure that each identifier is unique to the entire P2P DL, each exchange service provider may, for example, have their own unique code prefixed to numbers they use to uniquely identify products being advertised on the P2P DL.
Once an agreement has been reached between Alice and Bob, the transactions take place in accordance with the example transactions processes described above with reference to
A further example of a transaction involving a physical item will now be described. In this example, however, the item does not have a unique identifier associated therewith.
Where an invitation includes an offer to sell a plurality of similar items, metadata may be required to describe the maximum and minimum quantity of items which can be bought with any one transaction. For example, Alice may place invitation inferring that she will sell up to 15 Dead Lizard 2015 concert tour t-shirts for 0.025 BTC each—at least 5 per transaction. In this case, metadata values may include a minimum rate (0.025 BTC/15 items); a maximum quantity (Offer-QTY-max (15)) and a minimum quantity (Offer-QTY-min (5)). The table below summarises the metadata associated with the invitation.
The actual BTC value on the payment transaction will then be calculated by an exchange service provider. Because this transaction simply represents an invitation to perform and exchange, the actual value of the transaction may be as small, e.g. as small as dust (546 satoshis). Alternatively, as described below, the value may be a nominal amount required by a service provider to guarantee an invitation (e.g. so Alice is incentivised not to pull out).
In a further example, goods in the form of hard currency (cash) may be exchanged. For example, Alice may place an invitation to sell bitcoin for Canadian dollars (hard currency instead of tokenised) with a maximum purchase of 150 BTC. The invitation may additionally include a location condition that the exchange must take place at her shop address only: 371 Whimsy Avenue, Brentford. After placing a matching invitation, in order to finalise the transaction, Bob may then bring the cash to Alice's shop to hand over in exchange for a payment in bitcoin transaction. The actual digital transaction of bitcoin to Bob and of the digital record of transfer of hard cash to Alice, may then take place once Bob and Alice have met in her shop for the physical transfer.
In the case of a transaction involving goods/services swapped for other goods/services, it will be appreciated that the transaction on the P2P DL exists as a record only and not for exchanging any value between parties (apart from any fees to service providers etc.). Users may use the system and opt to pay the nominal service fee for entry of the transaction onto the P2P DL so that the exchange is permanently recorded.
It is noted that the original invitation transactions act as invitations only and not as value transfer or as records of events. If a goods-for-goods exchange occurs, such that the exchange involves physical items only, the final exchange need not be recorded on the P2P DL, since the P2P DL is not required to complete any transactions in the final exchange. Notwithstanding, if parties to the exchange of physical items wish to record the exchange on the P2P DL, they may each spend their invitation transactions to one another subject to a fee for the miner for doing so. If the parties do not wish to record the final exchange on the P2P DL, they may each spend their invitation transactions back to themselves, or even leave them unspent on the P2P DL.
In the case of an exchange involving BTC for goods, or tokens for goods, at least one transaction is spent on the P2P DL to transfer the value of the BTC or token. In this case, the invitation transaction offering up the goods may or may not be spent since the value of the exchange (goods) is not transferred by spending that invitation transaction. However, again, parties may decide to spend the transaction nonetheless, in order to provide a permanent record of the transfer (e.g., a receipt of sale).
The amount spent on the above transactions might not represent the offered amount in some cases, particularly when Alice's offer is not bitcoin or tokens but goods/service. Instead, the Service Provider might require a ‘deposit’ by Alice of an amount representing the value of the goods, or might only require a nominal amount if Alice is able to ‘guarantee’ the offer in another way, or (iii) might itself provide the bitcoins on Alice's behalf (she might not have any) and cover this funding cost by whatever means they charge a fee to the client.
In embodiments described above, users' invitations are published on a P2P DHT. In some embodiments, however, a user's invitation (e.g. the script and script hash) may be published on a website, sent directly to another user.
In some embodiments, a user's invitation may be stored locally by a service provider. For example, the service provider may host a private auction in which only certain users can access the user's invitation details.
Where this disclosure describes that a user, issuer, merchant, provider or other entity performs a particular action (including signing, issuing, determining, calculating, sending, receiving, creating etc.), this wording is used for the sake of clarity of presentation. It should be understood that these actions are performed by the computing devices operated by these entities.
