Iran, BTC, the digital dark age and why we're failing

[alani123]

Remember how Satoshi left bitcoin?

It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context.  WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.

This was his last message here.
Pleading that it's too early for BTC to receive this level of exposure.
Then we never heard from him.

Now Iran has officially started to accept BTC for passage through the strait of Hormuz, where around 1/4th of the oil humanity produces needs to pass so it can be transported worldwide.

The US was openly targeting Iran weeks ago.
If Iran openly used BTC to advance their interests in the international arena, sure, it's proof that BTC is immutable... But maybe we shouldn't cheer...
Because so far infrastructure to support BTC is heavily reliant on institutions and centralised services.

Nearly all trading volume is on CEXs with heavy reliance on banks, we're nowhere near to a cyclical economy supporting BTC usage, even wallet services are hosted on centralised platforms, miners and chips are made by maybe a couple of companies, mining is quite centralised, mixing services are under threat by FEDs etc.

BTC USD did well in the last few years but still we failed to protect the fundamentals.

Now with Iran using bitcoin, who's to say that all the infrastructure around BTC we've come to rely on isn't going to be rug pulled from us?
Maybe it's too early. Or maybe we were too naive to not build more earlier.

[(BTC)]

Because so far infrastructure to support BTC is heavily reliant on institutions and centralised services.

Nearly all trading volume is on CEXs with heavy reliance on banks, we're nowhere near to a cyclical economy supporting BTC usage, even wallet services are hosted on centralised platforms, miners and chips are made by maybe a couple of companies, mining is quite centralised, mixing services are under threat by FEDs etc.

The middleman is the biggest barrier for a p2p project's success. This isn't limited to financial matters, either. Applies to other stuff, too. Take ridesharing, for example. Drivers and passengers could, in theory, connect directly. The problem with that, is the fact that middleman corporations such as Uber and Lyft provide "reliability" and "safety". The Play Store and App Store provide the application download consistency and seamless-natured approach to connecting drivers to passengers. The middleman could be eliminated, both the app and the app stores, if there existed an open-source downloadable software that runs on nodes and did all these things. Unfortunately, this is hard to do because of lobbying and these cartels controlling reputations, payment processing, insurance, demand aggregation, and (most damningly) routing algorithms...   .

Don't even get me started on dynamic pricing and how these middleman can up-charge based on the desperation for a ride. The app can sense desperation through low-battery percentage or being a stressed out low-income individual, for example. This is because of how much access it has to your device/digital footprint due to user-inserted personal information. It's disgusting.

Now Iran has officially started to accept BTC for passage through the strait of Hormuz, where around 1/4th of the oil humanity produces needs to pass so it can be transported worldwide.

The US was openly targeting Iran weeks ago.
If Iran openly used BTC to advance their interests in the international arena, sure, it's proof that BTC is immutable... But maybe we shouldn't cheer...

Iran doing this was inevitable. They aren't the only people using a currency in a way that is unsavory to some. The whole world participates in using currencies for both nefarious and good-faith reasons. This isn't a special characteristic of bitcoin, and applies to popular fiat currencies such as $USD.

This was his last message here.

One of his last? Sure. The last? Nay:

There's more work to do ~

[hd49728]

Now Iran has officially started to accept BTC for passage through the strait of Hormuz, where around 1/4th of the oil humanity produces needs to pass so it can be transported worldwide.

The issue of Iran using bitcoin and cryptocurrencies for bypassing sanctions and doing money laundering is not new. The war among Iran and Israel, the USA only escalates it further as there are attempts for tightening sanctions around this nation and any countries that have business deals with Iran. Therefore Iran has to try to find alternative ways rather than traditional payment systems, which will help them avoiding sanctions better.

Nearly all trading volume is on CEXs with heavy reliance on banks, we're nowhere near to a cyclical economy supporting BTC usage, even wallet services are hosted on centralised platforms, miners and chips are made by maybe a couple of companies, mining is quite centralised, mixing services are under threat by FEDs etc.

This will force Iran using more than before, and it will put mixers under attacks, seizures from governments globally. In addition, I believe that it will put many centralized exchanges under targets of government regulations because it's quite sure that cryptocurrency flows from Iran will reach to centralized exchanges.

[Darker45]

Was that Satoshi's last post here? It appears his/her/their last post was about his/her/their work on DoS. And Satoshi was still heard in 2011 until the "moved on to other things" email.

