METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DISTRIBUTED BLOCKCHAIN FUNCTIONALITIES

The present disclosure provides methods and systems for distributed and/or parallel processing of data records, and in particular validation of blockchain transactions in a blockchain block. In a preferred embodiment, a distributed validation node is disclosed in which one or more transactions are allocated to a validating resource in a plurality of validating resources. The one or more transactions relates to a portion of a Merkle tree for the block, so that each validation resource is able to operate independently on verification of a subset of the block's transactions, each subset being based on a segment of the Merkle tree. The disclosure includes advantageous techniques for at least: allocation of tree segments to different validation resources, load balancing, download of the transactions to be validated, distributed UTXO pools, indexing schemes and prevention of double spend events.

FIELD

This disclosure relates generally to improved methods and systems for processing of related or associated data records. The disclosure is particularly suited, but not limited, to use in respect of transfers effected over or using a blockchain network, such as pre and/or post mining validation of blockchain transactions, SPV checks etc. Advantages include, but are not limited to, improvements in security and resilience, efficiency or reduction of speed and resource requirements, and novel approaches to validation that have not been possible with prior art arrangements, thus leading to blockchain-implemented arrangements that have not been previously possible.

BACKGROUND

While the Bitcoin protocol and network may be referred to herein for the purpose of providing illustrative context for implementation, the disclosure is not limited to use with the Bitcoin blockchain and alternative protocols and implementations (including accounts-based and those comprising Proof-of-Stake consensus) fall within its scope. Hereafter, the term “UTXO” may be used to refer to a transaction output purely for convenience, and should not be construed as meaning that embodiments of the disclosure are limited to use in respect of UTXO-based blockchain models.

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 so that blocks become chained together to create a permanent, unalterable record of all transactions which have been written to the blockchain since its inception.

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. In some protocols, 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 i.e. it is propagated; ii) added to a new block built by a miner; and iii) mined, i.e. added to the public ledger of past transactions. Once the transaction is stored in the blockchain as a UTXO, a user can transfer control of the associated cryptocurrency to another address associated with an input in another transaction that is subsequently written to the blockchain. This is often done using a digital wallet which stores the public and private key pairs associated with the user's cryptocurrency. There are various forms of known cryptocurrency wallet, including the SPV wallet (Simplified Payment Verification). SPV techniques allow users and merchant nodes to perform local verification based on only partial information that is relevant to a particular transfer. SPV is discussed in more detail below.

However, it is known that while validation is essential to ensure security, conformity with the relevant protocol for a given blockchain, and protection against double spends exploits, it is recognised that such validation tasks can require significant resources and time due to the need to download and store blocks, maintain large UTXO pools and perform the necessary processing tasks for verification. Many users are either unable to meet such requirements or would prefer not to, possibly as they do not need to. Thus, there is a need for a faster, more efficient verification model which addresses at least these challenges (and others) without compromising security or requiring adaption of the existing protocol.

Such an improved solution has now been devised.

SUMMARY

Embodiments of the disclosure provide improved blockchain-related methods, devices and systems. In accordance with one form of wording, such embodiments provide solutions for validating blockchain transactions and/or partial or entire blockchain blocks.

In accordance with additional or alternative forms of wording, they provide secure solutions for controlling, managing and/or enhancing the efficiency, resource requirements, speed and/or resilience of known approaches to processing of blockchain transactions. Embodiments also enable scalability of blockchain-implemented solutions, providing improved methods and technical architectures for electronic transfer of digital resources.

Embodiments of the disclosure may be implemented in part or entirety by a variety of apparatus. These may be hardware and/or software-based apparatus, including (but not limited to) one or more virtual machines, servers, GPU-based computing resources, or multiprocessor systems. Additionally, or alternatively, embodiments may comprise one or more digital wallets. Importantly, though, embodiments provide mechanisms for distributed processing of blockchain-related validation tasks. The coordination, management and control of distributed processes is known to be inherently technical in nature because it requires a holistic understanding of the interaction between the hardware and software components involved, and implementations of such distributed solutions extend beyond the technically trivial.

Embodiments may comprise solutions which enable or facilitate the distribution of validation tasks across multiple processing resources, which we will refer to as “validators” for convenience. A validator may comprise a single processing resource or may comprise a plurality of related processing resources which can be viewed collectively as a validating resource.

When a block of transactions needs to be validated and/or downloaded, its Merkle tree may be decomposed into one or more smaller segments, each comprising a tree structure having its own root and representing a subset of the transactions in the block. These segments can then be allocated to different validators. Each validator is operative to perform the necessary processing tasks on the subset of transactions that have been assigned to it. The allocation of tree segments to validators can be performed in a variety of ways, but in accordance with one advantageous embodiment, a binary indexing system can be used in which the leading digits of the randomly generated, double-hashed Merkle root is used to assign a given segment to a validator (or group/cluster of validators) having a matching binary identifier. This provides a simple, efficient and quick mechanism for load balancing across the plurality of validators.

Each tree segment may comprise a small, binary marker which enables re-construction of the whole Merkle tree of transactions after the validators have finished their operations. The segment marker allows a controller component to reassemble the segments into their original form, with the marker indicating the position within the original tree. This provides the advantage that although the plurality of tree segments are distributed across many different validators, potentially anywhere across the globe, they can be quickly and easily reassembled to provide the complete Merkle tree for the block.

In one or more embodiments, a validator may comprise or have access to a repository that records data relating to work that it has performed and/or data that it has processed. In one embodiment, this may include a database comprising unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) that have been assigned to a given validator for processing. Recall that in the traditional model, all UTXOs on the blockchain are tracked by nodes in a database called a UTXO pool. Each full node has its own, complete copy of the UTXO pool for the blockchain. In accordance with the present disclosure, however, a different approach may be utilised in which each validator has its own UTXO pool that tracks UTXOs of transactions that have been assigned to it for validation. Advantages of such a distributed UTXO pool include, but are not limited to, an assurance of data integrity, improved speed and efficiency, and incorporation of, and support for, a variety of validation techniques such as SPV.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

We now describe an example embodiment of the disclosure for the purpose of illustration, without limitation, and with reference to the accompanying Figures.

Traditionally, nodes in a blockchain network maintain a global ledger of all transactions on the blockchain. The global ledger is a distributed ledger and each node may store a complete or partial copy of the global ledger. Transactions by a node affecting the global ledger are verified by other nodes so that the validity and integrity of the global ledger is maintained. The details of implementing and operating a blockchain network, such as one using the Bitcoin protocol, will be appreciated by those ordinarily skilled in the art.

Each transaction typically has one or more inputs and one or more outputs. Scripts embedded into the inputs and outputs specify how and by whom the outputs of the transactions can be accessed. The output of a transaction may be an address to which control of a value is transferred as a result of the transaction. That value is then associated with that output address as an unspent transaction output (UTXO). A subsequent transaction may then reference that address as an input in order to obtain control or ownership of that value.

As noted above, using the Bitcoin network and protocol as our example, mining nodes compete in a race to create the next block in the blockchain. To assemble a block, a miner will build the block as a set of transactions from the pool of unconfirmed transactions (the “mempool”). It then attempts to complete a proof of work (PoW) puzzle with respect to the block it has assembled. If it manages to complete the PoW prior to receiving notice that any other miner has succeeded in generating its own block and completing its PoW, then the miner propagates its block by sending it to peer nodes on the network. Those nodes validate the block and then send it further on in the network to other nodes. If the miner receives notice that another block has been completed prior to finishing its own PoW, then the miner abandons its efforts and begins trying to build the next block.

Thus, fast propagation of blocks helps to avoid wasted effort (and associated energy) on behalf of miners and validating nodes. By providing a solution which enables faster validation and thus propagation of blocks, the present invention provides an enhanced network performance. It reduces the amount of computing time and effort required, and thus the amount of energy required by the network. It provides a network which is more efficient in terms of resources and time. It provides, ultimately, an improved (blockchain) network.

In current implementations of blockchain, such as the Bitcoin network, each node that receives a block first validates the block before sending it to other nodes. The time taken to validate a block slows propagation of the block through the network. Note that some implementations of blockchain, including evolutions of existing protocols, may provide for block validation by only a subset of nodes rather than each node in the network; however, block validation at most nodes is still likely to be a feature of any blockchain implementation to prevent invalid blocks from propagating through the network.

Validating a block involves confirming that the block meets prescribed criteria set by the applicable blockchain protocol. Example criteria applicable to the Bitcoin protocol may include functions such as CheckBlock and CheckBlockHeader. In addition to confirming that the block itself conforms to prescribed criteria, each transaction within the block may be assessed for compliance with transaction-level criteria. As an example, the transaction-level criteria applied in the Bitcoin protocol may include the functions AcceptToMemoryPool, CheckTransaction and CheckInputs.

Specific examples of block-level criteria, based on the Bitcoin protocol, may include:The block data structure is syntactically valid.The block header hash is less than the target difficulty (enforcing the proof of work).The block timestamp is less than two hours in the future (allowing for time errors).The block size is within acceptable limits.The first transaction (and only the first) is a coinbase generation transaction.All transactions within the block are valid.

Specific examples of transaction-level criteria, based on the Bitcoin protocol, may include:The transaction's syntax and data structure must be correct.Neither the list of inputs nor of outputs are empty.Each output value x, as well as the total of all outputs, must be within the range 0<x<21·106.None of the inputs have null hash.nLockTime is less than or equal to INT_MAX.The transaction size in bytes is greater than or equal to a minimum and less than a maximum.The number of signature operations is less than the signature operation limit.The unlocking script scriptSig can only push numbers on the stack, and the locking script scriptPubkey must match isStandard forms.For each input, if the referenced output exists in any other transaction in the pool, the transaction must be rejected.For each input, if the referenced output transaction is a coinbase output, it must have at least COINBASE_MATURITY 100) confirmations.For each input, the referenced output must exist and cannot already be spent.Using the referenced output transactions to get input values, check that each input value, as well as the sum, are in the allowed range of values x, i.e. 0<x<21·106.A matching transaction in the pool, or in a block in the main branch, must exist.The sum of input values must be equal to or more than the sum of output values.The transaction fee must be sufficient to gain entry to an empty block.The unlocking scripts for each input must validate against the corresponding output locking scripts.

These example criteria are illustrative and should not be interpreted as sufficient or necessary to all embodiments as the prescribed criteria may differ in different protocols and may change over time for a given protocol if changes are made to the protocol. In general, transaction-level validation criteria are those prescribed characteristics which a transaction must have to be considered valid under the applicable blockchain protocol. Similarly, the block-level validation criteria are those prescribed characteristics which a block must have to be considered valid under the applicable blockchain protocol.

In accordance with the present application methods and devices are described that speed up block validation so as to facilitate faster propagation of blocks in the network. Faster, more efficient validation and propagation assist in addressing the technical challenge of how to scale blockchain networks and thus provide improved applications and systems built upon such blockchain platforms.

In one aspect, the present application describes a node structured to validate blocks by performing at least transaction-level validation of individual transactions in parallel and/or in a distributed fashion. However, certain transaction-level criteria may not be evaluated in parallel. For example, the uniqueness of UTXOs may be evaluated on a serial basis. In such cases, the distributed validation node of the present disclosure may be structured or arranged to confirm the uniqueness of the referenced inputs (UTXOs) of the transactions prior to allocating the sets of transactions among a set of two or more parallel processors for validation of the remaining transaction-level criteria.

In particular, embodiments of the present disclosure provide improved verification and security solutions for processing related or associated data records that are stored in a tree structure. The tree can be a binary tree or a mesh structure. As known in the art, tree structures can be decomposed into smaller trees (which may be referred to herein as tree “segments”, “subsets” or “portions”), where each segment comprises a subset of the data records in the overall tree and has its own root. Advantageously, embodiments of the disclosure utilise this feature to provide methods and systems for distribution and parallelisation of processing of the related data records across multiple processing resources.

In our example embodiment, the plurality of data records comprises blockchain transactions which are related because they form nodes within a Merkle tree. The Merkle tree has a root which has been, or can be, included in a header of a block of the transactions in accordance with a blockchain protocol, such that the root provides a path that can be followed to every leaf (i.e. transaction ID (TxID)) within the tree. In our example, the blockchain protocol is, or is derived from, the Bitcoin protocol although other protocols fall within the scope of the disclosure.

In our example, processing of the plurality of transactions comprises validating at least a portion of a blockchain block that comprises the plurality of blockchain transactions and the root of the Merkle tree for the block. These examples are non-limiting and techniques disclosed herein may be utilized in respect of non-blockchain related data, and/or in respect of other processes besides validation. For example, embodiments may be used to stored, structure, search and/or maintain any type of data record that can be represented in a Merkle tree. Databases and other known storage resources may be utilized instead of, or as well as, the blockchain ledger.

