[mattdesl]

Not sure how this is gaslighting, arrogant, or disingenuous.

You may not agree with this use of the technology, but it does not mean the behaviour is primarily criminal. It can be likened to a traditional art market, where artists attempt to earn revenue for their work by distributing and selling limited signed editions, but in this case the signature is cryptographically verified.

[nuerow]

> You may not agree with this use of the technology, but it does not mean the behaviour is primarily criminal.

Again, don't be disingenuous. You're literally commenting on a post on how the IRS requires transactions over 10k to be reported with the goal of fighting money laundering, and how that raises "alarm bells". This is not about paying artists. This is not about paying taxes. This is about a requirement to report potentially illegal transactions within the scope of money laundering.

Trying to spin this to be about art and artists is profoundly disingenuous, and launching ad hominem attacks on those who point out this fact just shows how weak are your arguments.

[mattdesl]

I'm literally commenting on a post that states:

> NFTs have absolutely nothing to do with artists or art.

Suggesting that such a remark is ignorant—i.e. lacking knowledge—is not ad hominem. The arguments in favour of this usage of the technology are quite well laid out in the articles I linked, should you choose to read them.