Smart watches are dumb - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@brianscates/lets-be-honest-smart-watches-are-dumb-ec3b2bdb0d73

<comment><USER3> One of the problems the author mentions - iMessage received and a notification coming to iPhone, iPad, Watch at the same time - actually doesn't happen. Apple was smart enough to ensure the notification only goes to the watch if the other devices are not active (and the watch is being worn). If you are on the phone, you get the notification there and not on the watch. It's beautiful and one of those little things that make a big difference.

Overall though, I completely disagree with the author's sentiment.

>Why am I browsing stocks on my watch? My phone is a better device.

I much prefer glancing at my watch to quickly check a stock I care about. I'd say this is one of the killer features for me.

Also the point about email "way better on the phone". Well yes, it is - but it is also time consuming. I get anywhere from 200-300 emails a work day - I find myself much more efficient with the email coming to my watch - most I can read a couple of lines and decide if I need to concern myself with it or not. That is a huge time saver. Quick glance at my wrist and then I continue with my day. I also enjoy being able to quickly triage incoming mail without having to deal with my phone.

<comment><USER4> Is this new or only if you own a Watch? Because if I'm on my MacBook and an iMessage comes though, I get it on all five devices (computer, iPhone, iPad, and the two other iPhones in our family that use the same account).

<comment><USER5> If you ever see anything whatsoever that can be improved about how things work on Apple platforms, it's always good to file an enhancement request through Apple's bug reporter site: [http://radar.apple.com](http://radar.apple.com) or [http://bugreport.apple.com](http://bugreport.apple.com) (both links end up at the same place).

And if that's a bit too techie for you with all the form fields that are designed for developers, there's a consumer-friendly site that similarly allows you to submit suggestions including enhancement requests at [https://www.apple.com/feedback/](https://www.apple.com/feedback/) .

<comment><USER4> Completely agree. I've been an iOS developer for about five years now, and they really do respond to radar reports. One of the better companies on that front.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Having used a Pebble before and now an Apple Watch I can understand why the author feels this way looking through the lens of a former Pebble user.

However the best things about the Apple Watch are not the notifications but the few killer communication features that no other smart watch had/executed this well before.

Just A few examples:

20 minutes ago my wife got a phone call from her mom and her phone was in the other room, instead of running to answer it she just answered it from the watch and continued doing what she was doing while she talked.

When I'm away from my desk at work or my wife is not near her phone, we can just send a gentle tap to let each other know we need their attention.

My wife will often ask me questions that only require a yes/no answer and the watch makes it super easy to answer.

I'm not sure the Apple Watch would be so useful for a single person but for couples, communication is the killer app.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely! The author states:

>Hence the heart beat transmitter, which is simply a cute gimmick that nobody will use more than once

I use this feature with my wife at least once a day. It's a great way to quickly remind someone you're thinking of them in a special way.

<comment><USER7> Sounds like a great honeymoon feature. I don't own a smartwatch but I imagine the notification noise, especially the vibration kind would become annoying after awhile, and even those special heartbeats will need the volume down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The author mentions the Withings Activite as a viable, albeit less "smart" alternative to the iWatch, and I just had to chime in -- the Activite is one of the best devices I've ever owned. It's beautiful, useful, and inconspicuous. And no, I don't work for Withings.

Those of you in the market for a smartwatch (or any watch really) should check it out: [http://withings.com/us/en/products/activite](http://withings.com/us/en/products/activite)

<comment><USER9> 8 months of battery life, and talks Bluetooth. Someone got low-power right.

<comment><USER10> That is exactly what struck me as well, I guess BLE 4 doesn't consume near that much energy as some people (me) think it does. So probably it's the display that consumes the most amount of energy. And since this device also has no notification feature it means most of the time there is no connection to your device.

This is good news to me though, means when I finally come around to making devices/projects I can use BLE and still have good battery life! Now just find a BLE 4 module that's cheaper than the ESP8266.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Maybe I don't use my iPhone as much as others, but most of my time is spent reading NYTimes/Instapaper, checking the weather, time, and email/iMessage.

And aside from reading articles, the watch has replaced most of my phone functions. Calls have been answered; text messages have been dictated via Siri; weather, time, and calendar are all on the modular face and extended views are a tap away. Not to mention the the heath perks, like heart rate monitoring and activity goals.

If I could use the watch with out my phone tethered I would probably leave my phone behind in a lot of instances. It's lighter, less distracting, and the stuff I care about is more accessible.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm firmly in the "I don't get it" camp. I'll be amazed if this catches on, but I won't try to yuck anyone's yum. If it works for you, go for it.

<comment><USER5> I'm always surprised at people who don't try something, but then draw conclusions based on their ignorance. I've found that often in life I don't get something until I try it.

Not dissing your attitude though... you aren't really drawing conclusions from what I can tell, you're just saying you don't get it at this time. That's pretty normal for most people, and there's nothing wrong with it. Nobody has a duty to get this stuff other than, say, mobile developers, or those working in fields it directly affects.

There have been a few people who have tried Apple watch, and have given it up. But even those people I think are drawing conclusions based on ignorance, because they are assuming that new apps coming out shortly won't make the device more worthwhile.

<comment><USER12> I'm definitely open minded enough to try it in the future if something about it becomes appealing. But I'm not clear on what exactly that new information would be... I mean, I've worn a watch for much of my life, and I was happy to stop once I had a phone that could tell time.

I spend most of my days online, so having another "notification" source sounds like a negative, not a positive.

I haven't heard anything the iWatch does that I would find useful...yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm going to ignore the bad assumptions based on the author never having used an Apple Watch, and address the heart of the matter: are smart watches "the next big thing"?

By the standards people use for Apple where the 2007 release of the iPhone, of course not. Very few products can completely rebuild the largest tech market in their image overnight. No other Apple product has done it—that's why so many pundits were disappointed with the iPad's performance as a new product even though it was orders of magnitude more successful than any previous tablet and made the category relevant in a way people had been trying for almost a decade prior. The Apple Watch just can't pack that much punch, because it's basically just an extension of your smart phone, not a new category. Frankly, I was the opposite of the author, I haven't warn a watch since I was a kid, and I didn't see the appeal of any of it.

However after receiving one as a gift, I have to say that I am subtly impressed with it. I don't think it's a life-changing device the way a smart phone is, but it can definitely has unique utility. The first thing the author gets wrong is the idea that it's all his phone apps and notifications shrunk down onto his wrist. Yes, a lot of apps rushed to release Watch functionality for launch day, but frankly, you don't want to look at most things on your watch. What you want is to show only the most essential notifications, and the apps which have something you might want to glance at. If you're receiving email notifications on your Apple Watch god help you, that is the path to a new level of distraction (I'd argue you don't want those on your phone either, do you really want to give the world more opportunity to distract you?). My advice on setting up the watch is to first _turn off everything_ and then add the pieces you want one by one.

In the end I've found quite a few small but practical conveniences which are going to keep me wearing the watch for a while: taking a phone call from my wrist when I'm sitting the car and don't want to fish into my pocket; telling siri something on the fly; responding to a text message with boilerplate responses; haptic feedback for turn-by-turn directions when cycling; having an "urgent" level of notification so that I can pay less attention to my phone without completely shutting off a given lower-priority notification; reminder to stand up and walk around once an hour; and last but not least, checking the time is actually more convenient when you don't have to pull a phone out regardless of how adept we have all gotten at that maneuver.

<comment><USER14> Great comments - but one bit of feedback on the iPad as dissapointing - [https://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/cumulative- shipm...](https://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/cumulative-shipments- months-since-launch-ipad-iphone-ipod_chartbuilder.png?w=704) shows that 57 months in (the age of the iPad so far), the iPad has sold more units than the iPhone at the same time. The issue is, growth has actually started dropping.

So - the iPad started out stronger, but then stalled, whereas the iPhone started out "slow", but then started accelerating.

I have to believe that the iPhone 6+ put the breaks on a lot of people's purchase of the iPad. I never used my iPad while I had the 6+, but then, when I left (sob) my 6+ in a cab, I found myself using my iPad again more frequently.

<comment><USER15> The issue, as I understand it, is that pads don't seem to have the same sort of constant upgrade treadmill as phones. Many people seem to think their ipad (or whatever) is fine for what it does, and just don't have any reason to get a new one, whereas people seem to feel ansy if their phone isn't the latest and greatest model...

I suppose this is an interesting example of the "planned obsolescence" issue, where what's probably a _good_ thing in a general sense—people keeping a product for a long time and getting good use out it rather than chucking it out and buying a new model after a few years—is not a good thing for the actual manufacturer..

<comment><USER16> Agreed. I'm a power user when it comes to any gadget I own, and yet I'm still happy with my original iPad mini. I use it all the time for reading, browsing and even the occasional bit of work.

Sure, sometimes I wish it had a bit more memory so that it would not have to reload apps as much, and sometimes I wish I had a retina screen, but none of that is reason for me to upgrade (yet).

<comment><USER15> Heh; I have exactly the same model (got it unexpectedly for free!) and exactly the same feelings about it. Does need more memory, but super solid otherwise; it's a keeper!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The OP's problem is not with the watch. "But 9 times out of 10, I still had to pull my phone out of my pocket to respond" He's responding to 9 out of 10 notifications? Craziness. I respond to much less than 1 out of 10 emails. Those other 9 times I've been interrupted for only a couple of hundred milliseconds which is short enough that my flow hasn't been disturbed. That's the killer feature of a smart watch IMO.

<comment><USER18> I read that as "But 9 times out of 10, [when I wanted to respond to notification,] I still had to pull my phone out". Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm also surprised anyone would respond to 90% of notifications - 90% of my notifications don't even have a way of responding to them (app update, nearby fire, calendar reminder, your order's been shipped, etc.)

<comment><USER19> I could use the "nearby fire" one (building across the street that is prone to arson): what app are you using for that?

<comment><USER18> Located in VIC/Australia, using the official CFA app (data from [http://warnings.cfa.vic.gov.au/#list](http://warnings.cfa.vic.gov.au/#list) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'll buy an Apple watch the instant somebody makes an App for it that reminds me I've left my iPhone behind when I get out of a cab, leave a restaurant, etc...

The ROI on that function alone will pay for it in about 7 months the way my luck has been recently...

<comment><USER20> Both the AppleWatch and the Pebble (with an extra app) do that already.

<comment><USER14> Seriously? How on earth is this not one of the major features that is used to market the Apple Watch. I've read about 30 reviews, and I don't recall a single one even hinting at that capability.

Am I the only one who leaves his phone behind?

<comment><USER21> That's one of those lessons you only learn once.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Honestly, I've been pretty happy with my Apple Watch.

It's a lot of small things.

I use my phone a lot less; something I didn't expect.

As an engineering managers, I attend a lot of meetings. It's super convenient to just glance at my watch to find out which conference room I need to head to next. Get a silent taptic alert lets me know we need to start wrapping things up.

When I get a text, I can glace & see if it's something urgent or not. Much less disruptive than taking out my phone.

Traveling this weekend, I found it helpful at the airport. Passbook integration is nice. I just tap & my Southwest UPC boarding code is right there. I can even scroll it up a bit to show I'm TSA Pre at security.

The countdown clock is nice when grilling.

Battery life so far hasn't been a problem for me. The biggest test for me was on the ~4 hour flight mentioned above. I failed to put the _watch_ in airplane mode, but it lasted from ~8:30am to midnight. I did have a low battery alert at end, but it didn't die.

The remote app is convenient for controlling Apple TV. (At home, I empty my pockets into a dish, so I usually sit down, then realize I have to go fishing for the Apple TV remote or my phone.)

Things like camera & the iTunes controller I haven't used, but I could see the point. I sometimes have my phone outside by a bluetooth speaker to power music for BBQs, etc. Being able to control it remotely is nice. Obviously, not an everyday thing, but nice when you need them.

Of course it's not perfect. I've had it spontaneously reboot once or twice. Not all my wrist movements trigger the screen display. It can lag in responsiveness every now & then. A lot of third party apps were clearly created in a emulator & people are still figuring out the space.

The biggest question to me boils down to the price point. If it was a $100, no-brainer. This is a homerun, everyone will get one. But for $400? Harder question. Honestly, I'd be inclined to say that's what is going to limit its appeal, but then I remember thinking that exact thing about my original iPhone & original iPad.

<comment><USER7> Sounds like you're still in the honeymoon phase, if I may be so cynical.

Your first example mentions "when I get a text, I can glance and see if it's something urgent or not".

In reality, truly "urgent" messages are rare. Most people incorrectly call "important" messages, "urgent". If you're using your phone or other devices anyway at regular intervals in the day, "important" messages will be covered along with the rest. This is more efficient that dealing with messages in a granular per-message workflow. Sure, some people really do get urgent texts, like "website down" etc, but those people are IT support staff.

What I mean is, the examples you mention can and often are covered by other devices that you're already using. Apple TV, again... when it comes to browsing or searching for things to watch, your phone or tablet will need to come out. I find it difficult to imagine you would not bother getting your phone for the rest of the evening because "it's in the dish with your keys and you have your apple watch"... I don't buy that! I think you retrieve your phone from the dish at some point.

Countdown clock is not a smartwatch feature, you can get that on a regular watch. Not sure why you'd mention that as a plus for a $400 Apple Watch. For kitchen countdown clocks, nothing beats those cheap k-mart fridge magnet timers. Batteries last for ages, and they're always ready to go, dedicated to the task, you don't need to "open the countdown app".

Controlling bluetooth speaker: Most of the time you want your playlist visible, or browsing list of songs. For that you'll need a phone. For skipping and volume, yes the watch would be handy, but... again, you're supposedly using a smartphone as the source music device, so the apple watch just gets in the way. And if someone else at the BBQ connects their phone to the speaker, suddenly your watch is no longer paired with the speaker.

<comment><USER22> > In reality, truly "urgent" messages are rare. Most people incorrectly call > "important" messages, "urgent".

Perhaps triage is better. My wife texts me to know our son's doctor is fine. Not urgent, nice to know.

> What I mean is, the examples you mention can and often are covered by other > devices that you're already using.

That's true. But that was also true when I got the iPhone & iPad.

> Countdown clock is not a smartwatch feature, you can get that on a regular > watch. Not sure why you'd mention that as a plus for a $400 Apple Watch.

Just a way I used it that's different from what I did with my watch before. (My prior watch was a self winding Hamilton.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I actually like the analog parts of analog watches... the complications, as they are called. Its amazing engineering and design... Its one area where I just dont see the improvements as, well...improvements. Watches are actually beautiful objects.

I'm not a luddite...I just think this is a solution looking for a problem.

<comment><USER24> I have to agree. Part of me wonders if this is a generational/cultural/personality thing. Perhaps some of us are in that age group (or culture/subculture or personality...) where smart watches seem _alien_ (or frivolous). I've always loved watches, particularly analog watches for similar reasons to you, but I also suspect I'm _definitely not_ in the target market for smart watches. You might not be either.

I also have a special fondness for ultra-thin watches which are sometimes hard to find even as analog watches, so there's that.

While I won't be parting with my archaic time pieces any time soon, it'll be interesting to see where the technology goes.

<comment><USER16> > I'm not a luddite...I just think this is a solution looking for a problem.

> I have to agree. Part of me wonders if this is a > generational/cultural/personality thing.

I think it's a universally human thing. Most of my friends thought the iPhone was 'cool', but they didn't really see a good reason to get one to replace their 'dumbphone'. Most of my friends also didn't see the point of an iPad, because surely everything you can do on it you can do (better) on your phone or computer.

Now most of my friend's can't imagine life without a smartphone, and a number of the most vocal anti-tablet friends even have iPads.

This is in no way proof that the apple watch will turn out to be such a thing, but I just want to point out that 'a solution looking for a problem' was said about Apple's now-successful devices, and it's been said before about everything ranging from the telephone to microwave ovens.

I suspect the watch will be more like the iPad than like the iPhone though. Much more useful and popular than many of us think, but not (yet) a device that will be useful to everyone. And I think Apple is fine with that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> An LG smartwatch was given to me as a thank you for a thing I did. I was a smartwatch hater. Under no circumstances would I have bought one for myself. I have begrudgingly come to appreciate some features of the concept.

I use Bluetooth headphones almost all day. Being able to see who was calling me without taking my phone out of my pocket is embarrassingly helpful. I appreciate that this is incredibly douchey. BUT it is reality. being able to stay sitting while making a decision to answer a call is actually useful.

Also, voice recognition has evolved to the point where I can respond to other people's texts without having to remove my phone.

So while I agree that they are not generally useful today, I do think there are opportunities that can come within the constraints of smart watches. Much like pechakucha can force better presentations.

<comment><USER26> Disclaimer: this is just an observation and not criticizing your use case.

Of the 6 people sitting around me owning Androids and iPhones, all keep their phone on the desk (either tethered to the charging cable or just lying there) instead of keeping in their pockets. I would think that with the growing preference for larger screensizes, keeping a 5.5 inch phone in the pocket is not very convenient for sitting or having to take it out (not to mention accidentally accepting/rejecting calls while taking the phone out)..

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> You can actually tell that the author hasn't used an Apple Watch before, and is evaluating the watch based on hearsay and a list of functionality, rather than how it feels to use one.

</comment><comment><USER28> I have a different perspective. I recently bought a Garmin Fenix 3 GPS/semi- smart watch. Before I had this I didn't get the entire category at all. Now I still don't get the Apple watch but I DO understand more of what's coming.

Coupled with a heart rate monitor I can see a zillion interesting metrics about my exercises (including cadence and ground contact time). When I'm hiking I have a GPS map that I follow to show me how to get back to where I was. All the standard GPS features, plus I now get notifications when someone texts or calls and it's so much less inconspicuous to check the messages on my watch.

While I'm running I can just leave my phone in my pocket and control my music on my watch. Also the watch is always showing the time (it works well in light so the backlight is usually necessary).

I don't need my bike speed computer anymore now that I have this watch as well. One less thing to futz with.

A key thing that makes this watch work so well where my last GPS watch failed is the battery life. It can go around a full week without charging so it can easily last through a day of use. Several if I can't get to a charger.

I don't have the other features of the iWatch but they don't really appeal to me. All I can say is that this watch is one of the better electronics purchases I've made. There's definitely SOMETHING to this category of devices. I don't think Apple's got it quite yet though.

<comment><USER29> I agree. I bought a Vivoactive to replace my Fenix 2. I love the battery life and the fact that it's small and tough enough to wear all day, every day. The smart features were secondary but they've become more useful over time. I take for granted that the transreflective display is always on.

If Apple puts GPS and full waterproofing into Watch v2, Garmin is pretty much done with the category because they don't have a comparable developer community. I considered it, but the SDK is really limiting right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The watch excels at glances. Anything that can just be glanced at performs better on the Apple Watch. An example is turn by turn directions. It's much easier to get them via the Apple Watch than look down at the iPhone.

> The Apple watch has to be activated to show you the time, while the Pebble > always shows the time.

If the display was always on, it would be distracting, especially in dark environments (movie theater, concert, night time in general).

> The Apple Pay integration is interesting, but that hasn't really panned out > as something people really want.

Apple Pay on the Apple Watch is the easiest and fastest method of payment I've used. Simply double-tap a button and hold your wrist next to the reader. It's even faster than Apple Pay on the iPhone (and I can't drop my Watch), which makes paying with a credit card feel as slow as writing a check.

If every retailer offered Apple Pay, I would use it every time. It's especially convenient if I happen to forget my wallet.

That said, I hope the Apple Watch will eventually track sleep. I haven't found a good replacement for sleep tracking since Wake Mate shut down.

<comment><USER31> _Anything that can just be glanced at performs better on the Apple Watch._

I'm assuming you're comparing to a phone here. My analog watch is way better at glances than an Apple Watch -- I can just look at it to tell what time it is.

<comment><USER3> Telling time is <5% of my usage for my watch. My next appointment, current activity level, and favorite stock price are much much more important to me at a glance and no analog watch will tell me that.

<comment><USER31> Not I. Discreetly keeping an eye on the time without fumbling with a device is my most common watch need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is how you fix smart watches: cup your hand and place it over your ear. Can you hear your friend's voice in your cupped hand as concentrated sound hits it from the smart watch's strap? Can you reply to a mic in the wrist strap? Did a call pick up when you made that gesture? No? Then you haven't made it simpler than pulling out a phone.

</comment><comment><USER33> Does anyone else have the feeling smart watches are a consumer created category? Meaning the public expected smart watches to be the next big thing after the smart phone so they became a self fulfilling prophecy. I mean, they really don't have much utility outside of fitness

</comment><comment><USER20> I use a Pebble and also have an LG G Watch (Android Wear).

Not all smartches are "dumb", only the good ones. Normal watches are also "dumb": all they do is tell the time and show off as dad's jewelry. Most smartwatches try to do too much "smart" stuff stuff but end up doing badly the dumb watch part.

I am referring to the Android Wear, Samsung-Tizen and Apple Watch. They are horrible because they don't even do right the "dumbness" of normal watches: they're easily not visible in bright light, are bad at telling the time (screen is off most of time, doesn't always turn on easily), are not waterproof, battery lasts just one day...

The Pebble is ugly as a cheap toy, but does the watch job decently and a little more. This little more is not essential but it is very convenient.

<comment><USER34> I was under the same impression until somewhat recently. If I'm going to buy a watch, I want it to be a watch first, and "smart" second, and I was convinced that only the Pebble did that. I tried the original Pebble for a while - <USER2> lately I've been pleasantly surprised trying Sony's Smartwatch 3.

\- Its screen is always on, and always readable to me - I'm not sure about this, but I think it has a variant of the Pebble's e-paper screen. I know Sony makes Pebble's screen.

\- It has the highest IP water-resistance rating out of the Android wear watches (IP68, which is supposedly suitable for swimming), although not quite as waterproof as the Pebble.

\- The battery can also easily last through a full day and night, in my experience, with about ~30% remaining for the next day. That's even less of an issue given that the battery can be charged up fully fairly quickly (can't quantify that any further at the moment, but it's always been pretty quick for me).

Now, if you swim, like you mentioned you do, then the waterproofing thing might be a dealbreaker. But other than that, this Android Wear watch is almost on par with the Pebble as a "watch", and you get a bunch of added benefits (like GPS, which is great for running, better Android integration, touchscreen, polished voice interaction, etc.). IMHO, if you're just looking for a watch that's got some extra features, then the _original_ Pebble is great just because it's so cheap. But, if one's willing to spend more like $200 (Pebble Time), it's not much of a competition, unless you _really_ value the extra battery and waterproofing.

Edit: clarity.

<comment><USER35> Sony Smartwatch 3 uses a transflective LCD display which is fairly old tech. But one that for a long time had little to no color option. It was rather expensive to make TFT type displays transflective, and other things won out. Like OLED and just brighter LCD's. Sony is the first to bring it back in any significant way for new tech.

I do hope more device manufacturers take a look at this tech again, as it has some very useful applications. If Sony's Smartwatch 3 is any indication, the pricing is finally becoming more affordable to do this type of thing with full color.

I just really don't like the look of the Sony Watch so I'm waiting for something else.</comment></comment></comment>


94k Bitcoin (1B USD) transferred from unknown wallet to unknown wallet - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/whale_alert/status/1169815776733220866 <comment><USER2> I'd take issue on two points. First, "wallets' don't exist in the Bitcoin protocol. Second, the tool being used is not sophisticated enough to list the inputs and outputs, giving the false impression that something unusual is "unknown." Try this link to get details:

[https://blockstream.info/tx/4410c8d14ff9f87ceeed1d65cb58e7c7...](https://blockstream.info/tx/4410c8d14ff9f87ceeed1d65cb58e7c7b2422b2d7529afc675208ce2ce09ed7d)

There are numerous inputs and a single pay-to-script-hash (P2SH) output.

The relatively high fee is due in part to the large number of inputs. ~400 satoshis/byte is high by today's standard but not too unreasonable as early as 2017.

We can't tell anything about the identity of the owner(s) of the new coin from the block chain alone.

Making a transaction this large is a security risk. It effectively establishes a billion dollar bounty for any party who can rewrite enough blocks to erase it. Now that the value resides in a single coin, any subsequent transaction faces the same risk. Plunking this much value into a single coin seems like an odd strategy at best. Not to mention the destruction of privacy in combining all those inputs into a single transaction with a single output.

I can think of one reason you might want to do this. A consortium/trust has formed in which individuals pay into a common pool of money. That money is then protected with a multi signature script (consistent with the P2SH type). Given a threshold of signatures, the money can be spent, subject to other constraints. These will remain unknown until the first payment is made. At that point we'll know the number and identity of all the eligible keys and the threshold needed to make payment.

If so, this transaction can be thought of as a kind of digital charter for the consortium in that it defines how the money can be spent going forward.

Edit: to be clear, the "bounty" I'm talking about can't be directly claimed just by mining some blocks. Instead, it would have to be claimed as part of a double spend of either the transaction in question or as subsequent transaction of the now-enormous output. Most likely, there would be collusion of some kind between a miner and the owner of the keys. I'm not saying this will happen, but the bigger the transaction, the greater the risk.

<comment><USER3> > It effectively establishes a billion dollar bounty for any party who can > rewrite enough blocks to erase it.

I don't really agree with that statement. Yes, someone could mount a 51% attack to rewrite that block. However, it would be pretty straightforward to see what was happening (and which nodes were the malicious actors). If that did happen, the possible outcomes would be:

1\. The value of bitcoin would fall to basically 0. The reason bitcoin has any value at all really has to do with trust - belief that the protocol is secure and can't be broken. In this case, an easily detectable spending "override" would cause faith in the protocol to evaporate.

2\. Note I don't believe #1 would happen. The response would be all the other miners who _do_ have a vested interest in bitcoins success would put all their resources in ensuring the original block was maintained.

I.e. the options aren't between one address getting the billion+ dollars or another address getting a billion+ dollars. The options are one address getting a billion+ dollars or everyone's bitcoin going to 0.

Edit: Another likely possible outcome is you could get what happened to Ethereum when the DAO was hacked: a fork to Ethereum vs. Ethereum Classic. But it's still important to note Ethereum Classic is worth a teeny fraction of what Ethereum is.

<comment><USER4> > 1\. The value of bitcoin would fall to basically 0. The reason bitcoin has > any value at all really has to do with trust - belief that the protocol is > secure and can't be broken. In this case, an easily detectable spending > "override" would cause faith in the protocol to evaporate.

That seems a little out there.

(1) There is something like 1 person who uses bitcoin to move billions of dollars around. The small-time users (<$1,000,000 per transaction) wouldn't have any reason to lose trust in the system. If some company loses $1 bil in dollars, I really don't care; I don't live in a world where it affects me personally. Nobody is ever going to put serious resources into stealing from me because I'm just not that important.

(2) If they re-write the block, that doesn't mean that they've gotten away with it. Most countries have a legal system that would sit up and take notice if someone signs up for a billion dollar transaction, takes the goods and welches on paying.

<comment><USER5> "Most countries have a legal system that would sit up and take notice if someone signs up for a billion dollar transaction, takes the goods and welches on paying"

Yes, but why bitcoin then?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can count maybe 5 people in the crypto space that would have that much BTC, but none of them would be dumb enough to put it all in one wallet. Most likely some large institutional investor decided to re-key their cold storage wallet.

<comment><USER7> This is the part which confuses me about Bitcoin the most. It's meant to be anonymous, yet with some diligent data mining, it can become pretty clear who's who from their spending patterns by observing the ledger. How is that remotely anonymous?

<comment><USER8> I don't think it was really "meant to be anonymous". The original whitepaper at [https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) has a section on privacy, which mentions that public keys can be kept anonymous but acknowledges that all transactions are announced publicly:

> The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access > to information to the parties involved and the trusted third party. The > necessity to announce all transactions publicly precludes this method, but > privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in > another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that > someone is sending an amount to someone else, but without information > linking the transaction to anyone. This is similar to the level of > information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of > individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the > parties were.

> As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each > transaction to keep them from being linked to a common owner. Some linking > is still unavoidable with multi-input transactions, which necessarily reveal > that their inputs were owned by the same owner. The risk is that if the > owner of a key is revealed, linking could reveal other transactions that > belonged to the same owner.

Recently there are newer cryptocurrencies like Monero and ZCash that focus specifically on anonymity/privacy.

<comment><USER9> There's a lot of different veils to privacy in transactions.

There's the IP record of the user hitting the server that processes their request (it might be your own box if you're storing the whole chain yourself but most people use thin clients). Then there's the list of inputs (cryptonote based currencies like monero use ring signatures which provide obfuscation but not binary privacy). Then there's the list of outputs, which may be able to be linked to inputs revealing the transaction graph (zcash helps solve this with their circuit proving technology, but it's limited in temporal scope by the fact that there's a transition between transparent and hidden addresses). Then there's the amounts of a given transaction (modern cryptocurrencies use range proofs to conceal the amounts but older currencies don't).

To recap, there's access information like IP, transaction information that can be used to reassemble the transaction graph, and balance information which, again, can be used to reassemble the transaction graph. The broad point is that if you can assemble the transaction graph, any additional information, like a list of known addresses, will severely deprecate the privacy of the entire system.

There are potentially ways around this, but they all involve breaking transaction linkability, which is fraught with peril for a variety of reasons (such that no currency has actually achieved this in a meaningful way so far).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From the top twitter comment: > 0.06BTC in fees? Why so expensive?

Just gotta say, its pretty amazing we live in a world where 1 billion dollars can get transferred pseudo-anonymously in a reasonable time frame, only costing the transfer party $600. As a really stupid, non-real-world comparison, Western Union has a transfer limit of $2500 per transaction, and a $20 fee per transaction. If you were to initiate a $1,000,000,000 transfer it would take something like 400,000 transactions costing you something like $8 million dollars in fees.

<comment><USER11> Help me understand, was 1 billion dollars actually transferred?

Wouldn't a normal bank wire of the same amount cost less than that, say $25?

<comment><USER12> I am not sure how bank handle such large transactions (100 milion+), but transferring millions is very cheap or for free - at least with standard IBAN within EU.

<comment><USER13> A large corp-to-corp (or even person-to-corp) transfer does have a lot of money involved (accounts to figure out taxes, lawyers if it's for buying or selling major assets, possibly international tax experts, maybe even an escrow service if it's between say a EU company and a Chinese company where they might not trust the other nations court systems).

And then the bank might charge a fee too, although I suspect with accounts that large, banks would do what they could to minimize fees since that much capital helps them with loads/interest.

<comment><USER14> And these other costs would not apply in bitcoin world?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This was probably an internal transfer, but if it was payment to someone, something interesting then occurs.

It then becomes valuable for the original owner to secretly mine a chain, attempting a 51% attack. They could run the attack secretly for up to 40 days and still make a profit.

So you'd really need to wait 40 days before you can be sure this transfer is safe.

But it gets scarier, if at the end of the 40 days a longer chain is submitted, all transaction since this one would be reverted too.

So when giant transfers happen, all transactions are vulnerable to long term 51% attacks. So all transactions sent now on Bitcoin aren't secure until this 40 day window has passed.

Of course, I don't think that's the case here, it was probably someone moving his own coins around, not a payment to anyone.

<comment><USER16> Every second, the amount of hashes computed on the Bitcoin network is equal to every grain of sand on earth, multiplied by 7.

There isn't enough computing power available to 51% attack a chain that comes close to justify the $1 billion dollar "bounty" on this transaction.

<comment><USER17> _Only_ if the attack is from the outside, which is not a requirement. It's not mutually exclusive.

The miners who control the bitcoin network are already centralized on a handful of organizations in China. If they colluded on this attack they would take over >51% of the network because, hey, they already own and operate most of that computing power you're eluding to.

Edit: There is also no evidence that the price would plummet from this, and given the history of theft, scams, forks, etc. involving bitcoin that do not drastically affect the price, I don't think it would either.

<comment><USER18> Wouldn't Bitcoin lose a lot of value if such an attack happened?

<comment><USER19> No, because future attacks wouldn't get any easier. One successful attack is just one successful attack. If your transaction is not worth a billion dollars, you're safe.

<comment><USER18> I'm pretty sure a lot of people would lose trust in the whole ecosystem from such a thing happening and/or not want to use it anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Imagine how much money you could make by creating a bogeyman bitcoin wallet!

Step 1, Consolidate 94,000 BTC into one single address the entire crypto world is now watching.

Step 2, Send 1,000 BTC from bogeyman bitcoin wallet to exchange crypto wallet.

Step 3, Freak the shit out of the market. Promptly sell the entire lot in one single market sell order.

Meanwhile you've got another 50,000 BTC or whatever sitting on contracts leveraged with 100x margin in a short position across multiple accounts... essentially netting you 100,000 BTC profit if you can manage to tank the price just 2% on the 3 funds that Bitmex follows to create their index price... and you totally would selling 1,000 BTC at once from a well known superwallet.

Rinse and repeat... Eventually, I imagine you wouldn't even need to sell the coins on the exchange... just moving them there would be enough... (which would probably be illegal at least in the USA, see below)

And when the market gets wise... and everybody else starts shorting the price when you move your coins... you BUY 1,000 BTC in a single market order... stop hunting everyone's "sure things" (with mostly tight stops) and probably making you 500% return on a 5% move the opposite way... placed on longs of course.

(I am working on an algo bot, I think about this kind of stuff all day long!)

I had better start saving!

Side question... would this be legal? Moving the coins to exchange, signalling that you were going to sell based on precedent, and then not selling would be illegal by the nature of equities laws on fake bid or ask walls to move the price... like some trader at goldman was just arrested over for doing the same in the gold markets.

But just selling a lot of coin while you have another lot of coin in short positions would be perfectly legal, right?

<comment><USER21> Bitcoin isn't (can't be?) regulated.

<comment><USER21> I can't edit anymore but I was wrong. According to Wikipedia [1] Bitcoin is regulated both as a security and a currency, taxed as if it were property.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country_or_territory#North_America)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I worked in the trading dept of a large hedge fund and this could easily be them, or someone like them. They regularly traded several billion in bonds, currencies and short rates each day and just aren't used to those trades posting publicly (outside the exchange). I can see them seeing this Twitter thread, scratching their head and wondering, "what's the big deal?"

<comment><USER23> In the fixed income, currency and money markets a billion dollars is not a lot of money -- and yet a billion dollars IS ALWAYS a lot of money.

I used to work on the repo desk of a primary dealer. One role of the repo desk is that it finances the banks position. We might hold $50 billion of bonds, but $40 billion of that is borrowed with the bonds as collateral.

One day because someone had keyed in a start of day position wrong -- off by a billion dollars -- 20 minutes before the FedWire closed for the day, I got to watch 2 traders get on the phones and borrow a billion dollars in 20 minutes, without letting our counterparties know that we were kind of desperate.

Had they failed, the bank would have had to go the the Fed, discount window and borrow $1 billion overnight at the discount rate (which would have been substantially more than we were paying in the repo market.) Additionally, it likely would have triggered process audits and incident reports which would have been far worse than the interest.

<comment><USER24> > Had they failed, the bank would have had to go the the Fed, discount window > and borrow $1 billion overnight at the discount rate (which would have been > substantially more than we were paying in the repo market.) Additionally, it > likely would have triggered process audits and incident reports which would > have been far worse than the interest.

> because someone had keyed in a start of day position wrong

I know basically nothing about this area, but I'm curious why what appears to be a mistake in data entry needs to be fixed by actually borrowing additional money, as opposed to issuing a correction. If you _have_ the amount of money you're supposed to have, why is it so dire that you _published_ a typo?

<comment><USER23> We had $X billion dollars in bonds we needed to finance, that day. The traders thought they had to finance $X-1 billion dollars.

We had good collateral to borrow the the money, but it was the money we needed.

The legal-books-and-records system gave us the right starting number. The transferring it to the trading-book-dashboard was a manual process. So they traded all day based on the wrong number. No one noticed until operations called the desk with about a half hour left in the trading day to say "Do you guys realize you're short a billion?" Ten minutes to figure out what went wrong. The clerk who keyed in the wrong number didn't get dinged that badly, cause 8-9 people saw both numbers and no one else noticed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Looks like @HuobiGlobal UTXO consolidation (not an individual user). [https://twitter.com/thetokenanalyst/status/11699297386071244...](https://twitter.com/thetokenanalyst/status/1169929738607124482)

</comment><comment><USER26> This shows where the funds came from [https://twitter.com/thetokenanalyst/status/11699297386071244...](https://twitter.com/thetokenanalyst/status/1169929738607124482)

<comment><USER27> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Many analysts suspect it's associated with Bakkt, the new yet to launch cryptocurrency exchange created by the NYSE parent.

<comment> ur-whale Source?

<comment><USER29> [https://twitter.com/bakkt/status/1171040208105758720?s=12](https://twitter.com/bakkt/status/1171040208105758720?s=12)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Huobi moving funds... [https://twitter.com/thetokenanalyst/status/11699297386071244...](https://twitter.com/thetokenanalyst/status/1169929738607124482?s=20)

<comment><USER31> Huobi says it's _not_ them: [https://cryptonews.com/news/huobi-confirms-that- usd-1b-trans...](https://cryptonews.com/news/huobi-confirms-that- usd-1b-transaction-did-not-include-their-4607.htm)

<comment><USER32> No - they say it wasn't any of "their own" funds... could still well be funds from their exchange

</comment></comment></comment><comment> compiler-guy As far as the fees being so cheap, and every one else guessing about how expensive it would be to do it in a normal banking situation, F. Scott Fitzgerald is relevant:

"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different." (The Rich Boy, 1926)

All of the information normal people--like you and me--use to price transactions like this is completely irrelevant. Rich people have access to many services and price structures that are completely different than normal people. Any guess about what it costs to make a transaction like this via normal channels is likely completely wrong (other than "free", assuming they are doing business with the bank in question).

<comment><USER33> Important qualifier on that that's missed for most "the very rich". The "rich" are often quite penny pinchers. My grandfather is "rich" (several millions, and in a very cheap place to live in the midwest) but he lived his entire life being extremely strict on spending and controlled personal finances very carefully. He still complains when there's large money to be spent on something that should be cheap.

<comment><USER34> I found out that my grandfather was a multimillionaire later in life as well, but I would never have guessed because he lives in an inconspicuous house in a middle class neighborhood and drives an inconspicuous car (Honda CR-V). He complains about milk and gas prices like most people and basically just doesn't telegraph his wealth at all (except by buying exclusively Wheaties as his breakfast cereal).

He grew up during the great depression though, so maybe that has something to do with his miserly ways.

<comment><USER35> Maybe this is just me, but I don't actually consider having a couple million dollars as "rich", I know a couple folks worth hundreds of millions, and the way they behave are certainly different.

<comment><USER36> A couple million dollars is a retirement nest egg. You can stop working, stretch it carefully until you die, and leave a small sum to your heirs.

To be very rich requires upwards of $100 million. Then you can access high paying investments which will generate enough income to afford a couple houses, hire help, buy a boat and a plane, and have enough left over after taxes to increase your assets to offset inflation. Actually, if you want a jet plane (with hired pilots, mechanics, hangers, etc) and a couple nice houses (>$10 million each plus staff) in the nicest places (Beverly Hills, Palm Beach, Jackson Hole), you need upwards of $1000 million.

<comment><USER37> A couple million dollars is more than a nest egg. You can retire immediately and provide for your family and yourself your whole life with that kind of money.

<comment><USER38> Entirely dependent on location, lifestyle, family status, etc. Yes, with $2m you can retire tomorrow and get something like $100K/year in pretty much guaranteed income not pegged to inflation. (You can argue the numbers but certainly <$200K/year with moderate risk.) And you can certainly live on that amount of money but equally certainly not with an opulent lifestyle-- especially if you don't own your house/condo, have college expenses, like to travel/eat out etc.

ADDED: Yes, you're "rich" but not jet-setting in business class at resort hotels, multi-million dollar coastal city condo, eat at top restaurants on a regular basis etc. rich. Which is actually just fine for a lot of people who have no particular interest in those things.

<comment><USER39> Wait, how would you guarantee 5%? I don't see "put it in an index fund" as "pretty much guaranteed".

<comment><USER40> The market return for the past century has been something like 7% (after inflation). If you're investing in time spans longer than 10 years then typically you expect something in that range.

Past performance does not promise future results, and the world could end tomorrow, but it's not a bad idea to plan that you'll get an average of 5%+ on market investment.

(I'll note that you're responding to someone saying "pretty much guaranteed" and dropped that qualifier in your question).

<comment><USER39> I know about that, I meant besides that. An average return doesn't mean a consistent return from year to year - e.g. $100,000 / year from 2 million. I was just curious how other people would invest to target a high probability of 5% _each_ year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Interesting theory via Twitter:

> If you look at BCH and BSV you will see the coins also moved - this looks > like someone moved to do a split of forks. The good news (if that is the > case) is that this likely will mean sale of BCH and BSV, not BTC!

[https://twitter.com/shanepicker/status/1170517377441849351](https://twitter.com/shanepicker/status/1170517377441849351)

If that's the case, it implies that someone is looking to liquidate the value of their BCH/BSV they got for free in the forks, and need to move the BTC too since otherwise the transaction would be valid in all 3 chains.

<comment><USER42> > and need to move the BTC too since otherwise the transaction would be valid > in all 3 chains.

Care to elaborate? I don't understand how the three chains can have any affliction after they forked.

<comment><USER43> The forks are only changes in the rules, the keys and the addresses are the same. So if you've got money that hasn't moved since the fork, then any transaction to that money is valid in all forks. Only if different forks accept different transactions to the same account does this stop working.

I haven't looked into how people avoid this, I suppose you could bully people by listening on the fastest chain for transactions and then rebroadcasting those to slower chains, in theory you have some chance of messing up their shit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Imagine making a typo in the receiving address

<comment><USER45> Test tx of 0.1 before sending.

[https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/9895f1e94d0df7fd04e1289f34...](https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/9895f1e94d0df7fd04e1289f34d82148b8055b5a802ff5964d4d2a7c39cfd7ee)

I usually test with 0.00001

<comment><USER46> That transaction cost 0.00530724 BTC or 55$. Why is it different than the final one?

<comment><USER47> The final transaction is a total of 13611 bytes in size while the test one is 1220 bytes. There is a fee per byte in the Bitcoin UTXO model. An unspent transaction output (UTXO) contains information about who can spend the bitcoin so there is a fee attached to every byte of information in a UTXO because miners spend computing power processing every byte. The final transaction contained 15 UXTOs which made it a lot larger in size than the test one which only contained 4 UTXOs. The final transaction had a fee of 480 satoshis per byte and the test one had a fee of 435 satoshis per byte.

13611 * 480 = 6533280 sats which is 0.06533280 BTC which is ~$675 USD

1220 * 435 = 530700 sats which is 0.00530700 BTC which is ~$55 USD

if you're wondering why the fee per byte is not the same for both transactions, it's probably because the recommended fee fluctuates depending on network congestion throughout the day. If you're wondering why the transaction fee per byte is higher than average, well it's probably because the sender is a billionaire who doesn't really care and just wants their transaction processed quickly.

<comment><USER48> You don't have to be a billionaire to want your btc transaction processed quickly.

<comment><USER47> Well yes obviously it doesn't matter but that fee is way higher than average for a fast transaction meaning they're ok with spending a lot more than the average sender.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Unknown just means whale alert doesn't display it?

Transaction with addresses: [https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4410c8d14ff9f87ceeed1d65cb...](https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4410c8d14ff9f87ceeed1d65cb58e7c7b2422b2d7529afc675208ce2ce09ed7d)

<comment><USER50> Unknown meaning the owner of the address is unknown

<comment><USER49> Ah thanks :)

<comment><USER51> Yeah this also took me a while. I thought someone found a vulnerability in Bitcoin that, instead of burning coins, actually is a valid transfer but somehow without revealing wallet addresses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Is it a billion dollars, though? I mean, if you started selling them, the market price would likely go down. In other words, are there enough people looking to buy 94504 BTC at current market value?

<comment><USER53> Sure, but the flip side is that if you had a billion dollars you couldn't acquire this many BTC because the price would move against you the other direction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Probably something like an exchange consolidating their funds into a single (multisig) wallet.

Interestingly, transfer feeds were around 700 USD.

</comment><comment><USER55> Is this a block of Satoshi mined coins?

Anyone know a way to see the origin date of a particular coin easily?

<comment><USER56> If these were Satoshi coins that would be a huge story since Satoshi's private keys are presumed lost.

<comment><USER57> The identity of Satoshi isn't known. Why should anyone have presumptions about them?

I agree it would be a huge story, but "Satoshi's private keys were presumed lost" wouldn't be in the top 10 reasons why.

<comment><USER56> What are you talking about, it would be the number one reason why.

<comment><USER57> "What happened to the private keys" is only an interesting question if we know something happened to them at all.

For all anyone knows, Satoshi is a government biding its time, aliens, a hacker with a messy apartment, dead and their inheritors don't know what they have, already independently wealthy and doesn't care about their wallet, did it all for the lulz and doesn't care about the wallet. It's apparently not, but if this were Satoshi then I find these questions far more interesting: Who is Satoshi? Why was their identity hidden? Why emerge now?

<comment><USER56> Satoshi was probably Hal Finney, who passed away in 2014. The most likely explanation of what happened to the keys is that they weren't properly safe guarded early in development because no one thought that one day bitcoins would be worth $20,000 a piece. When Finney died their total value was "only" around $45 million.

<comment><USER57> If Satoshi is Hal Finney, and dead, then "what happened to the keys" isn't an interesting question. If this were Satoshi reemerging, then "what happened to the keys" isn't relevant, because they're clearly fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Ok, slightly offtopic and rant, but:

My main problem with Bitcoin, etc. is: it is just too complicated. I mean, I did study CS and do have some knowledge about math and cryptography and I followed Bitcoin from the beginning with curiosity - and I still only have a vague understanding of it all. Now sure, I could invest some days and really study it and things would probably look different. But if it is hard for me, how hard is it for the common person?!

I believe the base of a new money-system should be simple, for (allmost) everyone to understand. Because yes, the current mainstream fiat money banking system ... is not simple at all, either. But if it is so complicated, only some people can understand it, than there is way too much room for fraud ...

<comment><USER59> [https://hackernoon.com/everything-wrong-with-bitcoin- in-2019...](https://hackernoon.com/everything-wrong-with-bitcoin- in-2019-bl803xp9)

7,000 words but might help you with the current state of things and why its confusing

<comment><USER58> Oh thanks, seems to be a good article .. but I really could not send it to a non computer guy ...

<comment><USER59> That article was made for people like you and builders in the space, yes still a void for everyone else

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Tangentially related - a couple of the guys who did the "Mic Dicta" podcast (an interesting and funny legal podcast, sadly now defunct) just recently started another podcast called "ALAB" and put up a brilliant episode going over Craig Wright's recent Bitcoin travails in court: [https://soundcloud.com/alabpodcast/episode-3-faketoshi- the-p...](https://soundcloud.com/alabpodcast/episode-3-faketoshi-the-perfect- client)

Sharing as a comment here since it maybe doesn't make sense as a submission on its own, and since there's likely a number of people in the comments of this story who would enjoy it

</comment><comment><USER61> wow. So if someone has looked, could you summarize the history of the sending address? (When did it have transactions, etc.)

Also, if someone wanted to turn this into fiat currency over a short but not instant period of time (such as 1 month for example), could they get close to 1,018,147,922 USD or even over 30 days would that diminish the price too much?

(I am thinking for example if an institutional investor early on bought 94,504 bitcoins and "just realized" they have it or something, but only really cared about dollars or their fund is over and they have to pay out the cash or whatever. For whatever reason, if they want cash now.)

Thanks for any expert opinions.

<comment><USER62> It looks like this twitter account is trying to do just that

[https://twitter.com/thetokenanalyst/status/11699297386071244...](https://twitter.com/thetokenanalyst/status/1169929738607124482)

I am not an expert and this is a very rough estimate, but this data[0] shows 7-day rolling USD trading volume on major exchanges. It's pretty volatile but fluctuates from $300m to $110m daily.

I would guess that this is liquid enough to be able to pull out $1b+ over 30 days, perhaps drawing some attention. This is also only for USD. Would love to hear an expert's thoughts as well.

[0]: [https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/trade- volume?timespan=6...](https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/trade- volume?timespan=60days&daysAverageString=7)

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I'm mostly puzzled by the fact that someone would let $1 billion sit in a wallet without earning interest...

<comment><USER64> Bitcoin is essentially deflationary. If Bitcoin maintains its utilitarian value, it will only grow in monitary value since less and less coins will be minted until no coins are minted, and also as people lose access to their keys.

I speculate that in the future, Bitcoin might become valued so highly, that people don't even bother using it in favor of other coins, and as people don't use it, no one then accepts it, then it loses value, and by then people are accustomed to using other coins, and Bitcoin dies. Who knows, I probably won't live long enough to see it.

<comment><USER65> No matter how unpopular it becomes, it'll just be lowered in value, eg, deflated, but still usable. It will never fail unless the cryptography underlying it (or a bug in the design) causes it to fail.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> According to tokenanalist.io, this is a funds consolidation associated with Huobi exchange: [https://twitter.com/thetokenanalyst/status/11699297386071244...](https://twitter.com/thetokenanalyst/status/1169929738607124482?s=20)

<comment><USER31> or not: [https://cryptonews.com/news/huobi-confirms-that- usd-1b-trans...](https://cryptonews.com/news/huobi-confirms-that- usd-1b-transaction-did-not-include-their-4607.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> There are what, about ~2,000 billionaires in the world? Of those, I don't believe any of them would hold a billion in BTC. From what I can tell, it has been ruled out that this is from any of the exchanges. Is this a possible nation-state transaction?

<comment><USER68> It's an early adopter. There are still a lot of them around. Someone like Roger Ver but who didn't seek fame.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> The thing about large sums of bitcoin is that they aren't worth what the conversion rate says they are. Trying to spend 95 thousand bitcoins would shatter the market and send the value of a bitcoin way, way down.

</comment><comment><USER70> Nice Szabo: "Such confidence in Bitcoin is splendid, but a 94,500 BTC tx tempts fate. If recipient can make that much from reversing the tx, they can afford to run a 51% attack for more than 40 days. Big if & very visible, but security here depends more on trust & less on the protocol itself." [https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/1169848736819773440](https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/1169848736819773440)

</comment><comment><USER71> Is there a scenario where systematically concentrating outstanding BTC into a few massive piles can be used to destabilize the whole BTC infrastructure?

</comment><comment><USER72> Most of the comments in this thread are unaware of offline transactions. [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Offline_transactions](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Offline_transactions)

Furthermore, Bitcoin mining is run by pools. Only the pools have to be hacked for a 51% attack to occur.

I haven't read all 500 comments in this thread, but they all largely seem to be the same.

</comment><comment><USER73> I wonder if this if at all related to the news about Sackler transferring funds to offshore accounts

[https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/09/13/us/sackler-family- purdu...](https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/09/13/us/sackler-family-purdue- pharma-case/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER74> Well now that I have a place to ask this question...

Could someone explain to me about 51% attacks and if bitcoin is vulnerable to one?

Hypothetically, a government decides to put forward enough resources to perform a 51% attack on bitcoin. Is that possible? If not, why? And is this something to actually worry about, or could something be done to combat it?

<comment><USER75> When you control 51% of the nodes you can make them agree to anything and takeover the network. Yes, BTC is vulnerable. A few years ago China has >50% of the nodes for a bit, making people nervous.

