alt.hn

4/8/2026 at 2:06:48 PM

Iran demands Bitcoin fees for ships passing Hormuz during ceasefire

 https://www.ft.com/content/02aefac4-ea62-48db-9326-c0da373b11b8

by pavlov

4/8/2026 at 5:09:25 PM

A "few seconds" to pay in bitcoin? So the captain is supposed to be watching for a response via email with his finger hovering over the pay button? Is the recipient address static? Surely they would use unique payment addresses if they have any hope of obfuscating payments.

This all sounds more like a TV show script than an actual thought-out plan to me.

by deweller

4/8/2026 at 8:11:17 PM

WSJ reports they can pay in Chinese yuan instead of Bitcoin.

by lancewiggs

4/8/2026 at 5:47:58 PM

> So the captain is supposed to be watching for a response via email with his finger hovering over the pay button?

no, mate

by stronglikedan

4/8/2026 at 6:38:00 PM

Why would you want to obfuscate payments if you can track how many ships entered the gulf using transponders? Regarding money laundering, you use Tornado Cash or Monero

by Xx_crazy420_xX

4/8/2026 at 5:33:16 PM

Presumably these are lightning invoices, which can resolve in milliseconds.

by sanskritical

4/8/2026 at 7:25:33 PM

Is there a limit on how much the lightning network can handle? Those are pretty large transactions.

by HWR_14

4/8/2026 at 7:52:41 PM

Transaction fees are based on the complexity of the inputs/outputs, not the value transacted. You are literally paying for the minimum amount of data necessary to prove you own the funded sending-address, paying to write those hashes and amounts into the blockchain. The institution handling this offchaing lightning branch can implement fees in whatever structure you agree to transact, including percentage based.

Lightning is just an off-chain out-branch, which will eventually be re-integrated onto the main blockchain (based on its original funding/terms). The benefit of this is that single entities can branch off the main blockchain, which is limited in its total blocksize/capacity.

The only limits are those by the handling lightning institution. This differs from bitcoin's main public blockchain, which rewards/creates approximately six blocks /hour, each with a limit of just a couple megabytes.

by ProllyInfamous

4/8/2026 at 5:51:17 PM

Feels like the Trump / Binance situation is under appreciated at the moment...

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/technology/binance-employ...

> People in Iran had gained access to more than 1,500 accounts on the Binance platform over the previous year. About $1.7 billion had flowed from two Binance accounts to Iranian entities with links to terrorist groups, a possible violation of global sanctions. And one of those accounts belonged to a Binance vendor.

> After uncovering the transactions, the investigators reported them to top executives, according to company records and other documents reviewed by The New York Times.

> Within weeks, Binance fired or suspended at least four employees involved in the investigation, according to the documents and three people with knowledge of the situation. The company cited issues such as “violations of company protocol” related to the handling of client data.

[..]

> But internal warnings about the Iranian transactions surfaced last year, in the months before President Trump granted a pardon to Binance’s founder, Changpeng Zhao, who had spent four months in federal prison in 2024 for his role in the firm’s crimes. The Trump family’s crypto start-up, World Liberty Financial, has forged close business ties with Binance, and Mr. Zhao was a guest this month at a conference at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s club in Palm Beach, Fla.

by mikeyouse

4/8/2026 at 3:13:43 PM

It is interesting in several different ways, because I was speculating on how it is being done before current cease fire. Everything seemed to be point to Yuan ( or other non-USD currencies ), which then are more easily settled by vessel owners and likely buried under some non-descript names like fees to be , maybe, questioned later its all done.

edit: And it seems I was wrong despite it being my initial thought in terms of used rail.

by iugtmkbdfil834

4/8/2026 at 4:45:48 PM

It's a sad indictment of the RMB that Iran would rather use BTC for bypassing US sanctions.

by logicchains

4/8/2026 at 5:14:57 PM

Iran is already quite dependent on the PRoC as a trading partner; using RMB as their primary currency for these payments would further increase their 'counter-party risk'. That said, RMB exchange-rate manipulation may also be a significant factor in their decision.

by nickff

4/8/2026 at 3:25:00 PM

Does this mean ceasefire is now broken? The 10 point plan was to be discussed later in the peace talks, but what was the exact conditions that predicated the ceasefire?

by belorn

4/8/2026 at 3:25:44 PM

Isn't it broken with Israel continuing their war against Lebanon?

by wodenokoto

4/8/2026 at 3:39:13 PM

Definitively if they agreed to it as part of the ceasefire. What did each part actually agree to when they agreed to a ceasefire? There doesn't seem to be much concrete information about that part.

by belorn

4/8/2026 at 5:40:29 PM

I think Trump and the Iranians agreed to two different ceasefires and now both pretend they won.

by vrganj

4/8/2026 at 8:24:02 PM

You can watch Nixon's speeches on YouTube. He certainly tried to spin the Vietnam war...

But ultimately Nixon was right. America getting out of Vietnam was a good thing.

by TitaRusell

4/8/2026 at 6:08:52 PM

Seem now like both are also saying that the other side has now broken the ceasefire. Two different ceasefires are not a very stable ground.

by belorn

4/8/2026 at 5:54:04 PM

I think only the US is not bombing anyone for the time being. I think, and hope, they will slowly pull out of there and not fuck up the status quo any further.

by PowerElectronix

4/8/2026 at 3:34:25 PM

As best I can tell, the Iranian regime and Sharif both said that they ceasefire included a cease to strikes on Lebanon, Netanyahu explicitly said that it did not, and the Trump admin, Lebanon, and Hezbollah have not yet commented either way.

Links to Pakistan and Israel statements here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/8/us-iran-ceasefire-de...

by jMyles

4/8/2026 at 5:03:07 PM

Iran is ATM saying it closed the Strait again, implied that it will wait until Israel stand down at least.

Even if USA insist on Israel-Hezbollah (and so Lebanon) be kept apart from any deal to end their war in Iran, it would still mean a terrible strategic and diplomatic disaster between USA and Israel, because Israel Gov' will be left with two terrible scenarios:

1) Trump Admin' will concede to Iran they'd be leaving the region and leaving Israel to defend itself alone, because the Hormuz being open for business and the Gulf states being spared would be enough; or

2) USA will have to resume hostilities, meaning domestically Trump will have to explain the US Military is obliged to continue the war effort for as long as Israel want.

IMHO don't see how Israel-US can politically survive those two scenarios.

by fernandopj

4/8/2026 at 6:55:21 PM

> IMHO don't see how Israel-US can politically survive those two scenarios.

Is that such a bad thing?

by MarsIronPI

4/8/2026 at 3:44:26 PM

Trump and Leavitt have both said that Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire

by GeoPolAlt

4/8/2026 at 8:20:54 PM

Iran gets a vote, and ceasefires need belligerents' unanimity, by definition.

by overfeed

4/8/2026 at 4:45:30 PM

Lebanon has also said that the ceasefire doesn't apply to Hezbollah, since they insist that both them and Israel are at war with Hezbollah, not with each other. The only parties that say it does are Hezbollah and Pakistan.

Also, I really wouldn't suggest using aljazeera.

by Pay08

4/8/2026 at 5:20:56 PM

I've found Al Jazeera's (English) coverage of the region to be informative. YMMV.

by bradleyankrom

4/8/2026 at 5:31:33 PM

Honestly, it’s a good counter to get both sides of the coin. At the moment you’ll find BBC, CNN, NYT et al on one end and Al Jazeera on the other. I also look at DW for a more balanced approach. Don’t consume from one camp!

by M_bara

4/8/2026 at 7:38:21 PM

Just be aware that DW is literally government propaganda. If you want news from a German perspective, it's great; however its purpose is explicitly to give the German governments POV.

by alphager

4/8/2026 at 6:28:48 PM

Fair call on CNN and DW, but the NYT has always been at least somewhat aligned with Al Jazeera, and the BBC switches around with whatever the current government is.

by Pay08

4/8/2026 at 8:31:42 PM

> NYT has always been at least somewhat aligned with Al Jazeera

Hard disagree: the NYT adopts a weird passive voice that goes against its house style, along with headlines with no subject when it comes to events in Gaza[1]. Al Jazeera consistently names the doers of the verbs.

1. Once you're aware of it, it becomes impossible not to notice. It is the Wilhelm scream of news coverage.

by overfeed

4/8/2026 at 7:49:49 PM

Al Jazeera is a private news organization mostly funded by the state of Qatar.

It is not "the other side of the coin". Qatar is very much on the US side, and opposite to Iran.

Their reporting is fine, and I typically find it more informative than the US news sources. But let's not pretend you are getting the Iranian side of the deal here.

Particularly, my favorite news sources for the war is, oddly enough, FT

by surgical_fire

4/8/2026 at 5:53:50 PM

Out of curiosity, which news sources do you recommend/advocate for covering the middle east?

by freehorse

4/8/2026 at 5:22:17 PM

Perhaps informative as a study of institutional bias and government interference.

by Pay08

4/8/2026 at 5:32:39 PM

No. Why would Lebanon be part of the ceasefire in Iran?

by halflife

4/8/2026 at 5:34:35 PM

Iran stated that it needed to be. I know Israel/US said it isnt, but that isnt how a ceasefire works. All sides actually have to agree to the terms of a ceasefire to have a ceasefire.

https://www.axios.com/2026/04/08/lebanon-attacks-israel-iran...

by nickthegreek

4/8/2026 at 6:34:57 PM

I can't understand how it is possible that when such ceasefires are agreed there isn't a designated third party who has the signatures of both parties and can say, and prove, if it's been violated.

by throw310822

4/8/2026 at 7:48:45 PM

There is a designated third party Pakistan and they say Lebanon is part of the ceasefire.

by ReflectedImage

4/8/2026 at 8:44:05 PM

They say it, but can they prove it? Because everyone seems to be saying a different thing. Shouldn't Pakistan be able to say "this is the document, these are the terms, these are the signatures, case closed"?

by throw310822

4/8/2026 at 6:02:39 PM

So if both sides do not agree to that request it’s not part of the ceasefire, pretty simple.

by halflife

4/8/2026 at 6:26:14 PM

If both sides don't agree on the terms of a ceasefire you don't have a ceasefire.

by lesuorac

4/8/2026 at 7:00:28 PM

hmm so the iranian diplomatic side can't even read english...?

I mean, I wouldn't expect a random diplomat to read iranian... but would 99.999999999% expect to read english

those iranian side who didn't point out "hey english version is different!" are all bonkers

by sysguest

4/8/2026 at 7:23:44 PM

1. The version of the ceasefire that you are got third hand from Twitter or American news outlets are not accurate.

2. Iranians can't read.

Which do you think is more likely?

by nemothekid

4/8/2026 at 7:43:07 PM

> 1. The version of the ceasefire that you are got third hand from Twitter or American news outlets are not accurate.

Are they any more accurate than what Iran or America thinks? IIUC, this whole thing is phone tag.

by lesuorac

4/8/2026 at 8:28:58 PM

Most likely not. I've seen Iranian sources claim that the 10 point plan is violated[1]. However I (1) do not know about Iran's government structure and (2) I can only trust other sources that I believe are trustworthy.

However I think assuming that Israel violating the ceasefire (as they have done multiple times in the past) is more reasonable than assuming a country with a ~400B GDP (similar to Hong Kong, Portugal) has leaders that "can't read".

[1] https://x.com/mb_ghalibaf/status/2041943537386958858

by nemothekid

4/8/2026 at 5:51:38 PM

reglardless if it was, it was an agreement with the US who can be convinced with money to stop the bombs. Israel is a different beast. they will only accept death as payment.

and yes because Iran does include it in their terms it.means US now gets to fight Israel.with diplomacy :') again.

by saidnooneever

4/8/2026 at 6:03:14 PM

Iran can say whatever they want, it doesn’t make it part of the ceasefire terms

by halflife

4/8/2026 at 6:10:24 PM

Not that anyone is going to listen to Australia, but Australia believes it is part of the ceasefire terms that were agreed to:

Asked on 7.30 if the ceasefire should apply to Israel's action in Lebanon, [Australian Foreign Minister] Senator Wong was adamant it should. "Yes," she said. "Our position is that the world expects that the ceasefire should apply to the region."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-08/penny-wong-says-israe...

by SyneRyder

4/8/2026 at 6:14:34 PM

"Our position is that it should" is very different from "the text of their statement says". This is Senator Wong's (or Australia's) idea of what would happen in an ideal world, not anything anybody involved recognizes as relevant. (I mean, they may not recognize the text as being relevant, either, but this is a step below even that.)

by AnimalMuppet

4/8/2026 at 6:17:31 PM

Its the 10-point plan of Iran which forms the basis of the ceasefire.

