IP Library Granted Patent US 12,289,408
Granted Patent B2
US 12,289,408 · App. 16/649,494 · Granted Apr 29, 2025

Smart contract execution using distributed coordination

Inventors: John Fletcher (Cambridge, GB); Thomas Trevethan (London, GB)
Assignee: NCHAIN LICENSING AG
H04L9/14G06Q10/10G06Q20/085G06Q20/108G06Q20/1235G06Q20/38215G06Q20/3829G06Q20/401G06Q30/0185G06Q40/02H04L9/085H04L9/0861H04L9/30H04L9/3242G06Q2220/00H04L9/50H04L2209/16H04L2209/56
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,289,408
App. No.
16/649,494
Granted
Apr 29, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

The invention relates to distributed ledger technologies such as consensus-based blockchains. Computer-implemented methods for smart contract outcome determination are described. The invention is implemented using a blockchain network, which may be, for example, a Bitcoin blockchain. A set of conditions is determined between counterparties, with the set of conditions having a plurality of possible outcomes that includes a first possible outcome associated with a first distribution of a digital asset and a second possible outcome associated with a second distribution, different from the first distribution, of the digital asset. A counterparty transaction is created that includes, as output, the set of conditions encoded into computer-executable instructions and the digital asset. An outcome is received from a third party, with the outcome corresponding to the first possible outcome or the second possible outcome. An outcome transaction is created to transfer control of the digital asset of the counterparty transaction, the outcome transaction including the outcome as input. As a result of validating the outcome transaction at a node in a blockchain network, the digital asset is distributed, based at least in part on the outcome, to the counterparties in accordance with the first possible outcome or the second possible outcome.

Claims (56)

1. A computer-implemented method comprising:

determining a set of conditions between counterparties, the set of conditions having a plurality of possible outcomes that includes:

a first possible outcome associated with a first distribution of a digital asset; and

a second possible outcome associated with a second distribution, different from the first distribution, of the digital asset;

creating a counterparty transaction that includes, as output, the set of conditions encoded into computer-executable instructions and the digital asset;

receiving an outcome from a third party, the outcome corresponding to the first possible outcome or the second possible outcome;

creating an outcome transaction to transfer control of the digital asset of the counterparty transaction, the outcome transaction including the outcome as input; and

as a result of validating the outcome transaction at a node in a blockchain network distributing, based at least in part on the outcome, the digital asset to the counterparties in accordance with the first possible outcome or the second possible outcome;

the method further comprising:

receiving, from the third party, a plurality of outcome keys corresponding to the plurality of possible outcomes, wherein the outcome is a cryptographic key that corresponds to one of the plurality of outcome keys;

combining a secret value determined by the counterparties with each of the plurality of outcome keys to produce a plurality of obfuscated outcome keys;

creating the counterparty transaction to further include the plurality of obfuscated outcome keys; and

validating the outcome transaction includes:

combining the cryptographic key with the secret value to produce an outcome signing key for signing the outcome transaction; and

distributing the digital asset to the counterparties based at least in part on which of the plurality of obfuscated outcome keys is associated with the outcome signing key.

2. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1 , wherein the third party is a group comprising a plurality of members.

3. The computer-implemented method according to claim 2 , wherein the outcome is a result of a consensus of answers submitted by the plurality of members.

4. The computer-implemented method according to claim 2 , further comprising:

determining:

an amount of members to comprise the plurality of members; and

a threshold number to determine the outcome; and

the outcome matches answers submitted by at least the threshold number of the plurality of members.

5. The computer-implemented method according to claim 4 , wherein the outcome is determined based at least in part on key shares submitted by the plurality of members, the key shares determined according to a secret sharing scheme.

6. The computer-implemented method according to claim 5 , wherein the key shares are committed by the plurality of members to a block in a proof-of-stake blockchain.

7. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1 , further comprising:

creating at least one coordination algorithm transaction associated with a second digital asset; and

as a result of validating a fee transaction created to transfer control of the second digital asset, distributing the second digital asset to the third party.

8. The computer-implemented method according to claim 7 , wherein the second digital asset comprises a deposit portion contributed by the third party.

9. The computer-implemented method according to claim 7 , wherein the second digital asset comprises a fee portion contributed by the counterparties.

10. The computer-implemented method according to claim 9 , wherein:

the outcome is a result of a consensus of answers submitted by a plurality of members;

the plurality of members includes a member whose answer is a mismatch to the consensus; and

as a result of the answer being a mismatch to the consensus of answers, distributing of the second digital asset excludes the member from receiving the fee portion.