Signing may comprise executing a cryptographic function. The cryptographic function has an input for a clear text and an input for a key, such as a private key. A processor may execute the function to calculate a number or string that can be used as a signature. The signature is then provided together with the clear text to provide a signed text. The signature changes completely if the message text or the key changes by a single bit. While calculating the signature requires little computational power, recreating a message that has a given signature is practically impossible. This way, the clear text can only be changed and accompanied by a valid signature if the private key is available. Further, other entities can easily verify the signature using the publicly available public key.
In most circumstances, encrypting and decrypting comprises a processor executing a cryptographic function to calculate an output string representing the encrypted message or a clear text message respectively.
Keys, tokens, metadata, transactions, offers, contracts, signatures, scripts, metadata, invitations, and the like refer to data represented as numbers, text or strings stored on data memory, such as variables in program code of type “string” or “int” or other types or text files.
An example of the peer-to-peer ledger is the bitcoin Blockchain. Transferring funds or paying fees in bitcoin currency comprises creating a transaction on the bitcoin Blockchain with the funds or fees being output from the transaction. An example of a bitcoin transaction includes an input transaction hash, a transaction amount, one or more destinations, a public key of a payee or payees and a signature created by using the input transaction as the input message and a private key of a payer to calculate the signature. The transaction can be verified by checking that the input transaction hash exists in a copy of the bitcoin Blockchain and that the signature is correct using the public key. To ensure that the same input transaction hash has not been used elsewhere already, the transaction is broadcast to a network of computing nodes (‘miners’). A miner accepts and records the transaction on the Blockchain only if the input transaction hash is not yet connected and the signatures are valid. A miner rejects the transaction if the input transaction hash is already linked to a different transaction.
Allocating cryptocurrency for a token comprises creating a transaction with the allocated cryptocurrency and the token represented in a metadata field in the transaction.
When two items are associated, this means that there is a logical connection between these items. In a database, for example, identifiers for the two items may be stored in the same records to make the two items associated with each other. In a transaction, identifiers for the two items may be included in the transaction string to make the two items associated with each other.
Using the bitcoin protocol, redeeming a script and/or unlocking a token comprises calculating a signature string of the script and/or transaction using the private key. The script may require more than one signature derived from different private keys or other conditions. The output of this transaction is then provided to a miner.
Authorising another entity may comprise calculating a signature string of a transaction using a private key and providing the signature string to the entity to allow the entity to use the signature to verify the transaction.
A user having an account with another entity may comprise the entity storing information about the user, such as email address, name and potentially public keys. For example, the entity may maintain a database, such as SQL, OrientDB, MongoDB or others. In some examples, the entity may also store one or more of the user's private keys.
It will be appreciated by persons skilled in the art that numerous variations and/or modifications may be made to the above-described embodiments, without departing from the broad general scope of the present disclosure. The present embodiments are, therefore, to be considered in all respects as illustrative and not restrictive.
