YeNom — Your Time Will Come!

Submitted by zClark on Wed, 11/Aug/2010 - 17:40

Take a sad song and make it better

The aspiration of yenom.biz is to help usher in an immanent new world. Unlike the fashion world, the (old doomed) financial world, or the political world: the YeNom world is NOT some self-important entity that any individual is expected, required, or compelled to accept. Moreover, in addition to participation being unequivocally voluntary, the core value of this simple system stems entirely from individual contribution. The only authorities found within this realm are those whom a person elects to respect or commit to.

The fundamental basis of the YeNom paradigm is “OWNERSHIP”. Ownership is the sacrosanct germ upon which everything else evolves and revolves. In stark distinction from the morass of convoluted problems inherent in any other form of proprietorship (from real estate to intellectual property (unreal estate)), the identity of a YeNom owner is emphatically incontrovertible. This curious attribute of the YeNom is referred to as “SUYO” – an acronym for Simple Undeniable Yank-proof Ownership (also Spanish for ‘yours’). “Yank-proof?” Well, yes – as in thief-proof (plus it cannot be counterfeited). This is actually a fall-out of absolute unequivocal ownership (if not a prerequisite). While “Undeniable” even extends to said owner (in other words, it is fully futile for owners to deny their dominion). “Simple” even to the extent it threatens to make the very concept incomprehensible. (And finally, ‘ownership’ which is merely what the whole YeNom thing is all about.)
Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership, “Ownership is the key building block in the development of the capitalist socio-economic system.”

The basis supporting YeNom ownership is designed/conceived to be the most universally acceptable, humanly relevant, and efficiently executable premise that its author is capable of devising. Specifically: ownership is established when a person accepts a ‘gift’ created by another hominid (perhaps the most genuine, unrelenting, and beautiful propensity inherent in our species). A YeNom is a specialized instance of this type of ownership; it's a digital document in which proof of ownership is part and parcel of the ‘object’ owned.
Note: this ‘gift’ concept should be understood in the broadest possible terms. For instance, it could be a contract, promise, vote, compliment, or even potentially a debt or obligation on the recipient's part. The crucial thing is merely that it be drawn-up by the originator and accepted (agreed upon) by the recipient.

Being just a string of bits, the YeNom is intrinsically impervious to a whole host of frailties that material objects are imbued with. For instance, if I accept a wooden image crafted by my father, then my ownership of this object could be challenged on the grounds that the wood was ill gained or it came from an endangered tree, etcetera; not to mentioned that it could be lost or taken or potentially consumed by fire, hatchet, insects, or rot.

Dedicating my life to perfecting algorithms and software to conclusively accomplish the objectives scoped out by the YeNom promise would be an honor (although one lifetime would hardly suffice). Joyfully however, this is unnecessary as it has already been thoroughly accomplished in spades. I'm talking about digital signatures as secured by public/private key encryption.

To initiate a YeNom, someone (the originator) needs to create a document (gesture) for a specific recipient. The main part of said gesture (modestly called a comment) embodies the ‘gift’ (offer, premise, poem, contract, etc). This whole document is then digitally signed by the originator. This file is then sent to its intended recipient. If recipient chooses to take ownership of the gesture, she should first verify the signature it bears using the originator's public key. Next the recipient simply digitally signs the whole thing using her private key. This updated file is then submitted for inclusion into the GWR database. If done correctly and both signatures verify, the file (named after its UID) is included in the database and a new YeNom is now in existence. The whole contents of the GWR is readily available to anyone over the Internet. Notification of the new YeNom will also be sent to the recipient and originator if email addresses were provided. The GWR database is currently available to all at YeNom.biz/GWR.

By virtue of the two digital signatures (originator & recipient), the YeNom is a forge-proof document that grants undeniable ownership of an originators ‘unique work’ to the recipient. Even if a YeNom comment is nothing more than “Thank You”, and is repeated several times a day from the same originator to the same recipient they will all be distinctive (unique) due to a differentiating character in the UID (or timestamps as part of the comments). Crucial to the whole schema, ownership of a YeNom can be transferred to another. This simply entails the current owner offering their on-record YeNom as the basis of a new gesture to someone. When properly understood, one will realize this means that as any YeNom changes hands, its full history of ownership is preserved with each transfer (note: the UID does remain constant).

While YeNoms can be easily transferred, they are designed to be a means of creating value by monetizing ‘gifts’ and NOT to be a medium of exchange (that is much better addressed by something like bitcoins.

