Topic: Ip banning, do you think it is pointless? (Read 369 times)
It's not pointless though since everyone is not that good in using a computer, i mean not everyone knows how to use a VPN. Although it is the least that the government could do to minimize the people from using any casinos and exchanges that they think is illegal in their country.
Exchanges and casinos block ips from the United States but everyone just uses a VPN, why even block their ips in the first place when you know they are going to do it anyways. I'm guessing they do it so they have some type of deniability?
Blocking certain Ip addresses where their services are aren't accepted is actually the best possible option that a certain company could do to defend their side when somebody will sue them especially the government in the near future.
Keeping their defense up will not be useless at all as it will be beneficial for them to be in the right track of respecting a certain laws from x country. Actually there are few legit gambling websites and most exchanges follows the KYC policy so they could easily identify the nationality and identity of the user. By doing the KYC policy it will be completely impossible for a certain user to use their service even if they are using VPN because their account verification request will surely gets rejected.
everyone knows its useless but for the gov at least they are trying to do something so they wont be against rules of x country
Exchanges and casinos block ips from the United States but everyone just uses a VPN, why even block their ips in the first place when you know they are going to do it anyways. I'm guessing they do it so they have some type of deniability?
It's not going to be popular thing to admit to, but yes, it is a form of showing regulators or authorities, in the event that these somehow get questioned, that they did have measures in place to comply. It's actually quite a strange case to me because they're not exactly compliant in any case, but it's a sort of cover their ass situation.
To be fair, the services I use who block IPs would never use that (VPN) as reason to block and confiscate.
The banning ip is just something of a precaution just to show they are doing something to prevent their citizen from playing to these casinos and trade on exchanges. If they use VPN and then complain to the government when they are scammed, the government will just say " i told you so"
And they're caught violating their laws.Not like on not doing actions because if the time comes that they would be sued out they do able to show something that they are doing things but
people do still violate and bypass on using up VPN.It isnt useless completely though.
Exchanges and casinos block ips from the United States but everyone just uses a VPN, why even block their ips in the first place when you know they are going to do it anyways. I'm guessing they do it so they have some type of deniability?
You think they don't know that a lot of people are going to be using VPNs? Of course they and to them its a good think because they would be generating revenue from those customers who one way or the other are in the United States. What they have just done which is a good business decision is to ensure that they absolve themselves from any liability that would arise from servicing citizen of the United States and transfer the duty of care and responsibility absolutely to people who have chosen to use VPN. It therefore means they are not under obligation to comply with any regulations from the United States authorities neither can they be liable for any misgivings that would arise from such actions because technically they don't provide services there since they have blocked the IPs from such locations.
Exchanges and casinos block ips from the United States but everyone just uses a VPN, why even block their ips in the first place when you know they are going to do it anyways. I'm guessing they do it so they have some type of deniability?
It's not going to be popular thing to admit to, but yes, it is a form of showing regulators or authorities, in the event that these somehow get questioned, that they did have measures in place to comply. It's actually quite a strange case to me because they're not exactly compliant in any case, but it's a sort of cover their ass situation.
To be fair, the services I use who block IPs would never use that (VPN) as reason to block and confiscate.
The banning ip is just something of a precaution just to show they are doing something to prevent their citizen from playing to these casinos and trade on exchanges. If they use VPN and then complain to the government when they are scammed, the government will just say " i told you so"
And they're caught violating their laws.
Exchanges and casinos block ips from the United States but everyone just uses a VPN, why even block their ips in the first place when you know they are going to do it anyways. I'm guessing they do it so they have some type of deniability?
It's not going to be popular thing to admit to, but yes, it is a form of showing regulators or authorities, in the event that these somehow get questioned, that they did have measures in place to comply. It's actually quite a strange case to me because they're not exactly compliant in any case, but it's a sort of cover their ass situation.
To be fair, the services I use who block IPs would never use that (VPN) as reason to block and confiscate.
Exchanges and casinos block ips from the United States but everyone just uses a VPN, why even block their ips in the first place when you know they are going to do it anyways. I'm guessing they do it so they have some type of deniability?