11. A system, comprising:

a processor; and

memory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes the system to perform the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 .

12. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by a processor of a computer system, cause the computer system to at least perform the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 .

13. A system, comprising:

a processor; and

memory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes the system to perform the computer-implemented method according to claim 2 .

14. A system, comprising:

a processor; and

memory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes the system to perform the computer-implemented method according to claim 7 .

15. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by a processor of a computer system, cause the computer system to at least perform the computer-implemented method according to claim 2 .

16. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by a processor of a computer system, cause the computer system to at least perform the computer-implemented method according to claim 7 .

17. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1 , wherein one of the plurality of possible outcomes is associated with a timeout condition for the set of conditions, and further wherein the plurality of possible outcomes further includes a third possible outcome associated with a third distribution of the digital asset, different from the first and second distributions of the digital asset, the third possible outcome being associated with said timeout condition.

18. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1 , wherein the digital asset comprises a first amount of the digital asset contributed by a first party and a second amount of the digital asset contributed by a second party.

19. The computer-implemented method according to claim 18 , wherein:

one of the plurality of possible outcomes is associated with a timeout condition for the set of conditions; and

the method further comprises:

as a result of validating the outcome transaction and as a result of an occurrence of the timeout condition, refunding the first amount to the first party and the second amount to the second party.

20. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1 , wherein the digital asset comprises a first amount of the digital asset contributed by a first party and a second amount of the digital asset contributed by a second party.

21. The computer-implemented method according to claim 20 , wherein:

one of the plurality of possible outcomes is associated with a timeout condition for the set of conditions; and

the method further comprises:

as a result of validating the outcome transaction and as a result of an occurrence of the timeout condition, refunding the first amount to the first party and the second amount to the second party.

