IP Library Granted Patent US 12,341,892
Granted Patent B2
US 12,341,892 · App. 18/121,545 · Granted Jun 24, 2025

Computer-implemented systems and methods relating to a binary blockchain comprising a pair of coupled blockchains

Inventors: John Fletcher (Cambridge, GB); Martin Sewell (London, GB)
Assignee: NCHAIN LICENSING AG
H04L9/3213G06F16/27H04L9/3218H04L9/3239H04L9/50
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 12,341,892
App. No.
18/121,545
Granted
Jun 24, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

There may be provided a computer-implemented method. The computer-implemented method includes: i) after a proof-of-stake token is transferred to an address of a determined type on a proof-of-stake blockchain, adding a record of the transfer of the proof-of-stake token to the proof-of-work blockchain; ii) identifying a node, from a group of nodes, to participate in adding a block to the proof-of-stake blockchain, the identifying based on the proof-of-work blockchain; and iii) including a block submitted by the identified node in the proof-of-stake blockchain.

Claims (26)

1. A computer-implemented method comprising:

after a proof-of-stake token is transferred to an address of a determined type on a proof-of-stake blockchain, adding a record of the transfer of the proof-of-stake token to a proof-of-work blockchain;

identifying a node, from a group of nodes, to participate in adding a block to the proof-of-stake blockchain, the identifying based on the proof-of-work blockchain;

including the block submitted by the node in the proof-of-stake blockchain; and

identifying a withdrawal request issued by the node and excluding the node that issued the withdrawal request from the group of nodes;

wherein the node that sent the withdrawal request broadcasts a proposed transaction that transfers a security deposit to a regular address; and

identifying a primary blockchain and a secondary blockchain as a true copy of the primary blockchain and the secondary blockchain by identifying the secondary blockchain containing a largest amount of work and comparing a distribution of proof-of-stake tokens from the identified secondary blockchain with a distribution of blocks mined in the primary blockchain.

2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein identifying the node is performed deterministically according to predetermined criteria such that other nodes of a network identify a common node.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the identifying is performed using cryptographic sortation.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the block generates a new token and transfers control of the new token to another node that added the record of the transfer of the proof-of-stake token to the proof-of-work blockchain.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the block generates a new token and transfers control of the new token to the identified node.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the withdrawal request is identified from metadata of a transaction associated with the proof-of-work blockchain.

7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising, after an unbonding period associated with a withdrawal request, updating the proof-of-stake blockchain to return a proof-of-stake token associated with the withdrawal request to the node that issued the withdrawal request.

8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7 , wherein the unbonding period is a predetermined number of blocks associated with the proof-of-work blockchain.

9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising:

rejecting a block submitted by another node that is not the identified node.

10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising:

prior to including the block in the proof-of-stake blockchain, verifying that the block has been validated by a group of validator nodes, the group of validator nodes being a subset of the group of nodes, the validator nodes being identified based on the proof-of-work blockchain.

11. The computer-implemented method of claim 10 , wherein the group of validator nodes are configured to perform a byzantine algorithm to validate the block.

12. The computer-implemented method of claim 7 , wherein a sender of the withdrawal request broadcasts a proposed transaction that transfers a security deposit to a regular address.

13. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed, configure a processor to perform the method of claim 1 .

14. An electronic device comprising:

an interface device;

a processor coupled to the interface device; and

a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having stored thereon computer executable instructions which, when executed, configure the processor to perform the method of claim 1 .

15. The electronic device of claim 14 , wherein the memory stores a binary blockchain comprising a proof-of-work blockchain and a proof-of-stake blockchain.

