He said that the tariff is $1 per barrel of oil, adding that empty tankers can pass freely. “Once the email arrives and Iran completes its assessment, vessels are given a few seconds to pay in Bitcoin, ensuring they can’t be traced or confiscated due to sanctions,” Hosseini added.
You must log in or register to comment.
10 hours“can’t be traced” - it’s a public blockchain, though. Everyone can see and trace transactions.
When the money source is clear - it’s the shipping companies - you can trace their transactions.
- Nomorereddit@lemmy.todayEnglish14 hours
A million a ship on avg, high sea piracy is back.
3 to 8 ships have paid in last 72hrs. Normally 320-600ships would have gone thru for free in that window.
- IEatDaFeesh@lemmy.worldEnglish12 hours
I mean… this happened after an illegal war, with probably hundreds of war crimes committed to Iran and hundreds of thousands from israel/US in totality across the region.
This toll is nothing in comparison to that and I prefer this as Iran’s form of retaliation compared to more killing.
- DirtSona@feddit.orgEnglish14 hours
The strait of hormus does not lie in international waters. What do you mean by “high sea piracy”?
- BoJackHorseman@lemmy.todayEnglish13 hours
Considered international by people who want to pass through the strait without paying.
- Samskara@sh.itjust.worksEnglish11 hours
It’s considered international by international maritime law. Free passage, freedom of navigation is essential to trade and commerce.
Iran‘s attack on international shipping is a breach of international law and an act of war.
A blockade can be legal under international law, but it’s always an act of war. Demanding a toll to pass means it’s not a legal blockade.
- humanspiral@lemmy.caEnglish1 day
Preferred crypto payment is USDT (Thether) stable coin. Which is the least US regulated, and most popular, US $ equivalent/backed stable coin. They are unlikely to refuse bitcoin, though.
- Doomsider@lemmy.worldEnglish23 hours
Cool, now we can add global extortion to cryptocurrency benefits.
- 17 hours
it’s a fucking toll you dingus those are iranian waters
- knotRyder@lemmy.caEnglish12 hours
No it’s not it’s an international trade route they’re just being Pricks because anything to piss off maga
- 12 hours
Those iran’s waters. These ships are literally passing through their country, I think you’re confused with “territorial waters” as defined in UNCLOS as well but neither Iran nor the US nor pissrael ratified that treaty. Here is a good opinion on why the UNCLOS doesn’t really apply
https://www.simplelaw.blog/p/the-strait-of-hormuz-a-3-minute-international
- Samskara@sh.itjust.worksEnglish11 hours
Have you read your link?
Geographically, the Strait of Hormuz is clearly what’s called a transit passage** strait**: it connects two open seas, has no alternative route, and is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Under transit passage rules, other countries have an almost unrestricted right to sail and fly through. Iran can barely interfere at all.
- 11 hours
yes
Iran is right about which rules are universal (innocent passage, not transit passage). … The U.S. is also not a party to UNCLOS.
- Samskara@sh.itjust.worksEnglish11 hours
International customary law applies even if you’re not a treaty member.
- 11 hours
** Iran is right about which rules are universal **
I don’t know how much clearer it gets??? Who’s gonna argue that UNCLOS is universal anyway? The US or pissrael? Neither of which are party to the UNCLOS and who very much assert authority outside their territorial waters?
- Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish2 days
Bitcoin finely found a use case that’s not crime. Take that crypto haters.
- 13 hours
The (non-financial) crime is the best part.
I love taking estrogen I bought offa onion sites :)
- bold_omi@lemmy.todayEnglish12 hours
Be careful with your sources. Laced drugs are dangerous. But I’m with you.
- Zetta@mander.xyzEnglish1 day
Purchasing drugs for yourself shouldn’t be a crime, so it’s awesome that cryptocurrencies exist for this purpose.
- Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish1 day
Technically it still is a crime since charging money for access to navigable waters is a violation of international law.
- BoJackHorseman@lemmy.todayEnglish13 hours
What about Panama Canal, Suez canal, St Lawrence Seaway? Is it fine to charge money for those waters?
- Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish13 hours
They’re not natural waterways, somebody had to make them so the law doesn’t apply. Same for Great Lakes Waterway.
- BoJackHorseman@lemmy.todayEnglish12 hours
Besides, international law only applies to you if you agree to it. Both US and Iran do not agree with this.
US also has a law that say US can use military force against the ICC if any US citizen is arrested by the ICC.
- Samskara@sh.itjust.worksEnglish11 hours
That’s not true. Customary international law also applies to states, that are not themselves members of a treaty. In the case of international maritime war and international humanitarian laws this is widely accepted as such.
- AlDente@sh.itjust.worksEnglish14 hours
This would be the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It’s interesting that the US is among the nations that have never ratified the treaty.
Also, Denmark has a long 500+ year history of charging ships to transit in and out of the Baltic Sea, so this really isn’t a new concept (Sound Tolls).
All foreign ships passing through the strait, whether en route to or from Denmark or not, had to stop in Helsingør and pay a toll to the Danish Crown. If a ship refused to stop, cannons in both Helsingør and Helsingborg could open fire and sink it.
- 12 hours
I thought they meant this law but wasn’t sure. That treaty has not been ratified by the US, Pissrael and most importantly, Iran! So it doesn’t apply and we are talking about a war where neither the invading nations nor the victim nation has signed it.
https://www.simplelaw.blog/p/the-strait-of-hormuz-a-3-minute-international
- VAK@lemmy.worldEnglish12 hours
There used to be hundreds of cases of charges for transit. Led to wars too.