Assignments (3)
CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Dec 11, 2022
From: NCHAIN HOLDINGS LTD
To: NCHAIN LICENSING AG
Reel/Frame 062114/0351 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Mar 20, 2020
From: FLETCHER, JOHN; TREVETHAN, THOMAS
To: NCHAIN HOLDINGS LTD
Reel/Frame 052181/0861 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Mar 20, 2020
From: TREVETHAN, THOMAS
To: NCHAIN HOLDINGS LTD
Reel/Frame 052182/0018 →
Priority Claims (2)
GB 1715423 · Sep 22, 2017 · national
GB 1715701 · Sep 28, 2017 · national
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20200311678A1 · Oct 1, 2020
References Cited (112)
US 10535111B2 · O'Brien · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 10778439B2 · Cheng · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 11057198B2 · Linder · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 11239994B2 · Bowman · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 11315193B1 · Kim · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 11392955B2 · Thomas · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 11514448B1 · Liberman · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20010049616A1 · Khuzadi · 2001 [cited by examiner]
US 20070118449A1 · De La Motte · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 20130046983A1 · Zhu et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130304599A1 · Vincent · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 20140058968A1 · Booth · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20140304262A1 · Makki · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20150244690A1 · Mossbarger · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20150379510A1 · Smith · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20160217532A1 · Slavin · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160342988A1 · Thomas · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20170046664A1 · Haldenby et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170048235A1 · Lohe et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170085545A1 · Lohe et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170103472A1 · Shah · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170155515A1 · Androulaki et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170180134A1 · King · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20170213210A1 · Kravitz · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20170230189A1 · Toll et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170237554A1 · Jacobs · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20170243193A1 · Manian et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170249637A1 · Tribak Lyedri · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20170287068A1 · Nugent · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170287090A1 · Hunn et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170301031A1 · Naqvi · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180005186A1 · Hunn · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180019984A1 · Isaacson · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180025442A1 · Isaacson · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180127511A1 · Payne et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180240107A1 · Andrade · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180260921A1 · Wagstaff · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180278594A1 · Schiffman · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180365686A1 · Kondo · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20190080299A1 · Thom · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190081796A1 · Chow · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190164137A1 · Vincent · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190213564A1 · Chan et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190244227A1 · Inoue · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200228512A1 · Ateniese · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200234386A1 · Blackman et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200311678A1 · Fletcher · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200313884A1 · Trevethan · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200327498A1 · Weber · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20210082044A1 · Sliwka · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210097187A1 · Guyomarc'h · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210336956A1 · Bitauld et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20230132211A1 · Ateniese · 2023 [cited by examiner]
CN 106204287A · 2016 [cited by applicant]
EP 3259725B1 · 2020 [cited by examiner]
FR 3049137A1 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
WO WO0205115A2 · 2002 [cited by examiner]
WO WO2017011601A1 · 2017 [cited by examiner]
WO 2017151861A1 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
WO 2017190795A1 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
WO 2018127511A1 · 2018 [cited by applicant]
Edgar, Edmund. [ANN] Reality Keys: An oracle letting you use external state in transactions. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423638.0;all. 2014 (Year: 2014) (Year: 2014). [cited by examiner]
Edgar, Edmund. [ANN] Reality Keys: An oracle letting you use external state in transactions. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423638.0;all. 2014 (Year: 2014) (Year: 2014) (Year: 2014). [cited by examiner]
Edgar, Edmund. [ANN] Reality Keys: An oracle letting you use external state in transactions. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423638.0;all. 2014 (Year: 2014) (Year: 2014) (Year: 2014) (Year: 2014). [cited by examiner]
Edmund, Edgar, “[ANN] Reality Keys: An Oracle Letting You Use External State in Transactions”. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423638.0, Jan. 20, 2014, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]
Andresen, “Bit-thereum,” GavinTech, Jun. 9, 2014 [retrieved Feb. 20, 2018], http://gavintech.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/bit-thereum.html#!/2014/06/bit-thereum.html, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
Antonopoulos, “Mastering Bitcoin—Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies,” O'Reilly Media, Inc., Dec. 20, 2014, 282 pages. [cited by applicant]
Arhag, “Re: Can Bitshares incorporate an Actual decentralized exchange?,” Bitsharetalk, Jan. 10, 2015 [retrieved Feb. 20, 2018], https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13101.msg171855#msg171855, 8 pages. [cited by applicant]
Belcher, “Payment Channel Payouts: An Idea for Improving P2Pool Scalability,” retrieved from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2135429.0, Aug. 2017, 14 pages. [cited by applicant]
Bitcoin Wiki, “Contract,” retrieved from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contract, Jan. 5, 2017, 12 pages. [cited by applicant]
Bitshares, “Delegated Proof-of-Stake Consensus,” May 7, 2017, https://web.archive.org/web/20161102133058/ https://bitshares.org/technology/delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus, 5 pages. [cited by applicant]
