Topic: Ip banning, do you think it is pointless? - page 2. (Read 390 times)
Not enitrely pointless imo, it depends on the casinos and exchanges that blocks the IP because if they have KYC it's easy to determine which accounts are possibly using vpn to bypass their restriction. This reminds me of a recent accusation from a Cloudbet user, his account was blocked because he was on a different IP and it broke their terms and conditions. The user's reason was he's on a different country but Cloudbet didn't think it's true because the user logged in very quickly from different IPs.
I do think it is unfair to ban someone based off ip alone because what about all the people that travel for their vacations. If they use local internet access then they are screwed. I think a lot of these exchanges and casinos want to do as little as they can to ban US customers because they will still gladly accept their business if it means more money.
they usually don't ban the account but they just prevent that IP address from accessing their website. in other words if someone is living in a another country and travels to US and then accesses his account, he will simply see a message telling him and he can not access the website because of his location, without even being able to log in. at least that is most of them do.
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?
Because of laws and regulations where if they do tend to accept users on such country which do restrict gambling then they would really be on a big mess.So IP ban is the solution on restricting those users but as said this is pointless due to VPN but well once you've been caught on violating countries laws then you would be fucked up.
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?
They have advantages like they won't refund you any funds if you are having issues on your account and ask you to submit KYC then you are from a country where their site is banned.They just follow the rules and get benefits,if you are using VPN to access banned site you hae risks as well.
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.
I do think it is unfair to ban someone based off ip alone because what about all the people that travel for their vacations. If they use local internet access then they are screwed. I think a lot of these exchanges and casinos want to do as little as they can to ban US customers because they will still gladly accept their business if it means more money.
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?
I will explain simply:
the government creates a law that forbids your citizens from using thing X if that thing X is not legalized or has no license issued in your country
thing X ban IP from the country that the government forbid their citizens to use thing X and do that to respect government
If citizens of the country where the government has forbid the use of thing X want to circumvent this ban and use thing X using VPN then they should not complain when they have their accounts blocked and even respond in court.
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?
Jump to: