# Built to hold up

> Signed against quantum attack, screened by jurisdiction, private by proof.

Gavin Robert McGowen · interstellarblends.com. This site describes a patent application. It offers no token, security or investment.

Canonical: https://velocityprosperity.com/safeguards/

## The scalpel

- Every update is signed with “a post-quantum digital signature scheme” (claim 5).
- Each transaction gets “a compliance risk score” from weighted factors of its jurisdiction, and is routed by it (claim 13).
- A proof shows a condition is met “without revealing a private input value”, and a recorded nullifier stops the same proof being used twice (claim 17).

## In plain words

Three protections run under the money: signatures designed to resist quantum computers, screening by jurisdiction, and proofs that keep private data private.

## Signed against quantum attack

Every update carries a post-quantum signature, kept apart from the encryption that keeps traffic private.

> “The distributed digital-currency ledger network of claim 2, wherein the authentication data comprises a digital signature generated using a post-quantum digital signature scheme that is distinct from a key-encapsulation mechanism used by the distributed digital-currency ledger network for confidentiality.”
> “A validator node 700 or block proposer may, for example, sign a block, transaction, or parameter-state package using a signing operation of the post-quantum digital signature scheme, and another validator node 700 may verify that signature using a corresponding verification operation before accepting the block, transaction, or parameter-state package as authenticated, such as an ML-DSA-family signature scheme used as a primary signing mechanism for its verification speed and signature size, and/or an SLH-DSA-family (SPHINCS+) signature scheme used as a conservative fallback signature scheme, each described further below.”
> — Claim 5 · Specification, description of FIG. 3

## Screened by jurisdiction

Each transaction gets a risk score from weighted factors tied to its jurisdiction, and is routed by that score.

> “determine a jurisdiction associated with a transaction admitted under the activated parameter state; calculate a compliance risk score for the transaction from a plurality of weighted factors associated with the jurisdiction, and”
> “route the transaction to a disposition state based on a comparison of the compliance risk score to at least one threshold.”
> — Claim 13

## Private by proof

A transaction can prove it meets a condition without revealing the private data behind it, and the same proof cannot be used twice.

> “receive, for a transaction admitted under the activated parameter state, a proof verifying that the transaction satisfies a predetermined condition without revealing a private input value used to satisfy the predetermined condition; and”
> “record a nullifier associated with the proof; and reject a subsequent transaction associated with a nullifier matching the recorded nullifier,”
> — Claim 17

The question

## How does VP2.0 guard against quantum computers and fraud?

Each parameter update carries a post-quantum signature (claim 5), each transaction is scored on weighted factors tied to its jurisdiction (claim 13), and private conditions are proved without revealing private data, with a nullifier against reuse (claim 17).

**The sources in full every quotation on this page, where it stands**

> “The distributed digital-currency ledger network of claim 2, wherein the authentication data comprises a digital signature generated using a post-quantum digital signature scheme that is distinct from a key-encapsulation mechanism used by the distributed digital-currency ledger network for confidentiality.”
> — VP2.0 · Claim 5

> “determine a jurisdiction associated with a transaction admitted under the activated parameter state; calculate a compliance risk score for the transaction from a plurality of weighted factors associated with the jurisdiction, and”
> — VP2.0 · Claim 13

> “receive, for a transaction admitted under the activated parameter state, a proof verifying that the transaction satisfies a predetermined condition without revealing a private input value used to satisfy the predetermined condition; and”
> — VP2.0 · Claim 17

> “record a nullifier associated with the proof; and reject a subsequent transaction associated with a nullifier matching the recorded nullifier,”
> — VP2.0 · Claim 17