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

251–260 of 300 posts

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

#251

Post by derangedHorse »

HWR_14 wrote: post #225
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 . L…

There are multiple competing lightning networks? I don't get how the lighting networks prevent double spending then. It seems like a major issue when dealing with multimillion dollar transactions.

Lightning is a protocol and there can theoretically be many disjoint networks. The biggest network is usually what's considered to be 'the' lightning network. Double spending, which would require 'settling' a superseded lightning transaction, is prevented by a penalty mechanism that makes it so the malicious party loses all the funds in their 'channel' when caught (which will be, at smallest, the amount the original payment was made for).

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

#252

Post by torlok »

scorpionfeet wrote: post #15
pavlov wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not like Iran plans to keep the Bitcoin. It’s just a way around sanctions.

Weren’t sanctions lifted last week?

It's safe to assume nothing has actually changed until there's a signed deal. With Trump it's all just talk.

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

#253

Post by bootlicker3000 »

overfeed wrote: post #219
Pay08 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair call on CNN and DW, but the NYT has always been at least somewhat aligned with Al Jazeera, and the BBC switches around with whatever the current government is.

> NYT has always been at least somewhat aligned with Al Jazeera Hard disagree: the NYT adopts a weird passive voice that goes against its house style, along with headlines with no subject when it comes to events in Gaza[1]. Al Jazeera consistently names the doers of the verbs. 1. Once you're aware of it, it becomes impossible not to notice. It is the Wilhelm scream of news coverage.

This is such an important point, and I wish it were more widely spoken about. As a daily NYT reader, I noticed a profound shift in the early days of the current admin. I might be off on the timing, curious to know what other daily NYT readers have to say. It's an incredibly effective technique given the relative subtlety, and in my experience it seems to exhaust the mental resources of the critical reader.

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

#254

Post by derangedHorse »

deltoidmaximus wrote: post #9
pavlov wrote: post #2

”Hosseini said that each tanker must email authorities about its cargo, after which Iran will inform them of the toll to be paid in digital currencies. “He said that the tariff is $1 per barrel of oil, adding that empty tankers can pass freely. “‘Once the email arrives and Iran completes its assessment, vessels are given a few seconds to pay in bitcoin, ensuring they can’t be traced or confiscated due to sanctions,’…

As bitcoin is quite traceable I don't see how this works if you're trying to avoid sanctions. For Iran it probably doesn't matter but for the vessel owners it probably does.

Not over lightning. Even on-chain, trustless coin swaps (or cross-chain swaps) can be made with different counterparties all over the world where transaction details are all held off-chain (pay in ethereum and receive on bitcoin for example).

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

#255

Post by insane_dreamer »

citrin_ru wrote: post #88
insane_dreamer wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> extortion not really; you would have to pay to run an oil pipeline through another country's territory even if that country wasn't bearing the cost of maintaining the oil pipeline the strait isn't international waters -- it's part of Iran and Oman's territorial waters

For land pipelines thiere no eqauvalent of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea according to which both Oman and Iran should allow free passage of ships. And "normal" path lies on Oman's waters which dones't stop Iran from attacking ships there. The strait toll is a pure racketeering.

The UNCLOS, you say? Guess which two countries haven't signed/ratified it: US and Israel.

So yeah, I don't see Iran paying much attention to the UNCLOS.

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

#256

Post by derangedHorse »

OutOfHere wrote: post #29
pokstad wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ransomware payments, speculative trading, now paying off oil pirates!

I am afraid that soon, actual sea pirates, e.g. in Central and South America, Africa, etc. will start using naval mines in their regional seas, demanding crypto payment from passing ships.

If it was just to 'hide' payments then they could just use USD and using crypto would just be an improvement in convenience. A bigger reason is that they won't be indirectly attacked with monetary policy and that the acceptance of USD with entities willing to do business with them is probably low right now.

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

#258

Post by dlubarov »

ndiddy wrote: post #224
wodenokoto wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it broken with Israel continuing their war against Lebanon?

The ceasefire agreement was mediated by Shehbaz Sharif, the prime minister of Pakistan. He announced yesterday that the US and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon. They agreed to base negotiations on Iran's 10-point proposal. [1] Trump released his own statement that the US was agreeing to the ceasefire, again using Iran's 10-point proposal as a basis. [2] Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Is…

> Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would comply with the ceasefire. [3]

That's not really what the source says. There is no ceasefire agreement in force at all (only a basis for negotiations with Iran), let alone one that covers Hezbollah.

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

#259

Post by _DeadFred_ »

OutOfHere wrote: post #232
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defending crypto as legitimate by adding 'it's also useful for gambling to get around regulation' is wild.

Some bets are less gambling than others. For example, if you bet "no" on the US leaving NATO this year, just how much of a gamble is that? There are many such bets, some a lot less uncertain than this example. Anything can happen in today's environment as yesterday's ceasefire showed, but in aggregate, statistics and commonsense are not lost. The regulation you speak of is oppressive, legally unchallenged, and is con…

'It's not gambling. Look at what a sure thing this bet is!'. Again, wild.

The regulation is often at the state level, the most representative form of legislation possible, often varying from state to state creating the freest system/market where you can chose to live in a less or more regulated state.

When at the federal level it is as the DIRECT result of the social impact it previously caused not because the government just wanted to restrict freedom but freedom was tried and in this situation not sustainable on a societal level.

Post reply on HN