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

721–730 of 737 posts

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

#721

Post by selfhoster1312 »

broken-kebab wrote: post #703
selfhoster1312 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, english is not my first language. I did not realize there was a strong difference between blockade and embargo. Thanks for the correction. Though to be fair, there is currently an actual oil blockade run by the USA. And the previous embargo imposed sanctions on international entities dealing with Cuba, so it was not exactly 100% open even though technically you could sail there.

I really appreciate politeness of the answer! E.g. about 2 weeks ago Russian tanker arrived to port Matanzas, Cuba (again this is searchable data). It didn't fight it's way though American cordons, it just arrived. Embargo can hit a trader's wallet hard, but it's still not a blockade.

And i appreciate the politeness of your corrections!

I'm not aware of the details, but i was under the impression that an actual blockade is going on? That's at least what many media are claiming, as summarized in this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Cuban_crisis

Do you have any resources explaining how that russian tanker would not be an isolated case but a symptom of widespread incorrect reporting on the issue? Or is the truth somewhere in the middle, that the USA would let through a tanker or two just to keep the pressure high but not explosive?

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

#722

Post by ebbi »

AuthAuth wrote: post #687
ebbi wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not, either.

You're saying international law has no value to iran because the US and Isreal have no violated it. Im saying Iran commited to violating international law long ago and thus in a war with Iran no one would expect international law to be followed by either party. Sounds like you agree with the last part but maybe disagree with the first claim?

America violated international law many times, from well before. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, etc etc etc

But when talking about international law in this instance, America started the aggression, which was a breach of International Law itself, so why should Iran abide by it?

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

#723

Post by wodenokoto »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #457
wodenokoto wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s probably still a lot cheaper to pay toll than moving cargo from Jebel Ali to Fujairah over land

UAE already built a pipeline called ADNOC that ships oil to Fujairah. They're committing to doubling [1] their export capacity by 2027. [1]: https://gulfnews.com/business/energy/uaes-new-west-east-pipe...

The pipeline is obviously not called ADNOC. The exisitng pipeline is called Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline (ADCOP) and not "Abu Dhabi National Oil Corporation" (ADNOC).

The existing pipeline carries 1.8 million barrels per day [1].

Which you have to put against the 20 million barrels per day that used to be sailed through the strait.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uae-accelerate-oil-p... [2] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65504

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

#724

Post by dmix »

cnd78A wrote: post #675
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.

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?)

> so why not Iran and Mozambic too?

Iran funds terrorism and conflict that impacts nearly every Muslim country around them and also in US, europe, canada, australia etc

If you want to build a bomb for sovereignty's sake, don't become an international pariah that openly and explicitly attacks wealthier and democratic world powers while you're doing it.

Iran's has demonstrated some of the worst strategic planning over the past two decades. Their economic planning has been just as bad

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

#725

Post by CMay »

lorecore wrote: post #514
CMay wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran has been terrorizing the entire region, exporting radicalism and funding terrorism. Many of the wars that have occurred in the middle east were caused by Iran. If you look at the history of Israeli attacks, they have essentially been reactions to Iran-backed terrorist attacks against Israel. Why did Saudi Arabia attack Yemen? For fun? No, they were reacting to Iran-backed terrorist groups. Why did Iraq attack Ir…

You can’t just label all of Israel’s enemies “terrorists”. The history of the Zionist colony is well know at this point. I’m a US citizen and fully aligned with Iran against Israel and the US presence in the Middle East.

I never said that. Only terrorists are terrorists. It has a real definition and it just happens that many of the people opposed to Israel use a terrorist form of attack against Israel. The Iranian government has been officially designated as a terrorist regime by many countries, because they have been actively promoting terrorist strategies all over the region. Most of the people in Iran are not terrorists. There are a lot of great Iranian people in the US.

People will think all kinds of things and there are many people with different ideas. Not everyone can be right all the time. It often comes down to how you were taught, what kind of media you consume, whether you seek the truth and logic or prefer emotion, and what your emotions lean toward. All I can say is from a purely logical perspective, Iran is not on the right side of this, even if it is fair to say that Israel has been extreme in its own way in reacting to aggression.

This isn't only about Israel. Iran has rubbed all of its neighbors wrong for 40+ years. If this was only about Israel and no other country, then there would be more to dig into there, but it is more than that.

At least we are free to express our ideas in the US and Israel. In Iran, they do not have free speech. The government can and will punish you for speaking against the government. They can make anything seem true just by imprisoning anyone who says otherwise.

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

#726

Post by Karrot_Kream »

wodenokoto wrote: post #723
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UAE already built a pipeline called ADNOC that ships oil to Fujairah. They're committing to doubling [1] their export capacity by 2027. [1]: https://gulfnews.com/business/energy/uaes-new-west-east-pipe...

The pipeline is obviously not called ADNOC. The exisitng pipeline is called Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline (ADCOP) and not "Abu Dhabi National Oil Corporation" (ADNOC). The existing pipeline carries 1.8 million barrels per day [1]. Which you have to put against the 20 million barrels per day that used to be sailed through the strait. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uae-accelerate-oil-p... [2] https://www.ei…

Yes ADCOP not ADNOC, you are indeed precisely correct. But it's also called the Habshan–Fujairah pipeline :)

The East-West Pipeline that empties into Yanbu can run 7 mbpd and House of Saud claims [1] that it ran at 1.3 mbpd before the war. If we double the capacity of ADCOP to 3.6 mbpd and add an extra 6.7 mbpd through the East-West Pipeline, we'll be up to 11.4 mbpd which is over half the capacity of the Strait of Hormuz which is probably enough to bring Brent down a lot lower.

[1]: https://houseofsaud.com/saudi-arabia-energy-export-reroute-r...

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

#727

Post by solumunus »

hersko wrote: post #668
solumunus wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately Israel started this war. Is it a useful distraction from Epstein, sure, but that’s clearly not the primary reason for this war.

Here's a video of Trump in 2015 talking about how he would make sure Iran never got a bomb [1]. Crazy that the Israelis we're already planning it then. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIDNonMDSo8

This proves my point, Trump didn’t simply decide to do this because of Epstein.

Israel have wanted to do this for over 4 decades. Netanyahu has been spreading this “we can’t let them get a bomb” rhetoric much earlier than 2015.

The point is that this recent attack, Israel approached Trump with the idea and said they are going to do it with or without him. This isn’t speculation, this is what we know.

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

#728

Post by solumunus »

hersko wrote: post #719
antonvs wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Stuxnet cyberattack on Iran's nuclear capability was a joint US-Israeli operation in 2010. This has been going on for a long time. But that doesn't mean that the timing of the current war, and the choice to start it, wasn't due to Trump's desire for a distraction.

To me it seems like just "the current thing" that the media is accusing trump of. In his first term it was russaigate. If Trump was in the Epstein files in any meaningful way you think the Biden administration wouldn't have leaked it?

It depends how many others are implicated that they want to protect. I think the Biden administration were operating under the assumption that Trump was gone and on his way to irrelevance, a reasonable assumption at the time. Vindictively going after him when they had already “defeated” him was probably deemed unwise.

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

#729

Post by hggh »

pamcake wrote: post #720
hggh wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look at the statistics: https://fusionstats.redteam.cash/

What of it? You are not responding to the debunking of your "Value doesn't have anything to do with utility" claim. The only relevant thing I can see here is that yes, the volume is too low to provide any sense of untracability for the scenario discussed. It might for paying your VPN subscription.

> What of it? Sort by value and see for yourself

> You are not responding to the debunking Opinions don't debunk. Proof does.

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

#730

Post by Karrot_Kream »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #726
wodenokoto wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pipeline is obviously not called ADNOC. The exisitng pipeline is called Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline (ADCOP) and not "Abu Dhabi National Oil Corporation" (ADNOC). The existing pipeline carries 1.8 million barrels per day [1]. Which you have to put against the 20 million barrels per day that used to be sailed through the strait. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uae-accelerate-oil-p... [2] https://www.ei…

Yes ADCOP not ADNOC, you are indeed precisely correct. But it's also called the Habshan–Fujairah pipeline :) The East-West Pipeline that empties into Yanbu can run 7 mbpd and House of Saud claims [1] that it ran at 1.3 mbpd before the war. If we double the capacity of ADCOP to 3.6 mbpd and add an extra 6.7 mbpd through the East-West Pipeline, we'll be up to 11.4 mbpd which is over half the capacity of the Strait of H…

Correction: 5.7 mbpd additional for the East-West Pipeline summing up to 10.4 mbpd still roughly half of the capacity of SoH.
Post reply on HN