The steps, features, integers, compositions and/or compounds disclosed herein or indicated in the specification of this application individually or collectively, and any and all combinations of two or more of said steps or features.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1603123 | Feb 2016 | GB | national |
| 1603125 | Feb 2016 | GB | national |
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/IB2017/050818 | 2/14/2017 | WO |
| Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WO2017/145003 | 8/31/2017 | WO | A |
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5535276 | Ganesan | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5600725 | Rueppel et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5761305 | Vanstone et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5867578 | Brickell et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5889865 | Vanstone et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5896455 | Vanstone et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5920630 | Wertheimer et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5933504 | Vanstone et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 6061449 | Candelore et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6078667 | Johnson | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6118874 | Okamoto et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6122736 | Vanstone et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6141420 | Vanstone et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6286098 | Wenig et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6490352 | Schroeppel | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6618483 | Vanstone et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6662299 | Price, III | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6704870 | Vanstone et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
| 6785813 | Vanstone et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6792530 | Qu et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
| 6819766 | Weidong | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6876745 | Kurumatani | Apr 2005 | B1 |
| 7003665 | Dultz et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7006633 | Reece | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7095851 | Scheidt | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7181017 | Nagel et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
| 8166481 | Dadiomov et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8401185 | Telang | Mar 2013 | B1 |
| 8520855 | Kohno et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
| 8522011 | Spalka et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8855318 | Patnala et al. | Oct 2014 | B1 |
| 9209980 | Bowman et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9251531 | Sarkissian | Feb 2016 | B2 |
| 9258130 | Hwang et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
| 9298806 | Vessenes et al. | Mar 2016 | B1 |
| 9350549 | Lumb | May 2016 | B2 |
| 9673975 | Machani | Jun 2017 | B1 |
| 10050779 | Alness et al. | Aug 2018 | B2 |
| 10068228 | Winklevoss et al. | Sep 2018 | B1 |
| 10354325 | Skala et al. | Jul 2019 | B1 |
| 10510053 | Armstrong | Dec 2019 | B2 |
| 10516527 | Machani et al. | Dec 2019 | B1 |
| 10659223 | Wright et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
| 10719816 | Kurani | Jul 2020 | B1 |
| 11115196 | Triandopoulos et al. | Sep 2021 | B1 |
| 20010050990 | Sudia | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020112171 | Ginter et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020198791 | Perkowski | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030026432 | Woodward | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030046202 | Knapp | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030048906 | Vora et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030081785 | Boneh et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030188153 | Demoff et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20040030932 | Juels et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040049687 | Orsini et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040078775 | Chow et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040111484 | Young et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040190181 | Hikosaka et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040193890 | Girault | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20050071283 | Randle et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050094806 | Jao et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050138374 | Zheng et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20060023887 | Agrawal et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060034494 | Holloran | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060153365 | Beeson | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060153368 | Beeson | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060156013 | Beeson | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060161485 | Meldahl | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060179319 | Krawczyk | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060248114 | Anderson et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20070055880 | Lauter et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070165843 | Lauter et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070192842 | Beaulieu et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070223706 | Gantman et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070265978 | Kahn et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070269040 | Yuval et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070276836 | Chatterjee et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20080082817 | Takahashi et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080101596 | Cerruti et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080137857 | Bellare et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080144836 | Sanders et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080263357 | Boyen | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080285759 | Shaw | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080288773 | Nguyen et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20090022311 | Vanstone et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090048979 | Al-Herz et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090074179 | Futa et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090161876 | Sherkin | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090282243 | Rose et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20100005302 | Vishnu et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100023771 | Struik | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100031369 | Grummt | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100037055 | Fazio et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100042839 | Ho | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100054458 | Schneider | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100054480 | Schneider | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100131752 | Flegel | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100131755 | Zhu et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100134848 | Lynggaard et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100146292 | Shi et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100150341 | Dodgson et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100172501 | Tian et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100199095 | Ho | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100217986 | Schneider | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100228973 | Dancer et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100241848 | Smith et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20110016510 | Matsuda et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110022854 | Macchetti et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110202773 | Ghouti et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110208790 | Brown et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110246766 | Orsini et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110307698 | Vanstone | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110311051 | Resch et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120011362 | Lambert | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120039474 | Ho | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120100833 | Gao | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120198228 | Oberheide et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120214441 | Raleigh | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120233674 | Gladstone et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120243687 | Li et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120284794 | Trent et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120290830 | Resch et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120331287 | Bowman et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130051552 | Handschuh et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130061049 | Irvine | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130077783 | Anshel et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130103945 | Cannon et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130177157 | Li et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130191632 | Spector et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130198104 | Parker | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130287210 | Matsuda et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130304642 | Campos | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130305057 | Greco et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130318578 | Palagummi | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20140012751 | Kuhn et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140068246 | Hartley et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140082358 | Nakhjiri et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140108473 | Nowoczynski et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140129844 | Johnson et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140223580 | Neivanov et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140250006 | Makhotin et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140270401 | Irwin et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140330923 | Baptist et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20150039470 | Crites | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150052369 | Koning et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150066748 | Winslow et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150086020 | Harjula et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150095648 | Nix | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150120567 | Van Rooyen et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150154562 | Emmerson | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150188698 | Tsai | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150188700 | Ben Saied et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150205929 | Brama | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150206106 | Yago | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150213433 | Khan | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150244690 | Mossbarger | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150254463 | Ryhorchuk et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150256347 | Tseng et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150262139 | Shtylman | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150262140 | Armstrong | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150269570 | Phan et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150294425 | Benson | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150296570 | Altamura et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150302401 | Metral | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150304302 | Zhang | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150310497 | Valin et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150324764 | Van Rooyen et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150324789 | Dvorak et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150332224 | Melika et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150332395 | Walker et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150348017 | Allmen | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150349958 | Lindell | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150350171 | Brumley | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150356523 | Madden | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150363768 | Melika et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150363770 | Ronca et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150363773 | Ronca et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150363777 | Ronca et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150379510 | Smith | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150381729 | Manohar et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160027229 | Spanos et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160028552 | Spanos et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160071108 | Caldera et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160085955 | Lerner | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160086175 | Finlow-Bates et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160092988 | Letourneau | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160098723 | Feeney | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160132684 | Barbas et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160140335 | Proulx et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160149878 | Pogorelik et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160162897 | Feeney | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160203522 | Shiffert et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
| 20160203572 | McConaghy et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
| 20160234026 | Wilkins et al. | Aug 2016 | A1 |
| 20160260171 | Ford et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160261408 | Peddada et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160261565 | Lorenz et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160261690 | Ford | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160269182 | Sriram et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160275294 | Irvine | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160283941 | Andrade | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160292672 | Fay | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160294562 | Oberheide et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160321434 | McCoy et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160335533 | Davis et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160335924 | Ikarashi et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160337119 | Hosaka et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160337124 | Rozman | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160342977 | Lam | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160342994 | Davis | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160344543 | Alness et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160350749 | Wilkins et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160352518 | Ford et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160379208 | Deliwala