The challenge of building an Internet record is not a first rodeo for many of us. I became an advocate of blockchain as soon as I understood its decentralized way of keeping things up on line, indefinitely.
Trust was first broken by Blogger after I had a double bypass surgery in 2011. It appeared I challenged the gatekeepers there as I developed seven interlocked blogs on separate archive themes to create a material legacy's visual index. There was no way to know for sure. Abruptly, in early March of 2014, it all had simply disappeared. Some purely text diary material is in the Internet Archive, but none of the interpretive and documentary images.
My response to this experience was to rebuild the material in code and base it in Dropbox, the only cloud storage allowing folders and public access I could find at the time. That functionality ended in 2016 after the features were used too much by game developers for interactive testing.
In the current testing I am leveraging a decentralized band of autonomous users that I plan to be seen as acting as a transactional base for objects of material value. The interest is a control against a centralized platform's bias, where number of users is a foil for avoiding the attention of a narrowly focused abuse monitoring system.
Those that appreciate only what is materially useful are always challenged when it comes to reaching an agreement on the value of art or heritage objects or anything not easily translatable to this common preference for fungibile metrics. By attracting 55,000 together where each possesses something intrinsically valuable on its own, yet shares with all the others the same category of object, I've designed a challenge to the normal preferences for what value means to that consensus viewpoint.
What happens when the numbers of decentralized transactions between a large group of Facebook visitors attracts attention as what it finds abnormal? If I'm attracting the particular style of decision making that caused my loss of content and developments in Blogger and Dropbox will this centralized authority's aversion to the unfamiliar prove only directed toward individual users involved in it, and not groups?
I'm applying a totally new concept of value transaction that I expect to confuse the acts of these decision makers into defense of this use I have designed. If acknowledging the numbers of user involvement in the platform ranks higher than the activity they visit it to take part in, the platform will never see the asset being developed.
This, in connection with the detailed plan http://www.greatknot.com/2.html conceptualizes, in the genesis block that contains it, are my validation of the intent of this particular artwork's signature test of my will; one that shows that something left incomplete in this distributed asset form, never sold to create a value, still constitutes a property whose provenance has primed the idea my progeny will use to benefit from other properties of my making.
