CAUSAL STABILITY BASED ON CONFLICT LIMITATION IN OFFLINE DIGITAL VALUE DERIVATION RECORDS PROOF OF INCOMPATIBILITY AND CERTIFICATION OF VERIFIABLE OVERLAPPING SECTION PRODUCTION METHOD AND SYSTEM

Abstract

The invention involves identifying genuine causal conflicts in offline digital value derivation records and a collision section certificate verifiable by secure transaction elements with limited resources It relates to its generation. A directional causal graph is constructed from verified derivation records; The first pairs of divergent edges are identified, branching off into two separate lines from the same depleted antecedent, and the same base is used. an ancestral minimum and stable conflict boundary that excludes recurring sub-records of conflict It is formed. Intersections between value scope combinations of branches at the conflict boundary are canonical. The quarantine scope is converted into a set of branches. The certificate represents the branch intersections of the quarantine scope. The intersection of scope with completeness and exclusion components confirming that the combination is exactly equal to the whole. It includes witness testimony, witness testimony of causal incompatibility, and conflict boundary commitment. Thus, edge safety. The processing element cannot determine the causal basis of the conflict without obtaining the entire derivation graph and all open records. This can verify that the foundation and the quarantine area are complete and without any redundancies.

Description

1 TARIFF STABLE CONFLICT LIMITATION BASED ON OFFLINE DIGITAL VALUE DERIVATION RECORDS. PROOF OF CAUSAL INCOMPATIBILITY AND VERIFIABLE OVERLAPPING SECTION METHOD AND SYSTEM OF CERTIFICATE PRODUCTION Technical Area The invention involves offline digital value systems, derived from secure transaction elements. reconciliation of records, causal relationship analysis of digital value objects, dual use, and Fork detection can be verified through cryptographic record commits and on resource-limited edge devices. It relates to certificate processing fields. In particular, the invention concerns records derived from the same root value object. is it a valid parent-child continuation or an incompatible repetition of the same prior authorization? to determine whether they are separate branches based on their use; the common denominator of truly incompatible branches to calculate the atomic value field and to verify the accuracy of these two determinations throughout the entire derivation of the end device. making it verifiable with a certificate that provides proof without requiring access to records It is related. State of the Art In offline digital value systems, during a transaction between two tamper-resistant devices... token or digital value transfer protocols that do not require a connection with a trusted third party It is known that after a transaction interruption, loss, failure, or transaction status may occur. There are systems that produce electronic records that provide evidence. In divisible electronic value systems, the root value is represented by tree nodes or sub-scopes. being represented in this way and the same value being used in incompatible operations It is also known that token references are stored in secure transaction elements. The process involves registering the tokens, subsequently reconciling them with the central system, and establishing token validity. The processing of related responses by a secure employee is also within the scope of known techniques. However, the mere existence of value scope overlap between two records linked to the same root is not sufficient evidence to support this. This does not indicate that there is a real overlap. A child record represents the atomic aspect of the parent record. It can validly carry a portion of the value domain. Therefore, it only corresponds to scope overlap. a finding based on incorrectly labeling valid parent-child interactions as incompatible It can classify them. Known certificate revocation and status checking systems identify certificates or subtrees that will be invalidated. It can be displayed in a compact format; however, records are valid in the context of offline digital value. 2 that it does not create causal continuity, that the same prior usage right is repeated in independent branches it was used and the quarantine scope only applies to incompatible records with a common atomic value space. A combined system will verify that it corresponds with the end device before all transaction logs are retrieved. It does not provide an evidence architecture. The Technical Problem That the Invention Aims to Solve The technical problem that the invention aims to solve is the problem of dividing a large number of offline derivation records. Separating valid causal continuities from genuine conflicts, creating false positive quarantines. to reduce, to identify only the common atomic value field of the real conflict and the issue in question The accuracy of the determinations is ensured by all secure processing elements with limited memory and processing power. with a compact certificate that can be verified without having to retrieve the derivative graph or open transaction records. It is to convey. Purpose and General Description of the Invention One aim of the invention is to generate a directional causal derivation graph from verified derivation records. Another purpose is to ensure that two records have only the same origin and overlapping scopes. Instead of relying on records, parental connections, prior consumption commitments, and status transitions The goal is to identify true discordant branch pairs by evaluating the evidence. Another aim of the invention is to provide verifiable evidence of causal incompatibility to determine the cause of the discrepancy. in the form and scope of quarantine the precise intersection between the value domains of incompatible records The goal is to produce it in the form of a scope intersection witness that confirms the correspondence. Another aim of the invention is to identify the first divergence edges arising from the same depleted precursor, the same to summarize the underlying conflict, with its recurring sub-records, at a minimum conflict boundary in terms of ancestral relations, and The quarantine coverage in the certificate is exactly the combination of the branch coverage intersections at this boundary. The goal is to verify that they are equal, both in terms of completeness and exclusion. Another purpose of the invention is to have the causal incompatibility witness and the scope intersection witness signed by the same person. by combining them in the certificate without obtaining all the derivation records of the secure transaction element. This allows for verification of both non-compliance and the scope of quarantine. Brief Description of the Figures Figure 1 shows the general architecture of the causal collision certificate production system. Figure 2 shows the functional units of the consensus node. Figure 3 shows an example data structure of the derivation record. Figure 4 shows the structure of the causal derivation graph. 3 Figure 5: Shows the separation of an incompatible branch pair with a valid causal continuation. Figure 6 illustrates the creation of a witness for causal incompatibility. Figure 7: Shows the creation of the scope intersection witness. Figure 8: Transformation of numerous conflict cross-sections into a canonical quarantine scope set. It shows. Figure 9 shows the data structure of the verifiable collision section certificate. Figure 10: Certificate verification by the end-secure transaction element before all records are retrieved. It shows the flow. Figure 11 shows the incremental certificate period chain. Figure 12: Message from the acquisition of the derivation records to the transmission of the certificate to the end device. It shows the series. Reference Marks No. Element No. Element 300 Causal conflict certificate production system 310 Agreement Node 311 Derivation record receiver 312 Record verification unit 313 Root-based grouping unit 314 Causal graph generator 315 Prior consumption verification unit 316 Causal discrepancy detection unit 317 Value scope intersection unit 318 Canonical quarantine generator 319 Certificate production and signing unit 320 Derivative registration 321 Root object commitment 322 Registry commitment 323 Parental procreation commitment 324 Value inclusion identifier 325 Object state transition proof 326 Secure transaction element validation data 327 Prior consumption commitment 328 Transaction sequence or period data 329 Digital signature of the record 330 Causal derivation graph 331 Record node 332 Verified derivation edge 333 Incompatible branch pair 334 Graph root commitment 335 Proof of Ata membership 336 Witness of non-Ata membership 337 Common consumed antecedent 338 First divergence edge pair 339 Commitment to conflict boundary 340 Verifiable overlap section certificate 341 Certificate root object commitment 342 Certificate period Protocol version 343, previous certificate commitment 344. 4 No. Element No. Element 345 Canonical quarantine scope set 346 Commitment to evidence of derivation 347 Witness to causal incompatibility 348 Witness to scope intersection 349 Certificate digital signature 350 Secure transaction element 351 Certificate verification unit 352 Witness verification unit 353 Local certificate period counter 354 Capacity and recovery policy identifier 355 Certificate issuer identifier Detailed Description of the Invention

[0001] The invention relates to the causal incompatibility between offline digital value derivation records. determination of the shared atomic value field as a result of actual incompatibility calculation and verification of these determinations by a resource-limited end device. It relates to the production of a certificate that provides proof of ownership.

[0002] The causal conflict certificate generation system (300) shown in Figure 1 requires at least one agreement node (310), secure transaction elements that generate or transmit a large number of derivation records (320), a includes at least one secure transaction element (350) that receives the communication network and certificate.

[0003] Consensus node (310), a single server, protected by a hardware security module a server, a cluster of servers, or multiple consensus mechanisms that execute a threshold signature protocol with each other It can be implemented in the form of a knot.

[0004] Secure transaction element (350); smart card, SIM, eSIM, embedded secure element, tamper-proof rugged microcontroller, secure partition working with a reliable execution environment or It can be implemented in the form of a hardware security module.

[0005] The expression “offline derivation record” refers to the transaction from the consensus node of the digital value object. Transfer, splitting, merging, or using data without real-time confirmation on an accrual basis. or a verifiable electronic record created as a result of its transformation into another object It expresses.

[0006] It is not mandatory for the derivation records to reach the reconciliation node simultaneously. Records When the connection is re-established, via an intermediate terminal, from the delayed message store, or It can be transmitted through another secure device.

[0007] As shown in Figure 2, the reconciliation node (310); the derivation record receiver (311), the record validation unit (312), root-based grouping unit (313), causal graph generator (314), antecedent consumption verification unit (315), causal incompatibility detection unit (316), value scope intersection It includes unit (317), canonical quarantine producer (318) and certificate production and signing unit (319).

[0008] These units may be implemented in the form of separate hardware or software components, as well as It can also be implemented in the form of secure program modules executed by the same processor.

[0009] Derivation record receiver (311), deriving from one or more secure transaction elements receives the records (320).

[0010] Record verification unit (312) verifies the cryptographic integrity of each derivative record, record digital signature (329), secure transaction element verification data (326), protocol version and transaction sequence or confirms the period data (328).

[0011] Unverified records are not included in the causal derivation graph and the security policy It is either rejected, held in a separate audit group, or sent for further verification.

[0012] The derivation record (320) shown in Figure 3, at least the root object commit (321), record commitment (322), parent derivation commitment (323), value scope identifier (324), object State transition proof (325), secure transaction element validation data (326), prior consumption commitment (327) includes transaction sequence or period data (328) and record digital signature (329).

[0013] Root object commitment (321) defines the root digital value family to which the derivation record belongs.

[0014] Record commitment (322) combines the data fields in the derivation record into a single cryptographic value. The linking hash can be a Merkle leaf, a Pedersen commitment, or another linking commitment.

[0015] Parental derivation commitment (323), previous record or digital record from which the relevant record is directly derived. It establishes a cryptographic relationship with the value object.

[0016] The value scope descriptor (324) specifies which atomic value space of the derivation record is root value space. It indicates that it represents units of value.

[0017] Value coverage identifier numeric range, binary prefix, tree node reference, Merkle sub- This can be implemented in the form of a tree root, a bit set, or verifiable set membership.

[0018] Proof of object state transition (325), new object from previous state of parent object It confirms that an authorized transition has been made to the situation.

[0019] Secure transaction element verification data (326), record authorized or verified secure Device certificate showing that it was produced by the processing element, hardware verification signature, This could be proof of remote verification or anonymous device membership proof.

[0020] Prior consumption commitment (327), single-use parent used in the derivation process It defines the authorization, object status, counter value, or spending key. 6

[0021] Two different derivation records are linked to the same prior consumption commitment, the same single use a conflict regarding the possibility that the antecedent may have been used in more than one independent derivation It can create an indicator.

[0022] Root-based grouping unit (313), verified derivation records root object It groups them according to their commitments.

[0023] Records associated with different root object commits are not included in the same conflict analysis group.

[0024] For records linked to the same root, the root group can be defined as G_r = {T_i | Root(T_i) = r}.

[0025] The causal derivation graph (330) shown in Figure 4, record nodes (331) and verified It is a directional data structure consisting of derivation edges (332).

[0026] Each record node (331) represents a verified derivation record.

[0027] Verified derivation edge between two records (332) but parent derivation of child record the commitment matches the parent record's registration commitment and proof of object state transition. It is created upon verification.

[0028] Transaction sequence or period values ​​must be valid when generating a verified derivation edge. that it progressed in that direction and the same disposable status was not reactivated in an unauthorized manner. verifiable.

[0029] The causal graph generator (314) checks whether there are cycles in the graph.

[0030] If a loop is detected, the relevant records are considered a valid causal derivation chain. It is not accepted and may be classified as a temporary dispute.

[0031] The entire causal derivation graph or a subgraph belonging to a specific root group, graph root The commitment (334) can be summarized cryptographically.

[0032] If a record is a base that can be accessed via verified derivation edges to another record Records can establish a valid causal continuation.

[0033] The scope of a parent's registration overlaps with the scope of their valid child's registration. It does not create a conflict at the beginning.

[0034] Representing conflicting value systems and permitted by the same parent Sister records derived in this manner can also be considered compatible.

[0035] Proof of ancestor membership (335), the whole graph that one record is the verified ancestor of another record. It can be displayed without being transmitted.

[0036] Ata membership proof, Merkle path, skip list proof, verifiable transition chain, vector The commitment may include a breakdown or cryptographic accumulator proof of membership. 7

[0037] As shown in Figure 5, the causal incompatibility detection unit (316) is related to the same root. It identifies incompatible branch pairs (333) among the records.

[0038] Two records; records are associated with the same root object commit, cryptographically verified, meaning that one record is not a verified causal continuation of the other, the records represent common atomic value units and the same prior consumption commitment, independent of incompatible state transitions or equivalent one-time authorizations When the conditions for detecting its use are met simultaneously, it is classified as an incompatible branch pair. They can be classified.

[0039] The overlap of value ranges alone is not sufficient for identifying incompatible branch pairs.

[0040] Having only a joint parental commitment also covers the scope of child registrations. If they are separate entities and their derivations are valid, they do not create a conflict.

