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

261–270 of 300 posts

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

#261

Post by aurmc »

Pay08 wrote: post #99
cjs_ac wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This war will be to the US what the Suez Crisis was to the United Kingdom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

That's far too hyperbolic. Abject failures don't lead to state or power collapse. Look at how many wars the Romans lost, and far more catastrophically too.

From the article: "The crisis strengthened Nasser's standing and led to international humiliation for the British—with historians arguing that it signified the end of its role as a superpower—as well as the French amid the Cold War."

It then has seven different citations after it.

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

#262

Post by fakedang »

peebee67 wrote: post #260
lexarflash8g wrote: post #257

Sort of like a troll blocking a bridge and asking for payment to cross but armed with machine guns and mines

Nobody ever questions why the troll is living under a bridge.

Nobody ever asks why the troll is a troll in the first place.

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

#263

Post by HWR_14 »

derangedHorse wrote: post #251
HWR_14 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Double spending, which would require 'settling' a superseded lightning transaction, is prevented by a penalty mechanism that makes it so the malicious party loses all the funds in their 'channel' when caught (which will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…

I'm still thrown. I don't see how an after the fact penalty can work.

Let's say I have 1 BTC. I buy something for 1 BTC on lightning network A. Simultaneously (within nanoseconds) I buy something for 1 BTC on lightning network B. I never plan to use BTC again (or if I do, I will use a different wallet, etc.) Do I just get two purchases? Is there a meta-network clearing house, and if so, why are there many disjoint networks.

Or do I need to have moved my BTC into the lightning network A or B before I spend it?

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

#264

Post by HWR_14 »

tim333 wrote: post #241
HWR_14 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The record for lightning is $1m recently https://www.tradingview.com/news/financemagnates:db022676a09... I imagine the seconds to pay won't be true - if they are exchanging emails and inspecting boats it's going to be an hours to days long process.

No way they're boarding boats. They can get an accurate enough cargo weight within seconds visually (maybe minutes, depending on how computerized it is)

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

#265

Post by oefrha »

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.

NYT is also frequently silent on certain news stories that paints U.S. in a bad light that I consider noteworthy enough. Whenever I encounter a story I want to know more about I check all the mainstream reporting; Reuters and CNN would have it most of the time (even if not in a neutral tone) but NYT often doesn’t cover it at all or bury it in a sentence or two in a related, milder story. Not gonna name specific instances but you can pay attention from now on and you’ll see a pattern after a while.

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

#266

Post by ndiddy »

dlubarov wrote: post #258
ndiddy wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're right that Netanyahu's statement contradicts Sharif's statement, which says that "the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies" agreed to the immediate ceasefire. It makes me wonder what was going on behind the scenes.

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

#267

Post by ProllyInfamous »

HWR_14 wrote: post #263
derangedHorse wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm still thrown. I don't see how an after the fact penalty can work. Let's say I have 1 BTC. I buy something for 1 BTC on lightning network A. Simultaneously (within nanoseconds) I buy something for 1 BTC on lightning network B. I never plan to use BTC again (or if I do, I will use a different wallet, etc.) Do I just get two purchases? Is there a meta-network clearing house, and if so, why are there many disjoint ne…

Once you've allocated BTC, you cannot doublespend it elsewhere (well, you can try, but verification nodes will reject it so the blockchain will never accept).

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

#268

Post by jenadine »

HWR_14 wrote: post #263
derangedHorse wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm still thrown. I don't see how an after the fact penalty can work. Let's say I have 1 BTC. I buy something for 1 BTC on lightning network A. Simultaneously (within nanoseconds) I buy something for 1 BTC on lightning network B. I never plan to use BTC again (or if I do, I will use a different wallet, etc.) Do I just get two purchases? Is there a meta-network clearing house, and if so, why are there many disjoint ne…

On the main chain, bitcoin transactions can have "scripts" that describes who and under what condition this money can be spent.

You have to lock your bitcoin on the main chain in a script that shares the bitcoin between you, and another lightning network user (typically a hub)

The trick is that a lightning transaction happen by signing transactions to the other party that changes the way the bitcoins are split, without broadcasting it to the main chain. You only broadcast to the main chain when you want to unlock the bitcoin. Broadcasting an earlier transaction will result of you losing the found because subsequent transaction contains secrets that allow the other party to take them.

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

#269

Post by DANmode »

bamboozled wrote: post #233
cjbgkagh wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK they only let two ships pass before closing it again due to Israeli strikes on Lebanon, so in effect the strait is still closed and likely to remain so.

I read Lebanon wasn’t part of the deal, so…

Where did you read this?

Who were they quoting?

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

#270

Post by constantius »

bootlicker3000 wrote: post #253
overfeed wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're very very off on the timing: the first year of the genocide (and the majority of the official casualties) was under the previous administration. The bias on Gaza was observed across the board from the start (and arguably for the last 70 years).
Post reply on HN