I don't think it can get much more clear that the US lost this war, along with dignity, decorum and the respect of the world.

by lejalv

4/8/2026 at 6:39:28 PM

It does not.

by halflife

4/8/2026 at 5:51:00 PM

Pakistan, the mediator of the agreement, declared that a ceasefire in Lebanon was part of the agreement when the agreement was announced:

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-us-iran-isra...

>Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced the ceasefire between Iran and the United States on X, saying the two sides agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon, where Israel launched strikes.

This suggests that either the Americans are lying or they did not read the agreement carefully before signing. Either way I don't think it's a good look for the United States.

The US has plenty of ability to force Israel to stop its invasion of Lebanon and it has done similar things twice before by economic means. All parties to the agreement are aware of this.

by scythe

4/8/2026 at 6:04:36 PM

Another option is that the Pakistan got it wrong.

by halflife

4/8/2026 at 7:56:48 PM

Another option is that the US is lying.

Wouldn't be the first time. Hell, the war started when the US decided it a good idea to bomb Iran during negotiations.

It is a profoundly untrustworthy country.

by surgical_fire

4/8/2026 at 6:53:54 PM

I suspect more fighting in Lebanon means less oil through Hormuz. Iran kept its definition of "open" vague. Everyone is keeping the pressure up during negotiations.

by cheriot

4/8/2026 at 7:06:35 PM

Maybe I'm just cynical but I have to assume someone will test the extent Iran can hold them to a payment if it doesn't want to stop maintaining the terms of the ceasefire to back up the demand?

(Edit- missing negative)

by kilgoresalmon

4/8/2026 at 7:20:50 PM

They've blown up several ships so which ship owner will test them? Spend $1m on a transit fee or risk $90m on a new tanker.

by cheriot

4/8/2026 at 7:31:54 PM

Is the US seriously going to side with Iran on a missing payment? Assuming not, is the value of the ceasefire more than $1m for Iran if a ship slyly doesn't pay or the few million if one starts a trend? As I said I might be cynical but I see layered games of chicken where some people are surprisingly risk tolerant..

by kilgoresalmon

4/8/2026 at 8:42:44 PM

Iran's terms are all ships transiting the strait have to coordinate with its military. One would assume they are monitoring ship movements, and know which ones are complying and which ones are not.

The US doesn't need to "side with Iran" on anything: ship captains, owners and insurers are free to gamble their ships and payloads against Iran's resolve and strike capabilities

by overfeed

4/8/2026 at 7:51:43 PM

What's the incentive for a ship captain to risk this? Even if they're more confident than almost everyone else that it's a bluff and think there's a 95% chance Iran does nothing, a 5% chance of you and your crew being incinerated is a crazy risk to take.

Would you go to your normal job tomorrow if someone who has a history of carrying out threats has threatened to kill you for it?

by rurp

4/8/2026 at 8:08:20 PM

You can't imagine someone who would go to that job simply because the owner hired a bouncer and they have a different faith in authority or really mean looking bouncers than you?

I can spend 10 minutes looking at demographics and tell you the world is not explainable if the measuring stick is my own risk tolerances.

by kilgoresalmon

4/8/2026 at 4:48:16 PM

too early to say. You always ask for more than you can possibly get in these things so that you have something to compromise on (it is stupid but that is how that game is played)

by bluGill

4/8/2026 at 3:54:41 PM

No - the Iranian's didn't say they were letting ships through for free

by insane_dreamer

4/8/2026 at 5:29:18 PM

There was never going to be a ceasefire. It was just Taco Tuesday and yet another market manipulation day. Republicans and Democrats ruled by whoever has original Epstein files are just filling their boots.

by varispeed

4/8/2026 at 6:02:01 PM

Israel are still murdering civilians as fast as they can spend US taxpayer dollars.

by testing22321

4/8/2026 at 5:22:34 PM

Iran taking USD bribe instead of obtaining nukes made it worse for them in long run.

by lerp-io

4/8/2026 at 6:11:06 PM

I'm not sure I follow your logic, but one could argue this campaign with drones and cheaper missiles taught Iran it doesn't even need a nuclear deterrent anymore.

Between this and Ukraine, the logic of a nuclear warhead deterrent might be considered a paradigm relic from 20th century.

by fernandopj

4/8/2026 at 6:34:32 PM

This is false. If Trump had chosen to nuke Iranian cities, Iran would have had no recourse without a proper nuclear bomb.

by konschubert

4/8/2026 at 8:30:15 PM

I agree that you are correct in this statement, althought if USA or Israel decided to nuke a country without a MAD recourse, that would be another can of worms. There's multiple reasons no country did that after Hiroshima. Even Russia refrained themselves of doing that in Ukraine after all these years.

Allow me to do a slight modification on my assessment: Iran found out they won't need a nuclear deterrent to avoid ANY future aggression; modern, cheap drones and conventional missile loadouts will do just fine. Money they would continue spending on nuclear enrichment can be better spent elsewhere, military.

by fernandopj

4/8/2026 at 6:44:51 PM

I would be surprised if they could get it out of their airspace considering their country is heavily monitored. Every target hit was probably known for years and years, their routines and what they do.

by giancarlostoro

4/8/2026 at 7:06:14 PM

Iran's nuclear bomb is to take out desalination plants in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia. It would be game over for the GCC.

by viewtransform

4/8/2026 at 6:19:29 PM

A large segment of the Iranian political class bet their reputations on the nuclear non-proliferation deal with the US in 2015. They've all now been utterly discredited and the hardliners proven correct in all of their predictions.

They can look at Ukraine who bitterly regrets giving up their nuclear weapons, or North Korea, seemingly invulnerable despite being the most pariah of pariah states.

From the perspective of the Iranian state, it would be idiotic and irresponsible not to try to make a nuclear weapon in these conditions.

by xnyan

4/8/2026 at 7:53:33 PM

"From the perspective of the Iranian state" Well you say that but they have got a non-nuclear nuke equivalent in the form of kamikaze drones.

by ReflectedImage

4/8/2026 at 8:40:23 PM

That didn't keep them from getting bombed for a month, and their senior leadership all killed. It just let them punch back a little bit. Not an equal amount, just a little bit.