et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20170005804 | Zinder | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170011394 | Kumar et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170012948 | Peeters et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170017936 | Bisikalo et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170024817 | Wager et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170046664 | Haldenby et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170046698 | Haldenby et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170046792 | Haldenby et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170046806 | Haldenby et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170061138 | Lambert | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170075877 | Lepeltier | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170083907 | McDonough et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170083910 | Kraemer et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170091148 | Takahashi | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170091750 | Maim | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170103385 | Wilson, Jr. et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20170124348 | Pourzandi et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170132621 | Miller et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170148016 | Davis | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170154331 | Voorhees | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170178237 | Wong | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170178263 | Kraemer et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170187535 | Middleton | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170200137 | Vilmont | Jul 2017 | A1 |
| 20170228547 | Smith et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170243193 | Manian et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170250801 | Chen et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170300877 | Mann et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
| 20170316390 | Smith et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20170324715 | Frincu et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20180025670 | Ikarashi et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
| 20180034810 | Pe′er et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
| 20180109377 | Fu | Apr 2018 | A1 |
| 20180123780 | Ikarashi | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180146367 | Altin et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180176017 | Rodriguez et al. | Jun 2018 | A1 |
| 20180176222 | Bhaskar et al. | Jun 2018 | A1 |
| 20180225431 | Ikarashi et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
| 20180240107 | Andrade | Aug 2018 | A1 |
| 20180247191 | Katz et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
| 20180341648 | Kakavand et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180349572 | Chen et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
| 20180367298 | Wright et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
| 20180376318 | Wang et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
| 20190014094 | Le Saint | Jan 2019 | A1 |
| 20190034936 | Nolan et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
| 20190080321 | Mundis et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
| 20190080404 | Molinari et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
| 20190080406 | Molinari et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
| 20190130368 | Li et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190149337 | Savanah et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190158470 | Wright et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190188793 | Molinari et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
| 20190199531 | Staples et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
| 20190220859 | Weight et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190229911 | Allen | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190238334 | Nakamura | Aug 2019 | A1 |
| 20190340352 | Peeters et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
| 20190349733 | Nolan et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
| 20190392118 | Elden et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
| 20190392536 | Rice | Dec 2019 | A1 |
| 20200026785 | Patangia et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
| 20200250176 | Padmanabhan | Aug 2020 | A1 |
| 20200285935 | Song et al. | Sep 2020 | A1 |
| 20210056070 | Kakavand | Feb 2021 | A1 |
| 20210194677 | Pourzandi et al. | Jun 2021 | A1 |
| 20210409489 | Speasl et al. | Dec 2021 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2016100059 | Mar 2016 | AU |
| 2867765 | Apr 2016 | CA |
| 101447980 | Jun 2009 | CN |
| 102144371 | Aug 2011 | CN |
| 103440209 | Dec 2013 | CN |
| 103927656 | Jul 2014 | CN |
| 104320262 | Jan 2015 | CN |
| 105204802 | Dec 2015 | CN |
| 106022917 | Oct 2016 | CN |
| 106411503 | Feb 2017 | CN |
| 102010002241 | Mar 2012 | DE |
| 1477882 | Nov 2004 | EP |
| 2538606 | Dec 2012 | EP |
| 2975570 | Jan 2016 | EP |
| 3010176 | Apr 2016 | EP |
| 3018370 | Sep 2015 | FR |
| 3018377 | Sep 2015 | FR |
| 3018378 | Sep 2015 | FR |
| 3018379 | Sep 2015 | FR |
| H11239124 | Aug 1999 | JP |
| H11289324 | Oct 1999 | JP |
| 2000502553 | Feb 2000 | JP |
| 2001195479 | Jul 2001 | JP |
| 2002026895 | Jan 2002 | JP |
| 2006293764 | Oct 2006 | JP |
| 2007242221 | Sep 2007 | JP |
| 2008146601 | Jun 2008 | JP |
| 2009105824 | May 2009 | JP |
| 2009526411 | Jul 2009 | JP |
| 2010503320 | Jan 2010 | JP |
| 2010219912 | Sep 2010 | JP |
| 2011082662 | Apr 2011 | JP |
| 2011211461 | Oct 2011 | JP |
| 2012-515393 | Jul 2012 | JP |
| 2014068140 | Apr 2014 | JP |
| 2015536617 | Dec 2015 | JP |
| 5858506 | Feb 2016 | JP |
| 2019512909 | May 2019 | JP |
| 20110012085 | Feb 2011 | KR |
| 2015108134 | Oct 2016 | RU |
| 2015109271 | Oct 2016 | RU |
| 201202975 | Jan 2012 | TW |
| 2005096542 | Oct 2005 | WO |
| 2005107141 | Nov 2005 | WO |
| 2007113040 | Oct 2007 | WO |
| 2012039474 | Mar 2012 | WO |
| 2012054785 | Apr 2012 | WO |
| 2013034278 | Mar 2013 | WO |
| 2013053058 | Apr 2013 | WO |
| 2015127789 | Sep 2015 | WO |
| 2015142765 | Sep 2015 | WO |
| 2015171580 | Nov 2015 | WO |
| 2015175854 | Nov 2015 | WO |
| 2015188151 | Dec 2015 | WO |
| 2015194798 | Dec 2015 | WO |
| 2016022864 | Feb 2016 | WO |
| 2016137360 | Sep 2016 | WO |
| 2016161073 | Oct 2016 | WO |
| 2017006134 | Jan 2017 | WO |
| 2017112664 | Jun 2017 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Pour: “Bitcoin multisig the hard way: Understanding raw P2SH multisig transactions”, Dec. 20, 2014, URL: https://www.soroushjp.com/2014/12/20/bitcoin-multisig-the-hard-way-understanding-raw-multisignature-bitcoin-transactions/ (Year: 2014). |
| Poon et al.: “The Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments”, Jan. 14 2016, Retrieved from the Internet: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf (Year: 2016). |
| Reiner et al.: “Bitcoin Wallet Identity Verification Specification”, Feb. 27, 2015, XP055245135, Retrieved from the Internet: http://diyhpl.us/˜bryan/papers2/bitcoin/armory-verisign-bitcoin-wallet-identity-specification.pdf> [retrieved on Jul. 12, 2021] (Year: 2015). |
| 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. |
| 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 Mar. 29, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050821, 10 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 pages. |
| 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. |
