“SUYO” — Simple Undeniable Yank-proof Ownership

Accelerating our unavoidable evolution to a more rational world.

O.L.-00-John Zube

Submitted by zClark on Sun, 18/Jun/2006 - 12:02
Reinventing Money

Gracious John Zube: (of reinventingMoney)

Before getting into the main thrust of this letter, I'd like to clear up some apparent misunderstandings. Your 06-05-30 email mentions:

>With a secretive computerized system you may
>have better chances than your predecessors had
>but also are deprived of the great value of publicity
>of money tokens and capital shares, to make any
>such system operate with as little trouble as
>possible. .... government decoders of the treasury
>and of the Reserve bank are likely to attempt to
>tackle it. I hope your system will survive such
>attacks but am rather doubtful about this.

While the core idea does fully rely on encryption technology, there is absolutely nothing secretive about it. All the algorithms are public knowledge and any necessary programs currently exist as free software with 100% of the source code open to all for examination and modifications. I have added nothing to this basic technology much less anything secretive. Moreover, the key role of the encryption technology is NOT to provide secretive, encrypted nor private files; but just the opposite. The truly valued aspect of the technology for YeNoms is its power to create unforgeable undeniable digital signatures. This in combination with a simple naming convention that guarantees a unique name for every single YeNom file results in a highly objectified digital entity. It all adds up to a super OWNERSHIP that is thief-proof, indestructible, unforgeable, unalterable & undeniable - plus basically cost free to 1) create, 2) store, and 3) transfer.
The basics of this obvious idea immediately occurred to me when reviewing PGP key encryption technology some 15 years ago. And while my enthusiasm over the encryption aspect was considerable, it was nevertheless wholly eclipsed by the even greater beauty I found in the prospects for digital signatures. I still remember my awestruck response like it was just yesterday: bye-bye to the main reason for the existence of trusted third parties like banks and notaries. This reliable technology that's simple to use and in the hands of the public makes a major bulwark of old monetary regimes wholly unnecessary.

You've further stated:
>Here lies another misunderstanding between us.
>The private payment communities that I have
>in mind would be free to make maximum use of
>publicity. They would not be monopolistic or
>coercive but extremely competitive, ........

I'm actually in total agreement with you. And while YeNoms are not a complete private payment system per se they are in fact an excellent vehicle for such community systems to enjoy global visibility and compete using a secure equitable forum. Indeed, the biggest hope for YeNoms is the very fact that the entire data base is fully available to anyone via the Internet. Not only that, but 3rd parties are emphatically welcomed to offer services based on the YeNom data itself or to satisfy any user secondary needs.

Then in your 06-06-09 email we read:
>Think of the thousands of other money reformers.
>You could advance your own plan best in fully
>free competition with all of them.
>Otherwise you are like a religious sectarian,
>who just pushes his sectarian thought among
>maybe 10 000 others, and thus hardly gets
>any attention ..............
>Your approach reminds me of a case in New York:
>While I was visiting one of its largest bookshops,
>with perhaps kms of shelving space, filled with
>more or less well sorted books a Negro approached
>me and wanted to sell me ONE particular book! I
>almost laughed at his naive approach. He might
>as well have engaged in a door-knock campaign,
>trying to sell that particular book.

Concerning the last paragraph - if the book shop represents the immense selection of alternate monetary systems - then YeNoms being a system of guaranteed ownership could be distinguished by the following analogy: Once you're ready to buy some selected books the store owner ask if you'd like a YeNom receipt. This is a special cost free receipt that assures your ownership of the book in a way that makes it impossible to loose. Plus the advantages of the books are on record for the whole world to access via the Internet and you can pass this ownership along to anyone you want (provided they accept).
In agreement with your 1st sentence well showcased competition should be advantageous for all. This is exactly the sort of thing that YeNoms are designed for by providing an impartial playing field for an unlimited number of transaction systems & services to compete. An accurate history is also automatically maintained for each YeNom.
Then we come to your point of say 10,000 participants being equated to hardly getting any attention. And that truth is the main thing that's been distressing me.

At http://BeyondMoney.blogspot.html I read, “Money is first and foremost a medium of exchange.” With that in mind I'd concede that YeNoms are hardly fit to qualify as a full functioning alternative money. Yet they could form the basis of such and do eagerly support/augment competitive exchange systems. At base, YeNoms are essentially just a means of conveying super ownership to individually unique text files. These in turn could be anything from a poem to a contract. All of them are in a huge database wide open for analysis, 3rd party indexing enhancements, user services, etc.

Since I've mentioned all the above before (albeit not very effectively), perhaps it behooves me to introduce a new point. Strictly speaking, the actual literal owner of a YeNom is merely a number (more specifically a private key). Moreover -with regard to the core service- any particular YeNom itself is simply seen as a meaningless string of characters (essentially a very huge yet specific number) with no significance whatsoever other than it's ownership by some private key. This might appear a bit silly, but helps defend against ever more cockamamie and malevolent contrivances posed by the state. The idea of forfeiture for instance is to punish/imprison say a bad yacht for possessing a drug/herb - all without molesting the owner with any charges. Now isn't that thoughtful? Why not flip that type of stupidity on it's head to protect owners instead of robbing from them? I mean, if a number (private key) owns another number (i.e. precisely defined digital YeNom file), then we are talking of abstractions free of any terrestrial jurisdictions. Logically speaking, participation in this plan would hardly effect the legal status of any flesh & blood human-being. So the idea is to free those who control secret keys from covetous troublemakers. Further details and ramifications of numerical ownership are found here: under the heading “A FEW KEY DETAILS:” Also note that “GNU.hope” was the term I originally used instead of “YeNom” and this article employs the former.
To further protect YeNom owners - SUYO (the name for the core system) must be committed first & foremost to staying online and fully functional. Nothing can be tolerated that could potentially interfere with operations. Thus SUYO needs to be totally unencumbered by any issue participants may have among themselves concerning performance of obligations, key ownership, etc. These things are better addressed by independent services since taking on such responsibilities could make SUYO vulnerable. The expressed role of SUYO is simply to provide a clean secure stage that maximizes the “principle of shared understanding” through simple axiomatic rules that everyone can readily agree on and fully relate to. For us to fill in any holes perceived by participants could undermine our position and thus NOT constitute the service one might think. SUYO must absolutely steer clear of any autocratical postures and welcome third party competition to address all secondary needs. Choice -being the crux of freedom- is always the guiding principle here.
SUYO is the essence of non-judgmental tolerance. Hence the YeNom/SUYO world, like the natural world itself, is amoral. Morality is up to the participants to determine. For example, #Z may 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.). Again, the point is that #X's offer (formally called a YeNom Gesture) is -for the core system itself- nothing more than a bucket of bits wholly devoid of significance, truth value, or moral relevance. Worth like beauty is in the eye of the beholder (system participants). SUYO embodies maximum tolerance, and only assures that every owned YeNom file is unique while thoroughly supporting the ‘sacred’ agreement that said file is the exclusive property of #Z (or any new owner it's been transferred to). This ownership is secured NOT by keeping the owned YeNom object secret nor locked up, but (to the contrary) is actually assured through the online (well mirrored) database consisting of all YeNom files which is freely accessible by all (database is officially known as the GWR).
As evident in the foregoing, another vital strategy (as modeled after UNIX) is to employ small robust autonomous modules that execute their specific duties to perfection while easily, readily & reliably interacting with each other for maximum flexibility.
Again, SUYO/YeNom is more designed to support alternate exchange systems than to compete against them. 1st, anyone is more than welcomed to create a coupon for any given number of some specific LETS units; and then offer same to a recipient as a YeNom Gesture. When a recipient accepts (by digitally signing the offer and submitting it to our GWR database) a YeNom is created with recipient as the secure undeniable owner. So now the LETS based coupon enjoys the advantage of both its issuer and owner being explicitly known and (thanks to common cryptographic signature technology) easily verifiable by anyone. 2nd, it gains international exposure in the GWR. 3rd, any LETS is encouraged to utilize existing or specially created YeNoms as a monetary base upon which to issue their currency. (LETS = Local Exchange Trading System).

OK, finally I can reflect a little on some of the interesting issues you've raised.
First on 06-06-09 you started by saying:
>while I do agree with your evaluation of
>e.g. Linux & Wikipedia, going cheaply from
>success to success in a relatively short time,
>I do not agree with your approach to sell your
>particular monetary utopia to Wikipedia.

Well one of the reasons I turned to them in the first place is because I thought they'd be more open minded than most, and that YeNoms would be a perfect fit for their needs. But things have certainly unfolded to prove you to be 100% correct! So I'm wide open for any suggestions.