So, no, not a "nuke equivalent".

by AnimalMuppet

4/8/2026 at 5:48:59 PM

Things couldn't have been worse for the average Iranian before that, so nothing can really make it worse for them.

by stronglikedan

4/8/2026 at 2:08:05 PM

”Hosseini said that each tanker must email authorities about its cargo, after which Iran will inform them of the toll to be paid in digital currencies.

“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.”

by pavlov

4/8/2026 at 3:05:24 PM

As bitcoin is quite traceable I don't see how this works if you're trying to avoid sanctions. For Iran it probably doesn't matter but for the vessel owners it probably does.

by deltoidmaximus

4/8/2026 at 3:11:02 PM

Business idea - Iran Bitcoin fee intermediary. Realistically the CIA will handle this for US companies and maybe allies until they figure something out.

by tomasphan

4/8/2026 at 4:52:51 PM

Didn't Tornado Cash get un-sanctioned recently? Can't you just use that?

by CapricornNoble

4/8/2026 at 3:11:39 PM

Yes, from sanctions perspective, the vessel owners seem to have more exposure than Iran -- as crazy as it sounds on the surface.

by iugtmkbdfil834

4/8/2026 at 4:44:11 PM

One of Iran's demand for a peace agreement is the removal of all sanctions.

by dist-epoch

4/8/2026 at 3:56:21 PM

the issue is the US' ability to freeze USD bank accounts on its soil or pressuring other banks to do the same

by insane_dreamer

4/8/2026 at 3:04:28 PM

So apart from all the geopolitics of it this line is interesting

"few seconds to pay in bitcoin, ensuring they can’t be traced or confiscated due to sanctions,’ Hosseini added"

Maybe I'm ignorant of Bitcoin but isn't Bitcoin transactions recorded in a public cryptographically signed ledger? Isn't that literally the opposite of "can't be traced"?

by gustavus

4/8/2026 at 3:14:47 PM

And if you knew the manifests (quantity of oil) for the ship, just the value of the bitcount transaction could be used for tracking.

by zulux

4/8/2026 at 4:37:58 PM

Or, if you knew the bitcoin addresses, you could figure out exactly how much oil is being moved. I would think oil data analysts would love to have access to that data (if they don't already).

by mbreese

4/8/2026 at 5:14:23 PM

It’s like those podcasters that figure out who’s dating whom by looking through their Venmo.

We just need to watch for large transactions with the Iranian flag and boat emojis…

by Esophagus4

4/8/2026 at 5:58:26 PM

There a whole industry called on chain analysis that do this sort of work.

by dragonelite

4/8/2026 at 3:10:15 PM

Cannot get to the article, so:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-warns-tankers-they...

What is to stop the ships from lying ? I wonder if Iran will do spot check of some ships to prevent this. And will boarding ships cause Trump to have yet another breakdown ?

by jmclnx

4/8/2026 at 6:55:32 PM

Oil is heavy. The ship designs are known. You can tell approximately how full a ship is by how deep it sinks into the water/where the waterline is.

They can probably consistently lie by a small percentage and Iran let's them get the 3% discount as an acceptable loss.

by HWR_14

4/8/2026 at 4:18:30 PM

Because ship displacement is really hard to disguise? It's probably like trying to sneak your friend in to the movies under your overcoat.

by onlypassingthru

4/8/2026 at 3:17:00 PM

Lying about their cargo? Can’t lie about the weight … Probably the savings from lying about the nature of the cargo is not worth the risk of exploding..

by bethekidyouwant

4/8/2026 at 3:49:53 PM

The FT trying to push markets and capital again? If they do everyone can just track their bitcoin transactions..

by dragonelite

4/8/2026 at 7:52:22 PM

Oh, that's why Bitcoin is going up suddenly now hey???

by throw_m239339

4/8/2026 at 3:02:39 PM

I was under the impression that they were asking for payment in stablecoins, not bitcoin? Did they change their mind?

by wongarsu

4/8/2026 at 3:12:43 PM

Given that 99% of stablecoins are USD-denominated, and that the vast, vast majority of those are custodial, Bitcoin makes much more sense for Iran.

by Hendrikto

4/8/2026 at 4:46:12 PM

With Iran's hyperinflation, why wouldn't USD make sense?

by Pay08

4/8/2026 at 5:30:26 PM

To add more context to what I believe the parent commenter was referring to, the vast majority of USD stablecoins are custodial, meaning the funds can be frozen arbitrarily at any time by the custodian (i.e. Circle).

This is why when cyberthreat actors steal millions in USD stablecoins by hacking a protocol or a large wallet, the very first thing they do is convert those stablecoins to something else.

by bryceneal

4/8/2026 at 4:58:01 PM

I think they’re kinda mad at the US at the moment

by ultrattronic

4/8/2026 at 5:16:37 PM

They're risking another January-like protest if they don't stabilise their economy.

by Pay08

4/8/2026 at 5:28:42 PM

I think they don't want strengthen USD, nor risk having their assets frozen by sanctions.

by surgical_fire

4/8/2026 at 3:23:18 PM

I’ve heard a lot of discussion about them accepting payments in Chinese yuan. I wonder if there’s a stablecoin pegged to it.

by vunderba

4/8/2026 at 6:04:48 PM

Yeah pretty since the start of the conflict there was talk of companies could use Chinese yuan to get an pass through. It also makes more sense they would use the Chinese yuan the West can track or block those transactions.

Not only that the Chinese Yuan is probably more interesting given they can buy more things with it from China things like consumer tech/products, chemicals and rare earths for weapon systems etc.

by dragonelite

4/8/2026 at 5:08:39 PM

China issued a stable coin about five years ago. It is used for all retail payments (I believe, small value, payments for govt employee salaries, etc). Somewhat bizarrely, it is significantly more privacy-protecting than payments in the West.

Quite funny to read comments from people asking what use is crypto. Can tell they have probably never left West Virgina.

Don't think it would be that useful for Iran though as they are already RMB earners, and RMB financial markets are still a bit questionable (there is depth, I don't think anyone knows why this depth exists or what it is actually for, just state-linked banks moving paper between themselves furiously).

by skippyboxedhero

4/8/2026 at 6:08:09 PM

Tether has one on ethereum but same problem if the US gov tell tether to whip their address it is game over.

