showMe.gpg was attached to my first email for Richard M. Stallman. This was showMe.html encrypted which I described as, “My letter outlining the promise of GNU.hope.” My third email asked, “… please read the document at show2.html, where I explain the whole idea in a manner as clean and forthright as my abilities permit.” Then the fourth post of this blog - For the Love of Money - delivered my third attempt at “… a simple, brief, nontechnical way to explain the idea.” Gauging from the reactions this effort gained, it is evident the third time was NOT the charm. Consequently, a fourth charge on that objective now follows:
GOAL: To find a means of awakening individuals to a new realm of realizing and sharing wealth. It's a purpose inspired by an aching need as manifested in a few examples: 1) The Great Depression of the 1930's, 2) Nazi Germany's immensely injurious inflation a bit later, 3) current savage poverty in the rural areas of 3rd world countries, 4) a ‘capital crunch’ inhibiting the accrual of rewards dearly deserved by those magnificent pioneers forging a brave new future through free software (along with hundreds of other great causes). While these may appear as diametrical cases they all spring from the exact same basic flaw - a people being overly dependent on a proprietary monetary system. Hence no alternatives exist in the face of disastrous manipulations or simply when money outside traditional capital streams is scarce. Considering how fine the corporate Federal Reserve has flourished in spite of (or thanks to) the Depression, and the grand showing of the German Mark in post war times, it is difficult to envision the monetary status quo receding from prominence without a truly major revolution (transformation) of mind. That revolution dear reader is our goal.
MEANS: At the base of this whole vision is Simple Undeniable Yank-proof OWNERSHIP - SUYO (Spanish for ‘yours’). It works like this - #X offers #Z ownership of something. IF #Z accepts then said offer becomes an owned possession of #Z. This is the systems first axion (a more customary word might be “law”, but it's a vulgarity to use “law” in that way). I suggest we'd be hard pressed to find a more basic, forthright, intuitively obvious concept that could be more readily and universally accepted. Building on top of this “give & take” principle, we next make said ownership 1) unforgeable, 2) undeniable, 3) irrefutable, 4) indestructible, 5) thief-proof and basically 6) cost free. To some measure we'd expect that anyone should be able to appreciate the value of this concept in action. However, there's a general expected reaction that this SUYO criteria is simply too good to be true. Yet even more remarkably dismaying are notions such as, “only worthless things cannot be stolen”, and one begins to see the incredible mental closure we're up against.
One limitation and a defining characteristic of these owned items is that they are all digital files (documents). These offers/files, however, could easily be a title to any ‘real’ objects. The system is wholly underpinned by private/public key technology. #X's offer is digitally signed by #X (before tendering to #Z) and ownership is then effected when the whole package is digitally signed by #Z (and entered into the GWR database). The other main core service is ownership transfers which uses the exact same means described above to effect.
A FEW KEY DETAILS: Other devils are in the details, and while these are few, they're absolutely crucial. First the system we are proposing is non-judgmental, amoral, and wholly unmerciful. For example, the core system (and the only thing I'm taking on responsibility for) readily allows #Z to accept from #X a digital document granting title to the Brooklyn Bridge. Or #Z can even become owner of #X's permission (or mission order) to plunder M.Jackson's mansion and ravish any young children found therein (or set off a cryptonite-bomb in Smallville, etc.). The point is that #X's offer (formally called a gesture) is - for the core system per se - nothing more than a bucket of bits (indeed, the body of the file itself could well be encoded) with absolutely no significance, nor truth value, or moral relevance - much less value. Worth like beauty is in the eye of the beholder (i.e. system participants). The core system only assures that every owned file (GNU.hope) is unique while supporting the ‘sacred’ agreement that said file is the exclusive property of #Z (or whatever #Q it has been transferred to) by keeping the database of GNU.hope files online and freely available to all.
