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.

Here is a tweet where he literally says "crypto should be outright banned": 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.

> "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"?