Deterministic consensus method for distributed networks

Abstract

The present application for a patent of invention relates to a deterministic consensus method for distributed computer networks, for application in the technical fields of information technology and computer networks. The present method aims to deterministically organize the network using the identifier of the previous block. When generating a new block, each participant individually calculates the organization of the network using the identifier of the last block and the identifiers of the participants, thereby determining the order in which the participants will act. The participants are grouped and selected as representatives through cryptographic values and deterministic functions, ensuring an ordered structure. The transactions are signed within each group, preserving the integrity and order of the data. The last signature of the final group is used to calculate the new block identifier, which reorganizes the network for the next cycle. The method ensures that any modification to the data results in a different block identifier, enabling the detection and correction of conflicting transactions.

Description

[0001] Deterministic Consensus Method for Distributed Networks

[0002] Brief introduction

[0003]

[0001] This patent application describes a method for achieving consensus in distributed networks, called "Proof of Destination". The method claimed herein is characterized by the deterministic creation of blocks in blockchains, without relying on the conventionally used "Proof of Work" method. The present invention differs primarily by using identifiers from previous blocks and unique identifiers for each participant in processes that perform deterministic functions to establish the new network organization and allow the creation of new blocks. This invention enables consensus with improved energy efficiency and solves the problems associated with the uncertainty of results from previous methods, such as the NAKAMOTO consensus (2008), in addition to providing reduced operational costs and improved security and scalability of digital transactions.

[0004] Field of invention

[0005]

[0002] The invention described in this patent application is a deterministic consensus method aimed at the technical sectors of Information Technology and Computer Networks that allows for information consistency for distributed databases.

[0006] Fundamentals of the invention

[0007]

[0003] Considering the theory of computational complexity, a one-way function is a function that is easy to compute for any valid input, but difficult to reverse, that is, it is difficult to find the input from the result.

[0008]

[0004] A hash function is a mathematical algorithm that transforms a data input into a sequence of fixed-length hexadecimal values. The main characteristic of a hash function is that it is deterministic, meaning that for a given input, the same result is always obtained. It is also important to note that any change in the input produces a different result, and possible collisions are very rare. Furthermore, these functions are designed to make it computationally difficult or impossible to reverse their process, i.e., to find the original input of the hash result, thus characterizing them as one-way functions.

[0009]

[0005] For example, for the SHA256 hash function and the inputs "bat" and "cat", whose words differ by only one character, the hexadecimal results obtained will be respectively: "CA5BCEC12F716F44D9745D349CC80422F0D14CBAB 09329CAF533BEF7C2D952EB" and "77AF778B51 ABD4A3C51 C5DDD97204A9C3 AE614EBCCB75A606C3B6865AED6744E". This shows the significant change in results given a small change in the inputs.

[0010]

[0006] The Merkle Tree, proposed by Ralph Merkle in 1979 (United States patent 4309569A), is a hierarchical data structure where multiple data inputs are individually processed by a one-way function to obtain the initial level (leaf level). The results of this first level are gathered in defined quantities (e.g., two by two) and serve as inputs for the one-way function, in order to compose the next level. This operation is repeated until the last result of the one-way function is obtained, which will be called the Root of the Merkle Tree, or simply, the Root of Merkle. Fig. 1 illustrates the Merkle Tree.

[0011]

[0007] Another important concept is the digital signature, which is a mathematical and cryptographic method used to prove the origin (sender) and integrity of the content of a digital message. It is obtained through a pair of keys, one public and one private. The private key is kept secret by the sender and is used to generate the signature, while the public key is shared so that the authenticity of the signature can be verified. If the signature is valid, it is ensured that it was indeed the sender who sent and signed the message, since only the sender knows the private key and is the only one capable of generating the respective signature.

[0008] The blockchain proposed by NAKAMOTO (2008) in his article "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" is based on linking the sequence of blocks by including the hash of the header of the immediately preceding block in the content of the header of the following block. Fig. 2 illustrates the linking between blocks.

[0012]

[0009] In this method, each block header also has a variable value (nonce) to allow the hash of the current block to be modified until it meets the requirements to be accepted by the network.

[0013]

[0010] In the consensus of NAKAMOTO (2008), transactions are instructions in data format that a computer on the network sends to the others in order to change some record in their respective databases.

