Blockchain Audit Network Using Diverse Proof Algorithms

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing blockchain networks face challenges in reliably auditing for forgery and restoring the integrity of ledger information, particularly in scenarios where a 51% attack occurs, leading to potential incorrect ledger information being considered as original.

Innovation Solution

A method and system utilizing a plurality of audit committees with different proof algorithms to cluster and verify ledger information in a blockchain network. This involves identifying discrepancies in ledger information, generating blocks for updating ledger information based on forgery verification results, and utilizing a neural consensus proof-based block generation process to ensure the integrity of the blockchain network.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a single consensus proof method is used in the blockchain network, then the system complexity is low and ease of operation is maintained, but the reliability and security against forgery are insufficient

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveforgery detection reliabilityVSAvoidaudit committee structure

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The audit network is segmented into multiple audit committees (first audit committee with PoW, second audit committee with PoS, third audit committee with DPoS), each using different proof methods. This segmentation allows the system to distribute the forgery detection function across multiple independent verification bodies, thereby improving reliability without requiring a complete redesign of the entire blockchain system.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the parameter of proof method diversity by introducing multiple different consensus algorithms (PoW, PoS, DPoS) across different audit committees. This parameter change enables the system to detect forgery more reliably by comparing results across different verification methodologies, while the modular implementation keeps the overall system complexity manageable.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If multiple audit committees with different proof algorithms are deployed, then the reliability and safety of forgery auditing is improved, but the device complexity and operational difficulty increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedata integrity assuranceVSAvoidaudit process complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The audit committees operate autonomously using their respective proof methods (PoW, PoS, DPoS) to verify ledger information. Each committee independently performs verification without requiring manual intervention or complex coordination, allowing the system to maintain high data integrity assurance while keeping operations relatively simple through automated self-verification processes.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system merges the functions of multiple audit committees with different proof methods into a unified audit network that collectively verifies ledger information. By combining these different verification approaches, the system achieves comprehensive data integrity assurance while presenting a single integrated audit interface, thereby maintaining ease of operation despite the underlying complexity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

3Adaptability or versatility

If a non-random consensus proof-based blockchain network is converted to random consensus proof-based, then the adaptability and versatility are improved, but resource wastage occurs during the transition process

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveconsensus mechanism flexibilityVSAvoidtransition resource consumption

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of energy

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by establishing multiple audit committees with different proof methods before actually needing to switch consensus mechanisms. This allows the network to have the adaptability and versatility of random consensus proof available when needed, while the existing non-random consensus continues to operate normally, avoiding resource wastage during transitions.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The multiple audit committees serve as a cushioning mechanism that prepares the system for potential consensus mechanism changes. By having PoW, PoS, and DPoS committees already in place and operational, the system can absorb the transition to random consensus proof without significant resource wastage, as the infrastructure is already established and can be activated when needed.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #11Beforehand cushioning (Prior cushioning)

Data Source

PatentUS20250193012A1Method and system for auditing forgery using a plurality of audit committees having different proof algorithm

Publication Date: 2025.06.12 LEADPOINT SYST INC

AI summary

Proposed are a method and a system for auditing for forgery, capable of auditing for forgery of ledger information with high reliability by using a plurality of audit committees having different proof algorithms. The method includes clustering a plurality of ledger information from a plurality of node devices in a blockchain network for electronic notarization, verifying the forgery of the plurality of ledger information by an audit network by identifying a discrepancy between the plurality of ledger information and responding to the discrepancy, and generating a block for updating ledger information of the plurality of node devices on the basis of the verification results.