[0041] The causal inconsistency witness (347) shown in Figure 6 is that the two records have a valid single causal inconsistency. that they are not parts of a chain and that independent offshoots occur in a way that will create conflict It is a data structure that confirms what it has brought.

[0042] Witness to causal incompatibility, recording commitments of records in incompatible branch pairs, common or the associated prior consumption commitment, relevant status transition evidence commitments and non-ancestorship may include witness (336).

[0043] Witness of non-ancestor (336), neither of the two records is a verified descendant of the other. It serves to confirm that it is not present without explaining the entire causal graph.

[0044] Ancestor non-witness; neighbor proof in ordered Merkle trees, cryptographic accumulator non-membership proof, verifiable vector commitment, or discrete path proof in a rooted graph. It can be in this form.

[0045] A witness to causal incompatibility in an application is two different applications committed to the same prior consumption commitment. It includes the registration commitment and the valid secure transaction element verification data for each registration.

[0046] In another application, the witness observed that records with different prior consumption commitments were compared with each other. It includes verifiable state machine evidence showing that it uses incompatible state transitions.

[0047] All records must be verified by the end device to ensure that the causal discrepancy witness can be verified. It is not mandatory to include their bodies in the certificate.

[0048] The value range intersection unit (317) shown in Figure 7, records in the incompatible branch pair Calculates the common atomic value field between the value domains. 8

[0049] If the first record scope is S_i and the second record scope is S_j, then the conflict segment is Q_ij = S_i ∩ S_j It is calculated.

[0050] Scope intersection witness (348), quarantine scope specified in the certificate data that verifies that it is equal to the intersection or represents the intersection in question without loss. It is its structure.

[0051] In open scope implementation, the scope intersection witness detects the endpoints of two sequential intervals. It may include calculated intersection points and validation data linked to record commitments.

[0052] In the binary prefix application, the scope intersection witness is the common of the subtrees represented by the records. It may include prefix relationships that define the leaf set and Merkle membership paths.

[0053] In privacy-protecting practice, scope intersection witness, explicit scopes of records Zero-information-set intersection proof, which demonstrates the validity of the common atomic value set without explanation. or may contain interval evidence.

[0054] Scope intersection witness, outside the common value domain of quarantine-incompatible records It can verify that the remaining atomic value units have not been added.

[0055] As shown in Figure 8, the presence of more than one incompatible branch pair within a root group. In this case, a separate conflict segment is calculated for each pair.

[0056] The combination of the conflict sections is formed as Q = ∪_(i,j)∈C Q_ij.

[0057] Canonical quarantine generator (318) removes recurring scopes in the union, overlapping It combines the scopes and converts the result into scope descriptors that do not overlap.

[0058] Same sequential for the same record set, same protocol version and same canonicalization profile The canonical quarantine scope set (345) is produced.

[0059] The canonicalization process uses a numerical range, binary prefix, Merkle subtree root, or other method. It can use deterministic scope representation.

[0060] The combination of the canonical quarantine scope set includes all verified mismatched branch pairs It is equal to the combination of conflicting segments and the atomic value that the discordant records do not jointly represent. It does not include units.

[0061] Verifiable overlap section certificate (340) shown in Figure 9, reconciliation node the causal incompatibility determined by (310) and the corresponding common value space, All derivative records are signed to ensure verification before being transferred to the secure transaction element. It is an electronic data structure. 9

[0062] Verifiable collision section certificate (340), at least certificate root object commitment (341), certificate period (342), protocol version (343), optional prior certificate commitment (344), canonical quarantine scope set (345), commitment to derivation evidence (346), causal incompatibility The certificate includes the witness (347), the scope intersection witness (348) and the certificate digital signature (349). The certificate also optionally with capacity and recovery policy identifier (354) and certificate issuer It may include the identifier (355).

[0063] Certificate root object commitment (341), to which root digital value family the certificate belongs determines whether it is applicable.

[0064] A certificate is a digital value object or derivation record with a different root object commitment. not applicable.

[0065] The certificate period (342) lists the certificates generated for the same root value family and It allows determining whether older certificates should be replayed.

[0066] Protocol version (343), interpretation of derivation records, causal incompatibility witness verification method, scope intersection witness data format, canonicalization It can define the algorithm and certificate signature fields. Capacity and recovery policy. identifier (354), capacity allocation in secure transaction element consuming certificate, local re- The configuration allows for the selection of phased activation and deferred recovery rules. Certificate issuer identifier (355), the authorized issuer to which the certificate signature is attached or It defines the area of ​​trust.

[0067] The previous certificate commitment (344) was committed to the same root object commitment before. It cryptographically links to the issued certificate.

[0068] Previous certificate commitment; previous certificate hash value, Merkle chain link, signed This could be in the form of a period summary or a verifiable certificate history commitment.

[0069] Commitment to proof of derivation (346), the derivation records used in the creation of the certificate and attaches the relevant graphic evidence to the certificate.

[0070] The undertaking of proof of derivation requires that explicit derivation records be carried within the certificate. without making the records available for later audit or for use in dispute resolution provides.

[0071] Commitment of derivation proof in an application (346), record that creates incompatible branch pairs. The sequential root of their commitments is Merkle.

[0072] In another application, the commitment of derivation evidence is the graph root of the entire causal derivation graph. It includes the commitment (334) and proof of membership of the registration nodes subject to the certificate.

[0073] The certificate digital signature (349) must be present in all the required data fields of the certificate. in case of capacity and recovery policy identifier (354) and certificate issuer identifier (355) and applies to a field allocation value that distinguishes the certificate type from other protocol messages.

[0074] Field allocation value; certificate type, network identifier, protocol version and reconciliation It can be a fixed or version-controlled data array that defines its range.

[0075] The byte representation of the certificate to be signed is different bytes of the same logical certificate content. It is generated according to a deterministic encoding rule that prevents it from being encoded with sequences.

[0076] Deterministic coding rule; field order, unique representation of numbers, scope sorting of identifiers, removal of duplicate scopes, and empty optional fields. can determine the representation format. Verifiable collision section certificate (340), root object commitment, period, protocol version, canonical quarantine scope set, derivation proof commitment, and digital In a secure transaction element capable of processing signature fields; the scope of quarantine includes local digital assets. intersecting with the object, selectively extracting the conflicting area and the remaining conflict-free area a compatible data structure that can be used in canonical local reconstruction processes It can be created in this way.

[0077] Witness of causal incompatibility (347), the certificate is only an administrative quarantine instruction will show that it is not, and that the scope of the quarantine is based on a verified causal conflict. In this way, the certificate is cryptographically linked to the root object commitment and the proof of derivation commitment.

[0078] A witness to causal incompatibility must provide at least two record commitments, the antecedent to which the records are linked. consumption commitments and records are not successive elements of the same valid causal chain. It may include verification data showing this.