In another example embodiment, processing of the plurality of transactions comprises downloading at least a portion of a blockchain block that comprises the plurality of blockchain transactions and the root of the Merkle tree for the block.

For completeness, and with reference toFIGS.3and4, we now provide a discussion of Merkle trees and their use in representing blocks of blockchain transactions.

Merkle Trees

With reference toFIG.3, Merkle Trees are hierarchical data structures that enable secure verification of collections of data. In a Merkle tree, each node in the tree has been given an index pair (i,j) and is represented as N(i,j). The indices i,j are simply numerical labels that are related to a specific position in the tree.

A feature of the Merkle tree is that the construction of each of its nodes is governed by the following equations

where and H is a cryptographic hash function.

An example of a binary Merkle tree constructed according to these equations is shown inFIG.3. As shown, we can see that the i=j case corresponds to a leaf node, which is simply the hash of the corresponding ithpacket of data Di. The i≠j case corresponds to an internal or parent node, which is generated by recursively hashing and concatenating child nodes until one parent (the Merkle root) is found.

For example, the node N(0,3) is constructed from the four data packets D0, . . . , D3as

The tree depth M is defined as the lowest level of nodes in the tree, and the depth m of a node is the level at which the node exists. For example, mroot=0 and mleaf=M, where M=3 inFIG.3.

For Merkle trees in Bitcoin and some other blockchains, the hash function is double SHA256, which is to apply the standard hash function SHA-256 twice: H(x)=SH A256(SH A256(x)).

The primary function of a Merkle tree is to verify that some data packet Diis a member of a list or set of N data packets∈{D0, . . . , DN-1}. The mechanism for verification is known as a Merkle proof and involves obtaining a set of hashes known as the Merkle path for a given data packet Diand Merkle root R. The Merkle proof for a data packet is simply the minimum list of hashes required to reconstruct the root R by way of repeated hashing and concatenation, often referred to as the ‘authentication proof’.

A proof of existence could be performed trivially if all packets D0, . . . , DN-1and their order are known to the prover. This does however require a much larger storage overhead than the Merkle proof, as well as requiring that the entire data set is available to the prover. The comparison between using a Merkle proof and using the entire list is shown in the table below, where we have used a binary Merkle tree and assumed that the number of data blocks N is exactly equal to an integer power 2.

The following table shows the relationship between the number of leaf nodes in a Merkle tree and the number of hashes required for a Merkle proof (or Merkle proof).

In this simplified scenario—where the number of data packets is equal to the number of leaf nodes—we find that the number of hash values required to compute a Merkle proof scales logarithmically. It is clearly far more efficient and practical to compute a Merkle proof involving log2N hashes than to store N data hashes and compute the explicit proof.

If, given a Merkle root R, we wish to prove that the data block D0belongs to the ordered list∈{D0, . . . , DN-1} represented by R we can perform a Merkle proof as followsi. Obtain the Merkle root R from a trusted source.ii. Obtain the Merkle proof Γ from a source. In this case, Γ is the set of hashes:

Γ={N(1,1),N(2,3),N(4,7)}.iii. Compute a Merkle proof using D1and F as follows:a. Hash the data block to obtain:

N(0,0)=H(D0).b. Concatenate with N(1,1) and hash to obtain:

N⁡(0,1)=H⁡(N⁡(0,0)⁢N⁡(1,1)).c. Concatenate with N(2,3) and hash to obtain:

N⁡(0,3)=H⁡(N⁡(0,1)⁢N⁡(2,3)).d. Concatenate with N(4,7) and hash to obtain the root:

N⁡(0,7)=H⁡(N⁡(0,3)⁢N⁡(4,7)),R′=N⁡(0,7).e. Compare the calculated root R′ with the root R obtained in (i):1. If R′=R, the existence of D0in the tree and therefore the data setis confirmed.2. If R′ ≠R, the proof has failed and D0is not confirmed to be a member of.

This is an efficient mechanism for providing a proof of existence for some data as part of the data set represented by a Merkle tree and its root. For example, if the data Do corresponded to a blockchain transaction and the root R is publicly available as part of a block header then we can quickly prove that the transaction was included in that block.

Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) takes advantage of these features of the Merkle tree, as first set out in section 8 of Satoshi Nakamoto's 2008 whitepaper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”. In a SPV-based exchange of cryptocurrency between Alice and Bob, both parties use the same type of SPV wallet. The SPV wallet stores the user's private and public keys, unspent transactions and block headers which uniquely identify the blocks so they can be located on the blockchain. As explained, a block header comprises fields of data which provide a unique summary or fingerprint of the entire block's contents as well as a field that provides the Merkle root for that block. The Merkle root is generated by repeatedly hashing together pairs of transaction IDs (TxIDs) from the block until a single hash is finally arrived at. The Merkle root provides an efficient and secure mechanism for verifying that a transaction is part of a block because it allows users such as wallets and merchant nodes to locally verify a particular transaction without downloading the whole blockchain. This is advantageous for users who do not need or wish to run a full node but simply need to perform a localised check that a certain transaction is in a particular block e.g. parties such as merchants and customers who wish to perform a transfer between them. In summary, SPV enables such a user to search a Merkle tree having a given root to check (i.e. verify) whether a particular transaction is included in a particular blockchain block without them having to download and store the entire blockchain.

Therefore, SPV wallets provide at least the advantage that power and storage constrained devices such as phones and laptops are able to operate within the Bitcoin ecosystem because it only needs to confirm that a transaction has been verified (hence the name “simplified payment verification”) rather than performing a full check of the blockchain as per other forms of wallet. Since an SPV wallet only downloads block headers without including any of the transactions, this significantly reduces the storage space, energy and processing resources required for verification. SPV wallets are particularly suited for use with embodiments of the disclosure for reasons explained below, and we use the term “verification” herein to include SPV checks.

Blocks of Transactions

FIG.4schematically illustrates an example of a blockchain block. Each block contains a block header and a set of transactions. The block header includes, amongst other things, a hash of the previous block header, i.e. a hash of the block header of the block upon which the current block is built. The block header also includes a Merkle root of a Merkle tree built using the set of transactions. Each transaction is first hashed (e.g. double-hashed) to generate a transaction identifier (TxD) of that transaction. The transaction identifiers are then used as the leaf nodes of the Merkle tree. Pairs of transaction identifiers are then concatenated and hashed to form a respective inner node of a first inner level of the Merkle tree. Pairs of inner nodes of the first inner level are then concatenated and hashed to form a respective inner node of a second inner level of the Merkle tree. The process of concatenating and hashing pairs of inner nodes is repeated until only a single hash remains: the Merkle root. This Merkle root is sometimes referred to as the block Merkle root.

We now turn to embodiments of the disclosure, with reference in particular toFIGS.5,6and7.

Identifying Segments of a Block's Merkle Tree

Suppose that a particular party e.g. Alice wishes to validate some transactions. In accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure, at least one subset of transactions is identified wherein the subset forms and/or is represented by a segment of the overall Merkle tree for the block. Thus, the block of transactions can be logically segmented into a plurality of segments based on the block's Merkle tree, each segment comprising a subset of the block's transactions and each segment having its own root node (or “root hash”). This common root hash is sometimes referred to below as a “segment hash” to distinguish it from the root hash of the entire block. Transactions on the same level (i.e. the lowest level, sometimes referred to as the “leaf level” or “leaf layer”) within a tree segment are siblings. All transactions in a given segment share a common root node for that segment. The common root node may belong to the adjacent level of the Merkle tree, i.e. the level immediately above the lowest level. Alternatively, the common root node may belong to a higher level. In general, the common root node may belong to any level of the Merkle tree between the lowest level and the Merkle root.

Breaking the block down into smaller parts based on its Merkle tree provides significant technical advantages, including the ability to quickly and efficiently allocate transactions across multiple validators. For example, as the bitcoin protocol uses binary trees it is possible to implement binary allocations across multiple machines. By using a small binary marker as an indexing system for the segments, each segment's position in the overall Merkle tree can be calculated quickly, enabling the segments to be put back together after validation has been completed, reconstructing the complete Merkle tree for the block. This binary indexing approach is discussed in more detail below.

Various techniques can be used for identification of the segments, but in accordance with one approach the number of segments may be determined by the number of available validators in the system. For example, in a system having four validators, the Merkle tree may be split into four segments; if there are eight validators, the Merkle tree may be dissected into eight segments and so forth. Identification of the segments for a given Merkle tree can be performed or influenced by a controlling entity, illustrated by controller702ofFIG.7.

The points explained above are further illustrated with reference toFIGS.5and6, in whichFIG.5illustrates an example of how a Merkle tree may be divided into separate portions502to be allocated to validators. In the example ofFIG.5, each arrow represents a respective transaction that is hashed to form a respective transaction identifier, which is used at a respective leaf node of the Merkle tree. The top of the Merkle tree is the block Merkle root. In this example, the block of transactions represented by the Merkle tree contains 32 transactions. However, it will be appreciated that this is merely an illustrative example and in general the Merkle tree may contain any number of transactions, depending on the number of transactions in the block. As shown, the Merkle tree is divided into four portions502a-d, indicated by the dashed line boxes. Each portion502is linked by a respective common inner node (inner hash)504of the Merkle tree, which is indicated by the solid line circles. Each portion502represents eight transactions. In this example, the common inner nodes504belong to the fourth level of the Merkle tree. According to the embodiments described herein, each respective portion502(or rather the transactions that form and/or represent a portion) is allocated to a respective validator for processing, e.g. for validating of the transactions that belong to the respective portion502.

FIG.6illustrates another example of how a Merkle tree may be divided into portions602. The Merkle tree inFIG.6is the same as that ofFIG.5. Now, in this example, the Merkle tree is divided into eight portions602a-h, with each portion602representing four transactions. In this example, the common inner nodes604belong to the third level of the Merkle tree. The Merkle tree ofFIGS.5and6could instead be divided into more (e.g. sixteen) or less (e.g. two) portions502,602. In general, a Merkle tree formed from a set of transactions of a block may be divided into any number of portions502,602, where each portion includes a minimum of two transactions.

Allocation of Segments to Respective Validation Resources

Following their identification, the subsets of transactions are distributed across a plurality of validation resources, which may also be referred to as “validators” for ease of reference. A plurality of validators is shown as resources A to D (704ato704d) inFIGS.7and9. The allocation process may be directed or influenced by a dedicated unit such as component904as shown inFIG.9, without limitation.

Each validator (704ato704d) can comprise one or more processing resources. Therefore, at least one of the validators in a plurality of validators (704ato704d) may be or comprise at least one of the following: one or more virtual machines, one or more servers, one or more GPU-based computing resources, one or more threads and/or one or more multiprocessor systems etc. Essentially, any of the plurality of validators can be made up of any type(s) or combinations of processing resource, each capable of validating one or more transactions which are associated with each other by a segment of the block's Merkle tree. The plurality of validators (704ato704d) and other system components form a collective resource or entity700, which we will refer to as a “(distributed) validation node”.

Preferably, distribution comprises allocating each of the segments to a respective validator within the plurality of validators. The validators may be arranged, at least, to:operate on the one or more transactions which make up the segment(s) that have been allocated to themvalidate one or more transactions to verify that they conform to the blockchain protocol, and/orvalidate that they can be identified in an existing repository such as the blockchain ledger or a database of known, registered or spent transactions.

The validators' activities, and allocation of the subsets to the different validators, may be directed by a controller.FIG.7shows controller702allocating subsets of transactions A to D for respective tree segments to validators704ato704drespectively. The system-level controller702coordinates the activities of systems or devices704ato704dwithin the distributed validation node, and may control or influence tasks such as identification of tree segments with the block's Merkle tree, allocation of the identified segments to respective validators, reordering of validated tree segments into a complete Merkle tree for the block, and/or ordering transactions within the reconstructed block.

One or more of the validators may comprise at least one coordinating entity arranged to act as a controller at the validator level. Thus, any or all of validators704ato704dmay comprise at least one controller component of its own. This lower-level controller may influence or direct operations such as the allocation of tasks or subtasks to one or more processing resources within the validator, reconstruction of the Merkle tree for a given segment, or interaction with other system components e.g. other validators or higher level controllers, UTXO pools, wallets etc. In turn, the processing resources themselves may be further decomposed into smaller systems, one or more of which may comprise a controller and one or more processing resources of its own. In this way, the system may comprise a hierarchical architecture in which segment validation is performed by validating entities comprising one or more processing resources for performing the validation tasks and one or more controllers for coordination of the processors' activities and the execution of inter-component communications.

In embodiments where a validator comprises multiple processing resources, the validator may split its allocated segment into smaller segments. The validator's controller can then distribute the sub-segments across the processors under its control. In this way, the validation process can be implemented in a hierarchical and distributed manner.