Anyway, Bitcoin is already popular today. I think this isn't anymore premature or unnecessary attention. The US itself has generally warmed on Bitcoin recently. I doubt Bitcoin would be subjected to attacks just because Iran, an enemy, is accepting Bitcoin. The US itself knows Bitcoin is neutral.

And I think it's overthinking worrying about it. In reality, the US could simply identify those companies or countries that abided by Iran's new regulations in the strait and warn or put pressure on them.

[Upgrade00]

The reality is we cannot control what people use their bitcoins for. Same way we as individually can use Bitcoin to escape regulations and control of financial authorities, countries can also use it to escape sanctions placed on them as long as they have other countries willing to pay them in Bitcoin for passage. This is also the same way network spammers can use their ordinals to clog up the network and cause transaction fees to shoot up. It upsets everyone, but it's a free network

It could lead to issues if it becomes more of a theme among countries. But 17 years in, I don't think any usage is too early at this point.

[Alpha Marine]

Now with Iran using bitcoin, who's to say that all the infrastructure around BTC we've come to rely on isn't going to be rug pulled from us?

They cannot because there is too much to lose. Bitcoin has been integrated into various parts of the economy, so at this point, they can't do things like what you say without having a ripple effect. This infrastructure you speak of is owned and controlled or used by the top people. They have a bit of influence and know how to lobby and work the system.
For example, the biggest mining pool, which is Foundry USA, is owned by a Digital Currency Group (DCG). They are a private company, so I don't know what the company is worth, but the CEO of that company is worth about $3 billion.
If you look at AntPool, you will see the same thing. It is owned by Bitmain Technologies, where the co-founder is also worth about $3 billion. Then there are other tech companies that are partnering with mining companies to get AI data centres. 

This is just an example to show that the US cannot control all the infrastructure around Bitcoin, and there's nothing to worry about if Iran is using Bitcoin to evade sanctions or whatever. It's not a secret that they are demanding payment for safe passage in the Strait of Hormuz. They are doing it openly, so the US government would most likely see those transactions.
Besides, as powerful as the US may be, they are still one country. They may be the biggest economy in the world, but they can't force every country to go against Bitcoin, and its infrastructure simply because they want to twat Irans plans of accepting payment in Bitcoin.
There is absolutely nothing to be concerned about in this regard.

In fact, what the US will use to fight this would not be Bitcoin. It's the fact that, under international law, Iran does not have the right to request payment before passing the Strait of Hormuz. But then again, neither Israel nor the US has respected international law in all of this, so that is a whole different topic.

[Lida93]

Right now destroying bitcoin instantly amount to destroying all the institutions that are linked around it, the level to which bitcoin has been integrated into the global economy now becomes very hard for central authority to push it down to a zero level because it's going to definitely affect many financial institutions and structures which invariably will affect key sectors of centralized economy. Iran only saw an alternative to boycott sanctions and possible seizures of funds by the US government of which if the US were in their shoe they would have done the same.

What I have noticed over these years is that we have being in expectations of the US government using bitcoin but each administration that comes in continues to disappoint in that expectation, and while other countries makes use of it in one way and another, we don't tend to see it in the positive but would rather find ways to push a negative narrative about it. Can someone please make this make sense to me that because a country government like Iran and not the US decides to receive payments in bitcoin it then makes a 16+ years of bitcoin existence too early for such adoption. Holy Christ! Damn.

[alani123]

Now with Iran using bitcoin, who's to say that all the infrastructure around BTC we've come to rely on isn't going to be rug pulled from us?

They cannot because there is too much to lose.

Why?
They're so eager to take anonymity online for using any service away from us.
They were so quick to implement age verification across the internet.
Soon digital ID. They EU already has an app that is ready to plug on websites.

Google wants to use QRs as captcha and only non-degoogled phones will work.
Google soon will require developers to do KYC to be able to simply ship installable apps on any phone without root.

The EU is considering banning VPNs.

Online infrastructure is already being rug pulled from us. Anonymity will soon be very unacceptable.
The digital dark age is truly upon us.

Why would they let bitcoin operate if it remains useful to a state actor like Iran while the west keeps pumping its price.

I can see it. Of things keep going down this path, BTC will soon be delisted from everywhere.

[akamit]

Now with Iran using bitcoin, who's to say that all the infrastructure around BTC we've come to rely on isn't going to be rug pulled from us?

They cannot because there is too much to lose. Bitcoin has been integrated into various parts of the economy, so at this point, they can't do things like what you say without having a ripple effect. This infrastructure you speak of is owned and controlled or used by the top people. They have a bit of influence and know how to lobby and work the system.
For example, the biggest mining pool, which is Foundry USA, is owned by a Digital Currency Group (DCG). They are a private company, so I don't know what the company is worth, but the CEO of that company is worth about $3 billion.
If you look at AntPool, you will see the same thing. It is owned by Bitmain Technologies, where the co-founder is also worth about $3 billion. Then there are other tech companies that are partnering with mining companies to get AI data centres. 

This is just an example to show that the US cannot control all the infrastructure around Bitcoin, and there's nothing to worry about if Iran is using Bitcoin to evade sanctions or whatever. It's not a secret that they are demanding payment for safe passage in the Strait of Hormuz. They are doing it openly, so the US government would most likely see those transactions.
Besides, as powerful as the US may be, they are still one country. They may be the biggest economy in the world, but they can't force every country to go against Bitcoin, and its infrastructure simply because they want to twat Irans plans of accepting payment in Bitcoin.
There is absolutely nothing to be concerned about in this regard.

In fact, what the US will use to fight this would not be Bitcoin. It's the fact that, under international law, Iran does not have the right to request payment before passing the Strait of Hormuz. But then again, neither Israel nor the US has respected international law in all of this, so that is a whole different topic.

The mining pool ownership argument is a little bit off target imo. No one is claiming that US is going to take over mining pools. The actual pressure is on and off ramps, where the fiat is. Governments have leverage over exchanges, payment processors, banks that serve crypto companies, etc. And we have already seen it. Tornado Cash devs were arrested, Binance was fined, and Operation Chokepoint 2.0 was indeed targeting banks that served crypto companies.

So, when Iran is openly doing this, the realistic answer from the US is not to go after Bitmain. It's targeting all CEXs that interact with those transactions, and all banks that clear fiat in and out. That's a legitimate worry, because as @alani123 said, most of the infrastructure that is useful for bitcoin is still centralised.

The ownership of the mining pools by the rich doesn't mean BTC is not subject to the regulatory pressure on the exchanges and banking rails. This is a very different concept from that. If Coinbase has to freeze accounts or banks refuse to serve exchanges that handle Iran related transactions, Foundry USA being worth billions isn't going to help.

[Ucy]

That's nothing really, since Bitcoin wasn't affected. If Satoshi had sole power over the network it would've been a different issue. Most likely they thought Bitcoin was centralized database controlled by one or few people they could capture, seize their keys for sole administration of Bitcoin, but they realized it was decentralized and very hard to centralized or shutdown, so they gave up trying


By the way, the World is nolonger run by globalists. They almost fully captured the entire world few years ago if they had gotten Russia and other resistance nations, but that miraculously failed.
If they had captured the world, what you fear about Bitcoin would probably have come to pass since there will be no place to hide to operate nodes and other Bitcoin related things.
And it is interesting to note that Bitcoin community, with divine help, largely contributed to the defeat of the globalists and their final removal from global power, yet the globalists are much stronger than the current US administor. Hope you understand what that means.

If the centralized things you mentioned get shut down, it will be good for Bitcoin because people will start self-custodying their coins and transacting peer-to-peer, like it was meant to be. And then many decentralized and instant exchanges will spring up to fill the void left by centralized platforms

In regards to Iran using Bitcoin, well, after thoroughly considering that matter, it was concluded that the usage is justified since the country was attacked based on mere allegation (intelligence report) with no convincing or trusted evidence to back it up. Beside, a trusted '"prediction" indicated that something else rather than Iran would do what they fear iran will do to Israel.
They claim the bitcoins will be used for rebuilding the damaged infrastructures. It would be fair to charge those who unjustly supported or were unjustly behind the damages

Finally, if the whole thing had being about Iran collecting bitcoins for terrorist attacks, probably against Israel, it would be OK to get the Bitcoin community to help target addresses involved, using means like address blacklisting.

[alani123]

@Ucy I don't quite buy the theory that Russia is a resistance actor.

Resistance to what?
They're still a war monger at the end of the day. Consider the fact that Russia's big capital still participates in global trade largely even with the cooperation of perfectly willing western ship owners. Russia transports gas and oil to Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan etc where over there some of their friends are perfectly glad to label the fuel as anything but russian just to profit from a measly markup that becomes huge profits over the sheet amount of volume they traffic.

Even if your country saw Russia as an enemy you'd probably do it too for a bit of profit. The EU is very well aware of these facts but still needs oil. So they just buy russian oil with an Azeri label to save face.