Next, one may have noticed my employment of the ‘#’ symbol. This is not casual. Indeed one should conscientiously read '‘#’ as ‘number’. Moreover, I said (for example) “... the whole package is digitally signed by #Z.” So one could think this means “digitally signed by (using) Z's private key”, and while that's close, it falsely implies that any individual (in this case ‘Z’) holds any significance (in regard to the core GNU.hope registry). The reason for the wording used is (as you may have now guessed) because strictly speaking, the literal owner is just a number (more specifically a private key).
This admittedly could appear rather ‘silly’. It pales in comparison, however, to ever more cockamamie and malevolent state favors such as forfeiture (the imprisonment of say a bad yacht for not saying “no” to a drug/herb - all without inconveniencing the owner with any charges). Also, if a number (private key) owns another number (i.e. precisely defined digital file), then we are talking of abstractions free of any terrestrial jurisdictions. So logically speaking, participation in this game would hardly effect the legal status of a flesh & blood human-being.
Two other ramifications of this technicality of ownership also merit consideration here. First, the “unmerciful” aspect mentioned above. Imagine that some particular private key becomes owner of a large number of GNU.hopes which are widely perceived as highly valuable. Now should the party in possession/control of this key loose this status (i.e. the key is lost or falls into the hands of another), then severe dismay could understandably follow. Regardless of how sad the story is however, it's a case of sorry Charley - it's a cold cruel world and that's the breaks. In other words, with regard to the core system, nothing of significance has changed and the same private key is still in ownership of the GNU.hope as always. Those who have the key/number is simply a superfluous side issue (i.e. strictly speaking our service is for {beholding to} numbers and NOT individuals). The core system cannot be in the business of maintaining correlations between private keys and individuals much less making judgment calls involving disputes involving keys.
This orientation (‘the key is god and the holder be damned’) does afford an obvious and nicely alluring option. If one should wish to bequeath the ‘power of a key’ to another it is just as easy as turning it over to them - no permission necessary, no re-registration, nothing. In fact, no one (other than those involved) need even know if you so wish. The elegance of this strategy could be meticulously molded by carefully selecting the number of keys and how they are utilized (as a person is perfectly free to have just as many keys as they deem most appropriate for their purposes).
OBSERVATIONS: First. There is normally no need to be particularly observant of the technicality that your private key is the actual owner of a GNU.hope and NOT you personally. In fact, while this is my fourth version of an introduction to the GNU.hope concept it is the first time I've even mentioned this ownership detail. The reason I'm doing so now, is because the whole orientation of this review is focused on the OWNERSHIP aspect of GNU.hopes (which I now see is exactly where the emphasis belongs).
Second, showMe.html, mentions that a GNU.hope expires when, “The current owner revokes their PGP key pair.” Consequently if another gets ahold of your private key, then you can at least destroy that key's ownership of any GNU-hopes by revoking the key. Moreover, should the system purveyors come in possession of a private key we will revoke the key ourselves and thus destroy any associated GNU.hope ownership. Also, despite all the rough 'n tumble “unmerciful” dialogue, the reality of a compromised private key would likely be remarkable inconsequential. The reason being that the only way one could realize a subsequent loss would be through the actions of another warm body who - as likely as not - is going to be motivated to do what is best for all concerned. For example, let's say you've given Padre Demean 12 GNU.hopes that he can redeem monthly to receive clothing from your warehouse for his orphans. A wicked gang -who wants to use the material to make flammable crosses- however, breaks into the orphanage and commences to perform ghastly atrocities upon the orphans until the good father can take it no longer and finally hands over his private key to them. Do you really believe there is any danger that you'd be condemned by the GNU.hope community if you refuse to redeem those GNU.hopes for the gang? Not to mention the fact you're free to re-issue your original gift under a new key from the Padre. For a thorough review of the concepts and considerations regarding this issue please read through item #4 under Observations of showMe.html.