| iI2012 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. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Jun. 27, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603125.4, 11 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Jun. 27, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603125.4, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 11 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Jun. 28, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603122.1, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 12 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Jun. 6, 2016, Patent Application No. 1604497.6, filed Mar. 16, 2016, 6 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Jun. 9, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603117.1, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 12 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated May 16, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603125.4, 8 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated May 20, 2016, Patent Application No. 1605026.2, 4 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated May 24, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1605571.7, filed Apr. 1, 2016, 3 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated May 9, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603112.2, 6 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated May 9, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603114.8, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 2 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Nov. 14, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1607063.3, 8 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Nov. 30, 2016, Patent Application No. 1607058.3, filed Apr. 22, 2016, 7 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Oct. 10, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1607484.1, filed Apr. 29, 2016, 5 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Sep. 30, 2016, Patent Application No. 1606630.0, filed Apr. 15, 2016, 7 pages. |
| UK Expanded Commercial Search Report dated Jun. 15, 2016, Patent Application No. 1605026.2, 5 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Dec. 12, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1606630.0, filed Apr. 15, 2016, 4 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Dec. 15, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1607063.3, 6 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Dec. 21, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1607058.3, filed Apr. 22, 2016, 3 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Dec. 28, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1604497.6, filed Mar. 16, 2016, 4 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Dec. 5, 2016, Patent Application No. 1607249.8, 4 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Dec. 6, 2016, Patent Application No. 1604493.5, 6 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Dec. 6, 2016, Patent Application No. 1607482.5, 5 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Jan. 25, 2017, Patent Application No. 1605026.2, 3 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Jan. 3, 2017, Patent Application No. 1604498.4, 4 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Jul. 26, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603114.8, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 5 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Jul. 4, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603125.4, 6 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Jul. 4, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603125.4, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 6 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Jul. 5, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603123.9, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 5 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Oct. 17, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603117.1, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 5 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Oct. 21, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603112.2, 4 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Oct. 26, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603122.1, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 4 pages. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Sep. 9, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1605571.7, filed Apr. 1, 2016, 5 pages. |
| 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. |
| 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 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, “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. |
| 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. |
| bitcoininvestor.com, “All-Star Panel: Ed Moy, Joseph VaughnPerling, Trace Mayer, Nick Szabo, Dr. Craig Wright,” YouTube, Nov. 12, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE, 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. |
| 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. |
| 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, “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. |
| 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-normalized-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/2z2l91/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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Pornin, “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. |
| 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. |
| 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 Numbers: 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. |
| Taiwanese Office Action dated Apr. 12, 2021, Patent Application No. 109142412, 5 pages. |
| Taiwanese Office Action dated Jul. 28, 2020, Patent Application No. 106105709, 9 pages. |
| Taiwanese Office Action dated 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 dated Apr. 25, 2016, Patent Application No. 11603117.1, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 11 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Feb. 17, 2017, Patent Application No. 1604493.5, 8 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Jan. 13, 2017, Patent Application No. 1604498.4, 8 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Jun. 14, 2016, Patent Application No. 1607249.8, 4 pages. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Jun. 27, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603123.9, filed Feb. 23, 2016, 11 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. |
| Antonopoulos et al., “Bitcoin Book,” GitHub, retrieved from https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook, Jun. 8, 2017, 4 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. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Dec. 21, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1607058.3, 3 pages. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 3, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050827, 13 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. |
| Franco, “Understanding Bitcoin: Cryptography, Engineering and Economics,” Wiley, ISBN: 978-1-119-01916-9, Oct. 2014, 144 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. |
| UK IPO Search Report dated Dec. 23, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1604495.0, 5 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. |
| UK Commercial Search Report dated Jun. 9, 2016, Patent Application No. GB1603114.8,4 pages. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 29, 2017, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2017/050821, 13 pages. |
| Bitcoin Forum, “Counterparty—Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance”, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.0, Feb. 1, 2014, 7 pages. |
| Buterin, “Introducing Ethereum Script 2.0”, Ethereum Foundation Blog, Feb. 3, 2014, 9 pages. |
| Brown, “On Distributed Satabases and Distributed Ledgers”, Thoughts on the Future of Finance, Nov. 8, 2016, https://gendal.me/page/3/, 44 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. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20190057362 A1 | Feb 2019 | US |
