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

281–290 of 300 posts

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

#281

Post by 762236 »

whateveracct wrote: post #126
762236 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What he says matches to reality: that regime change isn't possible with an air war. Thus even if you don't listen to him, we know from prior experience that regime change is highly improbable. Every person educated about these things knows that.

The contemplated (and moved!) ground troops for weeks lol.

If troops get deployed, it will no longer be an air war. Part of keeping it an air war is to achieve the original objectives, and getting Iran to think that troops are coming is a way to increase the probability of achieving those objectives. If you don't know how war, or game theory, works, why are you commenting on it?

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

#282

Post by littlecranky67 »

sunshine-o wrote: post #279
littlecranky67 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not deep enough into the tech complexity, but AFAIK the token on TAP is traceable by the owner, just as bitcoin is. While not on-chain, the proof file that the new owner gets during transfer includes the full history and lineage of that token. I.e. the moment you want to exchange the stablecoin token for the underlying asset (being it fiat USD, gold or whatnot) the stablecoin issuer can refuse to do that exchang…

Thanks. Yeah I am a bit surprised how little information (or hard to find) there is about how they do it. Also right now Tether do not declare any USDT minted or in circulation on Bitcoin on their "Transparency" page [0] But once again this is very new... - [0] https://tether.to/en/transparency/?tab=usdt

The whole stablecoint-over-taproot-over-lightning is IMHO way underreported and underestimated in media. This stuff has the potencial to obsolete any payments indermediaries, while combining the truly decentralized bitcoin blockchain, with anonymous and instant lightning transfers using non-volatile stablecoins. No shitcoins, no other blockchains with questionable control patterns, no discussions whether bitcoin has a value or not etc.

As for the technology, issuing a fungible token on bitcoin can be done in minutes using tapd. Download and a couple of commands + one single anchor bitcoin transactions, and the token is minted. Just government regulation around stablecoins hasn't caught up (and probably won't, because banks will lobby against abolishing themselves).

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

#283

Post by LorenPechtel »

geysersam wrote: post #234
bamboozled wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US can’t just walk away now because the straight is not open / secure for trade ships.

They can. It would be a defeat, but at least it would be a less costly defeat than Afghanistan.

Much more costly--a defeat in effect hands the world to the Iranian-backed terrorists.

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

#284

Post by LorenPechtel »

MarsIronPI wrote: post #186
fernandopj wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran is ATM saying it closed the Strait again, implied that it will wait until Israel stand down at least. Even if USA insist on Israel-Hezbollah (and so Lebanon) be kept apart from any deal to end their war in Iran, it would still mean a terrible strategic and diplomatic disaster between USA and Israel, because Israel Gov' will be left with two terrible scenarios: 1) Trump Admin' will concede to Iran they'd be leavi…

> IMHO don't see how Israel-US can politically survive those two scenarios. Is that such a bad thing?

Israel is a nuclear-armed state. The world is in effect asking them to commit suicide. That's why we have been involved for the last 50 years--by siding with them we keep those bombs in their silos. Most of the Muslim world has come to the realization that coexistence is the right answer, but the Islamists have not. They'll keep pushing until they go up in a mushroom cloud.

Lest you blame the Jews we see the same sort of thing happening with India/Pakistan--fortunately the Islamists do not control the Pakistani bombs, but they keep trying to egg on war with India--a war that could only end with the nuclear destruction of Pakistan. And the Islamists have enough power that Pakistan can't just go after them without causing a civil war. That's why the mess in Afghanistan--Pakistan was exporting the problem. And now it's turning on them--now that the Islamists have a country they control they're looking to take Pakistan.

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

#285

Post by LorenPechtel »

bradleyankrom wrote: post #125
Pay08 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lebanon has also said that the ceasefire doesn't apply to Hezbollah, since they insist that both them and Israel are at war with Hezbollah, not with each other. The only parties that say it does are Hezbollah and Pakistan. Also, I really wouldn't suggest using aljazeera.

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

Al Jazeera is effectively a terrorist mouthpiece. They lost their independence long ago.

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

#286

Post by jenadine »

HWR_14 wrote: post #277
jenadine wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, witho…

So I allocate my one BTC to lightning network A, so I can spend it there. I try to spend it on lightning network B and it rejects the spend because it's allocated to A in the main blockchain, even if I never spent it on A. There exists some mechanism for me to switch my bitcoin to B (by broadcasting on the main chain)... maybe? But then A needs to sign off that I don't have pending transactions?

Normally, network A and network B would be connected by a path, so your bitcoins can be routed through the destination by moving balances of each intermediaries. If there is no route to the destination, you can't send them as is. You'd need to take the bitcoin out of network A and open a channel with B. And that's operations on the main chain so it may take some time.

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

#287

Post by whateveracct »

762236 wrote: post #281
whateveracct wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The contemplated (and moved!) ground troops for weeks lol.

If troops get deployed, it will no longer be an air war. Part of keeping it an air war is to achieve the original objectives, and getting Iran to think that troops are coming is a way to increase the probability of achieving those objectives. If you don't know how war, or game theory, works, why are you commenting on it?

i do understand, but the issue here is that the war was not sold or explained to us at home. which is equally important to a successful war.

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

#288

Post by gzread »

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…

You have to commit the money upfront into not just the network, but the link on the network.

Basically a Lightning connection (or channel) is two parties locking up some money (in any amount and any split they want) and then repeatedly re-agreeing on what the current split is. At any time they can close the channel which unlocks the money according to the latest agreed split. It's cleverly set up so that if either one cheats (by trying to finalize an earlier split), the other one gets to overrule it and keep 100%.

The most money that can be transferred is when the split is 100% to one party. Then you need to finalize it and create a new one.

It's not as magical as its proponents think. It is better than the base protocol in some cases - if you have connections and money. The sender having to lock up actual money in advance, in the maximum amount they can foresee sending, is a real buzz killer for the sender. And if the sender is some central relay - if you want to receive via a central relay and not peer to peer - you'll have to convince them why they should do that. Usually by actually prepaying, in real bitcoins, a few percent of what you want them to lock. Which is more than the transaction fee for a nontrivial base layer transaction.

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

#289

Post by roryirvine »

cmxch wrote: post #280
deweller wrote: post #120

A "few seconds" to pay in bitcoin? So the captain is supposed to be watching for a response via email with his finger hovering over the pay button? Is the recipient address static? Surely they would use unique payment addresses if they have any hope of obfuscating payments. This all sounds more like a TV show script than an actual thought-out plan to me.

Then what prevents the US from just seizing or sinking any vessel presumed to have paid up?

That would be piracy or an act of war, depending on the specifics.

It would, at the very least, alienate the gulf states and would likely result in international sanctions.

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

#290

Post by ProllyInfamous »

gzread wrote: post #288
HWR_14 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You have to commit the money upfront into not just the network, but the link on the network. Basically a Lightning connection (or channel) is two parties locking up some money (in any amount and any split they want) and then repeatedly re-agreeing on what the current split is. At any time they can close the channel which unlocks the money according to the latest agreed split. It's cleverly set up so that if either on…

This is a great explainer.

To date, my own full verification node rejects all lightning/segwit blocks, until a concensus level of 6+ is reached. I think both were BIP errors, but rejoined the main concensus network ~2018.

Also participated in the O.G. bitcoin hardfork, back in August 2017, supporting the larger_blocks camp (but now mainchain, only).

Post reply on HN