Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iran demands Bitcoin fees for ships passing Hormuz during ceasefire

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 300 posts

Re: Iran demands Bitcoin fees for ships passing Hormuz during ceasefire

#161

Post by dragonelite »

vunderba wrote: post #34
wongarsu wrote: post #6

I was under the impression that they were asking for payment in stablecoins, not bitcoin? Did they change their mind?

I’ve heard a lot of discussion about them accepting payments in Chinese yuan. I wonder if there’s a stablecoin pegged to it.

Yeah pretty since the start of the conflict there was talk of companies could use Chinese yuan to get an pass through. It also makes more sense they would use the Chinese yuan the West can track or block those transactions.

Not only that the Chinese Yuan is probably more interesting given they can buy more things with it from China things like consumer tech/products, chemicals and rare earths for weapon systems etc.

Re: Iran demands Bitcoin fees for ships passing Hormuz during ceasefire

#162

Post by sunshine-o »

vunderba wrote: post #34
wongarsu wrote: post #6

I was under the impression that they were asking for payment in stablecoins, not bitcoin? Did they change their mind?

I’ve heard a lot of discussion about them accepting payments in Chinese yuan. I wonder if there’s a stablecoin pegged to it.

Tether has one on ethereum but same problem if the US gov tell tether to whip their address it is game over.

China has probably one on another blockchain but I am not sure how easy it is to exit their ecosystem or convert it to anything else...

Re: Iran demands Bitcoin fees for ships passing Hormuz during ceasefire

#163

Post by belorn »

vrganj wrote: post #144
belorn wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitively if they agreed to it as part of the ceasefire. What did each part actually agree to when they agreed to a ceasefire? There doesn't seem to be much concrete information about that part.

I think Trump and the Iranians agreed to two different ceasefires and now both pretend they won.

Seem now like both are also saying that the other side has now broken the ceasefire. Two different ceasefires are not a very stable ground.

Re: Iran demands Bitcoin fees for ships passing Hormuz during ceasefire

#164

Post by SyneRyder »

halflife wrote: post #157
saidnooneever wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reglardless if it was, it was an agreement with the US who can be convinced with money to stop the bombs. Israel is a different beast. they will only accept death as payment. and yes because Iran does include it in their terms it.means US now gets to fight Israel.with diplomacy :') again.

[flagged]

Not that anyone is going to listen to Australia, but Australia believes it is part of the ceasefire terms that were agreed to:

Asked on 7.30 if the ceasefire should apply to Israel's action in Lebanon, [Australian Foreign Minister] Senator Wong was adamant it should. "Yes," she said. "Our position is that the world expects that the ceasefire should apply to the region."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-08/penny-wong-says-israe...

Re: Iran demands Bitcoin fees for ships passing Hormuz during ceasefire

#165

Post by fernandopj »

lerp-io wrote: post #129

Iran taking USD bribe instead of obtaining nukes made it worse for them in long run.

I'm not sure I follow your logic, but one could argue this campaign with drones and cheaper missiles taught Iran it doesn't even need a nuclear deterrent anymore.

Between this and Ukraine, the logic of a nuclear warhead deterrent might be considered a paradigm relic from 20th century.

Re: Iran demands Bitcoin fees for ships passing Hormuz during ceasefire

#166

Post by pokstad »

ux266478 wrote: post #76
pokstad wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBF, Iran is saying an exorbitant price right now, but in reality they will need to balance their price with demand to bring in the maximum possible revenue. The toll may work out in the long run.

Very Large Crude Carriers carry ~2 million barrels of oil. Ultra Large Crude Carriers double that. If oil went down to $50/Bbl, that $2 million fee amounts to a ~2% tax per ship, given their cargo capacity. It's not particularly exorbitant, especially given that the entire reason they proposed this toll was to fund their rebuilding efforts (Americans and Israelis did a lot of damage that's been under-reported and ign…

If that’s right, 2% indeed doesn’t sound bad. Especially since it’s supposed to be split with Oman.

Re: Iran demands Bitcoin fees for ships passing Hormuz during ceasefire

#167

Post by AnimalMuppet »

SyneRyder wrote: post #164
halflife wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Not that anyone is going to listen to Australia, but Australia believes it is part of the ceasefire terms that were agreed to: Asked on 7.30 if the ceasefire should apply to Israel's action in Lebanon, [Australian Foreign Minister] Senator Wong was adamant it should. "Yes," she said. "Our position is that the world expects that the ceasefire should apply to the region." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-08/penny-wo…

"Our position is that it should" is very different from "the text of their statement says". This is Senator Wong's (or Australia's) idea of what would happen in an ideal world, not anything anybody involved recognizes as relevant. (I mean, they may not recognize the text as being relevant, either, but this is a step below even that.)

Re: Iran demands Bitcoin fees for ships passing Hormuz during ceasefire

#168

Post by lejalv »

halflife wrote: post #157
saidnooneever wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reglardless if it was, it was an agreement with the US who can be convinced with money to stop the bombs. Israel is a different beast. they will only accept death as payment. and yes because Iran does include it in their terms it.means US now gets to fight Israel.with diplomacy :') again.

[flagged]

Its the 10-point plan of Iran which forms the basis of the ceasefire.

I don't think it can get much more clear that the US lost this war, along with dignity, decorum and the respect of the world.

Re: Iran demands Bitcoin fees for ships passing Hormuz during ceasefire

#169

Post by rhubarbtree »

nickff wrote: post #116
rhubarbtree wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely. Iran is winning this war, or hadn’t you noticed? No need to pay America off when they’re desperate for a deal.

To define victory, you'd need to know their political objectives, which neither side has declared or otherwise made clear. On the one hand, the USA was unable to completely restrain Iran's ability to wreak local havoc, but on the other, Iran had many of its assets damaged, and now seems completely unable to prevent foreign actors from using its airspace almost at-will. It seems like the situation has shifted, and the…

For the Iranian regime, to survive is to win.

Nuclear programme can only be stopped with boots on the ground.

America’s military is outdated compared to modern asymmetric warfare.

Iran may gain income from the strait.

It can now pursue a bomb knowing it will be hard to impossible for America to stop it.

Re: Iran demands Bitcoin fees for ships passing Hormuz during ceasefire

#170

Post by mrguyorama »

pas wrote: post #47
ivell wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the price can only increase. There is not much competition for Hormuz. If it is exorbitant now, it can only be more expensive later on. The demand for oil is not going to go down drastically for quite a few years. If there was another route, the oil would have found the way.

pipelines, railway, etc. had the US had any real plan to empower the Gulf states against Iran there would already be backup routes

None of those have near the capacity to replace what was flowing through the Straight and will not replace the Straight for a long time. That's the whole problem.

If there were viable alternatives to the Straight, the US would have attacked Iran decades ago. Every US administration has had people in the wings desperate to "Fix" the Iran situation, but only Trump was stupid enough to try it.

Meanwhile, the actual production is meaningfully damaged, and for at least a couple years.

This is an energy crisis.

Post reply on HN