Assignments (2)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Mar 14, 2023
From: FLETCHER, JOHN; SEWELL, MARTIN
To: NCHAIN HOLDINGS LTD.
Reel/Frame 062982/0626 →
CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Mar 14, 2023
From: NCHAIN HOLDINGS LTD
To: NCHAIN LICENSING AG
Reel/Frame 063087/0225 →
Priority Claims (1)
GB 1713031 · Aug 14, 2017 · national
Continuity (2)
Continuation 16638675
Related Publication 20230283473A1 · Sep 7, 2023
References Cited (39)
US 11616649B2 · Fletcher · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 20170163733A1 · Grefen et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170236123A1 · Ali et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170338963A1 · Berg · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20190108364A1 · Roennow · 2019 [cited by examiner]
CN 106453377A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
CN 107222482A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
GB 2549085A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
WO 2017162904A1 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
WO 2017167550A1 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
Bitfury Group “Proof of Stake versus Proof of Work” [online] Bitfury Group, 2015 [retrieved Sep. 24, 2021]. Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://bitfury.com/content/downloads/pos-vs-pow-1.0.2.pdf (Year: 2015). [cited by examiner]
Neblio “Staking, Explained” [online] Neblio, Jul. 2, 2017 [retrieved Sep. 24, 2021]. Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://bitfury.com/content/downloads/pos-vs-pow-1.0.2.pdf (Year: 2017). [cited by examiner]
Kwon, Jae “Tendermint: Consensus without Mining” [online] Tendermint, 2014 [retrieved Sep. 24, 2021]. Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://tendermint.com/static/docs/tendermint.pdf (Year: 2014). [cited by examiner]
Chepurnoy, Alexander et al. “Twinscoin: A Cryptocurrency via Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake” [online] IACR, Mar. 2017 [ retrieved Sep. 24, 2021]. Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/232.pdf … [cited by examiner]
Kwon, Jae “Tendermint: Consensus without Mining” [online] Tendermint, 2014 [retrieved Sep. 24, 2021]. Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://tendermint.com/static/docs/tendermint.pdf (Year: 2014) (Year: 2014). [cited by examiner]
King, Sunny et al. “PPCoin: Peer-to-Peer Crypto-Currency with Proof-of-Stake” [online] Decred, Aug. 19, 2012 [retrieved Sep. 24, 2021] Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://decred.org/research/king2012.pdf (Year: 20… [cited by examiner]
Chen, Jing et al. “Algorand” [online] Cornell University, May 26, 2017 [retrieved Sep. 24, 2021]. Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https ://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.01341.pdf (Year: 2017). [cited by examiner]
Anonymous, “Delayed Proof of Work (dPoW) Whitepaper,” Komodo Platofrm, Aug. 30, 2016, https://www.komodoplatform.com/en/technology/whitepapers/Komodo_dPoW_Whitepaper_v1.pdf, 17 pages. [cited by applicant]
Anonymous, “Delayed Proof of Work (dPoW),” Komodo Platofrm Wiki, Jun. 18, 2017, https://wiki.komodoplatform.com/wiki/Delayed_Proof_of_Work_%28dPoW%29, 2 pages. [cited by applicant]
Antonopoulos, “Mastering Bitcoin—Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies,” O'Reilly Media, Inc., Dec. 20, 2014, 282 pages. [cited by applicant]
Bitfury Group, “Proof of Stake versus Proof of Work White Paper Version 1.0,” Bitfury Group, Sep. 13, 2015, https://bitfury.com/content/downloads/pos-vs-pow-1.0.2.pdf, 26 pages. [cited by applicant]
Bitfury Group, “Proof of Stake Versus Proof of Work,” White Paper, Sep. 13, 2015, 26 pages. [cited by applicant]
Blueperrier et al., “Crazy idea: let's create a novel mechanism against 51% attack. See inside! [x-post /r/ dogecoindev],” Reddit, Apr. 8, 2014, https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/22kshx/crazy_idea_lets_create_a… [cited by applicant]
Chen et al, “Algorand” Cornell University, Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.01341.pdf, May 26, 2017, 75 pages. [cited by applicant]
Chepurnoy et al, “Twinscoin: A Cryptocurrency via Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake” IACR, Mar. 2017 [retrieved Sep. 24, 2021 from https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/232.pdf], 2017. [cited by applicant]
Duong et al., “TwinsCoin: A Cryptocurrency via Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake,” Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Blockchains, Cryptocurrencies, and Contracts, May 22, 2018, https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/232.pdf, … [cited by applicant]
Fisher et al., “Proof of Proof: A Trustless, Permissionless, Decentralized, and Scalable Means of Inheriting Proof-of-Work Security,” Veriblock, May 17, 2017, https://www.veriblock.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/POP-Whi… [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Oct. 18, 2018, Patent Application No. PCT/ B2018/055992, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
King et al., “PPCoin: Peer-to-Peer Crypto-Currency with Proof-of-Stake,” self-published paper, Aug. 19, 2012, https://ia601905.us.archive.org/1/items/PPCoinPaper/ppcoin-paper.pdf, 6 pages. [cited by applicant]
Kokoris-Kogias et al., “Enhancing bitcoin security and performance with strong consistency via collective signing,” 25th Usenix Security Symposium 2016, Aug. 10, 2016, 19 pages. [cited by applicant]
Kwon, “Tendermint: Consensus without Mining,” Darft v 0.6, Aug. 2014, https://tendermint.com/static/docs/tendermint.pdf, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
Lerner, “Rsk Merge Mining (RMM) and Bitcoin Interoperability,” RSK, Jun. 26, 2016, https://prints.oxs.cz/24/data/RSKMergeMiningandBitcoinInteroperability.pdf, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Micali et al., “ALGORAND: The efficient and democratic ledger,” CoRR, abs/1607.01341 3(3):3-, May 2016, 75 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]
Neblio, “Staking, Explained, ” Medium, Jul. 2, 2017, https://medium.com/neblio-blog/staking-explained-8c8d67f289c0, 6 pages. [cited by applicant]
Realbitcoin et al., “Are these BTC fixes feasible?,” Bitcoin Forum, Jan. 6, 2017, https://bitcointalk.to/index.php? topic=1697981.0;prev_next=prev, 7 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]
UK Commercial Search Report mailed Jan. 12, 2018, Patent Application No. GB1713031.1, 7 pages. [cited by applicant]
Veriblock, “Homepage,” Veriblock, copyright 2017, https://web.archive.org/web/20170517172845/http://www.veriblock.com:80/, 7 pages. [cited by applicant]