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

201–210 of 300 posts

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

#201

Post by lesuorac »

nemothekid wrote: post #196
sysguest wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hmm so the iranian diplomatic side can't even read english...? I mean, I wouldn't expect a random diplomat to read iranian... but would 99.999999999% expect to read english those iranian side who didn't point out "hey english version is different!" are all bonkers

1. The version of the ceasefire that you are got third hand from Twitter or American news outlets are not accurate. 2. Iranians can't read. Which do you think is more likely?

> 1. The version of the ceasefire that you are got third hand from Twitter or American news outlets are not accurate.

Are they any more accurate than what Iran or America thinks? IIUC, this whole thing is phone tag.

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

#202

Post by ReflectedImage »

throw310822 wrote: post #180
nickthegreek wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran stated that it needed to be. I know Israel/US said it isnt, but that isnt how a ceasefire works. All sides actually have to agree to the terms of a ceasefire to have a ceasefire. https://www.axios.com/2026/04/08/lebanon-attacks-israel-iran...

I can't understand how it is possible that when such ceasefires are agreed there isn't a designated third party who has the signatures of both parties and can say, and prove, if it's been violated.

There is a designated third party Pakistan and they say Lebanon is part of the ceasefire.

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

#203

Post by surgical_fire »

M_bara wrote: post #138
bradleyankrom wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found Al Jazeera's (English) coverage of the region to be informative. YMMV.

Honestly, it’s a good counter to get both sides of the coin. At the moment you’ll find BBC, CNN, NYT et al on one end and Al Jazeera on the other. I also look at DW for a more balanced approach. Don’t consume from one camp!

Al Jazeera is a private news organization mostly funded by the state of Qatar.

It is not "the other side of the coin". Qatar is very much on the US side, and opposite to Iran.

Their reporting is fine, and I typically find it more informative than the US news sources. But let's not pretend you are getting the Iranian side of the deal here.

Particularly, my favorite news sources for the war is, oddly enough, FT

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

#204

Post by rurp »

kilgoresalmon wrote: post #194
cheriot wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect more fighting in Lebanon means less oil through Hormuz. Iran kept its definition of "open" vague. Everyone is keeping the pressure up during negotiations.

Maybe I'm just cynical but I have to assume someone will test the extent Iran can hold them to a payment if it doesn't want to stop maintaining the terms of the ceasefire to back up the demand? (Edit- missing negative)

What's the incentive for a ship captain to risk this? Even if they're more confident than almost everyone else that it's a bluff and think there's a 95% chance Iran does nothing, a 5% chance of you and your crew being incinerated is a crazy risk to take.

Would you go to your normal job tomorrow if someone who has a history of carrying out threats has threatened to kill you for it?

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

#206

Post by ProllyInfamous »

HWR_14 wrote: post #197
sanskritical wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably these are lightning invoices, which can resolve in milliseconds.

Is there a limit on how much the lightning network can handle? Those are pretty large transactions.

Transaction fees are based on the complexity of the inputs/outputs, not the value transacted. You are literally paying for the minimum amount of data necessary to prove you own the funded sending-address, paying to write those hashes and amounts into the blockchain. The institution handling this offchaing lightning branch can implement fees in whatever structure you agree to transact, including percentage based.

Lightning is just an off-chain out-branch, which will eventually be re-integrated onto the main blockchain (based on its original funding/terms). The benefit of this is that single entities can branch off the main blockchain, which is limited in its total blocksize/capacity.

The only limits are those by the handling lightning institution. This differs from bitcoin's main public blockchain, which rewards/creates approximately six blocks /hour, each with a limit of just a couple megabytes.

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

#207

Post by ReflectedImage »

xnyan wrote: post #171
lerp-io wrote: post #129

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

A large segment of the Iranian political class bet their reputations on the nuclear non-proliferation deal with the US in 2015. They've all now been utterly discredited and the hardliners proven correct in all of their predictions. They can look at Ukraine who bitterly regrets giving up their nuclear weapons, or North Korea, seemingly invulnerable despite being the most pariah of pariah states. From the perspective o…

"From the perspective of the Iranian state" Well you say that but they have got a non-nuclear nuke equivalent in the form of kamikaze drones.

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

#208

Post by surgical_fire »

halflife wrote: post #160
scythe wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pakistan, the mediator of the agreement, declared that a ceasefire in Lebanon was part of the agreement when the agreement was announced: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-us-iran-isra... >Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced the ceasefire between Iran and the United States on X, saying the two sides agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon, where Israel launched strik…

[flagged]

Another option is that the US is lying.

Wouldn't be the first time. Hell, the war started when the US decided it a good idea to bomb Iran during negotiations.

It is a profoundly untrustworthy country.

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

#210

Post by kilgoresalmon »

rurp wrote: post #204
kilgoresalmon wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just cynical but I have to assume someone will test the extent Iran can hold them to a payment if it doesn't want to stop maintaining the terms of the ceasefire to back up the demand? (Edit- missing negative)

What's the incentive for a ship captain to risk this? Even if they're more confident than almost everyone else that it's a bluff and think there's a 95% chance Iran does nothing, a 5% chance of you and your crew being incinerated is a crazy risk to take. Would you go to your normal job tomorrow if someone who has a history of carrying out threats has threatened to kill you for it?

You can't imagine someone who would go to that job simply because the owner hired a bouncer and they have a different faith in authority or really mean looking bouncers than you?

I can spend 10 minutes looking at demographics and tell you the world is not explainable if the measuring stick is my own risk tolerances.

Post reply on HN