A lot of illegal things are prohibited but people do it anyway, why to block them? And finally we all die, so why to work and live? Not a logical question man.There are a lot of people who are afraid and don't try to gamble with VPN and by using other services, also there are a lot of people who don't know what's VPN and how to use it. In any way, prohibiting of something reduces number of users because of afraid, not much knowledge and other reasons.
Exchanges and casinos block ips from the United States but everyone just uses a VPN, why even block their ips in the first place when you know they are going to do it anyways. I'm guessing they do it so they have some type of deniability?
It's very risky if your country is prohibited or banned from participating in their program be it ICO or gambling, then do not participated at all, because if you get caught that you are using a VPN to hide or cloak your location, they can disable your account and you cannot complain about your funds or you cannot ask for a refund because you have violated one of the rules in their TOS.
Some gambling and ICO can detect your location and they just wait for you to deposit funds before they disable your account, because they know you cannot make a refund.
At the end of the day, services wouldn't even lift a finger on the issue of the use of VPNs because they are getting something off of it, and the time that they would do something is when the government starts to question the said possibility in court.
This is it exactly. Put on a front of compliance, while at the same time not actually enforcing anything at all so as to maximize their own profits.This is exactly what we've been seeing with the whole iFinex/Bitfinex/Tether vs New York Attorney General shambles which has been going on recently. Bitfinex claimed they stopped serving any New York based individuals, businesses or entities back in 2017, but logs show accounts from New York being used this year. Bitfinex were quite happy to continue to serve these accounts when they thought they would get away with it. Only now are these accounts actually being banned because iFinex are being heavily investigated after their $850 million Tether scam and cover-up.
It's interesting to see that BitMEX still hasn't banned the IPs of countries they don't provide services to. It wouldn't really be a problem if account creation was disabled, but even that they still allow these people to do.
Sure, you can't deposit and therefore not trade, but you shouldn't allow these people to sign up if they can't use your service. You definitely don't need an account for live market data with tradingview already working fine.
With the pressure from the CFTC one would expect BitMEX to bullet proof their platform and stop being so arrogant. Arthur Hayes is a bit too calm given the pressing circumstances. Very suspicious.
Sure, you can't deposit and therefore not trade, but you shouldn't allow these people to sign up if they can't use your service. You definitely don't need an account for live market data with tradingview already working fine.
With the pressure from the CFTC one would expect BitMEX to bullet proof their platform and stop being so arrogant. Arthur Hayes is a bit too calm given the pressing circumstances. Very suspicious.
They block it just so they can formally comply with whatever the government mandates. At the end of the day, services wouldn't even lift a finger on the issue of the use of VPNs because they are getting something off of it, and the time that they would do something is when the government starts to question the said possibility in court.
This is exactly my view as well. I've seen most companies not even bother with enforcing their rules against other countries, or other ones only punishing the user when a login attempt is made from a banned country, after other logins were at a certain IP.This is when massive bans, suspensions and closing of accounts happen, but until then most services will still allow people under X jurisdiction to use Y exclusive services through VPN. It has been happening since region-locked offers/services were introduced, so yeah.
I've personally never seen ban waves when it comes to companies, only single cases, but for governments, that's a different story - just look at China and other countries.it's not pointless at all,
it serves to protect their business by complying with laws and regulations
if a user circumvents this by any means, he breaks local laws and site rules
then when there's a problem he will not be able to ask for help from either side
and the site can take "necessary" action (hiding behind laws and rules) to the account found breaking it
I guess that's also true, but what everything just seems to be a bunch of useless regulations that are easily avoided. As long as you don't break any big rules, your free to use their service even if you are meant to be restricted. it serves to protect their business by complying with laws and regulations
if a user circumvents this by any means, he breaks local laws and site rules
then when there's a problem he will not be able to ask for help from either side
and the site can take "necessary" action (hiding behind laws and rules) to the account found breaking it
it's not pointless at all,
it serves to protect their business by complying with laws and regulations
if a user circumvents this by any means, he breaks local laws and site rules
then when there's a problem he will not be able to ask for help from either side
and the site can take "necessary" action (hiding behind laws and rules) to the account found breaking it
it serves to protect their business by complying with laws and regulations
if a user circumvents this by any means, he breaks local laws and site rules
then when there's a problem he will not be able to ask for help from either side
and the site can take "necessary" action (hiding behind laws and rules) to the account found breaking it
They block it just so they can formally comply with whatever the government mandates. At the end of the day, services wouldn't even lift a finger on the issue of the use of VPNs because they are getting something off of it, and the time that they would do something is when the government starts to question the said possibility in court. This is when massive bans, suspensions and closing of accounts happen, but until then most services will still allow people under X jurisdiction to use Y exclusive services through VPN. It has been happening since region-locked offers/services were introduced, so yeah.