Admittedly, a YeNom could ostensibly say that the originator is granting the recipient title to the Great Pyramid of Egypt. However, that in no way means that the YeNom itself is in-turn effectively title to anything at all (other than itself of course). In other-words, the SUYO system (as implemented by the YeNom) assigns zero significance to the contents of any YeNom. The only inviolable precept that all users need to agree on is that the private key which created the last (valid) signature on a YeNom is in fact the current owner of said YeNom (a specific/unique conglomeration of bits). Beyond this, users are fully free to value and interpret any given YeNom according to their own dictates.

Details are all designed to keep the core system as viable, simple, and secure as possible. For instance, when a “(valid) signature” was cited above, the parenthesis were employed to emphasize the word's redundancy. “Valid” is decisively dispensable because a YeNom only exist when it's registered in the GWR database and that can only happen when the accepting (ultimate) signature is created by the private key of the intended new owner as cited within the {Yenom} gesture. So the application of an accepting signature by any other private key is merely a silly act of lame tomfoolery. Moreover, we should note that the validity of a YeNom is NOT subject to verification by any authority figure. Anyone with a computer and access to the readily available public keys of the originator and owner(s) can (and sometimes should) conclusively verify the authenticity of any YeNom for themselves. While the GWR is simply where we agree to find the most current instance of any YeNom.

The devil most dominant among the details puts a defining twist at the very crux of the SUYO paradigm. Technically, the core SUYO system is wholly disengaged from the creepy realm of flesh & blood human-beings. The above SUYO ‘inviolable precept’ already insisted that all users must agree that, “… the private key which created the last (valid) signature on a YeNom is in fact the owner of said YeNom …” (as emphatically distinguished from the person in possession/control of any private key). This detachment from the humanoid world naturally extends to “originators” and “recipients” (key YeNom fundamentals). In fact even the sanctified “Individual” we wish to celebrate, is –in many instances– better understood to be a private key rather than a sentient death prone person.

The belabored distinction made between a private key and its ‘possessor’ is intended to protect human users/precipitants and insulate them from their own terribly tenacious shortcomings and liabilities. For instance, persons chronically suffer from an idiocratic affliction that severely compromises their innate abilities to enjoy basic ownership and self-determination (i.e. governance by ‘authorities’ claiming jurisdiction). A number (private key) is pretty much free from such atrocities (despite the more jealously zealous aspirations of the I.P. mania). Moreover, the identity of a rational number could hardly be more immediate; whereas the morass of confusion inherent in personal identification can even endure pass a presidential election. Plus there is the perpetual propensity for persons to pander to and perpetuate preposterously pathetic problems (8P: topic for a future post), which a string of digits lack the volition to effect.

In consideration of the above, the SUYO/YeNom system is NOT a service for persons per se. Instead it's essentially a benevolence for private-key numbers. Obviously a private-key is unable to initiate anything on its own, so active entities (such as a persons, robots, corporations, aliens) are needed to create YeNoms. Nevertheless, such actors are superfluous to the core SUYO/YeNom system. This rigorous limitation of scoping the service to private-keys has at least two immediate consequences that are worth mentioning now:
    1) Regardless of how renowned a private-key may become nor how many YeNoms it may own; should the ‘possession’ (knowledge) of said key be compromised and fall into the hands of some criminal (or worse yet a government) – that is NOT a concern for the SUYO system. The same private-key always remains the owner of its YeNom.
    2) By definition, the core SUYO/YeNom system has no means to levy any penalty against originators or owners. Considering that ownership essentially resides with a private-key, reward and punishment are equally meaningless (although some may condemn "13" and glorify "7" etc. that means nothing to the number and even less to us). Not to mention the fact that we have no idea of what said private-key number is anyway. And the notion of extending sanctions against a person because they are suspected of using a particular private-key is exactly the worse type of self-defeating endeavor SUYO/YeNom could be involved in.

Nothing in the above should be interpreted in any way as an invitation for persons to use YeNoms in dishonorable ways. Indeed, maximum value and usefulness of the concept depends on the honesty of the participants (i.e. persons behind the private-keys that in-turn create and own YeNoms). So it is not the case that policing and rule enforcement is deemed unimportant or trivial, but just the opposite. It is too important and too involved for the core SUYO/YeNom system to address or get overly involved with (particularly in any unilateral way). But even if the SUYO author was blessed with the profundity to design the ultimate justice system, doing so at the core level would violate a key principle. Namely, the root purpose of the core SUYO system is to supply a simple, neutral, imperturbable stage for the YeNom actors, and adding anything more to that would be a disservice. WHY? Because the SUYO stage needs to be as minimal as possible – embodying only the most crucial elements that everyone can readily relate to and agree with. Any extensions/enhancements beyond this kernel must be a separate/independent animal that users and participants elect/choose to employ or to be governed by.

What's at issue here is Coercion. Let's recognize two types – aggressive and passive coercion. Either can be actualized as a requirement or as an elective option. Aggressive coercion includes punitive actions like fines, imprisonment, pushing & shoving & hitting, threats, etc. While passive coercion amounts to criteria for participation and interaction. For instance, a vendor that only accepts YeNoms from those registered with ‘ACME Credentials’, is an example of passive coercion based on a requirement. Such passive coercion (denial) is only effective to the extent that an offered service or item is valuable to perspective clients. In other words, you are forced (coerced) to comply in order to enrich yourself as opposed to compelled submission via the threat of punishment (aggressive coercion). Yes, the SUYO platform does allow for aggressive coercion (as benign or grim as one can image), but only as a free and volitional subscription by the individual user (normally envisioned as a means to enforce/secure commitments in a contract). Although a basic SUYO precept insists that valid jurisdictions only preside (officiate) at the pleasure of their subjects; it is still possible for someone to enlist with some perpetual governance from which there is no escape. This brings us to required/compulsory aggressive coercion (which pretty much defines the state's true impetus). This menace seems to be originally championed via the brutish “Might makes Right” mentality, and (reminiscent of the image depicted in Daniel chapter 2) deteriorates to social democracy where necromantic “Rights make Might”. In any event, it's not so much that unilateral entrapment like this is prohibited by SUYO/YeNom, but that there is simply no means to implement such a presumptuous affront (given the fact, again, that the SUYO stage is technically and actually just a playground for [private-key] numbers). So like a string, SUYO/YeNom can be used to pull willing participants together, but is hopelessly useless for a bully to push anyone around with.

Concerning the modern monopolistic proprietary monetary system: exactly what is monetized and who controls same defines its most disastrous disservice (i.e. its matchless self-serving invaluable power). And as amplified in other posts, the YeNom is primarily designed to monetize pretty much any ‘gift’ one can create based on SUYO ownership. The values achievable by this system rest entirely upon the integrity of immediately identifiable originators and owners. The only thing one can gain from shenanigans in this arena is instant destruction of their own reputation. And herein lies the power of the coercion most blessed; voluntarily self-imposed coercion, where motivated individuals strive to achieve the highest levels of valor possible. SUYO/YeNom was invented to facilitate such recognition and the follow-on rewards that excellence deserves.

I have a couple of ideas to make reading your nice, new YeNom introduction even easier to grep. I suggest you add two sets of drawings.

In my documentation at work, I typically spend days on a one page chart or diagram, where I can do half dozen pages of text, or dozens of tables in the same amount of time. Pictures can be very hard to do, but are immensely useful to their intended purpose. In my document reviews, we can spend hours arguing the text of a few paragraphs, but a decent diagram will typically have at most a few minutes to mostly just fix typos. That is, everyone gets the same message clearly and efficiently in a good chart, where everyone understands less than simple text differently.

The first drawing I would recommend is just a flow chart that shows every entry and exit point for a YeNom action, and every decision point in-between. I would limit your symbols in the flow chart to the following (that is, avoid complexities normally found in engineering flow charts, keeping it simple enough that no text is needed to describe its meaning):

ovals: entry and exit points
rectangles: steps/processes/actions/transistions
diamonds (squares with vertices up/down/left/right): decision points with two or more labeled exits
lines with arrowheads: ordered connections of ovals, rectangles and diamonds

The ovals/rectangles/diamonds should have few words in them that are basically labels, and detailed descriptions of these containers can be in the text surrounding the flow chart. The labeled exits on decision points should be one or two, maybe three words max (typically yes/no or specific values).

The second set of drawings that I think you might want to add are scenario diagrams. You will probably need at least two of these. Like the flow chart, you should keep it so simple that no explanation of how to interpret the symbols used will be necessary. Some guidelines for use-case scenario diagrams can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_case_diagram. I typically used the one that shows each "actor" as a square in a row of squares along the top, with a time line running down from each. Actions and decisions are shown as horizontal arrows going from one time-line to another, with successive actions following below. These are very easy to read and understand. You might want a scenario for giving/receiving a YeNom, transferring a YeNom, and maybe others.

The blog should have the drawings introduced fairly early, with most of the detailed text following. People understand pictures much better than words, as it provides the scaffolding to place the ideas of the text as read, avoiding the need for multiple re-reads with poor comprehension.