[0079] In an application, two records are different records linked to the same prior consumption commitment (327). If he has the commitments (322), the witness has these two records and the relevant secure transaction element verification data. includes.

[0080] In the application in paragraph

[0079] , the secure transaction element is the same single-use premise. This can confirm that the situation was used in two different derivation records.

[0081] In another application, the records have different prior consumption commitments. They can represent incompatible transitions between states.

[0082] In the case in paragraph

[0081] , the witness of causal incompatibility is in the valid state machine. demonstrating the use of two transitions that cannot be simultaneously valid from the same initial state. It includes verifiable evidence of state transition. 11

[0083] Witness to causal incompatibility, ancestor confirming that one of the records is not the ancestor of the other. It may include the witness of non-existence (336).

[0084] Witness to non-ancestor, between two record nodes without the entire causal derivation graph being explained. It serves to show that there is no verified one-way path.

[0085] In an application, the non-ancestor witness is the records in a rooted Merkle-directed acyclic graph. It includes proof of membership and withdrawal showing involvement in different branches.

[0086] In another application, the non-ancestor witness uses the topological order values ​​of the record nodes and a verifiable vector indicating that there are no verified edges between the nodes in question The commitment includes detailed explanations.

[0087] If witness verification fails, the secure transaction element will quarantine the scope of the certificate. It does not apply.

[0088] Scope intersection witness (348), canonical quarantine scope set (345), incompatible branch This shows that it is derived from verified intersections between the value scopes of the pairs.

[0089] Scope intersection witness, first value scope for each incongruent branch pair, second value It may include data verifying the relationship between the scope and the calculated joint scope.

[0090] In the numerical interval application, the first range is [a_1,b_1], the second range is [a_2,b_2], and the intersection It is defined as [max(a_1,a_2), min(b_1,b_2)]; if the upper limit is less than the lower limit, it is empty. An intersection is obtained.

[0091] In the application in paragraph

[0090] , the scope intersection witness, the interval ends, the end recordings It includes verification data and calculated intersection points demonstrating adherence to commitments.

[0092] In the binary prefix application, if one scope is the sub-scope of another, the common area is given the longer prefix. can be represented.

[0093] In the application where scopes are represented by multiple prefix sets with partial overlap, intersection The witness may include a discrete prefix set encompassing the common leaf space and associated membership paths.

[0094] Scope intersection witness, common of incompatible records of canonical quarantine scope set It may include proof of completeness confirming that it covers the entire atomic field.

[0095] Scope intersection witness also includes atomic values ​​outside the common area of ​​incompatible records. It may include exclusion evidence confirming that the units were not included in the quarantine scope.

[0096] Confirmation of completeness and exclusion evidence together confirms the canonical quarantine scope set. It prevents the area from being narrower or wider than the actual conflict zone. 12

[0097] In the case of numerous incompatible branch pairs, the scope intersection witness shall be separate for each pair. It may include a witness for the intersection and a witness for the normalization that proves their union.

[0098] Normalization witness, repeating atomic fields are represented once, overlapping that the intersections are correctly combined and that the output scopes do not overlap. It can show.

[0099] Canonical quarantine generator (318), combination of verified conflict sections canonical Converts to quarantine scope set (345).

[0100] Canonical quarantine scope set, same verified conflict records, same protocol It produces the same sequential scope descriptors for the same version and the same canonicalization profile.

[0101] A canonical quarantine scope set in an application is one that does not overlap with each other and is possible The sister scopes consist of binary prefixes combined under a single superordinate scope.

[0102] In another application, the canonical quarantine scope set is based on the increasing initial value. It consists of a sequence of non-overlapping numerical intervals.

[0103] During canonicalization, the two scopes are only combined outside the real conflict area. If it does not contain an atomic value unit, it is combined.

[0104] The combination of the scope set obtained as a result of the canonicalization process is verified. It should be equal to the combination of conflict segments.

[0105] The same atomic value unit can be represented by more than one scope in the canonical scope set. If represented, the certificate creation process is terminated in the event of a secure error.

[0106] When different consensus nodes are working on the same register set, the protocol version and If the canonicalization profile is the same, then the same scope set and the same certificate body hash value should be used. It can produce.

[0107] Multiple commits over time for the same root object as shown in Figure 11 A verifiable overlap section certificate can be generated.

[0108] Each new certificate fulfills the commitment of the previous certificate (344) and more than the previous certificate period. It may include a large certificate period (342).

[0109] In normal quarantine certificates, the quarantine scope is defined by the relation Q_e = Q_(e-1) ∪ ΔQ_e can be expanded monotonically according to; where Q_e is the quarantine scope of the new period, Q_(e-1) ΔQ_e represents the scope of the previous period and the newly verified conflict areas.

[0110] Narrowing the scope of the certificate, removing or releasing previous quarantine areas Release cannot be achieved with a standard quarantine certificate. 13

[0111] Issued as a different type of certificate to narrow the scope of quarantine A dispute resolution or release certificate may be used.

[0112] Release certificate; scope to be removed, underlying dispute resolution record, It may include the previous certificate commitment and the new period number.

[0113] The edge secure transaction element protects previous certificate commitments and periods in the certificate chain. by verifying their numbers, certificates can be skipped, their order changed, or outdated. It can specify whether the certificate should be restored.

[0114] The previous certificate commitment of a certificate is the last accepted stored in the secure transaction element. If the certificate does not match the declared commitment, it may be placed in a provisional disputed status.

[0115] If a secure transaction element misses one or more certificate periods, The reconciliation node can transmit the certificates in between or the cumulative current status certificate.

[0116] Cumulative current status certificate, canonical of all previous quarantine scopes. It may include a combination of the data and proof of chain summary relating to the certificate history.

[0117] As shown in Figure 10, the secure transaction element (350), certificate validation unit (351), It may include a witness verification unit (352) and a local certificate period counter (353).

[0118] Certificate validation unit (351), certificate digital signature (349), certificate root object commitment (341), certificate period (342), protocol version (343) and previous certificate confirms the commitment (344).

[0119] Witness verification unit (352), causal inconsistency witness (347) and scope intersection This confirms the witness (348).

[0120] The secure transaction element uses the summary record commitments contained in the certificate for verification, limited It uses numerous membership or non-membership proofs and authorized signature keys; all causal derivation It is mandatory to transfer the graph or all open derivation records to the secure processing element. It is not.

[0121] When the secure processing element (350) receives the verifiable collision section certificate (340) The certificate-related processes are carried out according to a predetermined verification sequence.

[0122] In the first verification stage, the data structure of the certificate must be in accordance with the protocol version (343) whether it is coded in this way, whether there are mandatory fields, and the certificate fields It is checked whether the sequence follows the deterministic coding rule. 14

[0123] Missing fields, repeated required fields, invalid length, interconnected fields in the certificate's data structure. Certificate invalidated if conflicting scope descriptors or non-canonical data representations are found. It will be rejected.

