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

281–290 of 737 posts

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

#281

Post by gpm »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #133
asdff wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like piracy is more about the land than the sea. I can't think of any major american military action against piracy aside from actions against somali terrorists. Seems piracy as it was known historically died out as the old historic pirate havens of say Tortuga or Outer Banks went from places of anarchy to places that were controlled by some government in some capacity. And that is exactly where we see the soma…

> somali terrorists Pirates are many things, maybe even criminals under international law, but terrorists they are certainly not.

> maybe even criminals under international law

Piracy has to be the canonical example of criminals under international law...

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

#282

Post by bena »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #256
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…

The bigger issue is the tankers. The US Navy isn't going to be happy patrolling the strait sure, but even if they did they wouldn't be able to protect the tankers enough for it to make sense for tankers to take the risk. The last time this happened the US opened the strait by accidentally shooting down an Iranian passenger plane after sinking a large chunk of Iranian navy. The Iranians assumed the US shoot the passen…

On a much smaller scale, this is advice I give to just about everyone: If your decisions won't affect how they treat you, then just do what you want. The fact that they won't like it doesn't matter, they didn't like you before.

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

#283

Post by selfhoster1312 »

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…

You're not wrong, except that USA is/was not always literally "keeping waters open" for everyone. The Cuba blockade, which is another form of war and has dire consequences for the population, has been going on for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...

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

#284

Post by anigbrowl »

Majromax wrote: post #190
AnonC wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> United States using its military to keep international waters open Being a little pedantic, as per my knowledge, the Strait of Hormuz is not “international waters”. It’s territorial waters belonging to Iran and Oman. AFAIK, Iran hasn’t ratified UNCLOS either, and claims it is not subject to it.

> It’s territorial waters belonging to Iran and Oman. The trick is that it's still an 'international strait', or a segment of water that forms the only connection between two areas of high seas -- in this case the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. The principle of freedom of navigation establishes that innocent traffic (civilian traffic, and even warships in peacetime) have a right to use the strait to go from one b…

As the nation that was attacked first, They have an unimpeachable argument for wanting to defend the rest of their territorial waters. The ludicrously escalatory rhetoric from the US President has turned this into an existential conflict. I can't take finger-wagging against Iran seriously to be honest, the idea that western powers would scrupulously adhere to international mores if subjected to a full-on kinetic attack by another nation state is absurd on its face.

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

#285

Post by gpm »

mrandish wrote: post #21

I guess I'm just surprised they even bother trying to mask an obvious shake down under the euphemism "insurance" when it's such a trope. Obligatory Sopranos clip of old school mobsters trying to sell "protective insurance" to a Starbucks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gsz7Gu6agA

I assume it's to discredit the current international insurance scheme for shipping that doubles as a method of enforcing sanctions.

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

#286

Post by l33tbro »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #254
WarmWash wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gamble, which was certainly egged on by Israel, was that two stars aligned and it was high time to strike Iran. The first star was intense civilian unrest, the months leading up to the strikes was marked by riots and protests. The second star was the meeting of Iran's top brass in one spot at one time, both of which Israel knew about. It was almost certainly sold to Trump as a domino event, where the US would blo…

> what appeared to be a moderate-low risk attempt. It looks like it appeared that way to Trump. But you make it sound like it appeared that way to most people. As one of those "most people", I can say that's wrong. The reaction of most people was "WTF is Trump thinking?". It's been clear he's not the sharpest tool in the shed for a while. But he should be surrounded by very bright people for are able to provide frank…

He is surrounded by very sharp people. They just happen to have undeclared dual allegiances to Israel. Who this war is helping achieving their regional objectives.

The chaos and stupidity narrative only mask and sustain the far grimmer reality of this operation.

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

#287

Post by runako »

gpm wrote: post #275
runako wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This leads to an interesting thought experiment. Using conventional weapons only, what prior year's US Navy could beat the 2026 US Navy in combat?

That doesn't seem like the relevant question. A navy barely progressing as the technology progresses by leaps and bounds is just as problematic when you're measuring its strength compared to its adversaries.

Separate discussion. I'm addressing the comment that the US Navy of today is a shadow of its former self.

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

#288

Post by riffraff »

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…

Is it even worth to escort tankers? The money you spend on countering cheap drones would be massive, and this administration would likely ask the escorted ships to pay for protection. At that point, they might as well just pay Iran.

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

#289

Post by pinkmuffinere »

Pxtl wrote: post #280
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #273

Isn't this bad for bitcoin? I expect the US will immediately say "No don't pay that" and start prosecuting people that pay via bitcoin, because of course it's traceable. Am I missing something?

How is this a change from status quo? Bitcoin has been the currency of crime since soon after its inception. Back when you could mine on a CPU it was the way to monetize stolen compute. It was the way to buy illegal things on the now-pardoned silk road. It was the way to pay off ransomware. It is now the currency of dark influence money. Using it to pay off a shipping protection racket is prettymuch par for the cours…

I think it's different because of the message it sends. Using bitcoin to do generic illegal things is an 'offense' to anyone that wants to stop illegal things. But there's already lots of targets to aim for if somebody wants to enforce the law, the method of payment is kindof a small deal. However, in this case using bitcoin is an offense to the other party in the war -- the US. I think the US has a more obvious target, and is more capable to do something about the "problem" than general law-loving-folk are about illegal activity. At the very least, I'd think it breaks the embargo? And the US really has (historically) cared about that.

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

#290

Post by anigbrowl »

adrr wrote: post #179
AnonC wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> United States using its military to keep international waters open Being a little pedantic, as per my knowledge, the Strait of Hormuz is not “international waters”. It’s territorial waters belonging to Iran and Oman. AFAIK, Iran hasn’t ratified UNCLOS either, and claims it is not subject to it.

> Iran hasn’t ratified UNCLOS either, and claims it is not subject to it. Which isn't unique. Bunch of countries haven't ratified it and aren't legally bound by it but do follow it in spirit. US, Turkey, UAE, Israel etc.

Do you really think the US wouldn't abandon it in a heartbeat if it became a matter of strategic necessity?
Post reply on HN