This hierarchical decomposition can also be extended to the transaction level so that the validation may be further decomposed into sub-processes or tasks per transaction rather than at the tree segment level. In this approach, the validation of individual transaction(s) is broken down into sub-tasks that are distributed across different machines, or different threads running on the same or different machines. These processes can be queued such that as a thread becomes available, another transaction or task is allocated to it.

Thus, the disclosure enables many transactions to be processed simultaneously, with the only limit being the amount of hardware available to form the distributed validation node rather than the amount of available processing speed being the bottleneck, as per traditional techniques. This enables blockchain processing systems to scale horizontally without the need to alter the underlying protocol of the blockchain network.

Therefore, the disclosure represents a significant deviation from the traditional approach to validation which is described in more detail ion the section below entitled “Example technical environment for implementation of an illustrative embodiment of the disclosure”, and with reference toFIGS.1and2. As explained, the traditional approach involves one block being validated as an entire entity, and the traditional view of a validation node (seeFIG.1,104) being a single computing unit. By contrast, embodiments of the disclosure break the Merkle tree into multiple segments which are given to different validators (704ato704dinFIGS.7and9), each of the segments and validators being capable of being further broken down to enhance the degree of distribution involved.

Further still, by breaking each block down into segments based on its Merkle tree, embodiments of the disclosure enable validators to access, download and process small portions of the block rather than the whole block. Recall that the transactions in each segment hash up (in pairs) to a single root value. This means that the segment can be validated using only the necessary, relevant transactions rather than the entire block being downloaded, stored and processed in entirety. As protocols such as Bitcoin SV allow for scaling of block size and inclusion of larger blocks in the ledger, the traditional model of downloading a whole block becomes a bottleneck. Embodiments of the disclosure overcome this challenge to blockchain scalability by enabling individual validators to receive and process only the (smaller) parts that are relevant to them. This results in faster overall validation times, an improved blockchain network and improved applications which run on the blockchain.

Further still, embodiments support and facilitate the use of SPV processes and resources, because such SPV involves local validation of only parts of the Merkle tree that are of interest to a given party. The tree-pruning nature of SPV technologies are, therefore, ideally suited for use in combination with embodiments of the present disclosure. In an SPV context, validators may be provided with only the portions of the block data that they need i.e. block header or segment root node and relevant transactions.

When each validator has performed its check and confirmed the validity of the segment that it has processed, it can be guaranteed that the block is valid due to the hashing mechanism that is used to generate the tree.

Load Balancing Across the Plurality of Validators

Load balancing techniques and systems are known in the art, arranged with the aim of evenly distributing tasks across multiple resources so as to enhance efficiency. The aim is to minimize the risk of some processing resources lying idle while others become overloaded and thus risk degradation of performance or even failure. Therefore, load balancing becomes important in ensuring the resilience of the overall system as well as its performance and efficiency. Embodiments of the disclosure may utilize any known load balancing technique such as, for example, static or dynamic load balancing. Additionally, or alternatively, the load balancing approach disclosed herein may be used to advantage.

As mentioned above, embodiments of the disclosure can use an indexing system in the allocation of block segments to respective validators. Preferably, this is a binary indexing system. In this preferred system, each validator is designated a binary label or identifier. Suppose that each identifier is 4 digits long, with the first validator being identified as 0000, the next validator being identified as 0001, the next as validator 0010 and so on. Clearly, a 4 digit identifier allows for 256 validator IDs, with the last validator being identified as 1111 (i.e. validator number 255 in decimal).

When a tree segment needs to be assigned to a validator, the first 4 digits of its double hash (i.e. the segment hash of the tree segment) can be used to determine which validator will process that segment. Recall that a Merkle root is generated by hashing together pairs of transaction IDs (TxIDs) from a block to generate respective inner nodes (or inner hashes) of the Merkle tree, and then repeatedly hashing adjacent inner hashes until a single hash is finally arrived at. This double-hashed Merkle root provides an efficient, quick and secure verification mechanism. It also provides the advantage, in the present context, that the double hash generates a random binary number. Each inner hash, including each segment hash, is itself a double hash. Thus, we can take the first x number of leading digits of the segment hash as the allocation index. A hash with four leading zeroes will result in the tree segment being allocated to the validator with ID 0000, and hash with leading digits 0001 will result in allocation to validator with ID 0001 and so on. The random generation of the double hashes ensures a random distribution of tree segments to validators.

Although double-hashing is typically used when generating a Merkle tree, it is not essential in all examples and instead only single-hashing may be used. In fact, any number of hash operations will result in a random binary number. The load balancing tasks may be performed by a dedicated system component, shown as905inFIG.9, or may be provided elsewhere within the system700, or in association and communication with the system700.

Distributed Receiving/Downloading of Blocks

According to some embodiments, the allocation of segments of the block Merkle tree to different validators may be used to provide a faster and more efficient process for downloading or otherwise receiving part or all of a block of transactions.

In some embodiments, the validator(s) may receive the data in the form of one or more data packets that are sent to a multicast address that the validator subscribes to. This may be an IPv6 multicast address as known in the art. One, some or all of the validators may subscribe to the multicast address. In some embodiments, subsets of validators may subscribe to different, respective multicast addresses so that transactions for different segments can be allocated to groups of validators sharing a common multicast address.

Each validator is allocated a segment of the Merkle tree, e.g. based on the allocation index described above. Any given validator then operates to download the set of transactions that form the allocated tree segment. This may involve downloading the set of transactions form the blockchain itself (e.g. from a blockchain node) or form a different resource or entity, such as a third party service provider. The set of transactions may be downloaded to internal memory of the validator, or to a shared storage location, such as a shared drive in the cloud.

The distributed node may require the full block, i.e., the entire set of transactions that form the block. In that case, each validator that is assigned a tree segment receives e.g. downloads the subset of transactions that form the segment. In other scenarios, the distributed node may only require certain parts of the block. In that case, only some of the validators may need to download their respective subsets of transactions in order to obtain the desired transactions.

Downloading a block (or part a block) in this fashion results in a faster overall download, as each validator only to process a subset of transactions of the entire set of transactions that form the block. This contrasts with conventional block downloading whereby a given entity (e.g., a full node) would have to receive or download the entire block, e.g., by downloading each transaction in order as it appears in the block. Now, the block is downloaded in parallel by multiple validators. A block may contain tens of thousands of transactions, if not several orders of magnitude more. A single entity downloading this number of transactions would consume significant resources and take a considerable amount of time. The computational burden is now distributed amongst the validators such that each individual validator consumes a fraction of the processing resources. Similarly, the overall time to download the block is reduced.

As discussed, each validator may download a subset of transactions. The subsets may then be combined so as to reconstruct the block in a single storage location. (By “single storage location” we mean either a storage resource which is a self-contained entity or a plurality of associated storage resources which form a collective entity). To do so, the individual validators may transmit their respective subsets to a central controller of the distributed node which is configured to arrange the transactions in the correct order. The segment hash (i.e., the hash that links the tree segment) may be utilized for this purpose. For instance, a mapping may be maintained of the segment hash to its position in the Merkle tree, e.g., from left to right as the segment hash appears in the Merkle tree. The subsets of transaction may then be placed in order (e.g., from first to last as) based on the corresponding segment hash.

In some embodiments, the individual validators (or the distributed node as a whole) may confirm that the correct transactions have been downloaded (or that the transactions have been downloaded correctly) by reconstructing the Merkle tree. After downloading a subset of transactions, a validator may generate a candidate segment hash based on those transactions. The candidate segment hash is constructed by hashing pairs of TxIDs to generate respective inner hashes, and repeatedly hashing pairs of inner hashes until a candidate segment hash is produced. The level of the Merkle tree that the candidate segment hash belongs to will depend on the number of tree segments that the Merkle tree is divided into. The validator may verify that the candidate segment hash is a hash of the Merkle tree. If the hashes do not match, then an error has occurred during download. In some examples, each validator may generate the candidate segment hash and send it to a controller to perform the verification. As another example, a candidate block Merkle root may be generated based on the entire set of downloaded transactions. Again, the candidate Merkle root should match the actual block Merkle root (i.e. the Merkle root stored in the block) if the block has been correctly downloaded.

In some cases, the validators may validate the downloaded transactions using the techniques described above. That is, each validator is allocated a tree segment, downloads the corresponding subset of transactions, and validates those transactions. In other cases, the validators may not necessarily validate the transactions and may simply download the transactions for later use, e.g., for sending to a third party.

Preferably, each validator704that forms part of the distributed validation node has its own repository (pool) for generating, storing and/or maintaining unspent transaction outputs (UTXOS). This functions as a UTXO pool that provides a record of unconsumed i.e. unspent outputs associated with blockchain transactions. Each validator's UTXO pool is, therefore, based on and constructed from the transactions that are allocated to it by the controller in respect of Merkle tree segments. In one embodiment, this may be a (graph) database comprising data relating to the unspent UTXOs of transactions that have been assigned to a given validator for processing. A record in the database is created for each UTXO that the validator becomes aware of as new Merkle tree segments are allocated to it. From the perspective of the distributed validation node, therefore, the UTXO pool is not one single pool but is made up of a plurality of different UTXO pools, each provided at or on different validators and comprising different sets of UTXOs. The UTXO pool for the node is, therefore, distributed in both in terms of the data and also the resources which store and/or process it.

This is a significant divergence from the traditional UTXO model in which each full node in the network has a copy of the UTXO pool that tracks all UTXOs on the blockchain. By contrast, the present disclosure distributes the UTXO pool across a plurality of validating resources, each having a UTXO pool that is a subset of the blockchain's entire UTXO set. Each validator's UTXO pool comprises the UTXOs of transactions which make up the Merkle tree sub-portions that it has been tasked with validating.

In accordance with such an approach, each time a new block needs to be validated it can be implemented in a similar fashion to an SQL transaction log, in that every command, event and item relating to the database is recorded in the log. The term “database log” will be used herein to avoid confusion arising from the use of the term “transaction” as known in relation to blockchains, but we use the term “database log” to include terms such as “transaction journal”, “transaction log” etc. Essentially, the database log can be interpreted as a history of actions executed by a database management system, providing a record of all changes that have occurred in respect of the state of the database, as known in the field of computer-based databases (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_log).

The use of an ordered, historical database log means that the entire UTXO pool can be constructed by executing the log's history in its original order. Advantageously, this ensures that a copy of the database can always be (re)generated when required, and separate copies of the data do not need to be stored. Data integrity is ensured, and fewer storage resources are required. Each UTXO pool can be stored, maintained and processed separately. Also advantageously, SPV techniques facilitate the creation of separate UTXO databases for each validator given that SPV techniques operate on pruned portions of Merkle trees.

Transactions (TXs) within the database can be structured in a variety of ways, although a particularly advantageous approach is to structure them according to identifiers which comprise a concatenation of the block ID and the transaction ID (block_ID∥TxID). The block ID and the transaction ID are both 256 bit hashes, resulting in a 512 bit concatenation field structure that is secure and collision free.

Structuring transactions in this way provides a fast, efficient look-up mechanism. Transactions can be sorted by block_ID such that all transactions having the same block_ID are located together in the database. Thus, when a validator requires a transaction (e.g. to check whether a UTXO of the transaction has been spent), the validator can locate the transaction in the database first by searching for the corresponding block_ID, and then the corresponding TxD. This has the effect that the search is confined to the relevant section of the database. This efficiency reduces the time, processing resources and energy required for search operations, providing a significant improvement over prior art

A flag or marker is associated with each UTXO in a validator's pool, and indicates whether the UTXO is locked or unlocked. We may refer to this flag or marker as a “locking flag” for convenience. When a UTXO is marked as “locked”, this serves as an indicator to validators in the group (i.e. elsewhere in the distributed validation node) that this UTXO is not available for spending. Conversely, when a UTXO is marked as “unlocked”, this serves as an indicator to validators that the UTO can be spent. It functions, therefore, as a way of enabling a validator that has been allocated to verifying a transaction that spends the UTXO to signal to its peers that, assuming the transaction proves to be valid, it has been redeemed and is, therefore, no longer spendable. A “locked” state means that spending is permitted, whereas an “unlocked” state means that spending is prohibited.

This locking/unlocking flag can be a simple, small binary marker such as 0 for “locked” and “1” for unlocked. The marker mechanism is used internally by validators in the distributed node system, the marker is removed from the transaction prior to interacting with the blockchain so that the transaction conforms to the protocol rules.

In use, the validator inspects the outputs in each of the new transactions that have been allocated to it by the controller. Any unspent outputs (UTXOs) are added to the validator's UTXO pool i.e. it is recorded as an entry in the UTXO database. In the relevant database record for each new UTXO, the locking flag is set to “unlocked”.