China has probably one on another blockchain but I am not sure how easy it is to exit their ecosystem or convert it to anything else...

by sunshine-o

4/8/2026 at 5:59:12 PM

I believe the only stablecoin that is "uncensorable" is the old MakerDAO DAI (pegged to USD with vaults overcollaterised with other tokens). Not sure if there is a lot of liquidity left.

Its successor USDS has implemented all the mechanisms to censor some addresses but if I remember correctly this hasn't been activated yet.

All the other ones: USDC, USDT, EURC and the ruble one can be whipped out easily. So more risky for them than good old dollars.

Please correct me if I missed something.

by sunshine-o

4/8/2026 at 6:30:20 PM

You can issue any stablecoin via bitcoins taproot asset protocol. Transfer even over lightning. Thus it is uncensorable. USDT has this enabled.

by littlecranky67

4/8/2026 at 3:14:10 PM

That would be very risky for Iran because the top stablecoins could be freezed. They are centralized.

by wslh

4/8/2026 at 5:25:22 PM

No. Welcome to the petrobitcoin economy.

Edit: Piecing together from other comments, it sounds like these tolls are denominated in USD ($1 per barrel), but as an implementation detail, they're charging in BTC as the instrument of choice, not a stablecoin.

They phrase the tolls in USD "so the price is stable", and since the whole transaction is quick, BTC entails "just a small carry risk while holding". They sidestep the stablecoin technology, which is "risky for Iran because the top stablecoins could be freezed. They are centralized."

The latter comment was downvoted, possibly for paranoia, but Iran can't afford not to be paranoid. The major stablecoins at least claim to be custodied in Western institutions in a quasi-compliant-ish manner. If the USG started strong-arming Cantor, and so forth, who knows where that would end. Iran would much rather live with a tiny taste of BTC price volatility.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47692874

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47691369

So my read of this is:

- Iran is threading the needle, working within the limited options they have in a US-dominated world economy.

- The death of the petrodollar is slightly exaggerated here, although it's a small symbolic step, and obviously the broader war is going to have implications for US hegemony.

by arduanika

4/8/2026 at 6:29:46 PM

Smart of them, hardest currency in existence and USD avoided, and no possible issues.

by triage8004

4/8/2026 at 3:46:22 PM

I did a double-take at it being Bitcoin fees, since you'd think they'd want some stablecoin (even if not USD) so as to avoid inheriting the volatility, but no, they want Bitcoin specifically:

>“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,” FT reported, citing Hosseini.

https://beincrypto.com/iran-bitcoin-toll-hormuz-strait-tanke...

by SilasX

4/8/2026 at 4:54:15 PM

Paid in bitcoins denominated in USD so the price is stable, just a small carry risk while holding.

by cjbgkagh

4/8/2026 at 3:32:28 PM

I personally think is the US's Teutoburg Forest moment [1]. Rome was capable of rebuilding legions. After all, they'd done so historically (eg after the Battle of Cannae [2]) but Teutoburg really exposed the rot and dysfunction within the Rome. I personally believe this event will be a turning point in redefining the relationships with Europe, the Gulf states and Israel.

Details on this deal are sketchy but it seems like Iran will continue charging a toll for the Strait of Hormuz (of approximately $1/barrel). You hear figures like $2 million but bear in mind that VLCCs/ULCCs can carry 2M+ barrels of oil. Also, it seems like there will be significant sanctions relief.

Here's the problem: how does Iran get paid? Normally that would be through international payments systems but the US exerts a lot of control over those and can freeze assets as they've done in the past. Part of the payments under the previous JCPOA [3] were to return money paid to Iran for oil where those payments had been frozen. Russia got locked out of SWIFT after the Ukraine invasion [4] as another example.

So I see this as a defensive and potentially temporary move to avoid the risk of asset seizure and freezing should hostilities resume. Iran may well end up with access to international payments systems again in the coming weeks, at which point this could all change.

It is interesting that crypto is being used for this but that just goes to the point that the use case for crypto is to bypass laws. That's no different here.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT_ban_against_Russian_bank...

by jmyeet

4/8/2026 at 4:09:40 PM

The point of crypto is to cut out the middleman, to bypass authoritarianism, to bypass censorship, to not have to trust anybody.

The US being able to just cut off people from the financial system is seen as very problematic by anyone outside the US.

by Hendrikto

4/8/2026 at 2:21:33 PM

I think this war will be the moment that historians mark as the death of Pax Americana. The US failed to change the Iranian regime, failed to open the strait, and now a previously international waterway will be tolled in a currency other than the dollar.

I wish it need not have happened in my time

by GeoPolAlt

4/8/2026 at 3:09:58 PM

This war will be to the US what the Suez Crisis was to the United Kingdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

by cjs_ac

4/8/2026 at 4:48:28 PM

That's far too hyperbolic. Abject failures don't lead to state or power collapse. Look at how many wars the Romans lost, and far more catastrophically too.

by Pay08

4/8/2026 at 3:26:57 PM

TIL about one more time Israel was invading it's neighbors..

by puelocesar

4/8/2026 at 4:44:56 PM

You should focus on the part where Egypt blockaded the Suez and Straits of Tiran, which is what actually caused the war.

by grumple

4/8/2026 at 3:31:44 PM

I’d say there is a credible case for saying the vote for 2nd round of trump was the turning point. By that point is was already pretty well established that he isn’t fit yet that’s what the public wanted.

by Havoc

4/8/2026 at 5:36:52 PM

The democrats deserve a fair share of the blame for that just for their having created and maintained the two-party duopoly along with the Republicans. At the very least its not the voters fault if the only viable alternative to the Republicans is constantly rigging (or in this case straight-up bypassing) their own primaries to put corrupt party insiders at the forefront.

by snickerbockers

4/8/2026 at 6:03:27 PM

Sure, everyone deserves some share of the blame, but it's like 10% for the Ds and 90% Rs. We can't keep talking like it's 50/50, that's how people become completely disenchanted with politics and don't even bother to vote.

by saulpw

4/8/2026 at 6:56:44 PM

The root cause is the first-past-the-post voting system that ensures a two-party system.