[0014]

[0011] Each block header contains the Merkle Root of the current block's transactions and the hash of the previous block's header. This creates a chain of blocks, where each block is chained to the previous one. Any alteration to a previous block would result in a change to its hash value, which in turn would break the link, invalidating all subsequent blocks. This blockchain forgery is easily detectable and extremely difficult to execute.

[0015]

[0012] In this method, the creation of each new block is not predictable, but rather based on trial and error. The various participants in the network compete with each other to be the first to complete a computational challenge, randomly altering the nonce several times, until they find a hash value that is accepted by the others. To do so, this hash value must have certain characteristics, such as ending with a certain number of zeros.

[0016]

[0013] The consensus of NAKAMOTO (2008), by requiring the fulfillment of a computational challenge, is called "Proof of Work", since participants need to perform computational work to win the dispute and create a valid block. This approach uses competition to promote security, but ends up consuming a large amount of energy resources, due to the various calculations of unsuccessful attempts. In other words, it is an inefficient process that requires devices with high computing power, which makes it unsuitable for devices with low computing power, such as IoT (Internet of Things) devices.

[0017]

[0014] On the other hand, the deterministic consensus method proposed by this patent application is a predictable process for creating blocks, which allows networks to operate much more efficiently, as it removes the need for competition in calculations with unsuccessful attempts. This solves the problem of high energy consumption, as well as favoring the use of the process in devices with low computing power.

[0018] State of the art

[0019]

[0015] The non-patent reference entitled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", published by NAKAMOTO in 2008, is known from the current state of the art. In this article, NAKAMOTO uses "Proof of Work", a consensus method for distributed networks designed to ensure the security and integrity of the Bitcoin network, thus preventing fraud. However, this method has been criticized for its significant energy inefficiency, as explained in the article "Assessment of Bitcoin Carbon Footprint" (SARKODIE, SA et al. Sustainable Horizons, 2023).

[0020]

[0016] In "Proof of Work," network participants compete with each other, through trial and error, to solve complex mathematical problems. This process is called "mining" and requires the continuous operation of specialized hardware, resulting in high energy consumption. As more hardware is added to the network, the total processing capacity increases, but to maintain network stability, the complexity of the mathematical problems also increases. As a result, the amount of energy required for "Proof of Work" grows continuously.

[0021]

[0017] However, the method now being claimed is characterized by the deterministic creation of blocks in blockchains, without depending on the "Proof of Work" method that is conventionally used. Therefore, the method now being claimed differs mainly in that it has better energy efficiency and uses identifiers from previous blocks and unique identifiers for each participant in processes that perform deterministic functions to establish the new network organization and allow the creation of new blocks.

[0022] Brief description of the invention

[0023]

[0018] The invention described relates to an innovative method called "Proof of Destination" for achieving consensus in distributed computer networks, which is primarily applicable in blockchain technologies. The present method is distinguished by using deterministic processes in the creation of blocks, based on the use of identifiers from previous blocks and the unique identifiers of participants, which are processed by deterministic functions to establish the new network organization and allow the creation of new blocks. The method involves the signing of transactions by participants using cryptographic key pairs, which guarantees their authenticity and integrity. From the results of the deterministic functions, the network participants are ordered and separated into groups. In each group, the transactions are validated and some representatives from each group are selected to compose the groups of the next level.In this way, transactions are processed through the groups until the last group, which will finalize the deterministic generation of the new block identifier, keeping the blockchain secure.

[0024] Objectives of the invention

[0025]

[0019] It is an objective of the present invention to provide a consensus method for distributed computer networks that has better energy efficiency than the "Proof of Work" method, reducing the energy consumption involved in the operation of blockchains.

[0026]

[0020] It is an objective of the present invention to provide a deterministic consensus method that avoids the uncertainty of the results produced by the "Proof of Work" method, ensuring greater predictability in the creation of blocks.

[0027]

[0021] It is an objective of the present invention to enable the creation and verification of blocks in blockchains, using block identifiers and unique participant identifiers in deterministic functions to organize the network in a secure and reliable manner.

[0022] It is an objective of the present invention to enable the scalability of blockchain networks, using group reduction and signature reduction processes, which optimize the creation and validation of blocks.

[0028] Description of the figures

[0029]

[0023] The figures are presented below to better explain the patent application in an illustrative and non-limiting way:

[0030]

[0024] Fig. 1 illustrates a binary Merkle tree, in which the one-way function is a hash function.

[0031]

[0025] Fig. 2 illustrates a simplified version of the NAKAMOTO (2008) blockchain;

[0032]

[0026] Fig. 3 illustrates an example of deterministic ordering of participants to form first-level groups;

[0033]

[0027] Fig. 4 illustrates group reduction, with temporary reordering to deterministically select the representatives of each group;

[0034]

[0028] Fig. 5 illustrates the reduction of signatures;

[0035]

[0029] Fig. 6 illustrates a simplified version of the deterministic consensus method for distributed networks, called "Proof of Destination".

[0036] Detailed description of the invention

[0037]

[0030] The METHOD FOR OBTAINING DETERMINISTIC CONSENSUS FOR DISTRIBUTED NETWORKS consists of a new consensus method for distributed networks. To facilitate understanding of the following text, this new method will be called "Proof of Destination". Similar to NAKAMOTO's (2008) consensus, this new method allows the creation of blockchains. However, the deterministic consensus method now being advocated, called "Proof of Destination", aims to overcome the technical limitations of NAKAMOTO's consensus, known as "Proof of Work".

[0031] In more detail, "Proof of Work" stipulates that any participant can create a block, provided they are the first to win the competition to find a hash with the specifications accepted by the network. However, this generates indeterminism about which participant will win the dispute and brings multiple valid possibilities for creating the next block.

[0038]

[0032] In the deterministic consensus method for distributed networks, called "Proof of Destination," now claimed, each block identifier is used to deterministically define how the network will be organized, which ultimately allows the creation of the next block identifier.

[0039]

[0033] Therefore, in the deterministic consensus method for distributed networks, called "Proof of Destination", each network participant has its respective public and private cryptographic key pair. When verifying signatures, the public keys of all participants must be known by the others. In addition, each participant must have a unique identifier recognized by the others, which may be its own public key.

[0040]

[0034] To send a transaction to the network, the respective participant needs to sign their transaction before sending it, in order to guarantee that they were indeed the sender. It is possible that the participant may not send a transaction to the network during the creation of a block, for example due to a connection failure.

[0041]

[0035] When creating a new block, each participant must individually calculate how the entire network will be organized. This calculation uses the identifier of the last block along with the identifier of each participant as inputs to a deterministic function. The result obtained is the ordering value of each participant for the new block. Fig. 3 illustrates this organization based on the ordering values ​​indicated in parentheses.

[0042]

[0036] For example, consider that the deterministic function is "SHA256" and the identifier of the previous block is "9390AFF32018EFADADC01 E5AF7A5C0DA9D EF497402C1162448E2A2B9784563D6". Consider also that the identifiers of participant "A" and participant "B" are respectively: "170839BA7DB4C2A6A99675574170D5DCA52B192EE61 ED9F2B50DEA50C9B 6071 F", "2583B7B3F7B78F093D08C5F1 F88BFD1 A73B43C4F23D1 B157E22670 D3230C6D69". Since the deterministic function must receive as inputs the identifier of the last block and, individually, the identifier of each participant, the results are respectively: "BF65BEA3BA4A09B6CD8629B C82E0CFC2F915EAC0BA941 66C2029BA89E2F2C097", "0162A7349CD92D78F F3CBD0C5C9395E34EDF89FF7F89C28C5DCA70B82DAAE56D". Therefore, based on these ordering values, participant "A" is positioned after participant "B".

[0043]

[0037] It is important to mention that other deterministic functions can be used for sorting. The purpose of the example is only to make it easier to understand.

[0044]

[0038] To create the first block in a chain of blocks, the network must deterministically define the value equivalent to the identifier of the block preceding the first block, which is called the genesis block identifier. For this purpose, it is possible, for example, to define a constant value or to use the identifiers of all participants as inputs to a deterministic function, the result of which will be the genesis block identifier. These examples are illustrative and not exhaustive.

[0045]

[0039] Since each participant has its own sorting value during the creation of a block, this value is used to sort the participants and to group them, for example, four by four. In this way, the first-level participant groups are formed.

[0046]

[0040] After the first-level groups have been determined, the group reduction can be computed, level by level. Thus, let "V" and "J" be parameters defined in each network, then this reduction consists of deterministically selecting "V" representatives from each group and deterministically joining "J" groups by reduction.

[0047]

[0041] After the groups of a level are formed, they are temporarily reordered by selecting representatives and joining the groups of the next level. Based on the result of deterministic functions, the temporary reordering of the groups occurs internally and between them, in order to compose the groups of the subsequent level.

[0048]

[0042] Deterministic functions for reordering groups receive as inputs the values ​​that identify the participants and the values ​​that identify the groups. Depending on the deterministic function used, the result of the temporary reordering may be equal to the original internal ordering of the groups or equal to the original ordering between groups.

[0049]

[0043] An example of deterministic temporary reordering for representative selection and group joining is to compute the hash of all group participant identifiers to obtain the group identifier value. Then, the group identifier and each participant identifier are used as input pairs for the deterministic function to obtain the ordering value of each representative. Based on these values, each group is temporarily reordered before representative selection.

[0050]

[0044] Fig. 4 illustrates group reduction with temporary reordering. In this example, before selecting representatives for the next level, each group is deterministically reordered using the ordering values ​​of the representatives, as explained earlier.

[0051]

[0045] In the example in Fig. 4, after the temporary reordering, the representatives of each group are selected to compose the groups of the next level using the ordering: one participant is selected from each group of the same junction, in a cyclical manner, starting with the groups with the lowest numbering until the group of the next level is filled. This way of selecting representatives, although preferred, is only one of many possibilities and other orderings can be used, provided they meet the criteria of determinism.

[0052]

[0046] After determining the groups at each level, signature reduction can be processed. Each network must define the parameter "M", which is the number of participants in each group who will be signatories in the signature reduction. When the signatures are made, the internal order of each group and the merging of groups must be respected, maintaining determinism. Fig. 5 illustrates signature reduction.

[0053]

[0047] Signature reduction is a process in which previous signatures are used as the content of subsequent signatures. This process begins at the first level, where the first signer of each group signs the set of signatures of the transactions of that group. Each set must be deterministically ordered. This ordering can be equal to the internal order of the group or obtained from a deterministic function. Then, the next signers of each group sequentially sign the signature of the immediately preceding signer until "M" signatures per group are obtained.

[0054]

[0048] At subsequent levels, the first signer of each group signs the set of last signatures of the groups from the immediately preceding level and the same junction. Each set must be ordered deterministically. This ordering can be equal to the order between groups or obtained from a deterministic function. Then, the next signers of each group sequentially sign the signature of the immediately preceding signer until "M" signatures per group are obtained. At each level, this process is repeated until the last signature of the group from the last level is obtained.

[0055]

[0049] The last signature of the last-level group is used to calculate the identifier of the new block. This can occur by using the last signature as the identifier of the new block or by using this signature as input to a deterministic function, such as hash functions, for example. Regardless of how this calculation is performed, it must strictly follow deterministic criteria.

[0056]

[0050] If a participant cannot participate in the deterministic process that creates a block, then that participant is deterministically replaced by another participant. For example, the replacement of absent participants or participants who take too long to interact preferably occurs by selecting the nearest available participant, according to the ordering of groups and prioritizing unselected participants.

[0051] It is also important to note that the signatories of a group will not necessarily be the representatives of that group for the next level. This distinction occurs to maintain the security of the network, as it increases the chances of fraud being detected, since it better distributes responsibilities among the participants.

[0057]

[0052] After the identifier of the new block is computed, it is used to reorganize the network. This new organization allows the network to perform the next calculation of group and signature reductions, obtain the next block identifier, and link the blocks in the blockchain.

[0058]

[0053] Because the "Proof of Destination" method is deterministic and operates as a one-way function, any change in any input to the process should result in a different block identifier and, consequently, the network organization will be different. Then, when participants communicate with each other to create the next blocks, they will be able to notice the inconsistencies and resolve them.

