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

Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 737 posts

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#201

Post by furyofantares »

bruce511 wrote: post #50
LPisGood wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not gonna comment on if it’s a good idea or not, but the US government could make it illegal for any financial institution that does business in America interacting with crypto. They could also make it illegal for any US financial institution to do business with any financial institution that interacts with crypto. They could probably also make it a crime to buy/sell crypto in America.

They could do all those things. But they won't. This administration is all-in on crypto, it's a key mechanism for receiving gift. They're not gonna cut it off. Its also trivial to turn your crypto into yuan and your yuan into $. So I'm not sure such a ban would be even remotely effective.

> They could do all those things. But they won't. This administration is all-in on crypto, it's a key mechanism for receiving gift. They're not gonna cut it off.

This comment chain starts with "Maybe after the mobster losers in the white House finally get kicked out we can just ban this thing forever."

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#202

Post by tmnvix »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #129
kakacik wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they are not right now, otherwise we would have full news every day of it. Defense rockets for stuff like Patriot ran out, those systems are trivial to overwhelm and deplete in the age of cheap drones and become useless quickly. Same for the major airports, they keep working, people keep flying to the asia, albeit in less numbers.

>No they are not right now, otherwise we would have full news every day of it. Yesterday Iran stuck a nuclear plant with a drone, and launched them at other targets as well. And there is news on it even... https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-uae-nuclear-drones-71e7e5...

Just to be clear, Iran has been accused of the attack.

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#203

Post by dylan604 »

w29UiIm2Xz wrote: post #185
everdrive wrote: post #20

Much of the post-WW2 American-led world order was founded partially on the United States using its military to keep international waters open. It would be quite stunning Iran defeated the united states in this sense. The military might is there, but this administration clearly had no idea what they were getting themselves into and did not plan accordingly. (and does not have the will or public support to do so) The b…

The power wasn't there in the first place if the administration couldn't defend Hormuz. It's all the same capital and resources that prior administrations had. The actual blunder was exposing that weakness to the world. We could have done nothing and reputation would've carried the idea that we could.

> It's all the same capital and resources that prior administrations had.

Is it? Depending on how far back into "prior administrations" you go, the modern US Navy is a shadow of itself.

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#204

Post by xrd »

nradov wrote: post #194
mrandish wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know enough about the current state of naval warfare but I've assumed this is related to the asymmetry that's emerged around protecting capital warships, especially in the scenario of a very narrow strait and a long enemy-controlled coastline. They can shoot relatively low-cost, short-range guided missiles from anywhere along the coast. Even if a warship stops the vast majority of them, only one has to get th…

Modern US surface warships such as the DDG-52 Arleigh Burke class are pretty survivable. The Iranians (and their Houthi proxies) have made sustained attacks on them and don't seem to have hit anything. And a single hit would be highly unlikely to sink such as vessel: we're not talking about something like the Russian Moskva cruiser that was crewed by drunks and had inoperative defensive systems. The real problem is t…

I don't know anything about this but I am a software engineer.

Stop laughing for a minute because I do have a point.

As a software engineer, I typically build something and engineer it so I can iterate quickly and improve it. I know that the first version won't work.

Isn't this a perfect opportunity for Iran to iterate on sinking cargo ships? I'm struggling to believe that a regime that is (allegedly) weeks away from a nuclear bomb wouldn't be able to keep launching missiles at ships until they notice the right type of hole.

And, think of the apprenticeship opportunities.

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#205

Post by TacticalCoder »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #2

[flagged]

> ... we can just ban this thing forever.

I don't give a f--k about Bitcoin but I wouldn't want governments to start banning it.

Because then why not ban VPN forever too? And require a digital ID for anyone going on to the Internet?

And why not also mandate cameras operated by the state in every room of your apartment/house to make sure you behave?

And backdoor in every cryptographic protocol.

I mean why stop at banning Bitcoin komrade?

BTW the EU is thinking about creating an EU-wide registry of every single asset owned by every single EU citizen, down to every gold coin (oh btw maybe we should ban individuals owning gold coins too?), every jewel, every painting, sculpture, old car, watch, pokemand and Magic the Gathering card: they literally have a plan to make an inventory of every single asset. When asked, by a member of the EU parliament I think, if they could promise this would never be used as a basis for confiscation the EU Commission answered they couldn't promise that.

Where do you draw the line? Is there one point at which you start saying that freedom shouldn't be taken away?

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#206

Post by freerk »

hggh wrote: post #45
srean wrote: post #8

Bitcoin does make the transaction publicly traceable. Either they have not realised that, seems unlikely, or they prefer it that way.

> Bitcoin does make the transaction publicly traceable It can be untraceable with CashFusion

No, that doesn't work with Bitcoin, it only works with a fork of Bitcoin that has less than 0.5% of the value of Bitcoin.

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#207

Post by elzbardico »

Let’s be frank. Iran could have built at least crude gun type fission bombs since they reached industrial scale for enrichment. And this being very dismissing of Iranian scientific and technological capabilities.

Given modern computer consumer hardware, I don’t see why they couldn’t even have built implosion lens based fission devices without testing. DPRK would probably provide them with all the data they needed for the simulations.

Iran has been a few weeks from having a few bombs for the last 30 years because they decided not to build it.

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#208

Post by nradov »

throw9394048 wrote: post #149
bpodgursky wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All straits other than the Bosporus (which has some additional rights to Turkey given the proximity to a major city) are international waters for the purposes of free transit, under the Montreux Convention.

Why is US blocking hormuz straits then?

The US is is not blocking the Strait of Hormuz. There don't appear to be any US warships even in the Strait at the moment. What the US is doing is enforcing a partial blockade against Iran, largely in waters southeast of the Strait. We can argue about whether this is a good policy but let's not make things up.

https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-V...

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#210

Post by dragontamer »

Majromax wrote: post #186
mrandish wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know enough about the current state of naval warfare but I've assumed this is related to the asymmetry that's emerged around protecting capital warships, especially in the scenario of a very narrow strait and a long enemy-controlled coastline. They can shoot relatively low-cost, short-range guided missiles from anywhere along the coast. Even if a warship stops the vast majority of them, only one has to get th…

> I don't know enough about the current state of naval warfare but I've assumed this is related to the asymmetry that's emerged around protecting capital warships, especially in the scenario of a very narrow strait and a long enemy-controlled coastline. It's not the billion-dollar warships that transport oil, it's the much more fragile and unarmed tankers. Even if the US Navy begins full escort duty, it can't remain…

It's not even the strait that's the important geopolitical entity here. It's all the oil pumps and refineries in Saudi Arabia, Qatar or UAE.

The US began to patrol the strait with Destroyers and immediately stopped when the scared Saudis immediately realized that Iran was about to attack Saudi oil rigs.

--------

Iran has too many targets and the only thing that can stop them is the equivalent to an Israeli Iron Dome across the entirety of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE, maybe more.

Post reply on HN