But for the party with the most responsibility for blowing it all up I'd like to nominate Rupert Murdoch. Most visibly with Fox News, but really his entire media empire

by wongarsu

4/8/2026 at 7:03:29 PM

> The root cause is the first-past-the-post voting system that ensures a two-party system.

Hear, hear.

I'm rooting for the fast uptake of STV across the US.

by euroderf

4/8/2026 at 3:18:02 PM

TBF, Iran is saying an exorbitant price right now, but in reality they will need to balance their price with demand to bring in the maximum possible revenue. The toll may work out in the long run.

by pokstad

4/8/2026 at 4:24:19 PM

Very Large Crude Carriers carry ~2 million barrels of oil. Ultra Large Crude Carriers double that. If oil went down to $50/Bbl, that $2 million fee amounts to a ~2% tax per ship, given their cargo capacity. It's not particularly exorbitant, especially given that the entire reason they proposed this toll was to fund their rebuilding efforts (Americans and Israelis did a lot of damage that's been under-reported and ignored)

This conflict has been an interesting case of watching mass hysteria interact with propaganda in the newform, rapid pace of media that exists in the internet age. The amount of wild conjecture, speculation, misinformation is the most extreme I've ever seen it, eclipsing even the 6 months of nonsense that was spurred on by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

by ux266478

4/8/2026 at 8:11:04 PM

The 2% is the camel's nose. They are establishing that they tax the Strait traffic and there is no longer freedom of navigation. Once it is a done deal, the deal will be altered...

by gwern

4/8/2026 at 6:12:06 PM

If that’s right, 2% indeed doesn’t sound bad. Especially since it’s supposed to be split with Oman.

by pokstad

4/8/2026 at 4:57:13 PM

AFAIK they only let two ships pass before closing it again due to Israeli strikes on Lebanon, so in effect the strait is still closed and likely to remain so.

by cjbgkagh

4/8/2026 at 3:23:07 PM

I think the price can only increase. There is not much competition for Hormuz. If it is exorbitant now, it can only be more expensive later on. The demand for oil is not going to go down drastically for quite a few years.

If there was another route, the oil would have found the way.

by ivell

4/8/2026 at 4:54:05 PM

There are already pipelines in the region.

by rhubarbtree

4/8/2026 at 3:27:29 PM

pipelines, railway, etc.

had the US had any real plan to empower the Gulf states against Iran there would already be backup routes

by pas

4/8/2026 at 4:19:55 PM

Pipelines are incredibly vulnerable to being taken offline by an inexpensive long-range strike. You can't just put them in the middle of a war zone, especially when we (the US) have targeted that same type of infrastructure first.

by Tostino

4/8/2026 at 4:48:49 PM

Pipelines are usually buried under the ground. Pumping statins could be protected by short range SAM systems. An undegraund pipeline can be destroyed by a heavy glide bomd (not an option for Iran) but should be relatively safe from shahed drones. Iran's ballistic rockets are not precise enough to hit a pipeline wihtout spending multiple rockets (in which case it would be cheaper to repair the pipeline than to produce all these rockets).

by citrin_ru

4/8/2026 at 4:28:31 PM

sure, as the oil wells and the pumping stations and everything not underground, but right now there's not even an option to try. (also loss of a pipe section compared to the loss of a tanker is much better economically, easy to replace, not to mention that there's no loss of life, so ultimately it can bear more risk even if there's an active conflict.)

by pas

4/8/2026 at 6:19:04 PM

None of those have near the capacity to replace what was flowing through the Straight and will not replace the Straight for a long time. That's the whole problem.

If there were viable alternatives to the Straight, the US would have attacked Iran decades ago. Every US administration has had people in the wings desperate to "Fix" the Iran situation, but only Trump was stupid enough to try it.

Meanwhile, the actual production is meaningfully damaged, and for at least a couple years.

This is an energy crisis.

by mrguyorama

4/8/2026 at 3:25:31 PM

In time pipelines can be made, no? 2 million per ship already gives a lot of room for exorbitant infrastructure projects to break even in the medium term

by thatguy0900

4/8/2026 at 4:27:25 PM

Pipelines take years, even decades, at least here in Canada. You'd be surprised at how many billions of dollars and person-years of labour you need to get the thing turned on.

Five years at 2mil per ship will make Iran rich.

by 1attice

4/8/2026 at 3:27:54 PM

The problem is the fee has nothing material to do with the straight itself. There are no maintenance costs for the open sea. Coordination is also not a big concern, you can tell because previously ships were able to pass without incident and coordinate among themselves.

Actually, this is extortion. Meaning that it is done under threat of violence. Worse yet, the US military may end up enforcing this, and collecting on a share of the fees.

It won't take very long for Iran to recoup the damages. After that, why keep the fees going? Because it's free money, that's why.

The strange this is, if the US and Iran can partner on this, that would lead to a weird peace, because they both stand to benefit, meanwhile countries that depend on the straight (Korea, Japan, etc.) have to pay the bill.

by tantalor

4/8/2026 at 4:33:39 PM

> There are no maintenance costs for the open sea.

There are massive maintenance costs for the open sea with how we utilize it. Maritime security and policing, navigational infrastructure, weather reporting, radio repeaters, international bureaucracy, etc.

Global maritime trade is extremely costly. It's simply hidden behind opaque public spending on things you don't think about. In all likelihood it's a sunk cost that would ballpark around a few hundred billion dollars annually, invisible money spent just to keep things running at the scale and reliability that they do.

Now the maritime traffic passing through the Strait of Hormuz may only partially overlap with this spending, but people greatly overestimate just how "cheap" maritime activity actually is.

by ux266478

4/8/2026 at 4:08:11 PM

I don't think this count as open sea. The rule is 12 miles from the coast (12 nautical miles btw, i don't know what it is in freedom units). i'm pretty sure the strait is narrower than that at the place where the toll is paid (if you count both side, i.e less than 24 miles Between Oman's peninsula i forgot the name of, and Hormuz/Qeshm islands).