- yesman@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Bitcoin is for dodging sanctions and the influence America has over the international banking and payment systems. It’s also may shield third parties from sanctions the US may impose on those who transact with Iran.
- redsand@infosec.pubEnglish1 day
Doesn’t need to be it’s just irreversible. That’s why north korean randsomeware has worked forever.
- db2@lemmy.worldEnglish22 hours
It wouldn’t have anything to do with tracing transactions to North Korea being pointless and unactionable I’m sure.
- Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.worksEnglish2 days
Neither is a bank account though either. And one is sanction proof, the other isn’t.
- 2 days
It also means that if there’s a secondary deal trump’s Bitcoin account get it’s cut right after Iran takes theirs
Honestly, the biggest mistake they’ve made here is that they’re not demanding Monero instead.
- Randomgal@lemmy.caEnglish13 hours
Yeah and writer has no idea what they are talking about. One of the core characteristics of Bitcoin is being publicly traceable
I mean it doesn’t even matter that it is. It’s not a secret who the money is going to.
The important part is that it can’t be reversed by a banking authority.
Right? I was like dang you’re already half way there lol.
The reason though is that they probably don’t want to discourage payments because I have seen businesses refuse to use Monero in ransomware attacks because their insurance agreement complicates payout on a fundamentally untraceable currency. Even if Bitcoin is technically decentralized, they can report the transaction and specific currency blocks to whatever federal agency is responsible for fraud.
Still, why not offer both and put a 5% discount on Monero.
That idea of a 5% discount doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.
- 2 days
It’s easier for people to get Bitcoin, Iran could deal with the cleaning / mixing themselves after. This is already going to create friction so keeping it lower might help?
Oh, if they demanded Monero, people would figure out how to get it.
- AxExRx@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
theres only like 6.5B usd worth of monero (compared to ~1Trilion BTC)
At 20Milion barrels of oil (/ dolars if its $1 a barrel) a day, theyd own all the monero within a year, meaning theyd have told pretty actively be selling it back onto the market for another currency to keep a supply for shippers to use. Compared to BTC where they’d need 136 years of hoarding to accumulate it all
- redsand@infosec.pubEnglish1 day
The huge demand spike would increase the value of any coins quite a bit so your napkin math doesn’t quite hold. It would basically make monero a new petro backed currency.
- username_1@programming.devEnglish2 days
I remember Trump was experimenting with some *coin. He should try to convince ayatollas to use it instead of Bitcoin.
- db2@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Comparing his scamcoin to bitcoin is like comparing Flooz to a Visa gift card.
Haha Trump Coin and Trump retarded model wife coin. Good one.
I didn’t mean to correct you on the name, just that it doesn’t live up to its name
- technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish2 days
People who say that crypto has no application are just thinking inside the imperial bubble.
- Sunflier@lemmy.worldEnglish17 hours
Crime was the first adopting use, but not the last. Even the US recognizes its value by having a strategic reserve.
That says “proposed” - not implemented, though?
And if it’s under Trump’s administration, I can’t take anything like that as any indication of reason or sustainability.
Trump is part of crime.
But there are very good reasons why Bitcoin is very far from mass adoption as an actual currency.
- commander@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
I’d absolutely use crypto if it was more available in anything I’d want to pay for. So far it’s mostly just VPNs and donations
- 2 days
People tried that, it failed. It’s too volatile.
It’s basically a way for people to think they are being sneaky and shit when it’s all trackable anyways.
- p4rzivalrp2@piefed.socialEnglish2 days
Is it though? Obviously bitcoin, eth, etc. Arent, but xmr and zec would be, no?
- CannonFodder@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
How could that work? Doesn’t it take some time for a bitcoin transaction to get pulled into the chain?
- fruitycoder@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
Layer 2 networks like the lightning network operated in the milliseconds time frame.
- CannonFodder@lemmy.worldEnglish14 hours
Doesn’t that require trust in the provider hosting the off chain transactions? And lightning transactions can get preempted by conflicting moves from a wallet, and invalidated? I’m no expert, but it seems like these big regular transactions would be targets for abuse.
- fruitycoder@sh.itjust.worksEnglish13 hours
Yes, as far as I understand it. No you create a mutisignature wallet first that holds the funds that can be moved around the layer 2 network.
On chain makes more sense for this application to me too
- CannonFodder@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Yeah, and the article says the shippers are given a couple of seconds to pay in bitcoin.
- ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zipEnglish14 hours
I mean, all the steps leading up to that take way more than a few seconds, including…getting the email. This seems like someone misspeaking or not understanding what’s going on…
It takes 10 minutes to get a single confirmation, but I’m assuming that it takes more than 10 minutes for a ship to transit this waterway, so it wouldn’t matter.
- CannonFodder@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Yeah, but the article says they have seconds to pay with bitcoin.
Something tells me the article doesn’t understand the way Bitcoin works. A transaction takes 10 minutes to clear on-chain, unless you’re using the lightning network, and the lightning network is fucking terrible, especially for high-value transactions like this. Because you can be rug-pulled. That and you can’t send high-value transactions on a lightning network because every link in the chain has to have the proper amount of liquidity to make that transaction occur.
- commander@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
At the size of transactions they’d be doing, it’d probably be worth it to set a high fee so that it gets picked up and processed faster. Should still be peanuts compared to the value of cargo these tankers are carrying