[0059]

[0054] If a participant submits two or more conflicting transaction versions, this action may be noticed during block creation, as each conflicting transaction version will need to be processed by reducing signatures, which will cause other network participants to notice the existence of conflicting versions before signing them. Furthermore, if two or more block identifiers are generated due to conflicting transactions, this will cause different orderings and group joins for each of them, which will cause the network to notice the inconsistency and correct it.

[0060]

[0055] From this process, it is possible to recognize which participants acted inappropriately in the network by sending conflicting transactions or agreeing to conflicting transactions during signature reduction. Therefore, the network can penalize inappropriate participants.

[0061]

[0056] Fig. 6 illustrates the simplified version of the "Proof of Fate" method in which each block identifier is obtained by a deterministic process. This process consists of using the identifier of the previous block to order and group the participants. Then, the reduction of groups is computed and the participants who will perform the signature reduction are selected. After that, the new block identifier is obtained deterministically, which is used in the same deterministic process to create the next block. In short, the deterministic consensus method for distributed networks, called "Proof of Fate," now being claimed, is different from the consensus of NAKAMOTO (2008), mainly because it is deterministic and does not use competition between participants to try to solve a computationally costly and inefficient challenge.

[0062] Examples of embodiments of the invention

[0063]

[0057] The examples listed below are intended only to show some of the numerous ways in which the invention can be used, however they should not be considered as limiting the scope of the method.

[0064]

[0058] Carbon Emissions Registry. One example is a network of industries from different sectors collaborating to reduce their carbon emissions. Each industry can register its emission reductions on the shared blockchain, which serves as a reliable and immutable record. Based on these registered emission reductions, each company receives a proportional amount of carbon credits. These credits can be traded directly between the industries participating in the network, offsetting surplus emissions from one with reductions from another, thus promoting collaboration to mitigate climate change in an efficient and transparent manner.

[0065]

[0059] Industrial Supply Chain Registry. One example is a blockchain for electronic supply chains. A supply chain that extends from the extraction of rare metals to the final assembly of electronic devices. Each step of this process can be recorded on the blockchain, including the origin and quality of materials, production details, and quality records. This would allow for complete and transparent traceability of supplies throughout the entire supply chain, ensuring the authenticity of the materials used and compliance with regulatory standards. Furthermore, blockchain could be used to automate processes such as payments and certification verification, thus reducing costs and increasing supply chain efficiency. The resulting transparency and efficiency can lead to greater consumer confidence in products and a decrease in the risk of fraud and dishonest business practices.

Claims

MODIFIED CLAIMS Received by the International Secretariat on February 5, 2026 (05.02.2026) 1. Deterministic Consensus Method for Distributed Networks, characterized by comprising the following steps: - When creating a new block, compute the deterministic logical arrangement of participants in the network, using the identifier of the previous block and the identifiers of the participants as inputs to a deterministic function; - Order the participants based on the results of the deterministic function and group them to form first-level participant groups; - To compute, level by level, the reduction of groups, which consists of deterministically selecting the representatives for each group and deterministically joining the groups by reduction; - After determining the groups at each level, process the signature reduction in which, within each group, respectively previous signatures are used as the content of subsequent signatures, until the last signature of the last level's group is obtained; - Use the last signature to calculate the identifier of the new block, with the new block identifier being used to reorganize the deterministic logical arrangement of participants in the network and calculate the next group and signature reductions to obtain the subsequent block identifier.

2. DETERMINISTIC CONSENSUS METHOD FOR NETWORKS DISTRIBUTED, according to claim 1, is characterized by the fact that: Each participant in the network has their own pair of public and private cryptographic keys and possesses a participant identifier recognized by the others; - To send a transaction to the network, the respective participant signs the transaction before sending it; - When creating a new block, the calculation of how the deterministic logical arrangement of participants will be reorganized is performed using the block identifier. The previous data and participant identifiers were used as inputs to a deterministic function.

3. A deterministic consensus method for distributed networks, according to claim 1, is characterized by the fact that the grouping of participants comprises: - Using a deterministic function, assign each participant their respective ordering value, which is used to order the participants and to group them, forming the first-level participant groups; - Define "V" as the number of representatives selected deterministically for each group and "J" as the number of groups to be deterministically joined by reduction to form subsequent level groups; - After determining the participant groups for the first level, calculate the reduction of groups, level by level, until obtaining the final group for the last level.