So basically, Iran say "here, you have to pass through our or Oman's waters, we will let you, but please pay a toll for the derangement, that we will share with Oman."

by orwin

4/8/2026 at 3:53:22 PM

> extortion

not really; you would have to pay to run an oil pipeline through another country's territory even if that country wasn't bearing the cost of maintaining the oil pipeline

the strait isn't international waters -- it's part of Iran and Oman's territorial waters

by insane_dreamer

4/8/2026 at 4:41:57 PM

For land pipelines thiere no eqauvalent of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea according to which both Oman and Iran should allow free passage of ships. And "normal" path lies on Oman's waters which dones't stop Iran from attacking ships there. The strait toll is a pure racketeering.

by citrin_ru

4/8/2026 at 5:15:56 PM

What does the UN convention says about killing civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure?

I think any such pretenses were abandoned right off the start.

by surgical_fire

4/8/2026 at 7:40:38 PM

You make it sound that there are only two sides in this story.

Spain, Argentina, Kenya, Indonesia, Kuwait and countless other countries haven't bombed any civilian infrastructure either and yet they will be affected by the aggressive posture around international maritime traffic.

Are you expecting that Iran will not apply the fee to ships that sell oil Malesia or South Africa?

by ithkuil

4/8/2026 at 8:23:35 PM

For the Iranian perspective it doesn't matter.

Their only defense against being bombed was using their geopolitical position to its advantage. Their own civilian infrastructure was bombed by the US-Israel axis, with the support of the Gulf states.

I fully expect Iran to apply fees on every ship going through, and they should.

Spain, Argentina, Kenya, Indonesia and countless other countries are paying for the aggressive and reckless actions of the US-Israel axis.

That's the situation of the country where I live btw. I don't blame Iran for using the weapons at their disposal for survival, I blame the rogue states that attacked Iran and forced their hand. Let's not forget that Iran could have done it at any time in the past decades, and showed restraint in doing so, even with all the sanctions and Israeli aggression.

by surgical_fire

4/8/2026 at 3:09:18 PM

Trump promised the most crypto-friendly US administration ever, but this is probably not what Republicans had in mind.

by pavlov

4/8/2026 at 4:45:01 PM

You forgot that now Iran will become a nuclear state.

An American Iranian expert which studied this region for 20 years predicted that Iran will do a nuclear test in September, ahead of the mid-term elections. We'll see.

by dist-epoch

4/8/2026 at 4:49:11 PM

For all intents and purposes, they have been a nuclear state for 30 years.

by Pay08

4/8/2026 at 6:23:50 PM

The toll is not going to happen. Iran has plenty of demands regarding the ceasefire and will get almost none of them.

by HDThoreaun

4/8/2026 at 3:23:29 PM

I think it’s weird that you imply that it is because the American regime failed to change the Iranian regime. They (lead by Israel or not) illegally invaded a country.

It’s just Pax for those parts of the world that America and its allies are not invading (and other non-allied examples like Russia invading Ukraine).

But a typical top-comment about how America Did a Bad Thing Which Ruined The Good American-lead Times.

by keybored

4/8/2026 at 3:30:56 PM

> It’s just Pax for those parts of the world that America and its allies are not invading

Aren't you making the very point you purport to refute? What's so different about this than Rome circa 50 BC? They even invaded Persia!

by jMyles

4/8/2026 at 2:38:08 PM

[dead]

by churchill

4/8/2026 at 3:14:57 PM

No air war has changed a regime. The US government knows this. Trump knows this and never had regime change as an objective. Why are you saying that regime change was an objective, and how do you think it was going to happen in an air war when no air war has caused a regime change before?

by 762236

4/8/2026 at 4:49:56 PM

> Trump knows this

This statement is very rarely true.

by ks2048

4/8/2026 at 3:31:36 PM

Little correction: Trump has a different objective every second day, and at some point there was (also) regime change on the menu. Might come again, I don't know.

by soco

4/8/2026 at 3:17:00 PM

Trump was talking about the protests there and that the US would help them. And we kept killing Iranian leadership lol.

Why are you taking what the Trump admin says at face value, anyways? Are you still a fool after all these years? This is like "fool me a 10,000th time" by now haaha

by whateveracct

4/8/2026 at 3:26:34 PM

What he says matches to reality: that regime change isn't possible with an air war. Thus even if you don't listen to him, we know from prior experience that regime change is highly improbable. Every person educated about these things knows that.

by 762236

4/8/2026 at 5:21:12 PM

The contemplated (and moved!) ground troops for weeks lol.

by whateveracct

4/8/2026 at 4:50:37 PM

No air war has ever tried to change a regime. The fact of the matter is, we don't know what will happen next. There could very well be a civil war.

by Pay08

4/8/2026 at 3:40:31 PM

I can't believe that the toll will actually be paid - it would turn Iran into an INSANELY wealthy superpower and easily give them the funds to hugely increase their availability to fund groups like hezbollah etc.

by Incipient

4/8/2026 at 6:02:41 PM

I read that it could add up to $80 billion/year, at most.

by badc0ffee

4/8/2026 at 3:09:14 PM

Finally, the Real World use case for Bitcoin!

by FeloniousHam

4/8/2026 at 3:16:36 PM

Ransomware payments, speculative trading, now paying off oil pirates!

by pokstad

4/8/2026 at 3:18:07 PM

I am afraid that soon, actual sea pirates, e.g. in Central and South America, Africa, etc. will start using naval mines in their regional seas, demanding crypto payment from passing ships.

by OutOfHere

4/8/2026 at 3:23:48 PM

I'm not sure most people have the strength of conviction in their God to stare down the us navy like Iran does.

by thatguy0900

4/8/2026 at 3:27:01 PM

Do drones need conviction?

by keybored

4/8/2026 at 3:29:56 PM

The person launching them sure does. This scenario reminds me of the time Russian hackers took over a US pipeline a couple years ago then immediately apologized saying they didn't want to cause a international incident and they would vet their targets better in the future. There are not many people who want that kind of heat. Like the first ayatollah is dead and the second is reportedly in a coma. The Iranian government is willing to pay that price and that's why they won. How many pirate leaders do you think are willing to pay their life so that their third of fourth successors can maybe collect a toll? Or how many are like Venezuela and you can kidnap one guy and the whole house folds.

by thatguy0900

4/8/2026 at 3:25:15 PM

It doesn't have to be a US Navy ship that they target. They could target anyone else. The mines are intelligent in who they target.

by OutOfHere

4/8/2026 at 3:28:01 PM

If they're dropping mines then the navy will be the targets eventually.

by thatguy0900

4/8/2026 at 3:22:57 PM

Things that have never happened with USD. Glad we have a truly clean pure money that is incorruptible unlike bitcoin.

by staplers

4/8/2026 at 3:16:51 PM

Cryptocurrency has had many legal real world uses cases. It is used heavily in prediction markets. Serving as an inflation-resistant store of value that is orthogonal to gold also is an implicit real world use case. Permissionless and easy international transfer of funds between individuals has been the biggest real world use. It's not only for collecting and trading. Obviously, those wanting to suppress it will keep finding excuses.

by OutOfHere

4/8/2026 at 3:57:19 PM

Defending crypto as legitimate by adding 'it's also useful for gambling to get around regulation' is wild.

by _DeadFred_

4/8/2026 at 3:46:33 PM

Lol at the downvotes. People get so mad if you say you prefer one imaginary ledger over another.

by nprz

4/8/2026 at 3:52:58 PM

The same people have no idea what's coming for them even when it's in their face as with the posted news article. If the US doesn't act now to restore the use of USD in Hormuz, it's the beginning of the end of the for the USD as a currency for international trade.

by OutOfHere

4/8/2026 at 3:22:54 PM

I confess I'm not entirely sure if this is satire or if you are a true believer. Well done!

by GJim

4/8/2026 at 3:48:06 PM

Should just pay in pure cocaine, cut out the crypto middlemen.

by user____name

4/8/2026 at 3:47:00 PM

[flagged]

by mvkel

4/8/2026 at 4:53:35 PM

The war has been costing the US in the region of 30B per day by some estimates. Fees per ship are around $1m . It wouldn't make any sense.

by seanhunter

4/8/2026 at 4:56:43 PM

not a big fan of this theory, but as we've seen in other instances, money from the public coffer is 'free', so even at a substantial loss, if the result ends up in the right private account, its still a net win for someone. and net a loss for the public even larger than "I'm suing the government for $50B, oh wait, that's me, I guess I'll just have to pay myself"

by convolvatron

4/8/2026 at 5:06:58 PM

There are much easier ways to convert the US military budget into someone's personal wealth.

by nitwit005

4/8/2026 at 4:51:58 PM

Unlikely. Iran is winning this war, or hadn’t you noticed? No need to pay America off when they’re desperate for a deal.

by rhubarbtree

4/8/2026 at 5:04:35 PM

To define victory, you'd need to know their political objectives, which neither side has declared or otherwise made clear. On the one hand, the USA was unable to completely restrain Iran's ability to wreak local havoc, but on the other, Iran had many of its assets damaged, and now seems completely unable to prevent foreign actors from using its airspace almost at-will. It seems like the situation has shifted, and the result is inconclusive.

by nickff

4/8/2026 at 6:17:51 PM

For the Iranian regime, to survive is to win.

Nuclear programme can only be stopped with boots on the ground.

America’s military is outdated compared to modern asymmetric warfare.

Iran may gain income from the strait.

It can now pursue a bomb knowing it will be hard to impossible for America to stop it.

by rhubarbtree

4/8/2026 at 4:34:33 PM

Why would Iran give the US fees?

by xeromal

4/8/2026 at 4:37:47 PM

Behind the scenes, they may have already conceded to paying Trump off just like the other gulf states.

by grumple

4/8/2026 at 5:27:01 PM

I like Trump, but this could very well be true. He's getting rich off of something.

by bobomonkey

4/8/2026 at 4:46:21 PM

plausible, esp in light of all the things.

by damnesian

4/8/2026 at 5:23:22 PM

American exceptionalism is crazy. We do not always come out on top. Sometimes – quite frequently actually – we are dumb as shit, overplay our hand, and create more problems for ourselves than we solve. 4D chess is a myth.

by hdhdhsjsbdh

4/8/2026 at 6:55:17 PM

[dead]

by cindyllm

4/8/2026 at 4:36:36 PM

“ ABC News’s Jonathan Karl asked Trump if he approved of Iran’s plan to charge vessels a fee for passing through the strait — a key channel through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil is transported. “We’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture,” the president told Karl, who shared Trump’s response on social platform X. “It’s a way of securing it — also securing it from lots of other people. It’s a beautiful thing.””

I bet Trump will justify it as compensation for US “security” guarantees to Gulf States.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5821343-trump-us-ir...

by oa335

4/8/2026 at 4:56:18 PM

Is this that 4d chess bullshit y’all keep embarrassing yourselves with? There’s no plan.

by itsdesmond

4/8/2026 at 8:07:35 PM

This is like Legal 101. It's not that complicated.

by mvkel

4/8/2026 at 5:22:17 PM

Another possibility is that what's left of the regime has been given a certain time to flee and thus are plotting their exit and trying to pocket every last cent of wealth to take with them before they go into exile.

by SilentM68

4/8/2026 at 5:27:59 PM

Are you talking about the US or Iran here?

You might be talking about Israel too.

I truly cannot say.

by surgical_fire

4/8/2026 at 5:08:08 PM

Israel for last, perhaps? One can dream.

by jasonvorhe

4/8/2026 at 4:35:25 PM

Is this Breitbart comments what's going on here?

by timcobb

4/8/2026 at 4:48:59 PM

No, the US leadership is just really that inept to not have anticipated this extremely likely outcome in Iran closing the strait. Now watch em celebrate this great victory in media spin.

Also of course if you want to profit, you can always just insider trade! A favorite of the administration. Someone bet a cool billion just yesterday that oil prices would go down. And would you believe it.

by stefan_

4/8/2026 at 4:42:16 PM

Iran and the CIA are perfectly capable of moving physical or digital dollars if they wanted, there is no need for bitcoin. In fact it's much more likely for bitcoin payments to Trump to be detected than digital dollars.

by dist-epoch

4/8/2026 at 4:35:52 PM

[dead]

by bT3xgGVF

4/8/2026 at 3:01:46 PM

Pretty crazy for countries to demand Bitcoin that has no clear plans for quantum. Not to mention security budget issues.

by kinakomochidayo

4/8/2026 at 3:03:34 PM

It’s not like Iran plans to keep the Bitcoin. It’s just a way around sanctions.

by pavlov

4/8/2026 at 4:48:56 PM

[dead]

by ratrace

4/8/2026 at 3:24:11 PM

[flagged]

by sourcegrift