When the validator sees that a UTXO is being spent by a newly allocated transaction, it sends a message to every other validator in the plurality to inform them that this UTXO should also be locked in their respective pools. Essentially, the validator sends a communication to its peers indicating that it has seen a spend involving a transaction with a particular hash ID at a particular time. The other validators do not need to receive complete data for the entire transaction, as the transaction hash and a list of UTXOs that it spends is sufficient for them to identify the transaction in question and mark it as locked in their own database. Upon receipt of the message, each receiving validator checks whether the UTXO in question is in their UTXO pool. If it is, the state of the locking flag is changed to “locked”. Thus, the lock prevents validators from allowing the same UTXO to be spent in a subsequent transaction. In the event that a new transaction does attempt to spend the same UTXO, a check of the locking flag will indicate that the second spend attempt is to be ignored. If the validator that sent the message determines that validation has failed and therefore the UTXO has not been spent, a further message can be sent out to the validator peers to this effect, indicating that the locking flag for the UTXO should be changed to the “unlocked” state. Once a valid spend has been completed, a message can be sent to this effect, and the locked UTXO can be deleted from the relevant UTXO pool.

In the embodiment described above, each validator has a single UTXO pool which comprises the UTXOs of all the transactions in all of the tree segments that have been allocated to it. However, in an alternative approach, the UTXO pool maintained by each validator may be divided/split/compartmentalised into/formed of multiple sub-pools, one per block. In this way, a single UTXO pool can be organised into a logical hierarchy. In yet another approach, one or more validators may be arranged in association with a respective plurality of UTXO pools, each plurality relating to UTXOs for a set of one or more tree segments. Thus, in some embodiments, validator(s) may organise UTXOs into separate UTXO pools for different individual tree segments, or according to some predefined criteria such as type of tree segment, or tree segments which fall within a given range etc. In such embodiments, the identifier may comprise a block ID which can be used to narrow down a search to a relevant UTXO pool, and then the search can proceed within that pool to (attempt to) identify the relevant transaction by its TxID. The skilled person will understand that in some embodiments, a mixture of these approaches can be used i.e. one or more validators within the distributed node may employ the single-UTXO-pool approach while other(s) are arranged to use multiple, separate UTXO pools, and/or UTXO pools which are organised into sub-pools, or any combination thereof.

This provides protection against “double spend” situations, in which a party attempts to spend the same UTXO twice. This provides a simple and secure locking mechanism that operates efficiently and quickly, regardless of the number or location of the validators in the system, and preserves the security and integrity of transfers implemented over the blockchain.

Illustrative System of a Possible Embodiment

FIGS.7and9illustrate an example system700for implementing at least some of the described embodiments.FIG.8illustrates a flowchart of example steps which may be taken in (a high-level view of) a method of the disclosure.

The system700may be a closed system in the sense that it may be associated with an organisation and form part of a larger proprietary system. In such cases, its data e.g. transactions, may be received from other components within the organisation's wider system and its results and outputs may be sent to internal destinations. Additionally, or alternatively, system700may be arranged to interface with a variety of entities, some or all of which may be located outside the organisation. In such cases, system700may be arranged to provide validation functionalities as a service. For example, system700may be arranged to interact with the blockchain network to obtain the data that it requires. Additionally, or alternatively, it could interact with entities that wish to use its validation services. Thus, system700's activities could be solely internal with respect to a particular organisation or entity, or open to interactions with external entities to provide validation services to other parties, or a combination of the two. Communications between other internal or external entities may be coordinated by one or more interface or communication components, shown as902inFIG.9.

As shown inFIGS.7and9, the system700includes a controlling entity702(or simply, “controller”) and a plurality of validating resources704, also referred to herein as simply “validators”. Only four validators701a-dare shown inFIG.7, but in general the system700may comprise any number of validators. Moreover, the controller702is shown inFIGS.7and9as distinct from the validators704, but it is not excluded that the controller702may comprise or be comprised by one of the validators704. As explained above, each validator may comprise one or more processing resources, and may comprise its own controller for coordination of its own internal activities. There is no technical or logical limit to the hierarchical levels that can be implemented in this way.FIG.7, however, shows only one (top) level of such a hierarchy for simplicity and ease of understanding.

As shown inFIG.7, the controller702obtains a set of transactions. The transactions can be received across an electronic channel or network from a sending resource. The sender may be any entity which wishes to perform a validation check of some kind, internal or external to the system's organisation as explained above. For example, this could be a full node on a blockchain network such as node104inFIG.1, or a digital wallet, or a merchant/SPV node wishing to perform a local check relating to a blockchain-implemented transfer made between parties. Interface(s)902may facilitate the transmission of data between the system700and sources external to the system.

The transactions form, or may form, a block of transactions. The transactions may be obtained from a single resource (e.g. from a block of the blockchain) or from different resources (e.g. one or more users, one or more blockchain nodes, etc.). The transactions may be obtained prior to them having been published on the blockchain, i.e. before being recorded in a block. Alternatively, the transactions may be obtained after having recorded on the blockchain.

The controller702allocates a respective subset of transactions to each validator704as described herein. Each subset of transactions forms at least part of a respective portion of a Merkle tree generated based on the full set of transactions, and is linked by a respective common inner node of the Merkle tree. In the example ofFIG.7, transaction subset A is allocated to validator A, transaction subset B is allocated to validator B, transaction subset C is allocated to validator C, and transaction subset D is allocated to validator D. Having been allocated a subset of transactions, the validators704then process their respective subset. In some embodiments, this involves each validator704validating its respective subset of transactions. To do so, the controller702may transmit the relevant transactions to the respective validators704. The validators704may communicate back to the controller704to indicate that each of their respective subset of transactions is valid or that at least one transaction is not valid.

At least one but preferably some or all of the validators704ato704dhave access to their own UTXO pools shown as901ato901dinFIG.9. This pool comprises a storage facility such as the database described above, and potentially with the advantageous indexing structure comprising a concatenation of the block ID and the transaction ID. InFIG.9the pools are shown as included within the respective validator but the skilled person will readily understand that they may also/alternatively be provided as external to the validator but in communication therewith.

In one or more embodiments, the disclosed process may include a block-level validation stage, during which an incoming new block is tested against block-level criteria. Example block-level criteria are described above and generally relate to prescribed formatting requirements and characteristics or limits applicable to the block itself, as opposed to the transactions within the block. Examples include the block size, the block header structure or content, and similar criteria. Such operations may be performed by the controller, or a component of the controller, or by another system component.

In some embodiments, the method may further include a UTXO uniqueness confirmation module which is operative to evaluate whether each of the inputs, i.e. each UTXO, to a transaction in the new block is unique. If the same UTXO appears more than once as an input in the new block, it indicates a potential double-spending problem and violates the UTXO uniqueness criteria. If the UTXO uniqueness confirmation module identifies a UTXO that is referenced more than once among the transaction inputs in the new block, then it may output an error signal or other interrupt to indicate that the block is to be rejected.

Assuming that the new block does not get rejected, i.e. that all the UTXO inputs are unique, then the Merkle tree segments can then be identified and their associated transactions allocated among the set of validators. The identification process may be performed by a component such as segment identification unit903, shown inFIG.9. The allocation process may be performed by a segment allocation unit, shown as904inFIG.9. The allocation unit904may employ any one of a number of possible allocation schemes for distributing the block segments amongst the individual validators, but in an advantageous approach the allocation scheme may be aimed at load balancing as described above. The allocation unit904may comprise (or be in communication with) a load balancing unit905. Although this is shown as a separate, associated component of the system inFIG.9, it other embodiments load balancing unit may be part of the allocation unit904, or may be separate relative to the controller702. Any combination of components may be readily employed.

The individual validators validate the transactions associated with the segment(s) they receive against transaction-level validation criteria. The validators do not require synchronization paradigms between them as they each work independently on verifying that the transactions that they have been allocated are valid. Each validator outputs a result confirming the validity of its allocated transactions. The results are added or accumulated to confirm that all the transactions in the segment are valid. In the event that one of the validators identifies a non-compliant transaction, i.e. an invalid transaction, then it may issue an output, such as an interrupt or other signal, to indicate that there is an invalid transaction. That interrupt or signal may be sent to the other validators or to the controller or another system component so that they can immediately cease testing their respective transactions and not waste further resources on validating transactions within a block that is to be rejected.

In some examples, the system may be arranged to check block-level criteria. This may be performed prior to allocation of the segments to the validators, although it will be appreciated that the block-level validation stage may occur after the transaction-level validation testing by the validators or, in some instances, in parallel with the transaction-level validation testing.

Reference will now be made toFIG.8, which shows, in flowchart form, one example of a method of validating a block. The block contains a plurality of transactions, each transaction references one or more inputs, and each input is a UXTO (except in the case of a coinbase generation transaction). The method is implemented using suitable hardware and processor-executable instructions within a node on the blockchain network.

In operation the distributed validation node700receives new block data at step S801. This may be an entire block, or in the case of an SPV-related validation, it may comprise only partial data required for performing an SPV check. We will refer to this as data as “the block” for convenience. The new block that is to be validated may be received from a mining node on the blockchain network that generated the new block and completed the proof-of-work, or it may be received from a merchant node that wishes to perform an (SPV) check, or it may be received from a wallet such as an SPV wallet. The new block may be received from another (non-mining) node in the network. In some examples, the distributed validation node700validates the block before forwarding it to any other nodes in the network. As discussed above, the validation of the new block may include confirming that the block meets certain protocol-based criteria, and/or other criteria that may be specified and required within a given implementation.

At step S802, the system700identifies chunks of the block's Merkle tree. At S803the segments are distributed to a plurality of validators, and S804the validators process their respective subsets of transactions substantially in parallel and independently of each other. At S805, the validators signal to the controller whether validation has been successful or has failed.

It should be noted that the term “processors”, when used in connection with the description of parallel processors herein, does not necessarily mean physically distinct microprocessors and may include any hardware or software implementation that enables parallel processing resources capable of carrying out processor functions independently and in parallel. The parallel processors may include one processor having multiple cores. In some instances, the parallel processors may include multiple separate processing units. The parallel processors may or may not share a physical memory. Each parallel processor, howsoever implemented, has a software or hardware mechanism for signalling, such as to output a signal in response to identifying an invalid transaction. The implementation of the parallel processors also includes providing for the requisite data transfer mechanism, in software and/or hardware, to route the allocated transaction data to the respective processors for local processing.

Enumerated Clauses

Embodiments of the present disclosure are provided in the following enumerated clauses for the purpose of illustration, and without limitation.

Features mentioned below in respect of one set of enumerated clauses or aspect of the disclosure are not intended to be limited in such a regard and any feature(s) mentioned in respect of one set of clauses may be incorporated into one or more of the other sets of clauses.

Clause Set 1:

Clause 1.1: A computer-implemented method of processing (e.g. validating) at least a portion of a blockchain block that comprises a plurality of blockchain transactions and a root of a Merkle tree for the block.

The method may comprise the step(s) of:allocating respective subsets of the blockchain transactions to a plurality of processing (e.g. validating resources), wherein each respective subset provides a respective portion of the Merkle tree and is represented by a respective inner node of the Merkle tree; and/orusing the plurality of processing (e.g. validating) resources to process (e.g. validate) their respective subsets of blockchain transactions.

Additionally, or alternatively, the method may comprise:sending or receiving at least a portion of a blockchain block that comprises a plurality of blockchain transactions and a root of a Merkle tree for the block. The portion of the blockchain block may be sent from a sending resource to a receiving resource. It may be sent across a network e.g. the Internet. The method may comprise the step of processing the portion of the blockchain block at the receiving resource. The receiving resource may be referred to as a processing or validating resource. The portion of the blockchain block may be sent using an IPv6 multicast transmission. At least one, some or all of the plurality of processing resources may be members of an IPv6 multicast group. The sending resource may comprise a network device. The network device may be operative to send IPv6 multicast communications to a multicast address. MLD snooping may be enabled at the network device. This provides efficiency in terms of traffic on the network as the sending resource can selectively send the portion of blockchain block to specific receiving resources (e.g. resources within the plurality of processing resources). Network traffic is reduced, energy and processing resources are not wasted by sending data packets to all resources on the network, including those which do not need or wish to receive the data.

It also improves security because it avoids the possibility of Denial of Service (DOS) attacks, and it also facilitates scalability of the blockchain network by allowing faster throughput of transactions due to lower levels of network congestion.

The term “validator” may be used interchangeably with “validating resource”. The plurality of validating resources may form or provide a distributed validation node. At least one of the plurality of validating resources may comprise one or more processing resources. Additionally, or alternatively, one or more of the plurality of validating resources may comprise a validator controller component substantially as described herein.

The respective inner node may be a segment root. In other words, an “inner node” is a node in a Merkle tree that is neither the root node of the entire tree nor a leaf node. The transactions in each subset may share a respective common inner node.