More important, you've been most effective in convincing me that the challenges faced in getting anything like a operational & sustainable alternative monetary system in-place are truly enormous. Some interesting projects come to mind when you mention the wide diversity and far flung scattering of monetary & freedom information on the Internet (which could benefit from organization & collection efforts). However, it certainly behooves anyone like me to be extremely careful with oneself. I have strong workaholic tendencies which I've come to see as a serious drawback. Emerging myself in some project that I believe in can actually be just a lame way to repress acknowledgment of a less than effectual life. The time we have on the planet is just way too short to be lost in fruitless endeavor. In other words, hard work per se does not excuse ineffectiveness. One needs to realize their limitations, and also avoid senseless hard work that closes the mind down to new possibilities and creative thinking. Key leverage points need to be sought and reasonable plans developed before one can hope to luck out and realize some measure of success. Anyway, that's a sampling of the train of thought your realistic observations have provoked.

With regard to re-educating the masses - allow me to submit the following:
First, those of us who think past vain obsessions are in the minority. I've come to believe that we'd be damn lucky to find one in a thousand who are even half as concerned with the war machine made possible by the FRS as their personal collection of dirty dollars. Moreover, I've heard that the American revolutionary war, was NOT supported by the majority. In instances of a strong state, it's probably almost impossible for a people to retain their freedoms if not rigorously defended. Yet this requires an enlightened sense of freedom that would preclude a strong state in the first place. The current faith and acceptance of FRNs is essentially a religion, and as such absolutely depends on the masses' support for the sham to function. However, most matters of freedom require no faith nor understanding to reap major rewards. I see this as the case for the new facets of freedom unleashed both in the GNU/Linux and wiki worlds. Those in the midst of the phenomena are as clueless about its real nature as the masses are regarding their beloved televisions and cell phones. They need to have no appreciation on how or why it works for the end product to be immensely successful & popular. So I'm perhaps arguing implementation over education. Helping the current LETS to augment their offerings, gain greater exposure and leverage off each others successes may be an rewarding thing to look into. What do you think??

A large part of the idea is that most people are just way too occupied with the daily circus they live to lend their mind to being sold on peace and freedom messages. But once they perceive first hand the practical benefits of actually using an alternative currency - then they may be more prone to investigate the rich array of materials you provide to better understand the basis of the advantages they're reaping.

Backing up, it seems logical to seek a reasonably agreeable definition of the challenge before addressing solutions. So let me try to identify the two chief problems. 1st, limited alternatives to and over dependence on the current proprietary monopolistic monetary system. 2nd, a malignant mesmerization with the virtue of scarcity and false authority. The former generally results in individuals & institutions rich in product, talent, land, or quality time increasingly suffering diminished disposable cash; while the latter blinds society from seizing simple solutions. So I also look for your input on this as well.

In any event, the full realization of such a project represents many thousands of times more effort than could possibly be accomplished by any work force we might pull together. However, one may need only to provide the basic forum for a multitude of independent, madly imaginative, solution providers to constructively compete. In concert with this, the greatest value of all would result from the distributed mass efforts of millions of users creating wealth through their use of clean alternate monetary vehicles. So instead of us doing the work ourselves, we just provide the means for healthy self-interest to build an unstoppable freedom machine.

There is much more I'd like to comment on, but my writing skills are such that it would delay this email a few more days. So I'll postpone additional reflections for other days.

So let me finish with just two quick thoughts. First you wrote:
>I agree with you that the money of monetary
>freedom and free clearing are among man's
>greatest inventions. But we have become so
>dependent upon monetary exchanges that
>monetary despotism and its consequences
>have also become some of its greatest
>wrongs and losses.

Yes, the way I've express the same thing is to note that no concept has commanded more innate power to effect vital increases of productivity through economy of scale, cooperative effort, specialization and the division of labor. Hence money often achieves its objectives so well that it literally enjoys life & death reverence even while constantly funneling wealth, power and control to its issuers. All of which harshly underscores the main reason money must not be left under the ravaging reign of elitists.
Second, I fully believe that you have a wealth of knowledge, ideas, and respected contacts that could be employed to achieve results well beyond your most optimistic expectations. Consequently I humbly hope to contribute to your visions the best I can, and look forward to continued discourse.