4. A DETERMINISTIC CONSENSUS METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTED NETWORKS, according to claim 1, is characterized by the fact that the deterministic temporary reordering of the participant groups comprises: - After the groups at one level are formed, temporarily reorder the groups by selecting representatives and deterministically merging the groups through reduction to form the groups at the next level; - Rearrange the groups internally and among themselves based on the results of deterministic functions to compose the groups of the next level; Apply deterministic functions to reorder the groups using as inputs the values ​​that identify the participants and the values ​​that identify the groups.

5. A DETERMINISTIC CONSENSUS METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTED NETWORKS, according to claim 1, is characterized by the fact that the selection of representatives from the groups for the composition of the groups in Subsequent levels include: - Deterministically select the representatives to compose the groups of the next level, until obtaining the group of the last level; - To compose the groups of subsequent levels by representatives originating from the previous levels, according to the merging of groups by reduction and deterministic temporary reordering, or using a deterministic function that deterministically arranges the participants of the first level into the groups of each subsequent level; - Deterministically select representatives for the next level group by deterministically alternating selection of one participant from each group of the same junction from the previous level, starting with the lowest-numbered groups until the next level group is filled, observing the deterministic temporary reordering of the representatives, or use a deterministic function to arrange the participants in each group of each level.

6. A DETERMINISTIC CONSENSUS METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTED NETWORKS, according to claim 1, is characterized by the fact that the signatures within the same group and between groups of different levels comprise: - After determining the groups for each level, process the signature reduction in which the previous cryptographic signatures are used as the content of the subsequent cryptographic signatures; - Define "M" as the number of participants in each group acting as signatories in the signature reduction, starting at the first level, where the first signatory of each group signs the set of signatures for the transactions of that group, and then the next signatories of the same group sign, in sequence, the signature of the immediately preceding signatory, until "M" signatures are obtained per group; - In subsequent levels, the first signatory of each group signs the set of last signatures of the groups from the immediately preceding level and the same junction, and then the next signatories of the same group sign, in sequence, the signature of the immediately preceding signatory, until "M" is obtained. Subscriptions by group; Repeat the processing until the last signature of the last level group is obtained, which is used to deterministically calculate the identifier of the new block.

7. DETERMINISTIC CONSENSUS METHOD FOR NETWORKS DISTRIBUTED, according to claim 6, is characterized by comprising: - If any participant does not participate in the deterministic process of creating a block, deterministically replace that participant with another participant.

8. A DETERMINISTIC CONSENSUS METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTED NETWORKS, according to claim 1, is characterized by comprising: The identifier for the new block is obtained deterministically from the identifier of the immediately preceding block and from the new transactions that will be processed through signature reduction. The last signature of the last-level group is used as input to a deterministic function to calculate the identifier of the new block.

9. DETERMINISTIC CONSENSUS METHOD FOR NETWORKS DISTRIBUTED, according to claim 1, is characterized by the fact that: The identifier of the new block is used to reorganize the deterministic logical arrangement of participants for the subsequent cycle, which ensures that the network performs the next group reduction and signature reduction calculation, obtains the subsequent block identifier, and links the blocks in the blockchain.

10. DETERMINISTIC CONSENSUS METHOD FOR NETWORKS DISTRIBUTED, according to claim 1, is characterized by the fact that: Any change in the input of the deterministic processing results in a distinct identifier for the new block and in a distinct deterministic logical arrangement of participants, in order to guarantee the identification of inconsistencies between participants; when a participant sends conflicting versions of a transaction, each conflicting version is processed by reducing signatures, which causes these versions to be detected before each agreement signature; this identifies the participants who created or agreed to conflicting transactions, ensuring the penalization of inappropriate participants. [0001] [0002]Declaration in accordance with Article 19.1) [0003]0 The applicant submits this modification to the claims in order to improve the clarity and technical precision of the invention, in accordance with the observations contained in the Written Opinion of the International Search Authority. It further declares that the changes introduced fully preserve the inventive concept originally disclosed and do not imply the inclusion of new matter beyond the content of the application as filed. The total number of claims remains unchanged.

Images