Live data from Hacker News

Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

bloomberg.com

311–320 of 737 posts

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

#311
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Waters were open before America existed. A huge part of the reason sovereign nations built navies was to fight piracy. It’s not really true that waters were open historically.

Are you saying there are no pirates now? US navy has solved all the world's problems? The blockades have killed millions of people, even in the last 30 years. When US sanctioned Iraq after the first war, they killed 500k people every year, and then US invaded Iraq on lies. The world would be safer without the US Navy.

Your first comment was good but here you're not responding to GP.

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

#312
This is quite the, ahem, coup, for Bitcoin. I suppose it was inevitable in a fractured world. This will likely delay, or perhaps even block Pax-Sinica from taking shape.

It's quite the achievement, that the inventor(s) of Bitcoin have continued to stay anonymous to this day.

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

#314
post #155

Why is everyone obsessed with US military when the news seems to be Bitcoin? Just like that the US Dollar suffered because clearly a crypto currency may well become what the US Dollar was, a commodity to exchange value in a way that nobody can reasonably refuse. Whether that is for better or worse, I think that is bigger news then whose got the bigger gun.

> Why is everyone obsessed with US military

Shock of the unsavvy

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

#315

[flagged]

Geography prevents most people from exerting the form of control Iran has. It would be much more difficult for, say, Canada to control it. The Iranian coastline is pretty favorable.

Also, most governments are more susceptible to being bombed than Iran. They’ve been preparing for it for decades. If nearly any country (except for maybe a couple of Irans neighbors) tried, they’d be easily routed.

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

#316

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…

American navy has blockaded countries all over the world, so it's more true that they closed international waters. Waters were open before America existed. If Americans would actually learn their history they would see that the USA blockade was the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, as the Japanese needed the water to open and thought taking out Pearl Harbour would prevent the US Navy controlling the Pacific. Japan…

Nukes were not a response to Pearl Harbor.

The framing in general of “Japan only took military action and the US sank to attacking civilians” is wrong too. Take a look at what Japan did to the Chinese during that time period if you think they were only attacking military targets.

Japan also invaded an Alaskan island. https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2010/06/07/the-japanese-...

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

#317

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…

American navy has blockaded countries all over the world, so it's more true that they closed international waters. Waters were open before America existed. If Americans would actually learn their history they would see that the USA blockade was the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, as the Japanese needed the water to open and thought taking out Pearl Harbour would prevent the US Navy controlling the Pacific. Japan…

Why would you post such nonsense given how easy it is these days to determine bullshit? By the time of Pearl Harbor, Japan was formally aligned with Nazi Germany. Japan, Germany, and Italy signed the Tripartite Pact in Sept 1940 creating the Axis alliance. Pearl Harbor happened in Dec 1941, so Japan had been formally tied to Germany for more than a year.

“The American navy closed international waters.” Not in the Pearl Harbor context. Before Pearl Harbor the U.S. was not conducting a naval blockade of Japan that closed international waters. The U.S. cut off Japan from US oil in July 1941. That is not the same thing as the U.S. Navy closing the Pacific.

“The USA blockade was the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.” False. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because it wanted to neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet while Japan seized the "Southern Resource Area”, especially oil-rich East Indies, Malaya and other regions in the pacific. The U.S. oil embargo might have played a small factor, but that wasn't a US-only thing; various countries were increasingly unwilling to sell oil and other resources to Nazi-aligned Japan while they were attempting to conquer China and most of the Southeast Pacific.

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

#318

You're the US and you're planning a 51% attack in a few weeks which will reverse NK and Iranian fortunes and claim the BTC of anyone who helped them. Any other objectives?

I've actually wondered how many datacenters it would take to effectively perform a 51% attack on bitcoin.

It seems like most newly built computing resources are at the disposal of a few companies and a few people...

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

#319

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…

The post-WW2 American-led world order was, at times, a shared world order between the United States and Soviet Union. Free trade, perhaps, was "enforced" by the United States Navy but that was for the benefit of all nations and it seems to me to have been something pretty widely understood. If the US military fails to keep international waters open, that harms everyone, and everyone more so than the United States. Th…

Is it truly 'US Navy securing safe shipping for everyone'? From whom? Where?

When was the last time they actually did that?

> 'because there would be no America to come help and save the day'

No more American meddling would result in much saner and safer world. Wherever they stick their fingers, the instability and wars ensue.

> pay to play and a global American security tax That's the current world.

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

#320
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…

> The principle of freedom of navigation establishes that innocent traffic

"freedom of navigation" seems to be from UNCLUS no? So why should a country (Iran) that didn't ratify UNCLUS care about the terms it binds it's signatories to?

Post reply on HN