In an alternative wording, each subset may comprise at least two transactions which are associated with a common node in the Merkle tree such that the subset provides and/or is represented by a (sub)portion of the Merkle tree. The common (inner) node may be a segment node or root substantially as described herein. The portion of the Merkle tree may be a “segment” substantially as described herein. At least one or some of the validating resources within the distributed validation node may share i.e. subscribe to a common IPv6 multicast address.Clause 1.2. A method according to clause 1.1, wherein validating the blockchain block and/or a subset of blockchain transactions comprises:i) validating and/or verifying at least one blockchain transaction; and/orii) performing a Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) process; and/oriii) confirming whether a given blockchain transaction (Tx) is contained within the blockchain block; and/oriii) generating a hash of at least one of the blockchain transactions, using the hash to construct a Merkle path and/or checking whether the hash matches a transaction identifier (TxID) in a header of the blockchain block.Clause 1.3. A method according to clause 1.1 or 1.2, wherein:at least one of the subsets of blockchain transactions comprises an identifier that is associated with, identifies and/or represents the subset.Clause 1.4. A method according to clause 1.3, wherein:the identifier facilitates calculation of the position of the at least one subset within the Merkle tree.Clause 1.5. A method according to clause 1.3 or 1.4, wherein:the identifier comprises part of a hash of a blockchain transaction within the at least one subset of blockchain transactions.Clause 1.6. A method according to any preceding clause, wherein:the step of allocating the respective subsets of blockchain transactions to the plurality of validating resources comprises matching the respective subsets to respective validating resources based on respective identifiers associated with the subsets of transactions.Clause 1.7. A method according to any preceding clause, and further comprising the step:i) downloading at least one subset of blockchain transactions to at least one of the plurality of validating resources; and/orii) sending at least one subset of blockchain transactions to at least one of the plurality of validating resourcesClause 1.8. A method according to any preceding clause, wherein:the Merkle tree comprises a binary tree or a mesh of hashes of the plurality of blockchain transactions.Clause 1.9. A method according to any preceding clause, and further comprising the step:identifying and/or determining the subsets of blockchain transactions within the plurality of blockchain transactions.Clause 1.10. A method according to any preceding clause wherein:at least one of the plurality of validating resources is, or comprises, one or more of the following:a virtual machine, a server, a GPU-based computing resource, a processing thread, and/or a multiprocessor system.Clause 1.11. A method according to any preceding clause wherein:i) the at least two transactions are siblings in the Merkle tree; and/orii) the common node is parent or an ancestor of the at least two transactions.Clause 1.12. A blockchain validating system operative to validate at least a portion of a blockchain block that comprises a plurality of blockchain transactions and a root of a Merkle tree for the block;wherein the system comprises a plurality of validating resources, each comprising:a processor; andmemory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes the system to perform the computer-implemented method of any preceding clause.Clause 1.13. 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 perform the computer-implemented method of any one of clauses 1.1 to 1.11.

According to another aspect of the disclosure, there is provided a computer implemented system arranged to perform any method step or combination of method steps described or claimed herein.

There is also provided a blockchain system (network) comprising a plurality of computer-implemented nodes, wherein each node in the blockchain network comprises:a processor; andmemory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes the system to perform any variation of the computer-implemented method claimed or described herein.

The network may be arranged to operate using a blockchain protocol as described herein.

Additionally or alternatively, the disclosure may comprise a computer implemented method of download at least part of a blockchain block. The block may comprise a plurality of blockchain transactions and a root of a Merkle tree for the block. The method may comprise steps as set out in one or more of the following clauses:

Clause Set 2:

Clause 2.1 A computer-implemented method of receiving e.g. downloading at least part of a blockchain block that comprises a plurality of blockchain transactions and a root of a Merkle tree for the block; the method comprising:allocating respective subsets of the blockchain transactions to a plurality of processing resources, wherein each respective subset provides a respective portion of the Merkle tree and is represented by a respective inner node of the Merkle tree; andusing one, some or all of the plurality of processing resources to receive or otherwise download their respective subset of blockchain transactions.

In accordance with one or more embodiments, the one, some or all of the processing resources may receive their respective subset of blockchain transactions from a providing (sending) resource. It may be sent across a network e.g. the Internet. The respective subset of blockchain transactions may be sent using an IPv6 multicast transmission. At least one, some or all of the plurality of processing resources may be members of an IPv6 multicast group. The sending resource may comprise a network device. The network device may be operative to send IPv6 multicast communications to a multicast address. MLD snooping may be enabled at the network device. This provides efficiency in terms of traffic on the network as the sending resource can selectively send the subset(s) of blockchain transactions to specific receiving resources (e.g. resources within the plurality of processing resources). Network traffic is reduced, energy and processing resources are not wasted by sending data packets to all resources on the network, including those which do not need or wish to receive the data. It also improves security because it avoids the possibility of Denial of Service (DOS) attacks, and it also facilitates scalability of the blockchain network by allowing faster throughput of transactions due to lower levels of network congestion.

Each respective subset may be represented by the respective inner node in the sense that the respective inner node may encode the respective subset. That is, the respective inner node may be generated based on (i.e. as a function of) the respective subset. Each transaction in a respective subset may be linked to the respective inner node by one or more hashing operations.Clause 2.2. A method according to clause 2.1, comprising:one, some or all of the plurality of processing resources sending their respective subset of blockchain transactions to a central storage location.Clause 2.3. A method according to clause 2.2, wherein:the respective inner node of the Merkle tree has a respective position in the Merkle tree, and wherein the method comprises:arranging the respective subsets of blockchain transactions based on the respective position of the respective inner node of the Merkle tree.Clause 2.4. A method according to any preceding clause, comprising:one, some or all of the processing resource generating a respective candidate inner node of the Merkle tree based on the respective downloaded subset of blockchain transactions; and further comprising at least one of the following:verifying that the respective candidate inner node matches the respective inner node of the Merkle tree; and/or;verifying that the respective candidate inner node is a node of the Merkle tree by performing a Merkle proof based on the root of the Merkle tree; and/orsending the respective candidate inner node of the Merkle tree to one or more other processing resources.Clause 2.5. A method according to any preceding clause, comprising:using one, some or all of the plurality of processing resources to validate their respective subset of blockchain transactions.Clause 2.6. A method according to clause 2.1, wherein:validating the respective subset of blockchain transactions comprises:i) validating and/or verifying at least one blockchain transaction; and/orii) performing a Simplified Payment Verification process; and/oriii) confirming whether a given blockchain transaction is contained within the blockchain block; and/oriii) generating a hash of at least one of the blockchain transactions, using the hash to construct a Merkle path and/or checking whether the hash matches a transaction identifier in a header of the blockchain block.Clause 2.7. A method according any preceding clause, wherein:at least one of the respective subsets of blockchain transactions comprises a respective identifier that is associated with, identifies and/or represents the respective subset.Clause 2.8. A method according to clause 2.7, wherein:the respective identifier facilitates calculation of a respective position of the at least one respective subset within the Merkle tree.Clause 2.9. A method according to clause 2.7 or 2.8, wherein:the respective identifier is based on the respective inner node of the Merkle tree.10. A method according to claim9, wherein:the respective identifier comprises part of the respective inner node of the Merkle tree.Clause 2.11. A method according to any preceding clause, wherein:the step of allocating the respective subset of blockchain transactions to the plurality of respective processing resources comprises matching the respective subsets to respective processing resources based on respective identifiers associated with the respective subsets of transactions.Clause 2.12. A method according to any preceding clause, wherein:the Merkle tree comprises a binary tree or a mesh structure of hashes of the plurality of blockchain transactions.Clause 2.13. A method according to any preceding clause, comprising:identifying and/or determining the subsets of blockchain transactions within the plurality of blockchain transactions.Clause 2.14. A method according to any preceding clause wherein:at least one of the plurality of processing resources is, or comprises, a virtual machine, a server, a GPU-based computing resource, or a multiprocessor system.Clause 2.15. A blockchain processing system operative to download at least part of a blockchain block that comprises a plurality of blockchain transactions and a root of a Merkle tree for the block; wherein the system comprises a plurality of processing resources, each comprising:a processor; andmemory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes or enables the system to perform the computer-implemented method of any preceding clause.Clause 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 or enable the computer system to perform the computer-implemented method of any one of clauses 2.1 to 2.14.

According to another aspect, there is provided 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 perform any version of the computer-implemented method claimed or described herein.

Clause Set 3:

Clause 3.1. A computer-implemented method comprising the steps:generating, storing and/or maintaining a first output repository for recording, searching and/or processing a plurality of unspent transaction outputs, each associated with a transaction (Tx) in a plurality of blockchain transactions (TXs) of a blockchain block;wherein:the plurality of blockchain transactions provides and/or is represented by a portion of a Merkle tree for the blockchain block.

In some embodiments, the first output repository may be referred to as a first UTXO output repository. The unspent transaction outputs may be referred to as UTXOs.Clause 3.2. A method according to clause 3.1, and comprising:generating, storing and/or maintaining at least one further output repository.Clause 3.3. A method according to clause 3.1 or 3.2, and further comprising:creating and/or maintaining a database log that comprises a history of actions,changes and events relating to the output repository.Clause 3.4. A method according to any preceding clause, wherein:the first and/or further output repository comprises at least one record associated with:i) an unspent transaction output; and/orii) a that is associated with a) an unspent transaction output and/or b) a transaction (Tx) in the plurality of blockchain transactionsClause 3.5. A method according to clause 3.4, wherein:the at least one record comprises a record identifier having:i) a block identifier (block_ID) associated with a blockchain block; and/orii) a transaction identifier (TxID) associated with a transaction (Tx) in the plurality of blockchain transactions.Clause 3.6. A method according to clause 3.5, wherein:i) the record identifier comprises a function of the block identifier (block_ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID); and/orii) a concatenation of the block identifier (block_ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID); and/oriii) the transaction of the plurality of blockchain transactions is associated with an unspent transaction output (UTXO)Clause 3.7. A method according to clauses 3.5 or 3.6, further comprising the step:using the record identifier to search for, identify, access or insert the at least one record in the output repository.Clause 3.8. A method according to any of any preceding clause, wherein:at least one unspent transaction output (UTXO) in the plurality (UTXOs) is associated in the output repository with a locking flag which:i) indicates whether the unspent transaction output (UTXO) is available or unavailable for spending; and/orii) is configurable between a first state indicative that spending of the unspent transaction output is allowed and a second state indicative that spending of the unspent transaction output is prohibited.Clause 3.9. A method according to clause 3.8, the method comprising the step:i) associating the unspent transaction output (UTXO) with the locking flag; and/orii) changing a state of the locking flag from the first state to the second state, or second state to the first state.Clause 3.10. A method according to clauses 3.8 or 3.9, comprising the step:sending a communication from a first processing resource to at least one further processing resource to cause the at least one further processing resource to change the state of the locking flag associated with the unspent transaction output from the first state to the second state, or second state to the first state.The communication may be sent using a multicast transmission to an IPv6 address associated with the at least one further processing resource.Clause 3.11. A method according to clause 3.10, wherein the communication comprises:i) a transaction (TX), a transaction identifier (TxID) and/or a hash of a transaction (Tx); andii) a list of one or more unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs).Clause 3.12. A method according to clauses 3.10 or 3.11, and comprising the steps:receiving the communication at the at least one further processing resource;changing the state of the locking flag from the first state to the second state, or second state to the first state.Clause 3.13. A method according to any preceding clause, wherein:i) the portion of the Merkle tree is a sub-portion or segment of the Merkle tree for the blockchain block; and/orii) the plurality of blockchain transactions is represented by an inner node of the Merkle tree.Clause 3.14. A blockchain implemented system comprising a plurality of processing resources, each comprising:a processor; andmemory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes or enables the system to perform the computer-implemented method of any preceding clause.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 or enable the computer system to perform the computer-implemented method of any one of clauses 3.1 to 3.13.

Clause Set 4

Any embodiment defined in any clause or combination of clauses in clause set 4 may be arranged to implement or combine with any clause(s) in clause sets 1 to 3.Clause 4.1. A system operative to validate at least a portion of a blockchain block that comprises a plurality of blockchain transactions and a root of a Merkle tree for the block, the system comprising:a plurality of validating resources, each comprising:at least one processor associated with at least one portion of memory storing executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the at least one processor, causes or enable the validating resource to:validate at least one subset of the plurality of blockchain transactions, wherein the at least one subset provides a portion of the Merkle tree and is represented by an inner node of the Merkle tree.Clause 4.2. A system according to clause 4.1, wherein the system further comprises:i) a load balancing component arranged to facilitate balancing of the distribution of a plurality of subsets of the plurality blockchain transactions among the plurality of validating resources; and/orii) a segment identification component arranged to facilitate identification of the at least one subset of the plurality of blockchain transactions; and/oriii) an allocation unit; and/oriv) one or more interfaces for sending or receiving communications between the system and one or more data sources or destinations.Clause 4.3. A system according to clause 4.1 or 4.2, wherein:the system comprises at least one controller component arranged to influence and/or control the operations of at least one of:at least one validating resource;at least one processor of the at least one validating resource;one or more interfaces;one or more load balancing components; and/or aone or more segment identification components arranged to facilitate identification of the at least one subset of the plurality of blockchain transactions.Clause 4.4. A system according to any preceding clause wherein:i) at least two transactions in the plurality of blockchain transactions are siblings in the Merkle tree; and/orii) the inner node is a parent or an ancestor of the subset of blockchain transactions.Clause 4.5. A system according to any preceding clause and further comprisinga plurality of UTXO repositories, each repository in the plurality associated with a respective validating resource and arranged to facilitate recording, searching and/or processing of a plurality of unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs);preferably wherein each plurality of unspent transaction outputs is associated with at least one transaction (Tx) in the plurality of blockchain transactions.Clause 4.6. A system according to clause 4.5, wherein the system is operative to:create and/or maintain a database log that comprises a history of actions, changes and events relating to at least one of the plurality of UTXO repositories.Clause 4.7. A system according to any preceding clause, wherein:at least one of the plurality of UTXO repositories comprises at least one record associated with:i) an unspent transaction output (UTXO); and/orii) an identifier that is associated with a) an unspent transaction output and/or b) a transaction (Tx) in the plurality of blockchain transactionsClause 4.8. A system according to clause 4.7, wherein:the at least one record comprises a record identifier having:i) a block identifier (block_ID) associated with the blockchain block; and/orii) a transaction identifier (TxID) associated with a transaction (Tx) in the plurality of blockchain transactions.Clause 4.9. A system according to clause 4.7 or 4.8, wherein the record identifier comprises:i) a function of the block identifier (block_ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID); and/orii) a concatenation of the block identifier (block_ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID).10. A system according to claims8or9, wherein the system is operative to: use the record identifier to search for, identify, access or insert the at least one record in at least one UTXO repository in the plurality of UTXO repositories.Clause 4.11 A system according to any of clauses 4.5 to 4.10, wherein:at least one unspent transaction output (UTXO) in the plurality (UTXOs) is associated with a locking flag which:i) indicates whether the unspent transaction output (UTXO) is available or unavailable for spending; and/orii) is configurable between a first state indicative that spending of the unspent transaction output is allowed and a second state indicative that spending of the unspent transaction output is prohibited.Clause 4.12. A system according to clause 4.11, the system operative to:change a state of the locking flag from the first state to the second state, or second state to the first state.Clause 4.13. A system according to any preceding clause, wherein the system is operative to:i) allocate respective subsets of the blockchain transactions to the plurality of validating resources; andii) use one, some or all of the plurality of validating resources to download and/or receive respective subsets of blockchain transactions.Clause 4.14. A system according to any preceding clause, and operative to:use one, some or all of the validating resources to generate a respective candidate inner node of the Merkle tree based on the respective downloaded subset of blockchain transactions; and further operative to perform at least one of the following:verify that the respective candidate inner node matches the respective inner node of the Merkle tree; and/or;verify that the respective candidate inner node is a node of the Merkle tree by performing a Merkle proof based on the root of the Merkle tree; and/orsend the respective candidate inner node of the Merkle tree to one or more other processing resources.Clause 4.15. A system according to any preceding clause, wherein the system is operative to:i) validate and/or verify at least one blockchain transaction; and/orii) perform a Simplified Payment Verification process; and/oriii) confirm whether a given blockchain transaction is contained within the blockchain block; and/oriii) generate a hash of at least one of the blockchain transactions, using the hash to construct a Merkle path and/or checking whether the hash matches a transaction identifier in a header of the blockchain block.Clause 4.16. A system according to any preceding clause wherein:at least one of the plurality of validating resources is, or comprises at least one of: a virtual machine, a server, a GPU-based computing resource, a thread, and/or a multiprocessor system.

Example Technical Environment for Implementation of an Illustrative Embodiment of the Disclosure

We now describe an overview of a computing environment in which one or more embodiments of the disclosure may be put into practice. However, as noted above, this context is not intended to be limiting and embodiments may be put into effect for the processing of data records and structures that are not implemented via a blockchain. Non-blockchain embodiments may be devised e.g. using a database instead of a distributed ledger.

FIG.1shows an example system100for implementing a blockchain150. The system100may comprise a packet-switched network101, typically a wide-area internetwork such as the Internet. The packet-switched network101comprises a plurality of blockchain nodes104that may be arranged to form a peer-to-peer (P2P) network106within the packet-switched network101. Whilst not illustrated, the blockchain nodes104may be arranged as a near-complete graph. Each blockchain node104is therefore highly connected to other blockchain nodes104.

Each blockchain node104comprises computer equipment of a peer, with different ones of the nodes104belonging to different peers. Each blockchain node104comprises processing apparatus comprising one or more processors, e.g. one or more central processing units (CPUs), accelerator processors, application specific processors and/or field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), and other equipment such as application specific integrated circuits (ASICs). Each node also comprises memory, i.e. computer-readable storage in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium or media. The memory may comprise one or more memory units employing one or more memory media, e.g. a magnetic medium such as a hard disk; an electronic medium such as a solid-state drive (SSD), flash memory or EEPROM; and/or an optical medium such as an optical disk drive.

The blockchain150comprises a chain of blocks of data151, wherein a respective copy of the blockchain150is maintained at each of a plurality of blockchain nodes104in the distributed or blockchain network106. As mentioned above, maintaining a copy of the blockchain150does not necessarily mean storing the blockchain150in full. Instead, the blockchain150may be pruned of data so long as each blockchain node150stores the block header (discussed below) of each block151. Each block151in the chain comprises one or more transactions152, wherein a transaction in this context refers to a kind of data structure. The nature of the data structure will depend on the type of transaction protocol used as part of a transaction model or scheme. A given blockchain will use one particular transaction protocol throughout. In one common type of transaction protocol, the data structure of each transaction152comprises at least one input and at least one output. Each output specifies an amount representing a quantity of a digital asset as property, an example of which is a user103to whom the output is cryptographically locked (requiring a signature or other solution of that user in order to be unlocked and thereby redeemed or spent). Each input points back to the output of a preceding transaction152, thereby linking the transactions.

Each block151also comprises a block pointer155pointing back to the previously created block151in the chain so as to define a sequential order to the blocks151. Each transaction152(other than a coinbase transaction) comprises a pointer back to a previous transaction so as to define an order to sequences of transactions (N.B. sequences of transactions152are allowed to branch). The chain of blocks151goes all the way back to a genesis block (Gb)153which was the first block in the chain. One or more original transactions152early on in the chain150pointed to the genesis block153rather than a preceding transaction.

Each of the blockchain nodes104is configured to forward transactions152to other blockchain nodes104, and thereby cause transactions152to be propagated throughout the network106. Each blockchain node104is configured to create blocks151and to store a respective copy of the same blockchain150in their respective memory. Each blockchain node104also maintains an ordered set (or “pool”)154of transactions152waiting to be incorporated into blocks151. The ordered pool154is often referred to as a “mempool”. This term herein is not intended to limit to any particular blockchain, protocol or model. It refers to the ordered set of transactions which a node104has accepted as valid and for which the node104is obliged not to accept any other transactions attempting to spend the same output.

In a given present transaction152j, the (or each) input comprises a pointer referencing the output of a preceding transaction152iin the sequence of transactions, specifying that this output is to be redeemed or “spent” in the present transaction152j. In general, the preceding transaction could be any transaction in the ordered set154or any block151. The preceding transaction152ineed not necessarily exist at the time the present transaction152jis created or even sent to the network106, though the preceding transaction152iwill need to exist and be validated in order for the present transaction to be valid. Hence “preceding” herein refers to a predecessor in a logical sequence linked by pointers, not necessarily the time of creation or sending in a temporal sequence, and hence it does not necessarily exclude that the transactions152i,152jbe created or sent out-of-order (see discussion below on orphan transactions). The preceding transaction152icould equally be called the antecedent or predecessor transaction.

The input of the present transaction152jalso comprises the input authorisation, for example the signature of the user103ato whom the output of the preceding transaction152iis locked. In turn, the output of the present transaction152jcan be cryptographically locked to a new user or entity103b. The present transaction152jcan thus transfer the amount defined in the input of the preceding transaction152ito the new user or entity103bas defined in the output of the present transaction152j. In some cases a transaction152may have multiple outputs to split the input amount between multiple users or entities (one of whom could be the original user or entity103ain order to give change). In some cases a transaction can also have multiple inputs to gather together the amounts from multiple outputs of one or more preceding transactions, and redistribute to one or more outputs of the current transaction.

According to an output-based transaction protocol such as bitcoin, when a party103, such as an individual user or an organization, wishes to enact a new transaction152j(either manually or by an automated process employed by the party), then the enacting party sends the new transaction from its computer terminal102to a recipient. The enacting party or the recipient will eventually send this transaction to one or more of the blockchain nodes104of the network106(which nowadays are typically servers or data centres, but could in principle be other user terminals). It is also not excluded that the party103enacting the new transaction152jcould send the transaction directly to one or more of the blockchain nodes104and, in some examples, not to the recipient. A blockchain node104that receives a transaction checks whether the transaction is valid according to a blockchain node protocol which is applied at each of the blockchain nodes104. The blockchain node protocol typically requires the blockchain node104to check that a cryptographic signature in the new transaction152jmatches the expected signature, which depends on the previous transaction152iin an ordered sequence of transactions152. In such an output-based transaction protocol, this may comprise checking that the cryptographic signature or other authorisation of the party103included in the input of the new transaction152jmatches a condition defined in the output of the preceding transaction152iwhich the new transaction assigns, wherein this condition typically comprises at least checking that the cryptographic signature or other authorisation in the input of the new transaction152junlocks the output of the previous transaction152ito which the input of the new transaction is linked to. The condition may be at least partially defined by a script included in the output of the preceding transaction152i. Alternatively it could simply be fixed by the blockchain node protocol alone, or it could be due to a combination of these. Either way, if the new transaction152jis valid, the blockchain node104forwards it to one or more other blockchain nodes104in the blockchain network106. These other blockchain nodes104apply the same test according to the same blockchain node protocol, and so forward the new transaction152jon to one or more further nodes104, and so forth. In this way the new transaction is propagated throughout the network of blockchain nodes104.

In an output-based model, the definition of whether a given output (e.g. UTXO) is assigned (e.g. spent) is whether it has yet been validly redeemed by the input of another, onward transaction152jaccording to the blockchain node protocol. Another condition for a transaction to be valid is that the output of the preceding transaction152iwhich it attempts to redeem has not already been redeemed by another transaction. Again if not valid, the transaction152jwill not be propagated (unless flagged as invalid and propagated for alerting) or recorded in the blockchain150. This guards against double-spending whereby the transactor tries to assign the output of the same transaction more than once. An account-based model on the other hand guards against double-spending by maintaining an account balance. Because again there is a defined order of transactions, the account balance has a single defined state at any one time.

In addition to validating transactions, blockchain nodes104also race to be the first to create blocks of transactions in a process commonly referred to as mining, which is supported by “proof-of-work”. At a blockchain node104, new transactions are added to an ordered pool154of valid transactions that have not yet appeared in a block151recorded on the blockchain150. The blockchain nodes then race to assemble a new valid block151of transactions152from the ordered set of transactions154by attempting to solve a cryptographic puzzle. Typically this comprises searching for a “nonce” value such that when the nonce is concatenated with a representation of the ordered pool of pending transactions154and hashed, then the output of the hash meets a predetermined condition. E.g. the predetermined condition may be that the output of the hash has a certain predefined number of leading zeros. Note that this is just one particular type of proof-of-work puzzle, and other types are not excluded. A property of a hash function is that it has an unpredictable output with respect to its input. Therefore this search can only be performed by brute force, thus consuming a substantive amount of processing resource at each blockchain node104that is trying to solve the puzzle.

The first blockchain node104to solve the puzzle announces this to the network106, providing the solution as proof which can then be easily checked by the other blockchain nodes104in the network (once given the solution to a hash it is straightforward to check that it causes the output of the hash to meet the condition). The first blockchain node104propagates a block to a threshold consensus of other nodes that accept the block and thus enforce the protocol rules. The ordered set of transactions154then becomes recorded as a new block151in the blockchain150by each of the blockchain nodes104. A block pointer155is also assigned to the new block151npointing back to the previously created block151n-1in the chain. The significant amount of effort, for example in the form of hash, required to create a proof-of-work solution signals the intent of the first node104to follow the rules of the blockchain protocol. Such rules include not accepting a transaction as valid if it assigns the same output as a previously validated transaction, otherwise known as double-spending. Once created, the block151cannot be modified since it is recognized and maintained at each of the blockchain nodes104in the blockchain network106. The block pointer155also imposes a sequential order to the blocks151. Since the transactions152are recorded in the ordered blocks at each blockchain node104in a network106, this therefore provides an immutable public ledger of the transactions.

Note that different blockchain nodes104racing to solve the puzzle at any given time may be doing so based on different snapshots of the pool of yet-to-be published transactions154at any given time, depending on when they started searching for a solution or the order in which the transactions were received. Whoever solves their respective puzzle first defines which transactions152are included in the next new block151nand in which order, and the current pool154of unpublished transactions is updated. The blockchain nodes104then continue to race to create a block from the newly-defined ordered pool of unpublished transactions154, and so forth. A protocol also exists for resolving any “fork” that may arise, which is where two blockchain nodes104solve their puzzle within a very short time of one another such that a conflicting view of the blockchain gets propagated between nodes104. In short, whichever prong of the fork grows the longest becomes the definitive blockchain150. Note this should not affect the users or agents of the network as the same transactions will appear in both forks.

According to the bitcoin blockchain (and most other blockchains) a node that successfully constructs a new block104is granted the ability to newly assign an additional, accepted amount of the digital asset in a new special kind of transaction which distributes an additional defined quantity of the digital asset (as opposed to an inter-agent, or inter-user transaction which transfers an amount of the digital asset from one agent or user to another). This special type of transaction is usually referred to as a “coinbase transaction”, but may also be termed an “initiation transaction” or “generation transaction”. It typically forms the first transaction of the new block151n. The proof-of-work signals the intent of the node that constructs the new block to follow the protocol rules allowing this special transaction to be redeemed later. The blockchain protocol rules may require a maturity period, for example100blocks, before this special transaction may be redeemed. Often a regular (non-generation) transaction152will also specify an additional transaction fee in one of its outputs, to further reward the blockchain node104that created the block151nin which that transaction was published. This fee is normally referred to as the “transaction fee”, and is discussed blow.

Due to the resources involved in transaction validation and publication, typically at least each of the blockchain nodes104takes the form of a server comprising one or more physical server units, or even whole a data centre. However in principle any given blockchain node104could take the form of a user terminal or a group of user terminals networked together.

The memory of each blockchain node104stores software configured to run on the processing apparatus of the blockchain node104in order to perform its respective role or roles and handle transactions152in accordance with the blockchain node protocol. It will be understood that any action attributed herein to a blockchain node104may be performed by the software run on the processing apparatus of the respective computer equipment. The node software may be implemented in one or more applications at the application layer, or a lower layer such as the operating system layer or a protocol layer, or any combination of these.

Also connected to the network101is the computer equipment102of each of a plurality of parties103in the role of consuming users. These users may interact with the blockchain network106but do not participate in validating transactions or constructing blocks. Some of these users or agents103may act as senders and recipients in transactions. Other users may interact with the blockchain150without necessarily acting as senders or recipients. For instance, some parties may act as storage entities that store a copy of the blockchain150(e.g. having obtained a copy of the blockchain from a blockchain node104).

Some or all of the parties103may be connected as part of a different network, e.g. a network overlaid on top of the blockchain network106. Users of the blockchain network (often referred to as “clients”) may be said to be part of a system that includes the blockchain network106; however, these users are not blockchain nodes104as they do not perform the roles required of the blockchain nodes. Instead, each party103may interact with the blockchain network106and thereby utilize the blockchain150by connecting to (i.e. communicating with) a blockchain node106. Two parties103and their respective equipment102are shown for illustrative purposes: a first party103aand his/her respective computer equipment102a, and a second party103band his/her respective computer equipment102b. It will be understood that many more such parties103and their respective computer equipment102may be present and participating in the system100, but for convenience they are not illustrated. Each party103may be an individual or an organization. Purely by way of illustration the first party103ais referred to herein as Alice and the second party103bis referred to as Bob, but it will be appreciated that this is not limiting and any reference herein to Alice or Bob may be replaced with “first party” and “second “party” respectively.

The computer equipment102of each party103comprises respective processing apparatus comprising one or more processors, e.g. one or more CPUs, GPUs, other accelerator processors, application specific processors, and/or FPGAs. The computer equipment102of each party103further comprises memory, i.e. computer-readable storage in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium or media. This memory may comprise one or more memory units employing one or more memory media, e.g. a magnetic medium such as hard disk; an electronic medium such as an SSD, flash memory or EEPROM; and/or an optical medium such as an optical disc drive. The memory on the computer equipment102of each party103stores software comprising a respective instance of at least one client application105arranged to run on the processing apparatus. It will be understood that any action attributed herein to a given party103may be performed using the software run on the processing apparatus of the respective computer equipment102. The computer equipment102of each party103comprises at least one user terminal, e.g. a desktop or laptop computer, a tablet, a smartphone, or a wearable device such as a smartwatch. The computer equipment102of a given party103may also comprise one or more other networked resources, such as cloud computing resources accessed via the user terminal.

The client application105may be initially provided to the computer equipment102of any given party103on suitable computer-readable storage medium or media, e.g. downloaded from a server, or provided on a removable storage device such as a removable SSD, flash memory key, removable EEPROM, removable magnetic disk drive, magnetic floppy disk or tape, optical disk such as a CD or DVD ROM, or a removable optical drive, etc.

The client application105comprises at least a “wallet” function. This has two main functionalities. One of these is to enable the respective party103to create, authorise (for example sign) and send transactions152to one or more bitcoin nodes104to then be propagated throughout the network of blockchain nodes104and thereby included in the blockchain150. The other is to report back to the respective party the amount of the digital asset that he or she currently owns. In an output-based system, this second functionality comprises collating the amounts defined in the outputs of the various152transactions scattered throughout the blockchain150that belong to the party in question.

Note: whilst the various client functionality may be described as being integrated into a given client application105, this is not necessarily limiting and instead any client functionality described herein may instead be implemented in a suite of two or more distinct applications, e.g. interfacing via an API, or one being a plug-in to the other. More generally the client functionality could be implemented at the application layer or a lower layer such as the operating system, or any combination of these. The following will be described in terms of a client application105but it will be appreciated that this is not limiting.

The instance of the client application or software105on each computer equipment102is operatively coupled to at least one of the blockchain nodes104of the network106. This enables the wallet function of the client105to send transactions152to the network106. The client105is also able to contact blockchain nodes104in order to query the blockchain150for any transactions of which the respective party103is the recipient (or indeed inspect other parties' transactions in the blockchain150, since in embodiments the blockchain150is a public facility which provides trust in transactions in part through its public visibility). The wallet function on each computer equipment102is configured to formulate and send transactions152according to a transaction protocol. As set out above, each blockchain node104runs software configured to validate transactions152according to the blockchain node protocol, and to forward transactions152in order to propagate them throughout the blockchain network106. The transaction protocol and the node protocol correspond to one another, and a given transaction protocol goes with a given node protocol, together implementing a given transaction model. The same transaction protocol is used for all transactions152in the blockchain150. The same node protocol is used by all the nodes104in the network106.

When a given party103, say Alice, wishes to send a new transaction152jto be included in the blockchain150, then she formulates the new transaction in accordance with the relevant transaction protocol (using the wallet function in her client application105). She then sends the transaction152from the client application105to one or more blockchain nodes104to which she is connected. E.g. this could be the blockchain node104that is best connected to Alice's computer102. When any given blockchain node104receives a new transaction152j, it handles it in accordance with the blockchain node protocol and its respective role. This comprises first checking whether the newly received transaction152jmeets a certain condition for being “valid”, examples of which will be discussed in more detail shortly. In some transaction protocols, the condition for validation may be configurable on a per-transaction basis by scripts included in the transactions152. Alternatively the condition could simply be a built-in feature of the node protocol, or be defined by a combination of the script and the node protocol.

On condition that the newly received transaction152jpasses the test for being deemed valid (i.e. on condition that it is “validated”), any blockchain node104that receives the transaction152jwill add the new validated transaction152to the ordered set of transactions154maintained at that blockchain node104. Further, any blockchain node104that receives the transaction152jwill propagate the validated transaction152onward to one or more other blockchain nodes104in the network106. Since each blockchain node104applies the same protocol, then assuming the transaction152jis valid, this means it will soon be propagated throughout the whole network106.

Once admitted to the ordered pool of pending transactions154maintained at a given blockchain node104, that blockchain node104will start competing to solve the proof-of-work puzzle on the latest version of their respective pool of154including the new transaction152(recall that other blockchain nodes104may be trying to solve the puzzle based on a different pool of transactions154, but whoever gets there first will define the set of transactions that are included in the latest block151. Eventually a blockchain node104will solve the puzzle for a part of the ordered pool154which includes Alice's transaction152j). Once the proof-of-work has been done for the pool154including the new transaction152j, it immutably becomes part of one of the blocks151in the blockchain150. Each transaction152comprises a pointer back to an earlier transaction, so the order of the transactions is also immutably recorded.

Different blockchain nodes104may receive different instances of a given transaction first and therefore have conflicting views of which instance is ‘valid’ before one instance is published in a new block151, at which point all blockchain nodes104agree that the published instance is the only valid instance. If a blockchain node104accepts one instance as valid, and then discovers that a second instance has been recorded in the blockchain150then that blockchain node104must accept this and will discard (i.e. treat as invalid) the instance which it had initially accepted (i.e. the one that has not been published in a block151).

An alternative type of transaction protocol operated by some blockchain networks may be referred to as an “account-based” protocol, as part of an account-based transaction model. In the account-based case, each transaction does not define the amount to be transferred by referring back to the UTXO of a preceding transaction in a sequence of past transactions, but rather by reference to an absolute account balance. The current state of all accounts is stored, by the nodes of that network, separate to the blockchain and is updated constantly. In such a system, transactions are ordered using a running transaction tally of the account (also called the “position”). This value is signed by the sender as part of their cryptographic signature and is hashed as part of the transaction reference calculation. In addition, an optional data field may also be signed the transaction. This data field may point back to a previous transaction, for example if the previous transaction ID is included in the data field.

FIG.2illustrates an example transaction protocol. This is an example of a UTXO-based protocol. A transaction152(abbreviated “Tx”) is the fundamental data structure of the blockchain150(each block151comprising one or more transactions152). The following will be described by reference to an output-based or “UTXO” based protocol. However, this is not limiting to all possible embodiments. Note that while the example UTXO-based protocol is described with reference to bitcoin, it may equally be implemented on other example blockchain networks.

In a UTXO-based model, each transaction (“Tx”)152comprises a data structure comprising one or more inputs202, and one or more outputs203. Each output203may comprise an unspent transaction output (UTXO), which can be used as the source for the input202of another new transaction (if the UTXO has not already been redeemed). The UTXO includes a value specifying an amount of a digital asset. This represents a set number of tokens on the distributed ledger. The UTXO may also contain the transaction ID of the transaction from which it came, amongst other information. The transaction data structure may also comprise a header201, which may comprise an indicator of the size of the input field(s)202and output field(s)203. The header201may also include an ID of the transaction. In embodiments the transaction ID is the hash of the transaction data (excluding the transaction ID itself) and stored in the header201of the raw transaction152submitted to the nodes104.

Say Alice103awishes to create a transaction152jtransferring an amount of the digital asset in question to Bob103b. InFIG.2Alice's new transaction152jis labelled “Tx-”. It takes an amount of the digital asset that is locked to Alice in the output203of a preceding transaction152iin the sequence, and transfers at least some of this to Bob. The preceding transaction152iis labelled “Tx0” inFIG.2. Tx0and Tx1are just arbitrary labels. They do not necessarily mean that Tx0is the first transaction in the blockchain151, nor that Tx1is the immediate next transaction in the pool154. Tx1could point back to any preceding (i.e. antecedent) transaction that still has an unspent output203locked to Alice.

The preceding transaction Tx0may already have been validated and included in a block151of the blockchain150at the time when Alice creates her new transaction Tx1, or at least by the time she sends it to the network106. It may already have been included in one of the blocks151at that time, or it may be still waiting in the ordered set154in which case it will soon be included in a new block151. Alternatively Tx0and Tx1could be created and sent to the network106together, or Tx0could even be sent after Tx1if the node protocol allows for buffering “orphan” transactions. The terms “preceding” and “subsequent” as used herein in the context of the sequence of transactions refer to the order of the transactions in the sequence as defined by the transaction pointers specified in the transactions (which transaction points back to which other transaction, and so forth). They could equally be replaced with “predecessor” and “successor”, or “antecedent” and “descendant”, “parent” and “child”, or such like. It does not necessarily imply an order in which they are created, sent to the network106, or arrive at any given blockchain node104. Nevertheless, a subsequent transaction (the descendent transaction or “child”) which points to a preceding transaction (the antecedent transaction or “parent”) will not be validated until and unless the parent transaction is validated. A child that arrives at a blockchain node104before its parent is considered an orphan. It may be discarded or buffered for a certain time to wait for the parent, depending on the node protocol and/or node behaviour.