Third. Explicitly pointing out the potential of using GNU.hopes in bizarre uncomfortable ways may seem like a dang strange marketing ploy. I'd agree 100% If we were doing a mass appeal thing and shooting for the lowest common denominator. In fact, if the "cryptonite-bomb" prospect is disquieting to you in any regard, then you need read no further - as you definitely have the “right stuff” to be assimilated into any programs you're told will help make the world safe for democracy - etc. The rest of us (perhaps a mere fraction) will readily see with little to no guidance that this system's open public forum in conjunction with the full accountability of an originator's words makes a GNU.hope perhaps the least desirable vehicle for arranging any covert actions. In actuality however, I'm begging the real point which is fantasy over fact. In science & technology for example, the status quo is objectivism: i.e. fact over fantasy - proof over pomp - cold logic over warm emotion - truth over tradition - pertinence over politeness - reason over royalty - conscientiousness over consensus - clarity over euphemism -bla-bla-bla (YANG if you will). Whereas in the political realms, the guiding light is a shamed subjectivism (i.e. religion) which is characterized by flipping all the above quips about the pivotal word "over" (YIN so to speak). The really fun part kicks in when we compare the gifts bestowed to humanity by these two camps, but we'll forgo that distraction til later.
Now if we really want to talk straight dear reader, we need to admit that the above distinctions (that I've lovingly belabored to delineate) are largely plain bull. Because both camps (the rational vs. the religious) are manned by us (people) and cross contamination abounds, so no real purity exists. Hence the history of (so called) ‘science’ has more than it's share of embarrassingly perverse moments while the chronicle of classic professional parasites (priests, politicals & presidents - i.e. neocheaters) does demonstrate instances of admirable integrity. Nevertheless, there is at least some slim something to the scientific method (and its underpinnings) that is so patently powerful that it needs neither the appreciation nor even the awareness of the masses (much less their consent) to transform the whole human world within time spans and to an extent that were previously unimaginable. My only point in the current limited context is that if GUN.hope holds any of the (type of) promise I propose, then the audience I seek is NOT the same that the politicals & popular press caters to. So wasting time dressing-up a clear clean concept to pass some politically correct filter or appease mass sensitivities is NOT in our best interest. To state the exact same sentiment another way: IF GNU.hope experiences any kind of real success then it will be passionately attacked by the self acclaimed defenders of democracy. And unless the real issues are not clear to you from the beginning then you will abandon ship in fear. Consequently, it's probably better for all concerned that you never board in the first place. Nevertheless, those of you who identify with the vast “moral majority” are still very much encouraged to read this blog to either gain insights into the workings of a mad mind or better learn our strategies to best defend against and destroy the goals this blog stands for. Let me repeat:
All readers are warmly welcomed to this blog - BECAUSE - I know of no emotion that enjoys more denial and hence governs our actions more decisively than fear. And the grand-daddy of them all has to be the fear of freedom - unfeigned anarchy. The only known antidote powerful enough to dispel a fear of this primordial magnitude is love. And that is where this blog comes in, as a clean naked source of that commodity.
OOPS I DID IT AGAIN!: J-L-G-A! What the heck is wrong with me??? Mr. Stallman was kindly offered me sincere on-point advise - namely: “Please do keep working on a simple, brief, nontechnical way to explain the idea. If you can produce that, then people could get interested in using the idea.” Nevertheless it seems that every time I try to realize that goal I fail miserably. In fact if anything, I'm probably only moving in the opposite direction by confusing and alienating the majority of goodly people. I mean, in all honesty there was zero doubt upon stating this post that it was clearly in the “Monetize” category but now things have degraded to the point that it needs to be chucked under “Philosophy”. So what's all this trying to tell me? It seems that either it's screaming “INABILITY” on my part or perhaps I'm merely peddling something that simply does not lend itself to typical sound sales strategy. 90+% of the time a new sale is secured by seduction - the art of depicting something as advantageous as possible. The effort needed to accomplished this could focus on a simple, brief, nontechnical approach or hypnotic razzel dazzel, but in either case a demand must be created for your offering. Then there is another whole class of connection (preexisting demand). In this instance your prospect only needs to get a mere glimpse of your proposal and immediately begins stalking it carefully. Should your invitation prove to be what they've been hunting for, they'll pounce all over it like Rand on Objectivism. Pouncers wanted.
So the post ends.
Comments: