4 ms·

The author has multiple articles calling for an outright blanket ban on all cryptocurrencies. So in the author's own words, he is calling for a ban on all crypt

The author has multiple articles calling for an outright blanket ban on all cryptocurrencies. So in the author's own words, he is calling for a ban on all cryptocurrency.

jodrellblank 5y ago
In this article being discussed the author's own words are: "'legislation and intervention in the financial system at only the level nation states can act. The free flow of money from US banks to cryptocurrency exchanges is the root cause and needs to halt'" Which is a call for regulating, not banning. If you want to use something different which the author said somewhere else, to back some other point and say that it outweighs what the author says here, then actually do all those things. What are the author's own words elsewhere, where, and what point are you trying to make by vaguely gesticulating towards them?
- robot_no_419 5y ago
  How about this article, titled "The Political Case for a Blanket Cryptocurrency Ban"? https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/banbitcoin.html https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/banbitcoin.html The author is extremely prolific and vocal about his support for outright banning cryptocurrency. It's all over his blog, it's all over his Twitter. He is proud to admit it. It could have taken you 30 seconds to verify what I was saying, but instead you chose to double down on your ignorance.
  - jodrellblank 5y ago
    That article doesn't call for a ban? It says: The most expedient actions would be fourfold: Halt all wire transfers of dollars in and out of cryptocurrency exchanges. Halt foreign entities trading in dollar cash-equivalent crypto assets. Add Chinese and other foreign cryptocurrency exchanges hiding in tax-havens to sanctioned entities lists. Regulate the sale of any existing cryptocurrency assets to US persons by classifying them as securities investment contracts moving forward. If you can still sell existing cryptocurrency assets, and exchanges still exist, that's not banned, is it? > "It could have taken you 30 seconds to verify what I was saying, but instead you chose to double down on your ignorance." I'm asking what relevance your comment has. "He calls for a ban" - so what? Make a point.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - robot_no_419 5y ago
      Here is a tweet where he literally says "crypto should be outright banned": https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1391655510760431617 https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1391655510760431617 There, can you stop being so obtuse now? You are wrong. My point is that the author is calling for a ban and that nobody was putting words in his mouth, as you suggested.
      - jodrellblank 5y ago
        > "There, can you stop being so obtuse now?" It isn't "obtuse" to ask you to back up your sneering with evidence. It also seems to have no relevance to this thread and "why arguments of this kind are so common"?

The author has multiple articles calling for an outright blanket ban on all cryptocurrencies. So in the author's own words, he is calling for a ban on all cryptocurrency.

jodrellblank 5y ago

In this article being discussed the author's own words are: "'legislation and intervention in the financial system at only the level nation states can act. The free flow of money from US banks to cryptocurrency exchanges is the root cause and needs to halt'" Which is a call for regulating, not banning. If you want to use something different which the author said somewhere else, to back some other point and say that it outweighs what the author says here, then actually do all those things. What are the author's own words elsewhere, where, and what point are you trying to make by vaguely gesticulating towards them?

robot_no_419 5y ago
How about this article, titled "The Political Case for a Blanket Cryptocurrency Ban"? https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/banbitcoin.html https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/banbitcoin.html The author is extremely prolific and vocal about his support for outright banning cryptocurrency. It's all over his blog, it's all over his Twitter. He is proud to admit it. It could have taken you 30 seconds to verify what I was saying, but instead you chose to double down on your ignorance.
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  That article doesn't call for a ban? It says: The most expedient actions would be fourfold: Halt all wire transfers of dollars in and out of cryptocurrency exchanges. Halt foreign entities trading in dollar cash-equivalent crypto assets. Add Chinese and other foreign cryptocurrency exchanges hiding in tax-havens to sanctioned entities lists. Regulate the sale of any existing cryptocurrency assets to US persons by classifying them as securities investment contracts moving forward. If you can still sell existing cryptocurrency assets, and exchanges still exist, that's not banned, is it? > "It could have taken you 30 seconds to verify what I was saying, but instead you chose to double down on your ignorance." I'm asking what relevance your comment has. "He calls for a ban" - so what? Make a point.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - robot_no_419 5y ago
    Here is a tweet where he literally says "crypto should be outright banned": https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1391655510760431617 https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1391655510760431617 There, can you stop being so obtuse now? You are wrong. My point is that the author is calling for a ban and that nobody was putting words in his mouth, as you suggested.
    - jodrellblank 5y ago
      > "There, can you stop being so obtuse now?" It isn't "obtuse" to ask you to back up your sneering with evidence. It also seems to have no relevance to this thread and "why arguments of this kind are so common"?