[0124] In the second verification stage, the certificate digital signature (349) belongs to the certificate issuer. Verification is done using an authorized public key.

[0125] Certificate digital signature; certificate root object commitment (341), certificate period (342), protocol version (343), previous certificate commitment (344), canonical quarantine scope set (345), commitment of derivation evidence (346), witness of causal incompatibility (347), scope intersection witness (348) and, if available, capacity and rescue policy identifier (354) It includes the certificate issuer identifier (355).

[0126] If the certificate signature cannot be verified, the secure transaction element will not execute the certificate. And it does not change the status of the local digital asset based on the certificate.

[0127] Certificate root object commitment (341) in the third validation stage, secure transaction with the root object commitment of the digital value object held or being processed in the element They are compared.

[0128] If the root object commits do not match, the certificate will be assigned to the digital value object in question. Not applicable.

[0129] Certificate period (342) in fourth verification stage, with local certificate period counter (353) are compared.

[0130] Certificate period, previously accepted in the secure transaction element for the same root object commitment. If the period is smaller than the specified period, the certificate is considered an old message or playback attempt. It will be rejected.

[0131] If the certificate period is the same as the accepted period but the certificate commitment is different The secure transaction element may classify the certificate as a conflicting certificate from the same period.

[0132] In case of conflicting same-period certificate determination, the relevant local value objects shall be higher. It can be temporarily quarantined until a periodic solution certificate is obtained.

[0133] The previous certificate commitment (344) in the fifth verification stage, in the secure transaction element It is compared with the last accepted certificate commitment stored.

[0134] Secure transaction element, missing certificate if previous certificate commitment does not match. It can determine whether a period has passed or whether the certificate chain continues from a different branch.

[0135] The deficiency in the certificate chain could not be remedied with the current cumulative status certificate. In this case, the certificate is put on hold in the event of a security error.

[0136] Witness verification unit (352) after verification of basic certificate fields, This confirms the witness of causal incompatibility (347).

[0137] The witness to causal incompatibility must provide record commitments relating to at least two derivation records and these It includes proof of membership showing that the records are linked to the same root object commit.

[0138] Witness verification unit, derivation evidence commitment of registration commitments in the certificate (346) It confirms that it is connected.

[0139] If membership to the derivation proof commitment of one of the registration commitments cannot be verified, causal The evidence of inconsistency is considered invalid.

[0140] In the practice where the same prior consumption commitment (327) is linked to two different registration commitments The witness verification unit included the prior consumption commitment in the signed fields of both records. It confirms that it was done.

[0141] The same one-time premise when validation in paragraph

[0140] is successful It is determined to be used in two different derivation records.

[0142] Witness verification unit in the application where the witness of non-fatherhood (336) is used, two records It verifies that none of the nodes are reachable by verified derivation edges.

[0143] Witness to non-ancestor, only records have different record identifiers not limited to showing; records must demonstrate a valid parent-child or ancestor-subordinate relationship. It cryptographically confirms that it did not create it.

[0144] The witness verification unit also simultaneously verifies the object state transition evidence of the records (325) It can check whether it is compatible with the applicable state transitions.

[0145] Cannot be valid together with the protocol state machine from the same initial state Verification of two transitions can be used as further evidence of causal incompatibility.

[0146] Safe transaction unless all necessary conditions of the causal incompatibility witness are verified. The element does not apply the certificate's canonical quarantine scope set to local objects.

[0147] Witness verification unit after verification of causal incompatibility (352), The scope intersection confirms the witness (348).

[0148] Scope intersection witness, value coverage of incompatible records subject to certificate. Membership or expansion that shows that the identifiers (324) are dependent on the commitment of evidence of derivation It includes the evidence. 16

[0149] In the numerical range application, the secure transaction element is verified as provided in the certificate. It can recalculate the intersection from the interval ends.

[0150] When the first scope is [a_1,b_1] and the second scope is [a_2,b_2], the safe transaction element is a_Q Calculates the values ​​of = max(a_1,a_2) and b_Q = min(b_1,b_2).

[0151] If a_Q > b_Q, it is determined that the two scopes do not have a common atomic value unit, and The relevant conflicting pair is not accepted as the basis for the certificate.

[0152] The range [a_Q,b_Q] calculated if a_Q ≤ b_Q is the conflict represented in the certificate It is compared with the cross-section.

[0153] Secure transaction element in binary prefix implementation, base and common between scope prefixes It verifies the common leaf area using prefix relationships.

[0154] In Merkle subtree implementation, the secure transaction element represents the subtree scopes. membership of the roots to the main root object commitment and the common leaf set reported in the certificate It confirms its accuracy.

[0155] Proof of completeness of the scope intersection witness, all atomic records jointly represented by incompatible records. This indicates that the value units are within the canonical quarantine scope set.

[0156] Scope intersection witness exclusion evidence, atomic where incompatible records do not jointly represent This indicates that the value units are not included in the canonical quarantine scope set.

[0157] When completeness cannot be verified, the certificate is considered narrower than the actual conflict area; When exclusion cannot be verified, the certificate is considered to be within a broader scope than the actual area of ​​conflict.

[0158] In any of the situations in paragraph

[0157] , the certificate is not applied and secure transaction The element can request an updated or corrected certificate for the relevant root object.

[0159] In an application, the witness of causal incompatibility (347) and the witness of scope intersection (348) are clear. without disclosing derivation records or explicit value scopes to the secure transaction element It contains verifiable zero-knowledge evidence.

[0160] Privacy-protecting causal incompatibility witness, two confidential record commitments of the same root object without disclosing the content of the records, it is bound by its commitment and the same prior consumption commitment. It can show.

[0161] Privacy-protecting scope intersection witness, a non-empty common of two committed scopes that it has an atomic value domain and the quarantine scope in the certificate is the common one in question. It can show that the area is equal. 17

[0162] In an application where numerical ranges are kept secret, the witness can verify that the range ends are within the valid limits. interval evidence showing that it is within and the accuracy of the calculated intersection It may include proof of the arithmetic circuit.

[0163] Commitment to proof of origin in privacy-protecting application (346), registration identities, transaction They are not required to disclose the parties or the total value of the records.

[0164] Secure transaction element, zero knowledge proof verification key to protocol version (343) It can select from among the connected reliable parameters. Witnesses generated using a verification key incompatible with the

[0165] protocol version are rejected.

[0166] The use of confidential witnesses ensures the canonical quarantine scope of the certificate. This does not prevent him from carrying it openly.

[0167] In another application, the scope of quarantine can also be kept secret and the secure transaction element can be used alone. selective expansion or special set intersection that proves there is an intersection with its own local domain It can use the protocol.

[0168] Consensus node (310), multiple independent instead of a single central processing unit It can be implemented in a distributed structure consisting of consensus nodes.

[0169] Causal mismatch on the same verified derivation records for each reconciliation node And it can independently perform scope intersection analysis.

[0170] Consensus nodes when using the same protocol version and canonicalization profile It is expected to produce the same canonical quarantine scope set and the same certificate body commitment.

[0171] If the certificate bodies created by the reconciliation nodes are different from each other, the certificate If it is not signed, a dispute control process is initiated.

[0172] A verifiable overlap section certificate in an application requires at least t reconciliations. It is signed using the t / n threshold signature protocol, which requires the participation of the node.

[0173] The use of threshold signatures prevents arbitrary or erroneous quarantine certificates of a single consensus node. It reduces the risk of production.

[0174] Secure transaction element (350), threshold signature in the form of a single combined signature or specified It can be verified in the form of a minimum number of independent signatures.

[0175] Minimum signature threshold if some of the consensus nodes are offline Certificate production can be carried out as long as the necessary conditions are met. 18

[0176] If any of the certificate and witness verifications fail in the invention The default behavior is not to apply quarantine scope, but to reject or hold the certificate. to take.

[0177] In a fake record attack, the attacker created a record that was not generated by an authorized secure transaction element. It may attempt to add the derivative records to the system. Record verification unit (312), record digital signature (329) and secure transaction element validation data (326) unverified records causal graph It does not include.

[0178] In a parental linkage replacement attack, the attacker modifies a record's parental derivation. By changing the commitment (323), it may attempt to create an invalid causal continuation. The record Since commitment (322) and registration digital signature cover parental descent commitment, the change It generates a verification error.

[0179] In a range-expanding attack, the attacker targets an area wider than the actual conflict zone. They may try to include the quarantine scope in the certificate. Exclusion of the scope intersection witness. The evidence allows for the identification of this expansion.

[0180] In a scope reduction attack, the attacker removes a portion of the actual conflict area from the certificate. one can try to extract. Proof of completeness in the scope intersection witness, missing atomic value. It enables the identification of the area.

[0181] Each coverage overlap found in the causal derivation graph (330) is a separate conflict They do not need to be certified. Numerous successive sub-registries are based on the same fundamental principles. There may be successors to the fork, and certifying them separately provides duplicate evidence. It can produce.

[0182] Causal inconsistency detection unit (316), for two records determined to be in conflict, both It can identify the most recent common depleted antecedent (337) found in the verified derivation paths of the record.

[0183] Common consumed antecedent (337), from which both conflicting branches are derived, with valid state transition. It has been confirmed that the branches in question have been consumed and that none of them will be recreated during the process of forming them. a record, object state, or one-time authorization that is not allowed to be activated It is a commitment.

[0184] First confirmed derivation under a common exhausted antecedent and branching into two separate branches The edges are determined as the first pair of decomposition edges (338).

[0185] To determine the first pair of decoupling edges, both edges must be connected to the same common depleted antecedent. This involves referring to different child registries and allowing child registries to be valid together. It is confirmed that there is no rule for multiple derivation. 19

[0186] Value coverage between successive records on the same verified derivation path The presence of an overlap does not create the first pair of diverging edges.

[0187] Derived from the same common premise but having distinct scopes of value from each other and The child records representing the splitting operation permitted by the protocol are also used as the first splitting edge pair. It is not classified.

[0188] Conflict-carrying records located below the first divergence edge pair, the basis in question The conflicts stemming from the divisions can be grouped under a single umbrella.

[0189] Sequential commitment of the first pair of diverging edges within a root group, conflict boundary It is formed as commitment (339). Within the scope of this application, a stable conflict boundary is defined as: the same verified derivation record set, the same protocol. The version and the same root object commitment are deterministically obtained and have the same underlying principle. The fact that new successor records are formed beneath the divergence does not alter the selected boundary elements, In ancestral terms, it represents the minimum initial divergence edge pair set.

[0190] Conflict boundary, subsequent record located under a selected first divergence edge pair. the pairs being re-selected as border elements as repeated representatives of the same fundamental conflict It is kept to a minimum in terms of ancestry in a way that will prevent it.

[0191] For this purpose, no first pair of divergence edges at the conflict boundary represents the same conflict area It is not a verified basis of another selected edge pair. This application is stable within this scope. Conflict limiting factor; deterministically obtained for the same root object commitment and the same protocol version. the verified base of each selected first pair of decomposition edges to another selected pair of edges. and the existing limit for adding new successor records under the same fundamental separation is not present. It represents the set of minimum initial divergence edge pairs in terms of ancestry, whose elements have not been changed.

[0192] Conflict boundary commitment (339); registration commitments of the first separation edge pairs, common a binding the exhausted antecedent commitment, the evidence of derivational membership, and the boundary ranking The Merkle root can be a vector commitment or a cryptographic accumulator value.

[0193] The use of conflict limiting occurs when the same base branch produces multiple sub-records. This does not require the creation of a separate witness for causal discrepancy for each sub-record pair.

[0194] For each edge of the first pair of decomposition edges, the edge below that edge atomic value fields represented by verified records included in conflict analysis A connecting branch scope commitment can be established.

[0195] Verified scope combination of the first branch B_1, verified scope combination of the second branch The conflict domain of the relevant boundary pair, where B_2 is the denominator, is determined as Q_f = B_1 ∩ B_2.

[0196] Branch scope commitment, value of the registration commitment of each derivative registration included in the relevant branch. to the coverage identifier and object state transition proof; also to the relevant first decomposition edge pair. (338), common consumed antecedent (337), conflict boundary commitment (339), derivation evidence commitment (346), certificate root object commitment (341), certificate period (342) and protocol version (343) is connected by a field-separated cryptographic link. Thus, a branch scope commitment is different Reuse within the root, period, conflict boundary, or certificate is prevented.

[0197] Records with invalid signatures, invalid parental links, or that are contrary to the protocol state machine. It is not included in the branch scope combination.

[0198] If a branch represents the same atomic value unit in more than one successive record, it is called The subject matter, the atomic value unit, is represented only once in the branch scope assembly.

[0199] Conflict domains belonging to different pairs of conflict boundaries are combined in the form Q = ∪_(f∈F) Q_f; Here, F represents the verified conflict boundary.

[0200] Scope intersection witness (348), only a single pair of records in conflict boundary-based practice not the intersection, but the branch scope represented at the conflict boundary of the canonical quarantine scope set. It confirms that the union of their intersections is exactly equal to...

[0201] Scope intersection witness (348) includes an completeness component and an exclusion component.

[0202] The completeness component, each common represented on both sides of the branch pairs at the conflict boundary. It verifies that the atomic value unit is within the canonical quarantine scope set.

