[NetBehaviour] Blockchain cutup

[Edward Picot]

In the great project, registering something in the blockchain will be 
weighted by relation to the discussion of ontology, and the rules 
stipulated when buying reproductions. A Plantoid has for me the rules 
and logic of the blockchain. The blockchain doesn't anchor its being or 
propositions. The data that claims us is not the same as having a sense 
of witness. Axiomatic proxies still work better than the blockchain's 
consensus rules. Even Darwinism changed a lot over time, which is not 
the same as mutation! People are mouths. They contribute their will to 
the smart contract that rules us. Where does our ontology go if its use 
could be correct? In the great project, simple value transactions 
reflect the material substrate. Everything depends on what is bound up 
in cars or houses. Contributors can vote the code, an intervention in 
the basic terms of existence, something I don't understand. Plantoid is 
done by humans, within the rules and logic, for us to see, to 
conceptualise. The Plantoid continuously monitors its own blockchain. 
Something about being outside the chain, the network of rules and 
registered objects, existence outside of the process, the evolution of 
Plantoids following underlying smart contract code. A building can 
realize something, a bitcoin calculation, in terms of discretion. 
Information is linked, coupled, that's all. Lots of questions. All text. 
We can only validate certificates of authenticity for conceptual art 
recorded on Ethereum. Technology is very evident and poses a question, 
whether the heat death of person X placed a record on the substrate. 
Grrrrrr, automatised cissions, grrrrr, anything can lie. And has it any 
basis that such ontology and rules trigger an action in me speaking? 
It's moot, it is misleading, selling our own physical properties to 
register existence as a proxy for them. We cannot validate the work. 
Conceptual art made of code and rules is in the DNA of every network. 
All the logic and rules deployed on a blockchain come from sending 
micro-transactions to make clear the implications of the blockchain 
itself. GRRR, winners and losers, GRRR determined but not understood, 
GRRR immateriality and inexistence. Those are just words. Blockchain 
based networks exist, but they are stupid to the soul.  I feel that 
unless we agree the scope of creativity and the use of money we will 
only serve to initiate the ontology of mathematical objects. I tend to 
the view that a particular threshold has been crossed when buying and 
selling conceptual art by calculation: the rule seems to be, participate 
and become slaves; conservative living, not existence. For these 
entities come out of such a thing as logic, they don't exchange inside 
it, they reinforce the characteristics they started with: we are 
claiming they exist inside or outside of their descendants, with whom 
their day to day use may include certain distinctive aesthetics. 
Plantoids are part of no conscience as far as I can see. Adaptation to 
the environment caused them to come into existence, and that seems to be 
impossible. Even a Darwinist approach .... Grrrrr, no discussion, the 
winner is already known, GRRR, growth and reproduction, that's what I 
can't govern, they sent it to person Y.  Contractually bound to the 
blockchain, I cannot deviate. In the great project, artists will have to 
make physical commitments, inextricably connected to their ancestors, 
the same way they can for a Plantoid. I vigorously disagree with the use 
of it and the process of it to establish a winner, let alone a loser. 
With a guarantee of execution, by person Y, of person X, by heat death.