One of the one or more outputs203of the preceding transaction Tx0comprises a particular UTXO, labelled here UTXO0. Each UTXO comprises a value specifying an amount of the digital asset represented by the UTXO, and a locking script which defines a condition which must be met by an unlocking script in the input202of a subsequent transaction in order for the subsequent transaction to be validated, and therefore for the UTXO to be successfully redeemed. Typically the locking script locks the amount to a particular party (the beneficiary of the transaction in which it is included). I.e. the locking script defines an unlocking condition, typically comprising a condition that the unlocking script in the input of the subsequent transaction comprises the cryptographic signature of the party to whom the preceding transaction is locked.

The locking script (also known as scriptPubKey) is a piece of code written in the domain specific language recognized by the node protocol. A particular example of such a language is called “Script” (capital S) which is used by the blockchain network. The locking script specifies what information is required to spend a transaction output203, for example the requirement of Alice's signature. Unlocking scripts appear in the outputs of transactions. The unlocking script (also known as scriptSig) is a piece of code written the domain specific language that provides the information required to satisfy the locking script criteria. For example, it may contain Bob's signature. Unlocking scripts appear in the input202of transactions.

So in the example illustrated, UTXO0in the output203of Tx0comprises a locking script [Checksig PA] which requires a signature Sig PAof Alice in order for UTXO0to be redeemed (strictly, in order for a subsequent transaction attempting to redeem UTXO0to be valid). [Checksig PA] contains a representation (i.e. a hash) of the public key PAfrom a public-private key pair of Alice. The input202of Tx1comprises a pointer pointing back to Tx1(e.g. by means of its transaction ID, TxID0, which in embodiments is the hash of the whole transaction Tx0). The input202of Tx1comprises an index identifying UTXO0within Tx0, to identify it amongst any other possible outputs of Tx0. The input202of Tx1further comprises an unlocking script <Sig PA> which comprises a cryptographic signature of Alice, created by Alice applying her private key from the key pair to a predefined portion of data (sometimes called the “message” in cryptography). The data (or “message”) that needs to be signed by Alice to provide a valid signature may be defined by the locking script, or by the node protocol, or by a combination of these.

When the new transaction Tx1arrives at a blockchain node104, the node applies the node protocol. This comprises running the locking script and unlocking script together to check whether the unlocking script meets the condition defined in the locking script (where this condition may comprise one or more criteria). In embodiments this involves concatenating the two scripts:<Sig PA><PA>∥[Checksig PA]
where “∥” represents a concatenation and “< . . . >” means place the data on the stack, and “[ . . . ]” is a function comprised by the locking script (in this example a stack-based language). Equivalently the scripts may be run one after the other, with a common stack, rather than concatenating the scripts. Either way, when run together, the scripts use the public key PAof Alice, as included in the locking script in the output of Tx0, to authenticate that the unlocking script in the input of Tx1contains the signature of Alice signing the expected portion of data. The expected portion of data itself (the “message”) also needs to be included in order to perform this authentication. In embodiments the signed data comprises the whole of Tx1(so a separate element does not need to be included specifying the signed portion of data in the clear, as it is already inherently present).

The details of authentication by public-private cryptography will be familiar to a person skilled in the art. Basically, if Alice has signed a message using her private key, then given Alice's public key and the message in the clear, another entity such as a node104is able to authenticate that the message must have been signed by Alice. Signing typically comprises hashing the message, signing the hash, and tagging this onto the message as a signature, thus enabling any holder of the public key to authenticate the signature. Note therefore that any reference herein to signing a particular piece of data or part of a transaction, or such like, can in embodiments mean signing a hash of that piece of data or part of the transaction.

If the unlocking script in Tx1meets the one or more conditions specified in the locking script of Tx0(so in the example shown, if Alice's signature is provided in Tx1and authenticated), then the blockchain node104deems Tx1valid. This means that the blockchain node104will add Tx1to the ordered pool of pending transactions154. The blockchain node104will also forward the transaction Tx1to one or more other blockchain nodes104in the network106, so that it will be propagated throughout the network106. Once Tx1has been validated and included in the blockchain150, this defines UTXO0from Tx0as spent. Note that Tx1can only be valid if it spends an unspent transaction output203. If it attempts to spend an output that has already been spent by another transaction152, then Tx1will be invalid even if all the other conditions are met. Hence the blockchain node104also needs to check whether the referenced UTXO in the preceding transaction Tx0is already spent (i.e. whether it has already formed a valid input to another valid transaction). This is one reason why it is important for the blockchain150to impose a defined order on the transactions152. In practice a given blockchain node104may maintain a separate database marking which UTXOs203in which transactions152have been spent, but ultimately what defines whether a UTXO has been spent is whether it has already formed a valid input to another valid transaction in the blockchain150.

If the total amount specified in all the outputs203of a given transaction152is greater than the total amount pointed to by all its inputs202, this is another basis for invalidity in most transaction models. Therefore such transactions will not be propagated nor included in a block151.

Note that in UTXO-based transaction models, a given UTXO needs to be spent as a whole. It cannot “leave behind” a fraction of the amount defined in the UTXO as spent while another fraction is spent. However the amount from the UTXO can be split between multiple outputs of the next transaction. E.g. the amount defined in UTXO0in Tx0can be split between multiple UTXOs in Tx1. Hence if Alice does not want to give Bob all of the amount defined in UTXO0, she can use the remainder to give herself change in a second output of Tx1, or pay another party.

In practice Alice will also usually need to include a fee for the bitcoin node104that successfully includes her transaction104in a block151. If Alice does not include such a fee, Tx0may be rejected by the blockchain nodes104, and hence although technically valid, may not be propagated and included in the blockchain150(the node protocol does not force blockchain nodes104to accept transactions152if they don't want). In some protocols, the transaction fee does not require its own separate output203(i.e. does not need a separate UTXO). Instead any difference between the total amount pointed to by the input(s)202and the total amount of specified in the output(s)203of a given transaction152is automatically given to the blockchain node104publishing the transaction. E.g. say a pointer to UTXO0is the only input to Tx1, and Tx1has only one output UTXO1. If the amount of the digital asset specified in UTXO0is greater than the amount specified in UTXO1, then the difference may be assigned by the node104that wins the proof-of-work race to create the block containing UTXO1. Alternatively or additionally however, it is not necessarily excluded that a transaction fee could be specified explicitly in its own one of the UTXOs203of the transaction152.

Alice and Bob's digital assets consist of the UTXOs locked to them in any transactions152anywhere in the blockchain150. Hence typically, the assets of a given party103are scattered throughout the UTXOs of various transactions152throughout the blockchain150. There is no one number stored anywhere in the blockchain150that defines the total balance of a given party103. It is the role of the wallet function in the client application105to collate together the values of all the various UTXOs which are locked to the respective party and have not yet been spent in another onward transaction. It can do this by querying the copy of the blockchain150as stored at any of the bitcoin nodes104.

Note that the script code is often represented schematically (i.e. not using the exact language). For example, one may use operation codes (opcodes) to represent a particular function. “OP_ . . . ” refers to a particular opcode of the Script language. As an example, OP_RETURN is an opcode of the Script language that when preceded by OP_FALSE at the beginning of a locking script creates an unspendable output of a transaction that can store data within the transaction, and thereby record the data immutably in the blockchain150. E.g. the data could comprise a document which it is desired to store in the blockchain.

Typically an input of a transaction contains a digital signature corresponding to a public key PA. In embodiments this is based on the ECDSA using the elliptic curve secp256k1. A digital signature signs a particular piece of data. In some embodiments, for a given transaction the signature will sign part of the transaction input, and some or all of the transaction outputs. The particular parts of the outputs it signs depends on the SIGHASH flag. The SIGHASH flag is usually a 4-byte code included at the end of a signature to select which outputs are signed (and thus fixed at the time of signing).

The locking script is sometimes called “scriptPubKey” referring to the fact that it typically comprises the public key of the party to whom the respective transaction is locked. The unlocking script is sometimes called “scriptSig” referring to the fact that it typically supplies the corresponding signature. However, more generally it is not essential in all applications of a blockchain150that the condition for a UTXO to be redeemed comprises authenticating a signature. More generally the scripting language could be used to define any one or more conditions. Hence the more general terms “locking script” and “unlocking script” may be preferred.

Side Channel

As shown inFIG.1, the client application on each of Alice and Bob's computer equipment102a,120b, respectively, may comprise additional communication functionality. This additional functionality enables Alice103ato establish a separate side channel107with Bob103b(at the instigation of either party or a third party). The side channel107enables exchange of data separately from the blockchain network. Such communication is sometimes referred to as “off-chain” communication. For instance this may be used to exchange a transaction152between Alice and Bob without the transaction (yet) being registered onto the blockchain network106or making its way onto the chain150, until one of the parties chooses to broadcast it to the network106. Sharing a transaction in this way is sometimes referred to as sharing a “transaction template”. A transaction template may lack one or more inputs and/or outputs that are required in order to form a complete transaction. Alternatively or additionally, the side channel107may be used to exchange any other transaction related data, such as keys, negotiated amounts or terms, data content, etc.

The side channel107may be established via the same packet-switched network101as the blockchain network106. Alternatively or additionally, the side channel301may be established via a different network such as a mobile cellular network, or a local area network such as a local wireless network, or even a direct wired or wireless link between Alice and Bob's devices102a,102b. Generally, the side channel107as referred to anywhere herein may comprise any one or more links via one or more networking technologies or communication media for exchanging data “off-chain”, i.e. separately from the blockchain network106. Where more than one link is used, then the bundle or collection of off-chain links as a whole may be referred to as the side channel107. Note therefore that if it is said that Alice and Bob exchange certain pieces of information or data, or such like, over the side channel107, then this does not necessarily imply all these pieces of data have to be send over exactly the same link or even the same type of network.

Further Remarks

Other variants or use cases of the disclosed techniques may become apparent to the person skilled in the art once given the disclosure herein. The scope of the disclosure is not limited by the described embodiments but only by the accompanying claims. For instance, some embodiments above have been described in terms of a bitcoin network106, bitcoin blockchain150and bitcoin nodes104. However, it will be appreciated that the bitcoin blockchain is one particular example of a blockchain150and the above description may apply generally to any blockchain. That is, the present invention is in by no way limited to the bitcoin blockchain. More generally, any reference above to bitcoin network106, bitcoin blockchain150and bitcoin nodes104may be replaced with reference to a blockchain network106, blockchain150and blockchain node104respectively. The blockchain, blockchain network and/or blockchain nodes may share some or all of the described properties of the bitcoin blockchain150, bitcoin network106and bitcoin nodes104as described above.

In preferred embodiments of the disclosure, the blockchain network106is the bitcoin network and bitcoin nodes104perform at least some or all of the described functions of creating, publishing, propagating and storing blocks151of the blockchain150. It is not excluded that there may be other network entities (or network elements) that only perform one or some but not all of these functions. That is, a network entity may perform the function of propagating and/or storing blocks without creating and publishing blocks (recall that these entities are not considered nodes of the preferred bitcoin network106).

In other embodiments of the disclosure, the blockchain network106may not be the bitcoin network. In these embodiments, it is not excluded that a node may perform at least one or some but not all of the functions of creating, publishing, propagating and storing blocks151of the blockchain150. For instance, on those other blockchain networks a “node” may be used to refer to a network entity that is configured to create and publish blocks151but not store and/or propagate those blocks151to other nodes.

Even more generally, any reference to the term “bitcoin node”104above may be replaced with the term “network entity” or “network element”, wherein such an entity/element is configured to perform some or all of the roles of creating, publishing, propagating and storing blocks. The functions of such a network entity/element may be implemented in hardware in the same way described above with reference to a blockchain node104.

The term “user” may be used herein to include human and machine-based entities. The above-mentioned embodiments illustrate rather than limit the disclosure, and those skilled in the art will be capable of designing many alternative embodiments without departing from the scope of the disclosure as defined by the appended claims. In the claims, any reference signs placed in parentheses shall not be construed as limiting the claims. The word “comprising” and “comprises”, and the like, does not exclude the presence of elements or steps other than those listed in any claim or the specification as a whole. In the present specification, “comprises” means “includes or consists of” and “comprising” means “including or consisting of”. Throughout this specification the word “comprise”, or variations such as “includes”, “comprises” or “comprising”, will be understood to imply the inclusion of a stated element, integer or step, or group of elements, integers or steps, but not the exclusion of any other element, integer or step, or group of elements, integers or steps. The singular reference of an element does not exclude the plural reference of such elements and vice-versa. The disclosure may be implemented by means of hardware comprising several distinct elements, and by means of a suitably programmed computer. In a device claim enumerating several means, several of these means may be embodied by one and the same item of hardware. The mere fact that certain measures are recited in mutually different dependent claims does not indicate that a combination of these measures cannot be used to advantage.