Patents are hard to read, and very easy to believe (especially for lay people) that they claim far more than they actually do. What you need to do is ignore everything but the claims. I am by no means an expert (I'm still somewhat confused as how relevant dependent claims are, for example), but the starting point is still easy.
Reading the first claim, the nexus of the claim is that it's a virtual currency system were you send money from wallet A to wallet B by routing it through distinct subwallets. There also seems to be an element that the subwallets are effectively fixed-size wallets (e.g., each subwallet represents a different coin as physical currency would have), but I would not bank a legal case on that. The other independent claims are effectively repetitions of this idea.
So, at best, this could be construed as a patent on tumblers, and definitely nothing wider-reaching than that. Even the claim that it would cover tumblers is somewhat stretching it, I think.
Patents are hard to read, and very easy to believe (especially for lay people) that they claim far more than they actually do. What you need to do is ignore everything but the claims. I am by no means an expert (I'm still somewhat confused as how relevant dependent claims are, for example), but the starting point is still easy.
Reading the first claim, the nexus of the claim is that it's a virtual currency system were you send money from wallet A to wallet B by routing it through distinct subwallets. There also seems to be an element that the subwallets are effectively fixed-size wallets (e.g., each subwallet represents a different coin as physical currency would have), but I would not bank a legal case on that. The other independent claims are effectively repetitions of this idea.
So, at best, this could be construed as a patent on tumblers, and definitely nothing wider-reaching than that. Even the claim that it would cover tumblers is somewhat stretching it, I think.