[0203] Exclusion component: no atomic value that branches at the conflict boundary do not commonly represent. This confirms that the unit has not been added to the canonical quarantine scope set.

[0204] Q_certificate = ∪_(f∈F)(B_(f,1) ∩ by verifying the completeness and exclusion components together The equality B_(f,2)) is verified.

[0205] The equality in paragraph

[0204] is the actual conflict of quarantine scope stated in the certificate. It prevents the area from being created smaller or larger than its original size.

[0206] An initial divergence edge pair that does not have a common value space at the conflict boundary is a causal one. While it may constitute a branching event, the quarantine scope applies in terms of the relevant digital asset. It does not produce.

[0207] The same atomic value unit is found in multiple pairs of conflicting boundaries. In this case, the atomic value unit is represented only once in the canonical quarantine scope set. 21

[0208] Scope intersection witness (348), conflict boundary commitment (339), certificate root object commitment (341), certificate period (342), protocol version (343) and canonical quarantine It is cryptographically linked to the scope set (345).

[0209] As shown in Figure 12, the transmission of the derivation records to the reconciliation node, Production of verifiable overlap section certificate (340) and end-safe processing of the certificate The transmission to the element is carried out within an end-to-end message sequence; the certificate is end-secure. the processing element should retrieve the entire causal derivation graph or all conflicting records. It is created in a way that does not require it.

[0210] The verification packet transmitted with the certificate; the first divergence edge at the conflict boundary. pairs, their commonly consumed antecedent evidence, necessary derivational path multiple membership evidence, It may include branch scope commitments and scope intersection witness.

[0211] The size of the validation packet is the number of conflicts instead of the number of records in the entire root group. will depend on the number of edge pairs at the border and the number of canonical quarantine scope descriptors. This can be limited in this way. For example, in a root group, N verified derivation records and conflicts. If there are k pairs of initial separation edges at the boundary, the entire N is sent to the end-safe processing element. Instead of transmitting the derivation record, membership proofs relating to the said k edge pair are provided, jointly. Exhausted antecedents, branch coverage commitments, and coverage intersection witnesses may be submitted.

[0212] Protocol version specifies the maximum number of conflict limit elements that can be found in a certificate, maximum proof byte length, maximum number of Merkle paths, and maximum number of cryptographic verification operations can determine.

[0213] If any of the aforementioned limits are exceeded, the secure transaction element partially terminates the certificate. It does not implement it; it rejects the certificate and redirects it to a validator with a higher source class. or requests a segmented certificate.

[0214] In a segmented certificate application, each certificate segment is the same certificate root object. It depends on the commitment, the period, the conflict boundary commitment, and the sequential commitment of all sections.

[0215] When a certificate section is missing or the same section is submitted more than once The secure transaction element does not recognize that the full certificate status has been achieved.

[0216] Witness verification requires that all evidentiary data be stored simultaneously in working memory. This can be achieved with stream-based hashing and multi-user authentication that doesn't require verification.

[0217] In a proof alteration attack, the causal non-conformity witness or scope of a certificate The intersection witness is used in another certificate; the witnesses are committed to the root object, the certificate. This is prevented by linking it to the period, protocol version, and certificate body. 22

[0218] In a graphic reduction attack, the conflict is carried out with the aim of shrinking the actual conflict area. An attempt may be made to exclude a specific branch or record from the scope summary. With a conflict boundary commitment. Proof of completeness regarding branch scope commitments, records included in the certificate as specified This indicates that it is linked to the verified record set at the time of reconciliation.

[0219] Certificate production and signing unit (319), same root object commitment and same certificate different conflict boundary commitments or different canonical quarantine scope sets for the period He refuses to sign.

[0220] In case different valid threshold signature certificates are determined for the same period The safe transaction element moves the relevant root value family to a safe discord state and higher Without obtaining a periodic solution certificate, any of the certificates can be considered a definitive status. It does not apply. Basic Technical Relations G_r = {T_i | Root(T_i) = r} Q_ij = S_i ∩ S_j Q = ∪_(i,j)∈C Q_ij Q_e = Q_(e-1) ∪ ΔQ_e Q_f = B_1 ∩ B_2 Q = ∪_(f∈F) Q_f Q_sertifika = ∪_(f∈F)(B_(f,1) ∩ B_(f,2))

Claims

23 REQUESTS 1. Offline digital value derivation performed by a consensus node (310). It is a method of certifying the causal overlap area in the records; each of which has at least one root object commitment (321), record commitment (322), parent derivation commitment (323), value Coverage identifier (324), object state transition proof (325), secure transaction element many containing verification data (326), prior consumption commitment (327) and registration digital signature (329) obtaining a number of derivation records (320); cryptographic integrity of the derivation records, records digital signatures, secure transaction element verification data, parental connections, and Verification of object state transition evidence; verified derivation records of the root object grouping according to their commitments and between records linked to the same root object commitment. (330) a directional causal derivation graph containing verified derivation edges (332) creation; representing common atomic value units tied to the same root object commitment, and Identifying pairs of records that are not causally related to each other; identified For record pairs, the most recent common path found in the verified derivation paths of both records. the exhausted precursor (337) and the first branch that branched off from the said common exhausted precursor into two separate branches Determination of the separation edge pair (338); among the first separation edge pairs, the same basis another edge that is the verified base of a selected edge pair representing the conflict a minimum line of ancestral conflict that would prevent the pair from being chosen creation; in the first and second branches of each initial pair of divergence edges at the conflict boundary The value ranges of the verified derivation records found are the first and second branches, respectively. conversion of scope into combinations; first and second branch for each initial separation edge pair. Calculating the intersection between scope combinations and intersections at the conflict boundary. a deterministically ordered, non-overlapping canonical quarantine of combinations conversion to scope set (345); at branch scope intersections at the conflict boundary that every atomic value unit found is within the canonical quarantine scope set nothing that is not found at the intersections of the relevant branch scope with a verifying completeness component a confirmation that the atomic value unit is not within the canonical quarantine scope set Establishment of a scope intersection witness (348) including an exclusion component; at the conflict boundary the first decomposition edge pairs and their commonly consumed antecedents cryptographically the creation of a conflict boundary commitment (339) that binds the root object commitment, certificate period (342), protocol version (343), conflict limit commitment, canonical quarantine scope set, derivation evidence commitment (346), causal incompatibility witness (347) and verifiable overlap section certificate including scope intersection witness (340) 24 creation; and verifiable overlap section certificate, a secure transaction element. (350) conflict without taking the entire causal derivation graph and all explicit derivation records can verify the boundary and the equivalence of the canonical quarantine scope set to the conflict area. by including the steps to sign it with an authorized cryptographic signature key. The method being characterized.

2. According to claim 1, the method is the verification of a derivation record; the digital signature of the record (329), secure transaction element validation data (326), parent derivation commitment (323), transaction verification of sequence or period data (328) and object state transition proof (325) together a method characterized by its inclusion.

