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?

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.

    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.

> "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.

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.

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"?