Loading...
xail Patent Portfolio / Application 5
Sign out ← Back
PATENT PORTFOLIO · APPLICATION 5

Threshold-Secured Blockchain Consensus, Storage, and Transaction Processing Using Information-Theoretic Secret Sharing Over GF(2)

Single-chain multi-tier consensus with percentage-based thresholds, three-layer storage that decreases with adoption, proposer-blind MEV elimination, protocol-native AI agent authorization, population-indexed tokenomics, and the conservation law T(N)×σ(N)=L.

20 Claims Filed 14 Independent 6 Dependent ~45 Method ~20 System ~12 Other
20
claims filed
14
independent
6
dependent
12
figures
GF(2)
field arithmetic
5
sections
Filing Strategy: Claims are organized into filing groups. Group A (20 claims) files now. Groups B–D (57 claims) are reserved for 3 continuation applications using the same specification. All claims are supported by the current specification.
GROUP A · FILING NOW · 20 claims · 14 independent Multi-tier consensus + storage + MEV elimination
Section 1 · Claims 1–14

Multi-Tier Consensus

Single-chain multi-tier consensus with percentage-based thresholds, first-k-responder finality, dynamic floor, and security-speed co-improvement. 8 independent + 6 dependent claims.

Claim 1 · Method

Multi-Tier Consensus on Unified Blockchain

Percentage-based threshold k as % of active validators. Different tiers for different transaction values on the same chain. Same validator set, different security levels.

CLAIM 1 Method Multi-tier consensus on unified blockchain — percentage-based threshold k = pct × active_n Same chain, same validators, different security tiers by transaction value USE CASE: A $10M wire transfer routes to Tier 3 (80% of active validators). A $5 coffee routes to Tier 1 (51%). Same chain, same validators, different security. C9 Configurable tier boundaries via governance — community adjusts thresholds without hard fork
Claim 3 · Method

Percentage-Based Threshold Scaling

k = fixed_pct × active_n. Security scales automatically with network adoption. No governance vote needed to increase security as validators join.

CLAIM 3 Method Percentage-based threshold scaling — k = fixed_pct × active_n Security scales automatically with adoption — no governance vote needed At 1,000 validators: Tier 1 = 510. At 1,000,000 validators: Tier 1 = 510,000. Same percentage, dramatically more security. No config change needed. C10 DID-signed heartbeat liveness attestation — active_n measured by cryptographic liveness proofs
Claim 4 · Method

First-k-Responder Finality

Unpredictable per-transaction finality set. Whichever k validators respond first form the finality set. No pre-selected committee, no predictable target.

CLAIM 4 Method First-k-responder finality — unpredictable per-transaction finality set No pre-selected committee — whichever k respond first, finalize An attacker cannot target finality committee members because the committee doesn't exist until it forms. Network latency IS the randomness source. C11 Hash uniformity proof of unpredictability — mathematical proof that finality set is non-predictable
Claim 7 · Method

Security-Speed Co-Improvement

Both attack threshold and finality latency improve as n grows. More validators = harder to attack AND faster finality. Unique property not found in any prior blockchain.

CLAIM 7 Method Security-speed co-improvement — attack threshold UP + finality latency DOWN as n grows No prior blockchain achieves both simultaneously At 100 validators: T=51, latency=200ms. At 10,000 validators: T=5,100, latency=50ms. More participants = harder to attack AND faster. Bitcoin and Ethereum can't do this. C13 Statistical latency improvement proof — mathematical model proving O(1/√N) latency reduction

Remaining Section 1 Claims

  • C2 Dynamic floor threshold — minimum k regardless of liveness, prevents degenerate low-validator scenarios
  • C5 Transaction-value tiering function — deterministic mapping from value to tier without oracle
  • C6 Validator incentive alignment — higher-tier confirmations earn proportionally higher rewards
  • C8 Multi-tier consensus system claim — the system comprising unified chain + tier router + validator pool
  • C12 Dynamic floor governance → C6
  • C14 Tier assignment audit log → C8
Section 2 · Claims 15–28

Three-Layer Storage

Hot/warm/cold layers, parameterized per-device ceiling that decreases with adoption, Double XorIDA warm layer, deterministic share assignment. 8 independent + 6 dependent claims.

Claim 15 · Method

Three-Layer Storage with Decreasing Per-Device Ceiling

Hot (full blocks, recent), warm (Double XorIDA shares, medium-term), cold (erasure-coded fragments, archival). Per-device storage ceiling decreases as network grows.