What I'm trying to say is that there continues to be a very dominant globalist/hyper-capitalist class in Russia as well. Russia was never going to withdraw from global trade. I'd argue that especially after sanctions, Russia is even more entangled with globalism than even before. Prior to sanctions, they were selling their fuel transparently with a direct pipeline to Germany. Now it happens with vast participation of the worldwide merchant marine fleet, with false labelling of fuels, under the table influence deals with Trump and all the Trump's of the world, as well as substituting energy needs to countries that were selling oil to the west so they can sell more.

It's been well documented that Russian leadership has been having influence over trump. Him easing or refusing to pursue sanctions is proof. So if a force is collaborating with the US to any extent, it's not really resisting much. Global exploitation lives to see another day. And BTC is just noise in front of all the bodies they're willing to throw in this fight. 

[Alpha Marine]

So, when Iran is openly doing this, the realistic answer from the US is not to go after Bitmain. It's targeting all CEXs that interact with those transactions, and all banks that clear fiat in and out. That's a legitimate worry, because as @alani123 said, most of the infrastructure that is useful for bitcoin is still centralised.

This is still nothing to worry about because the CEX will simply stop interacting with the transactions, except it's an exchange based in a friendly country to Iran and has no business in the US or its allies.
The same goes for the banks that have anything to do with the transaction. If pressure comes from the US, they may simply do what the US says, find a way around, or pay fines.
Don't you see that it has nothing to do with Bitcoin? Going against a couple of banks or CEX that do business with Iran is not going against Bitcoin.

They've gone after Binance and other companies before for different reasons. How did that affect Bitcoin? Didn't Binance simply pay a fine and carry on business as usual? 

Why?
They're so eager to take anonymity online for using any service away from us.
They were so quick to implement age verification across the internet.
Soon digital ID. They EU already has an app that is ready to plug on websites.

Google wants to use QRs as captcha and only non-degoogled phones will work.
Google soon will require developers to do KYC to be able to simply ship installable apps on any phone without root.

The EU is considering banning VPNs.

Online infrastructure is already being rug pulled from us. Anonymity will soon be very unacceptable.
The digital dark age is truly upon us.

These are different problems from what we were discussing. If we were talking about privacy, then it's a whole different thing. Slowly, privacy is being taken away from us. But if we're talking about Bitcoin, then no, we are not heading in a direction where the government would want to take down Bitcoin entirely. They can create a system where it would be very difficult to be private (like they are doing) and make sure all transactions go through CEX and KYCs, but they simply can't just take it down entirely.

I can see it. Of things keep going down this path, BTC will soon be delisted from everywhere.

Delist it from what? Exchanges? So the exchanges and other coins will still be allowed to use trade and hold other crypto, but not Bitcoin? Nah.
CEX is even their biggest ally in this. Through that, they can get more data about the users. If all transactions and coins were on CEX, the government would really like that because it's easier for them.

[Dunamisx]

I'm not sure if Iran still exist on the collection of toll fee from the Strait of Hormuz or not, ever since US intervention, anything is possible to happen when it comes to bitcoin and the expectation we have upon it, you should just take opportunity in every aspects we see could benefit us, just the same way other assets are being found of interest, let's not disturb ourselves over what is not possible because bitcoin has come and will remain for eternity, while the attack should continue, it cannot stop it from progressing.

[Myleschetty]

The US was openly targeting Iran weeks ago.
If Iran openly used BTC to advance their interests in the international arena, sure, it's proof that BTC is immutable... But maybe we shouldn't cheer...
Because so far infrastructure to support BTC is heavily reliant on institutions and centralised services.

Yes, Bitcoin is highly immutable, and President Trump can also testify to it because BTC is what he used when he and his family experienced debanked and antagonized by the traditional banking system when he began his presidential campaign.
This isn't about applauding Iran's use of Bitcoin; in fact, I am even concerned about the impression it will make on some governments toward BTC in the future.

[sergiorus]

Iran Launches Bitcoin Insurance for Strait of Hormuz Shipping
Source:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-18/iran-starts-bitcoin-backed-shipping-insurance-for-hormuz-strait

I genuinely laughed when saw it.
OP, you're definitely onto something.

[Lucius]

Iran has been mining BTC for years and uses it to ease sanctions, so I don't see why there is panic now that some companies could pay in BTC for passage through that strait? Honestly, there's not much logic to it, because there are other much more private/anonymous cryptocurrencies that are much harder to track and block than BTC.

A situation in which Iranian BTC addresses are identified and blacklisted in that case is very likely, and considering the share of the US in mining operations, this would mean that any poll in the US could block such transactions. Therefore, the question arises, why would a country that is at war with another country use a currency that is largely controlled by its adversary?