Buterin, “Ethereum and Oracles,” Ethereum Blog, Jul. 22, 2014 [retrieved Feb. 5, 2018], https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/22/ethereum-and-oracles/, 16 pages. [cited by applicant]
Buterin, “SchellingCoin: A Minimal-Trust Universal Data Feed,” Ethereum Blog, Mar. 28, 2014, 7 pages. [cited by applicant]
Edgar, “bymycoins.github.io / js / bitcore_monkey_patches.js,” Aug. 8, 2014 [retrieved Feb. 20, 2018], https://github.com/bymycoins/bymycoins.github.io/blob/5031b3fbfce9c35d8eeae3825c8c2d784781466f/js/bitcore_monkey_pat… [cited by applicant]
Edgar, “Reality Keys: Reality Keys and Peer-to-peer Contracts,” KK Social Minds, Aug. 8, 2014 [retrieved Feb. 12, 2018], www.socialminds.jp/realitykeys/slides, 21 pages. [cited by applicant]
Edgar, “RealityKeys—Examples,” retrieved from https://github.com/edmundedgar/realitykeys-examples/blob/master/realitykeysdemo.py, Jun. 13, 2015, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Edmundedgar, “[ANN] Reality Keys: An Oracle Letting You use External State in Transactions,” retrieved from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423638.0, Jan. 20, 2014, 7 pages. [cited by applicant]
Ellis et al., “ChainLink: A Decentralized Oracle Network,” Sep. 4, 2017 [retrieved Feb. 5, 2018], https://link.smartcontract.com/whitepaper, 38 pages. [cited by applicant]
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. [cited by applicant]
Goldfeder et al., “Securing Bitcoin Wallets via a New DSA/ECDSA Threshold Signature Scheme,” retrieved from https://www.cs.princeton.edu/˜stevenag/threshold_sigs.pdf, 26 pages. [cited by applicant]
Goldfeder et al., “Securing Bitcoin wallets via threshold signatures” Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy, Mar. 28, 2014, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
Ibrahim, “Efficient Dealer-Less Threshold Sharing of Standard RSA,” International Journal of Network Security,8(2): Mar. 2009, 12 pages. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Dec. 13, 2018, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2018/057056, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Dec. 13, 2018, Patent Application No. PCT/IB2018/057058, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]
Kudos, “The Blockchain Protocol for Trusted Ratings and Performance Driven Rewards,” 2018, 27 pages. [cited by applicant]
Kudos, “The Kudos Project,” retrieved from https://www.kudosproject.com/, 2017, 8 pages. [cited by applicant]
Lina, “Blockchain Based Review Platform,” Lina Network, Jan. 1, 2018, 23 pages. [cited by applicant]
Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,” Bitcoin, Oct. 31, 2008, https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin. pdf, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Orisi, “Orisi White Paper,” retrieved from https://github.com/orisi/wiki/wiki/Orisi-White-Paper, Nov. 29, 2014, 5 pages. [cited by applicant]
Poon, “Sighash_Noinput in Segregated Witness,” retrieved from https://bitcoin-development.narkive.com/ByYWXcxA/sighash-noinput, 2016, 7 pages. [cited by applicant]
Pratyush et al., “Efficient Weighted Threshold ECDSA for Securing Bitcoin Wallet,” Isea Asia Security and Privacy, 2017, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Reality Keys, “Crowd-Sourced Verification for Smart Contracts,” retrieved from https://www.realitykeys.com/, 2012, 5 pages. [cited by applicant]
Revain, “New Generation Feedback Platform Based on the Blockchain Technology,” Revain Technologies Inc, 2017, 24 pages. [cited by applicant]
Rikken, “BPM and Blockchain, miles apart or closer than you think?” retrieved from https://www.bpmleader.com/2015/11/17/bpm-blockchain-miles-apart-closer-think/, 2015, 3 pages. [cited by applicant]
Satoshi et al., “Connection Limits,” Bitcoin Forum, Aug. 9, 2010, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741.0;prev_next=prev, 2 pages. [cited by applicant]
Schwartz et al., “Smart Oracles: A Simple, Powerful Approach to Smart Contracts,” Codius, Jul. 17, 2014 [retrieved Feb. 5, 2018], https://github.com/codius/codius/wiki/Smart-Oracles:-A-Simple,-Powerful-Approach-to-Smart… [cited by applicant]
SIA, “Schelling Points, Prediction Markets, and Consensus,” retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20160305135439/http://blog.sia.tech/2015/11/30/the-limitationsof-schelling-points/, Nov. 30, 2015, 6 pages. [cited by applicant]
Singh et al., “Efficient Weighted Threshold ECDSA for Securing Bitcoin Wallet,” 2017 ISEA Asia Security and Privacy (ISEASP), http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7976994/, Jan. 29, 2017, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]
Stathakopoulou et al., “Threshold Signatures for Blockchain Systems,” IBM Research Report, Apr. 4, 2017, 42 pages. [cited by applicant]
Sun et al., “A completely fair secret sharing scheme without dealer,” 2016 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics—Taiwan (ICCE-TW), May 27, 2016, 2 pages. [cited by applicant]
Todd, “[bitcoin-dev] Building Blocks of the State Machine Approach to Consensus,” petertodd.org, Jun. 20, 2016, https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-June/012773.html, six pages. [cited by applicant]
Todd, “CoinCovenants using SCIP Signatures, an Amusingly Bad Idea,” retrieved from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260898.60, Aug. 2013, 19 pages. [cited by applicant]
Todd, “Implementing External State Contracts—Feedback Requested,” retrieved from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260898.60, Aug. 2013, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Torpey, “What is a Bitasset?,” CoinJournal, Feb. 26, 2015 [retrieved Feb. 20, 2018], https://coinjournal.net/what-is-a-bitasset/, three pages. [cited by applicant]
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Feb. 8, 2017, Patent Application No. GB1715701.7, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Jan. 26, 2018, Patent Application No. GB1715423.8, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
UK IPO Search Report mailed Mar. 20, 2018, Patent Application No. GB1715701.7, 8 pages. [cited by applicant]
UK IPO Search Report mailed Mar. 22, 2018, Patent Application No. GB1715423.8, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]
Vorick, “Schelling Points, Prediction Markets, and Consensus,” Medium, Nov. 30, 2015 [retrieved Feb. 20, 2018], six pages. [cited by applicant]
Xeroc, “Simple Side-chaining for Graphene-based Blockchains (BitShares/PeerPlays/Steem),” retrieved from https://steemit.com/bitshares/@xeroc/simple-sidechaining-for-graphene-based-blockchains-bitsharespeerplayssteem, 2… [cited by applicant]
Zapit, “The Only Blockchain-Verified Product Reviews Platform,” 2018, 13 pages. [cited by applicant]
Zoltu, “When System Redistributes REP from the Bad Reporters?” retrieved from https://augur.stackexchange.com/questions/210/when-systemredistributes-rep-from-the-bad-reporters, Dec. 8, 2017, 1 page. [cited by applicant]