Proof-of-Integrity Ledger Architecture for Conditional Asset Exchange

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing cybersecurity measures in computer networks, particularly in the context of decentralized ledger technology (DLT), are inadequate in preventing and managing cyberattacks such as ransomware, which exploit the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies, and traditional fraud prevention systems often disrupt legitimate transactions.

Innovation Solution

A proof of integrity (PoI) model integrated into DLT networks that embeds protection parameters within transaction blocks, allowing transactions to proceed conditionally while monitoring and controlling assets, using smart contracts and external ledgers to validate and enforce compliance with integrity standards.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If traditional fraud prevention systems are used to detect and block suspicious transactions, then fraud detection capability is improved, but legitimate transactions are disrupted and transaction throughput decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefraud detection capabilityVSAvoidtransaction throughput

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary integrity validation on transactions by embedding proof of integrity code in smart contracts before transactions are finalized. This advance preparation allows the system to quickly verify transaction legitimacy without disrupting normal flow, as the validation logic is already in place and executed as part of the standard transaction process

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The proof of integrity model acts as an intermediary layer between transaction initiation and finalization. By using smart contracts with embedded validation logic as a mediator, the system can assess transaction integrity without requiring traditional fraud prevention systems to interrupt or halt transactions, thus maintaining throughput while improving detection capability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Adaptability or versatility

If decentralized ledger technology is used to enable anonymous cryptocurrency transactions, then transaction privacy and decentralization are improved, but vulnerability to cyberattacks such as ransomware increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvetransaction privacy and decentralizationVSAvoidvulnerability to cyberattacks

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system enables transactions to self-validate their integrity through embedded proof of integrity code in smart contracts. This self-service mechanism allows the transaction itself to carry and verify its own legitimacy markers without requiring external intervention, maintaining decentralization and privacy while providing built-in protection against cyberattacks

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system applies preliminary anti-action by embedding integrity validation logic and protection parameters in smart contracts before transactions occur. This advance preparation creates inherent resistance to cyberattacks like ransomware, as the integrity checks are already in place to prevent or detect malicious activities before they can exploit the decentralized nature of the ledger

Inventive Principle:

Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

3Reliability

If protection parameters are embedded in all transaction blocks to neutralize illicit assets, then fraud prevention effectiveness is improved, but device complexity and computational overhead increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefraud prevention effectivenessVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies protection parameters selectively rather than uniformly to all transactions. By using local quality, the proof of integrity model embeds validation logic and protection parameters only where needed based on transaction characteristics and risk assessment, reducing overall system complexity while maintaining effective fraud prevention for suspicious transactions

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically changes protection parameters based on transaction context and risk levels. By modifying the presence and type of protection parameters according to specific transaction characteristics, the system achieves effective fraud prevention without requiring all transactions to carry the same level of complexity, thus reducing overall computational overhead

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentUS12481749B2Protection architecture using proof of integrity on distributed ledgers

Publication Date: 2025.11.25 WELLS FARGO BANK NA

AI summary

Systems, methods, and computer-readable storage media for restricting exchanges using a proof of integrity model. One system includes memory and at least one processing circuit configured to receive, from a node on a first DLT network, an exchange request, the exchange request includes an amount of a digital asset to exchange, a content item, and a destination identifier. The at least one processing circuit is further configured to generate an exchange record and validate the exchange record in the amount of the digital asset based on a protection model. The at least one processing circuit is further configured to authorize, based on a consensus model, the exchange corresponding with the validated exchange record including the appended protection parameter. The at least one processing circuit is further configured to generate a new blockchain block on the first DLT network and transmit, to a second DLT network, an exchange notification.