Agreed, Pretty sure IP banning is useless, especially if the government or countries do not enforce the rules they put in place. Most casinos/exchanges ban certain areas, but with the amount of free VPN's, it's very easy to avoid.
The biggest issue with these bans is that a fairly big portion of the company's revenue comes from people VPNing to use their service, so even they could easily ban these IP's that most VPN's direct to, why would they? It's extra profit for them.
Pretty sure they only add those sorta rules so they are no longer liable by the government, but they don't really enforce it, so it's just a waste of words.
The biggest issue with these bans is that a fairly big portion of the company's revenue comes from people VPNing to use their service, so even they could easily ban these IP's that most VPN's direct to, why would they? It's extra profit for them.
Pretty sure they only add those sorta rules so they are no longer liable by the government, but they don't really enforce it, so it's just a waste of words.
If you don't ever plan to verify yourself on these platforms, you effectively should only deposit amounts you are willing to lose. If the day ever comes that they do require KYC/AML verification, then you can just exit. It will suck for a while, but your private information is worth more. The alternative is to not use these platforms at all.
It's definitely not pointless because this is a simple yet very effective way for exchanges to be on the safe side of the fence, legally speaking.
The tricky part about circumventing IP blocks through VPN's is that when Bitmex or any other platform put your funds on hold and forces you to verify yourself, you're pretty much toasted. You not only violated the platform's terms, but in some countries it's a criminal offence too as stupid as it may sound.
If you don't ever plan to verify yourself on these platforms, you effectively should only deposit amounts you are willing to lose. If the day ever comes that they do require KYC/AML verification, then you can just exit. It will suck for a while, but your private information is worth more. The alternative is to not use these platforms at all.
The tricky part about circumventing IP blocks through VPN's is that when Bitmex or any other platform put your funds on hold and forces you to verify yourself, you're pretty much toasted. You not only violated the platform's terms, but in some countries it's a criminal offence too as stupid as it may sound.
If you don't ever plan to verify yourself on these platforms, you effectively should only deposit amounts you are willing to lose. If the day ever comes that they do require KYC/AML verification, then you can just exit. It will suck for a while, but your private information is worth more. The alternative is to not use these platforms at all.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1253
Call your grandparents and tell them you love them
You see, all this starts from biased propaganda from public. The public is who is the culprit. Talk about piracy today and someone in the crowd will start being a social justice warrior. Same with cryptocurrencies because people who are idiots think that bitcoin makes criminals rich and thus they want the government doing something to stop it, even if they have no idea about how it works.
Governments need some method to apply in order to show the public that they have acted as per the public wanted. Hence they do these things of banning and IP blocking, even they know it very well that such things wont stop being these methods. But the public demand is important for them - that is the bad things about any democracy.
Governments need some method to apply in order to show the public that they have acted as per the public wanted. Hence they do these things of banning and IP blocking, even they know it very well that such things wont stop being these methods. But the public demand is important for them - that is the bad things about any democracy.
We as users hate these things, but it's not pointless. Companies are forced to follow laws and regulations and blocking customers from certain countries in such way is cheapest and most effective solution. Not everyone will bother to use VPN to access website and they will simply move on. Not only exchanges and casinos have these kind of restrictions. For example on Netflix you need to have US IP to access all content without any geo restrictions.
If services would really want to get rid of such users, they would simply enforce full KYC for everyone.
If services would really want to get rid of such users, they would simply enforce full KYC for everyone.
It is pointless but services do that just so they protect themselves from laws and regulations. As mentioned above though, you shouldn't use these services and then accuse them of scamming you after having your account locked. Besides, there is absolutely no reason to use these services, as there are alternatives on the market.
Bingo! I'd also add that they know full well that people are still going to use their services through VPNs and they probably welcome it.
Most likely, they're not going to ban your account for using a VPN, just because they continue to make money off you.
It's just all about liability.
Jump to: