Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait • Hacker News Board

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

#561

Post by overfeed » Tue, May 19, 2026, 7:07 AM UTC

nixon_why69 wrote: post #516

dmix wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is still lots of evidence that Iran started enriching uranium towards weapons grade over the past decade. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145 Largely a legacy of Trump's sanctions failing to get a nuclear deal the first term and back firing. You'd have to be naive to think they don't want a bomb in the first place before that though. Saddam played the same game where they pretended they just wan…

The best way to thread the needle I can see was that maintaining highly enriched uranium was a deterrance/bargaining strategy. Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.

> Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.

The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. It was a reasonable assumption that the US would honor its side of the agreement under the doctrine of continuity. Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith

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

#562

Post by antonvs » Tue, May 19, 2026, 7:10 AM UTC

HDThoreaun wrote: post #461

toasty228 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Iran has been funding terrorists for decades Americans not understanding that half of the world says the same thing about them is the funniest shit ever... Propaganda is one hell of a drug

Americans understand. We're allowed to fund terrorists, Iran isnt. Its not even a bad take if your goal is just domestic happiness. Iran funds terrorists that are opposed to American interests, it's the opposed to american interests part that is unacceptable.

The problem with this attitude is that no-one other than jingoistic Americans will want to support your country if you behave like that. There’s no difference between you and Russia then.

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

#563

Post by khriss » Tue, May 19, 2026, 7:14 AM UTC

sharts wrote: post #551

dmix wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pressure campaign to get a nuclear deal. NYT reported Iran already offered to open the strait, end hostilities, and negotiate a nuclear deal later, but the US rejected that offer as they want to pressure them into giving up their uranium. Now Iran is demanding money in exchange for the uranium which is the primary roadblock.

Is NYT even a credible source these days?

As opposed to the orange clown who changes his stance daily and sometimes hourly? Yeah, of course.

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

#564

Post by overfeed » Tue, May 19, 2026, 7:15 AM UTC

samrus wrote: post #532

Jensson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats weak about doing the smart thing?

Starting a war and then not fighting in it is pretty stupid honestly. Either fight or dont start a pointless war

Everyone has a plan until they get punched on the mouth. The plan was a quick decapitation strike, perhaps followed by a Venezuela-like arrangement.

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

#565

Post by khriss » Tue, May 19, 2026, 7:19 AM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #41

bdangubic wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US Navy has shown particular strength in this conflict against Iran, sitting in the international waters many (many, many) miles away and chillin :)

Whats weak about doing the smart thing?

You mean smart things like going into a war with zero plans beyond the first day, bombing girl's schools, then being forced to run away by a country whose entire GDP is less than your military budget?

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

#566

Post by burnerRhodov3 » Tue, May 19, 2026, 7:23 AM UTC

spiderfarmer wrote: post #527

jltsiren wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Military history is full of quotes like "war is too important to be left to the generals". When you put people who focus on technical matters in charge, they often make poor decisions, as they are not looking at the big picture. The question is not about whether the US can blockade the Hormuz Strait but who gets blamed for the blockade. Iran is messaging that it is making serious attempts to reopen the strait, while…

Iran doesn’t have to do anything, really. The Hormuz blockade is entirely on the moronic US, their feeble leader as well as their utterly corrupt and incompetent politicians. A toxic mix of staggering arrogance, moral bankruptcy, a lack of strategic thinking, non-existing historical awareness and a desperate need to divert attention because of the Epstein files. Try debating a MAGA supporter. The stupidity is astound…

[dead]

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

#567

Post by burnerRhodov3 » Tue, May 19, 2026, 7:24 AM UTC

tommica wrote: post #544

fmeahe wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it's $3 million or more, I think it may still be a better deal for the world. Iran would be happy because it gets money. The world is happy because they get oil again. Much cheaper than participating in another endless war. Yes, this may mean an end to international orders and more countries will take opportunities to charge tolls. But the US-led world order is fading away anyway no matter what. The least wor…

> Much cheaper than participating in another endless war. Let's see first if this ends as an endless war - although you could make the argument that there has been a "war" between those two nations for about 47 years, which yes seems like an endless war :/ > The least worst option. Personally I disagree with that conclusion.

