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

671–680 of 737 posts

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

#671

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

nradov wrote: post #646
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant. How is their support, or lack thereof, irrelevant to our discussion that is literally about whether they support the war? Here is a reminder of the topic, from the post you replied to: > Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire…

You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant because support doesn't count for anything.

> You're really missing the point. Whether they support the war or not is largely irrelevant

Am I? No, I don't think so: Whether they support the war or not is literally the topic of discussion, so by definition it can't be irrelevant to the discussion.

> support doesn't count for anything

Whether or not you feel "support doesn't count for anything" is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the support is there in the first place.

It's also sour grapes: the USA tried to gain the support of other countries, and because it failed, the support it failed to get is suddenly "irrelevant". Lol. It sure wasn't irrelevant when the USA was begging and threatening countries to help them.

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

#672

Post by jameshilliard »

handfuloflight wrote: post #655
jameshilliard wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the definition of a terrorist and why does the destruction and genocide in Gaza not fall under that term? There is certainly no genocide in Gaza, the destruction is clearly the end result of a war started by Hamas. In fact Hamas did have genocidal intent in their attacks on Oct 7th but did not have the military capability to carry out that intent. Israel on the other hand clearly has that military capabilit…

"There is certainly no genocide in Gaza" -- you are directly contradicting a formal UN Commission of Inquiry finding from September 2025. This is not an opinion piece or a fringe report. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory concluded after a two-year investigation that Israel committed four of the five genocidal acts defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention, a…

> The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory

The UN(which is itself a party that has perpetuated the conflict through mismanagement of the UNRWA) has essentially zero credibility in regard to anything involving Israel[0].

> You say there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, then said nothing to explain how you applied the term with such confidence to the Iranian government in your original post.

The Iranian government is engaged in both direct and indirect terrorism throughout the region by virtually all commonly used definitions including the ones you listed. They have directly attacked virtually all countries in the region. They are driven by dangerous ideologies of Martyrdom and Jihad.

> The same UN Commission found that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, deliberately destroyed healthcare and education infrastructure, imposed starvation conditions, and directly targeted children. That is premeditated. It is politically motivated. It is violence against noncombatants. By the U.S. government's definition, it fits.

A highly biased UN commission claiming something doesn't actually make it true.[1] Israel does not have a policy of deliberately targeting civilians, although in a war there is often collateral damage. This is why properly analyzing intent is so important.

> These are not fringe backbenchers. These are cabinet ministers in the current Israeli government. This is declared policy, not a vague expression.

Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich are highly unpopular in Israel and have been largely excluded from making war related decisions, Israel has a parliamentary system of government which makes it easier for extremists to get elected than in a system of government like the United States, their statements should certainly not be taken as official Israeli government policy.

> You still have not answered why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Legally they are not a party to the NPT[2]. From a practical standpoint they are a small country facing existential threats to their existence so it's not surprising they would want to have nuclear weapons as a deterrence.

[0] https://unwatch.org/pillay-commission/

[1] https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/UN-Watch-Rebu...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...

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

#673

Post by cnd78A »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #637
bannable wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone post this comment?

To highlight that both sides are horrific when it comes to the topic being discussed and that both sides need leadership to be changed? Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be?

"both sides are horrific" is convenient, but only one keep invading and bombing others since decades

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

#674

Post by cnd78A »

bigyabai wrote: post #656
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To highlight that both sides are horrific when it comes to the topic being discussed and that both sides need leadership to be changed? Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be?

On the hierarchy of disagreement, attacking the character of either side is the lowest form of intelligent commentary you can make: https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html > Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be? If non-sequiturs are your best argument, then yes, you you have nothing to contribute by participating in good…

Iranian child marriages do not reframe

Israel too to be fair "They're 15, Married With Children: Inside an Israeli Hasidic Cult's Code of Silence" (the gov and the population knows it, but it's ok) : https://archive.is/v9Amc#selection-699.0-699.83

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

#675

Post by cnd78A »

dmix wrote: post #445
jchook wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US fundamentally wants the oil to flow globally. Its secondary blockade of the Strait seems to be driven by optics and PR rather than strategic value.

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.

to be fair, I bet more human knows that USA is much more dangerous to the world "order" than Iran having a nuclear weapon (Pakistan and even Israel has it, so why not Iran and Mozambic too?)

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

#676

Post by cnd78A »

jameshilliard wrote: post #623
expedition32 wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear weapons have been a strictly self defense capability since 1945 I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them.

> I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them. How does one not see a problem with terrorists(i.e. the Islamic regime in Iran) getting nuclear weapons?

For many people "terrorists" are the one bombing and invading, which means that Iran is currently victim of terrorism.

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

#677

Post by jameshilliard »

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.

> 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.

I think Israel and probably the US interpreted this tactic as Iran stalling until they Iran had the technology to build a nuclear ICBM.

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

#678

Post by jameshilliard »

overfeed wrote: post #561
nixon_why69 wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke.

Iran really had no need for a nuke in the first place if they weren't constantly provoking the entire region, unless that need is destroying Israel.

> Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith

Iran never really negotiates in good faith either, the JCPOA didn't really do anything at all to restrict their ballistic missile program and terrorist proxies.

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

#679

Post by protocolture »

ericmay wrote: post #616
protocolture wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is it truly 'US Navy securing safe shipping for everyone'? From whom? Where? Imagination land. >No more American meddling would result in much saner and safer world. Wherever they stick their fingers, the instability and wars ensue. We need the USA to defend us against the results of the USA defending us.

The US is not: Forcing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, load up on missiles and drones and then use them to attack Gulf neighbors, destabilize Lebanon, Syria, or Iraq, or fund terrorists as recognized by both the United States and European Union (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis). Forcing North Korea to murder and starve its citizens and deprive them of medicine, food, and access to education and more. Nor is it forcing Nor…

>Forcing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon

It is actually. Iran can see that their only viable path to stability is nuclear deterrence. This attack makes it more obvious.

>North Korea to murder and starve its citizens and deprive them of medicine, food, and access to education and more

No murder and starvation are US domestic policies.

>The US didn't force Maduro to come to power and create a humanitarian crises in Venezuela resulting in 1/3rd of the population fleeing as refugees, nor did the US force their economy to be mismanaged for the enrichment of Maduro and his cronies.

How far down into non sequitur are you at this point.

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

#680

Post by bigyabai »

1234letshaveatw wrote: post #337
elzbardico wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s what the propaganda you’ve been fed since a child tells you. The real crazy savages are not it Tehran but in TelAviv and Washington. The Iranians are just defending themselves from monsters who still think civilized people nukes and napalms civilian population, finance Latin American and African dictatorships and torture, etc.

That’s cute, you spouting America bad gibberish while defending terrorists

  According to a declassified CIA memo citing a classified U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, the CIA played a significant role in establishing SAVAK, providing both funding and training. The organization became notorious for its extensive surveillance, repression, and torture of political dissidents. The Shah used SAVAK to arrest, imprison, exile, and torture his opponents, leading to widespread public resentment. This discontent was leveraged by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then in exile, to build popular support for his Islamic philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
Post reply on HN