[UchihaSarada]

Iran has been mining BTC for years and uses it to ease sanctions, so I don't see why there is panic now that some companies could pay in BTC for passage through that strait? Honestly, there's not much logic to it, because there are other much more private/anonymous cryptocurrencies that are much harder to track and block than BTC.

There is a better option in cryptocurrency like Monero but if people don't want to receive Monero, and convert it to Bitcoin, they will have a favorite option as Bitcoin. With Bitcoin, price is less volatile than Monero, and Bitcoin has better probability, if not guarantee that it will recover strongly after a bear market, then make its new all time highs.

With Monero, who knows about its future and price, and likely people don't want to hold Monero for a too long time. There are more risks of losing by holding Monero while with Bitcoin there is not such concern.

[Smartprofit]

In my opinion, the Iranians are using Bitcoin absolutely correctly. They use it to conduct transactions, that is, as a decentralized global currency. 💁 While I can be very critical of the ayatollah regime (I don't like it), I can't blame Iran for hoarding Bitcoin given the military aggression from Israel and the US...

As far as I know, Iran charges fees to ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz in USDT and Chinese yuan, which it then converts into Bitcoin. In my opinion, this is a perfectly reasonable decision.

The fact that the US government doesn't like this is, in my view, the US government's problem, not Iran's.

You also write that "the infrastructure supporting BTC is heavily dependent on institutions and centralized services." How can that even be true? Isn't Bitcoin a decentralized asset?  Didn't Satoshi Nakamoto create it so it could be used without third-party involvement?

Do you like Bitcoin? Or do you like the high price of Bitcoin? Satoshi Nakamoto never promised anyone a high price for Bitcoin... If the price falls for a long time, you'll have the opportunity to buy coins at a lower price (for example, from Michael Saylor, who will be bankrupt by then). This will give you a large amount of coins! So, it's an opportunity, not a problem!

[alani123]

Iran has been mining BTC for years and uses it to ease sanctions, so I don't see why there is panic now that some companies could pay in BTC for passage through that strait? Honestly, there's not much logic to it, because there are other much more private/anonymous cryptocurrencies that are much harder to track and block than BTC.

A situation in which Iranian BTC addresses are identified and blacklisted in that case is very likely, and considering the share of the US in mining operations, this would mean that any poll in the US could block such transactions.

Has there been a source on Iran mining BTC?

The likelihood of Iran using any other cryptocurrency for payment over passage is extremely unlikely though. XMR and other coins are extremely illiquid. A state actor can't sustain utilizing them without hurting their markets.

Therefore, the question arises, why would a country that is at war with another country use a currency that is largely controlled by its adversary?

I'd go as far as reversing the question you pose.
Why would any administration in the US continue tolerating western enterprises providing infrastructure and liquidity for a payment tool their adversary is using openly? Especially if it's not a seizable asset.

[d5000]

They're so eager to take anonymity online for using any service away from us.
They were so quick to implement age verification across the internet.

I have some worries about this too, but I think you mix different things that don't really should be mixed together.

The age verification thing is something begged for by the masses. I've tried to convince a lot of people that such an age verification system is a horrible idea and could lead into a dystopia. No chance. More then half of all EU inhabitants for example want it. They're "afraid because of the kids". (The VPN ban idea in the EU seems to exist, but is probably not realistic. If EU does this, they would become worse than China).

For Bitcoin, there is roughly a similar problem. There are about 20-30% crypto positive folks (only a minority of them owns Bitcoin of course). At least 40% are outright against crypto. Many believe Bitcoin is a scam, a threat to the climate, or a tool for criminals and tax evaders. We know it's FUD. But it didn't help that Bitcoiners were praising Trump. Trump is immensely unpopular in the rest of the world. Even here in the local forums (e.g. Spanish and German), amongst Bitcoiners, a large majority are against him or at most see him like a funny, laughable figure.

It would be intelligent for Bitcoiners to try to break the association of Bitcoin with Trump and to propagate censorship resistance and privacy instead.

But I see no immediate threat for Bitcoin. There are too many businesses involved already, and even the elites would fear that a ban in several large countries could damage the economy seriously. Yes, China did ban the centralized Bitcoin infrastructure, but in democracies such a process is more complicated. You'd have a lot of people who would take that to the constitutional court for example. I hope the same should occur if a VPN ban or age restriction law is considered, for the folks living in EU.

And the P2P/atomic swap infrastructure is already quite good, it could replace CEXes even if it would of course still drop the price if a large number of countries ban Bitcoin services.