CLAIM 15 Method Three-layer blockchain storage with parameterized per-device ceiling Hot + Warm (Double XorIDA) + Cold layers — storage per device DECREASES with adoption At 1,000 nodes: each stores 500MB. At 1,000,000 nodes: each stores 0.5MB. More validators = LESS storage per device. Bitcoin requires full chain on every node. C23 1000-block hot window — configurable depth for full-block retention before warm transition
Claim 19 · Method

Double XorIDA Warm Layer

Two-pass GF(2) sharing providing simultaneous secrecy AND erasure resilience. First pass: secret sharing. Second pass: erasure coding over shares. 2.0x storage overhead.

CLAIM 19 Method Double XorIDA warm layer — simultaneous secrecy + erasure resilience Two-pass GF(2): pass 1 = secret sharing, pass 2 = erasure coding — 2.0x overhead A warm-layer block is both secret-shared (no single node sees content) AND erasure-resilient (survives node failures). No prior system combines both in one encoding. C26 2.0x storage overhead — mathematically optimal for dual-property encoding over GF(2)

Remaining Section 2 Claims

  • C16 Deterministic share assignment — hash-based node-to-share mapping, no coordinator
  • C17 Warm-to-cold transition policy — time-based or access-frequency based demotion
  • C18 Cold layer erasure coding — minimal redundancy for archival, reconstruct from k-of-n fragments
  • C20 Storage convergence proof — per-device ceiling provably approaches zero as n grows
  • C21 Epoch-locked share location — shares are immovable within an epoch, prevents dynamic adversary
  • C22 Churn tolerance — new nodes inherit share responsibilities from departing nodes
  • C24 Warm-layer integrity verification → C17
  • C25 Cross-layer consistency audit → C18
  • C27 Share migration protocol → C20
  • C28 Epoch boundary reconciliation → C21
Section 3 · Claims 29–42

MEV Elimination, Privacy, and Erasure

Proposer-blind MEV elimination, GDPR-compliant functional erasure, information-theoretic transaction privacy, threshold VRF randomness, cross-tier atomic transactions. 8 independent + 6 dependent claims.

Claim 29 · Method

Proposer-Blind MEV Elimination

Block proposer sees only commitment hashes of XorIDA shares, not transaction content. Ordering committed before content revealed. Front-running is structurally impossible.

CLAIM 29 Method Proposer-blind MEV elimination — block proposer sees only commitment hashes Ordering committed before content revealed — front-running structurally impossible A block proposer receives SHA3-256 hashes of XorIDA shares — can't see amounts, addresses, or content. Front-running is structurally impossible. C37 SHA3-256 commitment hash — binding and hiding, pre-image resistance prevents content inference
Claim 31 · Method

GDPR-Compliant Functional Erasure

Destroy reconstruction key. Distributed shares become permanently inert random noise. Blockchain data unmodified but functionally erased. Third-party verifiable.

CLAIM 31 Method GDPR-compliant functional erasure — destroy key, shares become noise Chain data unmodified but functionally erased — information-theoretically irrecoverable A user requests GDPR erasure. The reconstruction key is destroyed. All distributed shares become random noise. The chain is unmodified. C38 Third-party verifiable erasure — auditor can confirm reconstruction is impossible without possessing any data

Remaining Section 3 Claims

  • C30 Information-theoretic transaction privacy — each share reveals zero bits about transaction content
  • C32 Threshold VRF randomness beacon — k-of-n validators contribute to verifiable random output
  • C33 Cross-tier atomic transactions — multi-tier transaction spans confirmed atomically across tiers
  • C34 Commit-reveal transaction lifecycle — commitment phase + reveal phase + execution phase
  • C35 Privacy-preserving analytics — aggregate statistics over shared data without reconstruction
  • C36 Selective disclosure — reveal specific fields while keeping others information-theoretically hidden
  • C39 VRF output verification → C32
  • C40 Atomic rollback on tier failure → C33
  • C41 Time-locked reveal window → C34
  • C42 Differential privacy budget → C36
GROUP B · CONTINUATION 1 · 19 claims Agent authorization + tokenomics
Section 4 · Claims 43–61

Agent Authorization and Tokenomics CONTINUATION 1

Protocol-native agent-to-principal DID authorization, scope grammar enforcement, threshold-blind credentials, population-indexed token issuance, activity-based earning, anti-Sybil. 12 independent + 7 dependent claims.

Claim 43 · Method

Protocol-Native AI Agent Authorization Chain

Trust edge from agent DID to principal (human) DID. Every agent action traced on-chain to its human principal. No agent can act without verifiable authorization chain.

CLAIM 43 Method Protocol-native AI agent authorization chain — trust edge from agent DID to principal DID Every agent action traceable on-chain to its human principal An AI trading bot's every action is linked on-chain to its human principal via DID trust edges. No agent can act without traceable authorization. C49 Configurable trust edge expiration — time-bounded delegation with automatic revocation
Claim 53 · Method

Population-Indexed Token Issuance

Token supply ceiling tied to real-world population growth. Not Bitcoin halving, not governance votes, not market burns. The ceiling is a fact about the physical world.

CLAIM 53 Method Population-indexed token issuance — supply ceiling tied to real-world population Monetary policy anchored to physical world, not algorithmic or governance-driven Token supply tracks UN population growth — not Bitcoin halving, not governance votes, not market burns. The ceiling is a fact about the physical world. C59 UN DESA + World Bank + national stats data sources — multi-oracle population verification

Remaining Section 4 Claims

  • C44 Scope grammar enforcement — agent actions constrained by formally-defined scope grammar in trust edge
  • C45 Threshold-blind credentials — agent proves authorization without revealing principal identity
  • C46 Multi-agent consensus — k-of-n agents must agree before high-value action executes
  • C47 Agent revocation broadcast — instant on-chain revocation propagated to all validators
  • C48 Delegation depth limit — maximum trust chain length prevents infinite delegation
  • C54 Activity-based earning — tokens earned through validated network participation, not mining
  • C55 Anti-Sybil via DID uniqueness proof — one human = one DID = one earning capacity
  • C56 Transaction fee redistribution — fees distributed to validators proportional to tier participation
  • C57 Stake-free validation — participation based on DID reputation, not token stake
  • C58 Economic equilibrium proof — token velocity and issuance converge to stable state
  • C50 Blind credential issuance protocol → C45
  • C51 Multi-agent quorum threshold → C46
  • C52 Revocation proof-of-inclusion → C47
  • C60 Earning cap per epoch → C54
  • C61 Population data smoothing function → C3
GROUP C · CONTINUATION 2 · 16 claims Conservation law + CIP
Section 5 · Claims 62–77

Conservation Law and Population Scale CONTINUATION 2

Conservation law T(N)×σ(N)=L, GDPR erasure system, co-improvement system, cold layer Double XorIDA, storage convergence, epoch-locked share location, churn tolerance, reconstruction latency O(1/√N). 10 independent + 6 dependent claims.

Claim 68 · Method

Conservation Law: T(N) × σ(N) = L

Attack threshold T(N) increases with validators while per-device storage σ(N) decreases. Their product is a constant L. No prior system achieves both simultaneously.

§101 Anchor

This claim recites a concrete technical improvement: GF(2) matrix multiplication to redistribute threshold shares as the validator set changes, achieving the mathematically provable conservation invariant T(N)×σ(N)=L. The improvement is rooted in computer technology — no human could perform GF(2) redistribution at network scale — and produces a measurable reduction in per-device storage.

CLAIM 68 Method Conservation law: T(N) × σ(N) = L constant Attack threshold UP, storage DOWN, simultaneously. Product is invariant. As validators increase, attack cost goes UP and storage goes DOWN. T(N)×σ(N) = constant. No prior system achieves both simultaneously. C76 N=10B: T=9B compromises required, σ<10¹² bytes per device. Planetary scale: attack cost = 90% of Earth's population, storage = negligible.

Remaining Section 5 Claims

  • C62 GDPR erasure system — system claim for functional erasure across all three storage layers
  • C63 Co-improvement system — system claim proving security and efficiency improve jointly with scale
  • C64 Cold layer Double XorIDA — archival data with dual secrecy + erasure resilience properties
  • C65 Storage convergence — per-device storage provably converges to zero as N approaches infinity
  • C66 Epoch-locked share location — shares immovable within epoch boundaries for adversary resistance
  • C67 Churn tolerance — graceful degradation and recovery when validators join or leave
  • C69 Reconstruction latency O(1/√N) — reconstruction time decreases as network grows
  • C70 Cross-shard reconstruction — threshold reconstruction across sharded validator sets
  • C71 Adaptive redundancy — system adjusts redundancy factor based on observed churn rate
  • C72 Cold layer integrity audit → C64
  • C73 Convergence rate bounds → C65
  • C74 Epoch transition protocol → C66
  • C75 Churn detection via heartbeat → C67
  • C77 Cross-shard consistency proof → C69