[dead]

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

#568

Post by mrandish » Tue, May 19, 2026, 7:56 AM UTC

defrost wrote: post #559

mrandish wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't want to digress too much on that sidebar but the split on Nagasaki was mostly centered around the number of days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think nearly everyone would have agreed the second bomb was probably justified had it been dropped later. Many felt that given more time the Japanese side might have changed their minds without the second bomb.

Let's minimise the digression, I'll move on happily enough .. I'll note that it appears as if the events were framed to your class as two events predestined to have an excessive impact that deserved pause and consideration rather than as (in the context of contemporary events) two orthogonal weapon designs being field tested and squeezed into an already ongoing, months in the execution, campaign of systematic destruc…

Honestly, it's been a few decades and I don't recall many details (other than there being a lot of details). I don't remember if it was directly stated Nagasaki would have been destroyed with or without the A-bomb but I do recall reviewing a shocking analysis on the devastating results of fire-bombing Japanese cities and the escalating run-rate of civilian casualties as air superiority over Japan was established. I also remember seeing large estimates of U.S. troop and Japanese civilian casualties should the allies be forced to do a ground invasion city by city.

The allies had good reason to believe much of the Japanese population would fight block by block without a formal surrender by the Emperor and the Japanese ambassador had privately conveyed that the Japanese high-command would die in honor before surrendering in shame (which he sincerely believed). This was supported by the number of kamikaze pilots which seemed endless and continued to shock U.S. commanders.

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

#569

Post by codedokode » Tue, May 19, 2026, 7:58 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #495

throwaway27448 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so bad that countries want rent over the areas they control?

It's not a matter of good or bad. Innocent passage through national waters (including straits) without paying tolls has been a fundamental principle of maritime law for a long time. Allowing Iran to charge a toll for passage through the Strait of Hormuz would set a bad precedent and encourage other countries to do the same. Iran might be able to get some of the weaker countries to pay up but the USA has no incentive…

I think US established a naval blockage against Cuba and other countries multiple times in history, blocking passage of ships in international waters.

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

#570

Post by defrost » Tue, May 19, 2026, 8:14 AM UTC

mrandish wrote: post #568

defrost wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's minimise the digression, I'll move on happily enough .. I'll note that it appears as if the events were framed to your class as two events predestined to have an excessive impact that deserved pause and consideration rather than as (in the context of contemporary events) two orthogonal weapon designs being field tested and squeezed into an already ongoing, months in the execution, campaign of systematic destruc…

Honestly, it's been a few decades and I don't recall many details (other than there being a lot of details). I don't remember if it was directly stated Nagasaki would have been destroyed with or without the A-bomb but I do recall reviewing a shocking analysis on the devastating results of fire-bombing Japanese cities and the escalating run-rate of civilian casualties as air superiority over Japan was established. I a…

> The allies had good reason to believe much of the Japanese population would fight in the streets without a formal surrender by the Emperor and the assessments were that the Japanese high-command would rather die in honor than surrender in shame.

That's not something that's ever been in contention, it's very much the reason that was put forward to justify the ongoing and (relative to A-bomb) cheaper conventional weapons HE-I bombing missions.

Hence my pointing toward that bombing program as the real root of inspection re: ethics.

The nuclear program (put into motion by the Allied MAUD committee) was intended for the German theatre and after consuming vast resources was left hanging when Germany surrendered prior to the Trinity device test .. the argument to test the two weapon designs was (at that time) very much a zero friction zero consideration kind of thing that dovetailed into the existing targeting lists.

Worth bearing in mind that either or both weapon devices may very easily have failed in the field.

My interest in that event lies with it being a prime example of something that just flowed into happening at the time and was later retconned into being some kind of deeply considered a priori known to be significant and pivotal event.