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

291–300 of 300 posts

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

#291

Post by gzread »

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…

It also takes a week to get your money when finalizing the channel. This is because the other party has a week to post on the blockchain a proof that you cheated. Only if no cheating proof is posted can you actually finalize the channel.

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

#292

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.

From CBS reporting today (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lebanon-israel-ceasefire-talks-...):

> Multiple diplomatic sources told CBS News that President Trump had been told that the ceasefire announced Thursday would apply to the Middle East region, and he agreed that included Lebanon. Mediators believed the ceasefire to include Lebanon, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced that it did. Araghchi also said it was included.

> On the day of the ceasefire, a White House official told CBS News that Israel had also agreed with the terms of the deal that Pakistan had helped to broker.

> However, the U.S. position shifted following a phone call between Netanyahu and Mr. Trump. Two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News that the changing U.S. positions, and the disjointed remnant of the regime in Iran, are making the diplomacy highly complex.

> Vice President JD Vance told reporters on Wednesday that there was a "legitimate misunderstanding" about the terms of the ceasefire, but he placed blame on the Iranians for misunderstanding that it included their proxy forces in Lebanon.

It's great to see that Israel has veto power over US foreign policy.

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

#293

Post by dlubarov »

ndiddy wrote: post #292
dlubarov wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

From CBS reporting today ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lebanon-israel-ceasefire-talks-... ): > Multiple diplomatic sources told CBS News that President Trump had been told that the ceasefire announced Thursday would apply to the Middle East region, and he agreed that included Lebanon. Mediators believed the ceasefire to include Lebanon, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced that it did. Araghchi also…

In other words, negotiations are underway and Israel hasn't agreed to anything yet, but some people went ahead and declared peace in the Middle East anyway.

Like any other state, Israel has the ability to enter into its own agreements; no one can consent on its behalf and then inform it that it's part of a deal.

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

#294

Post by Pay08 »

aurmc wrote: post #261
Pay08 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was talking about the USA...

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

#295

Post by tosapple »

bodiekane wrote: post #228
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.

The payments are going to a government. They're not using bitcoin to hide the payments, they're using it because receiving USD or Euros or whatever would mean that a hostile government could seize the funds from the bank. The tracking is unique though. I don't know who had the $20 in my wallet before me or what series of payments it was a part of, but crypto has the curious property that over time, essentially all cr…

[dead]

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

#296

Post by geysersam »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #283
geysersam wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Afghanistan was a 20 year long war. It was more costly in terms of troops, material etc.

Why would ending the war mean handing the world to the Iranian regime? That seems exaggerated. The iranians will charge a small toll for oil passing Hormuz, why would the US care? They have oil.

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

#297

Post by PowerElectronix »

bamboozled wrote: post #229
PowerElectronix wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think only the US is not bombing anyone for the time being. I think, and hope, they will slowly pull out of there and not fuck up the status quo any further.

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

They don't have a way to reopen it without either a forever war in Iran or giving concessions to Iran to get it to open it. And an unsactioned, nuclear Iran is way worse than a booth toll in the strait.

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

#298

Post by LorenPechtel »

geysersam wrote: post #296
LorenPechtel wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Afghanistan was a 20 year long war. It was more costly in terms of troops, material etc. Why would ending the war mean handing the world to the Iranian regime? That seems exaggerated. The iranians will charge a small toll for oil passing Hormuz, why would the US care? They have oil.

This isn't about the straight. It's about the Iranian-backed terrorists all over the region. It's about the genocides in Africa. Most of the horrible things in the world outside Ukraine are being instigated by Iran.

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

#299

Post by keybored »

jMyles wrote: post #51
keybored wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s weird that you imply that it is because the American regime failed to change the Iranian regime. They (lead by Israel or not) illegally invaded a country. It’s just Pax for those parts of the world that America and its allies are not invading (and other non-allied examples like Russia invading Ukraine). But a typical top-comment about how America Did a Bad Thing Which Ruined The Good American-lead Times.

> It’s just Pax for those parts of the world that America and its allies are not invading Aren't you making the very point you purport to refute? What's so different about this than Rome circa 50 BC? They even invaded Persia!

I think the Very Point or Principle is garbage in general.

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

#300

Post by timcobb »

rhubarbtree wrote: post #169
nickff wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To define victory, you'd need to know their political objectives, which neither side has declared or otherwise made clear. On the one hand, the USA was unable to completely restrain Iran's ability to wreak local havoc, but on the other, Iran had many of its assets damaged, and now seems completely unable to prevent foreign actors from using its airspace almost at-will. It seems like the situation has shifted, and the…

For the Iranian regime, to survive is to win. Nuclear programme can only be stopped with boots on the ground. America’s military is outdated compared to modern asymmetric warfare. Iran may gain income from the strait. It can now pursue a bomb knowing it will be hard to impossible for America to stop it.

Impossible without boots...
Post reply on HN