3. The method according to claim 1 or 2, where the first pair of decoupling edges (338) is the same common consumed two dependent on the disposable status of the precursor (337) or the same precursor consumption commitment (327). characterized by being determined upon creation by different child registry method.

4. The method is according to any of claims 1 to 3, and the first pair of separation edges is also the protocol. According to the state machine, proof of two different object state transitions cannot be valid at the same time. (325) a method characterized by its ability to be determined upon verification.

5. The method is according to any of claims 1 through 4, where one record is a verified derivation from another record. When there is an ancestor or base that can be accessed via its edges, the value of the records in question It is characterized by not being classified as the first divergence edge pair, even if their scopes overlap. the method used.

6. A method according to any of claims 1 to 5 that derives validly from the same common premise. and the first decoupling edge pair of sibling records that represent discrete value scopes from each other A method characterized by not being classified as such.

7. The method is according to any of claims 1 to 6, and the conflict limit commitment (339); selected the initial separation edge pairs' registration commitments, shared consumed prior commitments and The derivation path links membership proofs to a Merkle root, vector commitment, or cryptographic A method characterized by generating the data in the form of an accumulator value.

8. A method according to any of claims 1 to 7, where the same atomic value unit is present in a branch. If the atomic value in question is represented by more than one successive derivation record characterized by the fact that the unit is represented only once in the branch scope combination method.

9. The method according to any of claims 1 to 8, and the canonical quarantine scope set (345); Numerical ranges sorted in ascending order and not overlapping with each other, non-conflicting binary prefixes or Merkles whose membership to the root value space can be verified. A method characterized by representation by at least one of the sub-tree root forms.

10. The method is according to any of requests 1 through 9 and is transmitted to the secure processing element. the validation packet should be the first inheritance record at the conflict boundary instead of the entire root group. divergence edge pairs, their associated commonly depleted antecedent evidence, multiple membership or by including non-membership evidence, branch scope commitments, and scope intersection witness testimony. The method being characterized.

11. The method according to claim 10 is the size of the validation packet or the number of validation operations. If the limit specified by the protocol version is exceeded, the certificate will be invalidated within the same certificate period. numerous certifications linked to conflict boundary commitment and sequential commitment of all parts A method characterized by its division into sections.

12. Method according to any of claims 1 to 11, verifiable overlap section. certificate (340), previously accepted certificate for the same root object commitment its commitment as previous certificate commitment (344) and a large certificate from the previous period The method is characterized by its inclusion of the period (342).

13. The method is according to claim 12, and in normal quarantine certificates, the new certificate period the canonical quarantine scope set, the quarantine scope from the previous certification period by creating a monotonic combination of a set of newly verified conflict areas The method being characterized.

14. The method according to claim 13 is the lifting of a previous quarantine or the reduction is prevented by the normal quarantine certificate and only the previous certificate a separate commitment tied to dispute resolution record and higher certification period A method characterized by being carried out with a release certificate.

15. The method according to any of claims 1 to 14, and the witness of causal incompatibility (347) and scope intersection witness (348), open derivation records or open value scopes The explanation implies that the records are linked to the same common consumed antecedent, and the records are valid. not being in the causal chain and the branch scope of the canonical quarantine scope set one or more zero-knowledge proofs confirming that the intersection is equal to the union of their intersections a method characterized by its inclusion. 26 16. Method according to any of claims 1 to 15, verifiable overlap section. the certificate must have at least t of the n reconciliation nodes sharing the same certificate body. through a t / n threshold signature process performed upon the independent production of the commitment, The method characterized by its signing, where 1 ≤ t ≤ n.

17. Certifying the causal overlap field in offline digital value derivation records. is a system (300) for receiving derivative records (320); a derivative is structured to receive derivative records (320). record recipient (311); digital signatures of derivative records (329), secure transaction element validation data (326), parent derivation commits (323), and object state transition a record verification unit (312) structured to verify evidence (325); To group verified derivation records according to root object commits. a structured root-based grouping unit (313); verified parent-child a structured to form a directional causal derivation graph (330) from its relationships causal graph generator (314); bound to the same root object commitment and common atomic value common consumed antecedent for records representing units (337), first decomposition edge pair (338) and an antecedent consumption structured to determine the minimum conflict boundary in terms of ancestry verification unit (315) and causal incompatibility detection unit (316); on the border of conflict to calculate the intersections between verified value scope combinations of branches a structured value scope intersection unit (317); the union of calculated intersections, to convert into a canonical quarantine scope set (345) that do not overlap with each other a structured canonical quarantine generator (318); and the canonical quarantine scope set (345) is equal to the combination of the branch coverage intersections at the conflict boundary of the said set. scope intersection witness (348), which includes completeness and exclusion components confirming that it is, verifiable including conflict boundary commitment (339) and causal incompatibility witness (347) A certificate generation and sign system is designed to produce and sign the overlap section certificate (340). The system is characterized by having a signing unit (319).

18. A secure system configured to process a verifiable collision section certificate (340). The processing element is (350); the certificate digital signature (349), the certificate root object commitment (341), the certificate period (342), the protocol version (343) and the previous certificate, if any. a certificate validation unit (351) configured to verify the commitment (344); The first pairs of divergent edge groups at the conflict boundary share commonly consumed antecedents and each other's... witness of causal incompatibility confirming that they have no verified causal continuation (347) a witness verification unit structured to verify (352); and canonical quarantine 27 The complete combination of the branch coverage intersections at the conflict boundary of the scope set (345) and The completeness and exclusion of the scope intersection witness (348) showing that it represents without redundancy without taking its components, the entire causal derivation graph, and all explicit derivation records Secure, characterized by containing a secure processor configured for verification. Processing element.

19. It is a secure transaction element according to claim 18, and the last accepted commitment for the same root object. a local certificate that stores the certificate period and certificate commitment in protected persistent memory containing a period counter (353); the period of the certificate received is older, in the same period carrying a different certificate commitment or the stored value of the previous certificate commitment A secure transaction characterized by refusing to implement the certificate if it doesn't match. element.

20. When executed by one or more processors, those processors must be verified. A directional causal derivation graph from offline digital value derivation records. to form; the first pairs of divergent edges under the same commonly consumed antecedent determining; a minimum conflict boundary ancestrally from the first pairs of diverging edges. the formation of; the intersections between the value scope combinations of branches at the conflict boundary calculating the canonical combination; a complete and unedited representation of the calculated combination. to establish a scope intersection witness with completeness and exclusion components that confirms that it has been done; and conflict boundary commitment, canonical quarantine scope set, causal incompatibility a signed, verifiable overlap section certificate including the witness and the scope intersection witness a non-volatile computer-generated program containing instructions that enable it to produce Readable storage medium.

Images