The problem there is that then people lose faith in the network, and don't honor transactions, and it collapses in value.

<comment><USER74> I've seen this "lose faith" brought up a few times. What I don't understand, is since this vulnerability still exists, why haven't people lost faith already?

<comment><USER76> the working assumption is that an attack like this is really hard to pull off (financial and technical barriers). Also, the older the blocks in the chain, the harder it is (the more new blocks you have to compute and propagate).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Damn Gina, that's a lot of coin! but that's less than 1/2 of 1% in existence. There will be many more of these kinds of transactions!

[https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/how-many-bitcoins-are- th...](https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/how-many-bitcoins-are-there/)

</comment><comment><USER78> Wow. About 1% of the market cap. If they cash out too much, it could tank the price, right?

</comment><comment><USER79> In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the fact that people want to secure their funds and make certain transactions by transferring money from one wallet to another.

</comment><comment><USER80> Does anyone know what the transfer fees amounted to?

<comment><USER81> Iirc it was like 100 USD.

<comment><USER56> .06 bitcoin, or roughly $600 USD.

[https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4410c8d14ff9f87ceeed1d65cb...](https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4410c8d14ff9f87ceeed1d65cb58e7c7b2422b2d7529afc675208ce2ce09ed7d)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Who the hell owns 1 billion dollars in bitcoin?

<comment><USER83> well, it likely wasn't worth 1 billion when they acquired most of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> And I get nervous sending small amounts still. I cannot imagine the anxiety from sending one billion no matter how automated.

</comment><comment><USER85> I think this event led to a certain drop in the bitcoin exchange rate, which we have observed just the last 2 days

</comment><comment><USER86> 2009: 94k Bitcoin transferred - "whats Bitcoin? lol those geeks."

2019: 94k Bitcoin transferred - "whooooooooa"

</comment><comment><USER87> Whats' an excitement?

We don't start threads every time Brinks truck passes by with someone else's money

<comment><USER88> A brinks truck with a billion dollars in cash would be worth a thread. :)

<comment><USER64> Thankfully we can't see inside the Brinks truck as it passes us on the road.

Money should be private. I wouldn't want anyone to know how much money I was transfering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> I'm wondering what our intelligent agencies are doing. I'm not sure what they can do.

</comment><comment><USER90> Nation state or Speculation fund?

</comment><comment><USER91> It'd be very interesting if this was part of the court ruling against Craig Wright: [https://cointelegraph.com/news/craig-wright-challenges- court...](https://cointelegraph.com/news/craig-wright-challenges-court-order- requiring-him-to-pay-500k-bitcoin)

<comment><USER92> Probably not. If that guy could show he really had the bitcoin (dubious in itself) and was handing it over as part of a court settlement, that would be news.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20896032](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20896032)

Went under the radar on HN like 3 days ago

</comment><comment><USER94> What do you mean by "a single coin"?

</comment><comment><USER95> That's China paying Iran for oil.

</comment><comment><USER96> What it means? BTC price UP or Down

</comment><comment><USER97> Maybe Jack Ma's final bonus

</comment><comment><USER98> Pablo is still alive!

</comment><comment><USER99> It's a Huobi client getting ready for the next bull run.

</comment><comment><USER100> Not bad! Got some good market movement!

</comment><comment><USER101> Checks my unknown wallet. Nope. Damn.

</comment><comment><USER102> Just getting ready for black Friday..

</comment><comment><USER103> Hope this is a good sign

</comment><comment><USER104> Maybe mtgox?

</comment><comment><USER13> Interesting. There are 17~18 million BTC in existence[1], so this makes up for about half of a percent of total BTC.

(of course a lot of those BTC are lost forever due to forgotten keys, hard drive crashes, thrown out hard drives, etc, so who knows what the actual amount of accessible BTC is).

[1]: [https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/how-many-bitcoins-are- th...](https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/how-many-bitcoins-are-there/)

<comment><USER105> Is it possible to see how much moved in some time period?

<comment><USER106> the @whale_alert twitter handle is what most people keep an eye on

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> [https://twitter.com/juanbiter/status/1170014648684490757](https://twitter.com/juanbiter/status/1170014648684490757)

A few hours ago several #xcoin txs were made consolidating 94.505 #BTC in now the 5th largest address 37XuVSEpWW4trkfmvWzegTHQt7BdktSKUs, they have been accumulated since 2016

Is associated with @BAKKT due to its launch today (deposits and withdrawals) 🧐

<comment><USER108> What are the other 4?

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> Plenty of money moves every day, I'm not surprised :-)

</comment><comment><USER110> Getting ready for the big crash

</comment><comment><USER111> I thought this was going to be a genesis transaction and Satoshi would ride out of the sun on a flaming chariot of bitcoin.

Probably just Elon letting his GF fiddle with his Trezor.

</comment><comment><USER112> If this were a different kind of forum, I'd have replied with a big image of Dr. Evil captioned "One Billions Dollars"

</comment><comment><USER113> Wow

</comment><comment><USER114> Is Craig Wright not relevant?

</comment><comment><USER115> I hate 4 btc stolen at the exact same time

</comment><comment><USER47> The fee is less than a thousand for a BILLION dollar transfer. Cryptocurrencies are amazing.

</comment><comment><USER116> Probably related to Bakkt. The interesting thing here is how inexpensive was the transaction fee. How does banks transfer this kind of sum and how much would it cost?

<comment><USER117> It would be free with a bank. If you have that much money with the bank, they will bend over backwards for you. For example with E*Trade I think any wire is free if you have 1 million with them.

<comment><USER118> Could you actually transfer 1B in one transaction?

<comment><USER119> Why not? Are you implying that it would technically break some sort of system or something like that? If I legally own a billion dollars in a Swiss bank, and I want to move it to a Cayman Islands bank, there is certainly a room full of well-paid men in fancy suits that will gladly accommodate that.

Or, perhaps more similar to the topic, if I wanted to move a billion dollars from one UBS account to a new UBS account, I certainly could. Some special guy would probably have to turn the key for me, but if I have a billion dollars in a UBS account I surely know that man by name. And also, I would have the benefit of doing it privately, unlike with Bitcoin.

<comment><USER118> Not technical obstacles, more like regulatory or legal obstacles. I imagine there is a lot of paperwork and legwork involved in moving 1B fiat

<comment><USER120> I've seen a EUR 1B+ transfer (a transfer from the central gov't tax office to a major municipality with "their share" of income tax constituting a major part of their budget) being executed in the backend, it was really nothing special execution-wise. After all it's all just numbers in a ledger about who owes whom what - just this number was slightly longer than usual.

It would require an extra pair of eyes compared to a 1M payment (which are very common), but that's not a significant difference in process, just one more employee would have it in their queue for approval and it wouldn't even increase the time as it'd jump to the front of the queue of payments that need some oversight. It could involve some extra notification as $1B leaving or arriving is meaningful enough to impact your liquidity and reserve requirements and thus your trading desk might need to borrow/lend some cash.

I'd assume that a major bank might have $1B+ payments quite often - I mean, the T-bond market alone is $500B daily and probably some of the individual trades are larger than $1B; then every delivery of a $1B+ industrial project is probably accompanied by a similar bulk payment and the projects across all the industries add up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER121> another way to read:

someone just gave someone else a billion dollars tax free.

that is a major problem.

<comment><USER122> Not necessarily, it could be moving coins to a different wallet of the same owner.

Edit: also, that assumes that, even if this is an exchange between owners, neither party has/will report it to the relevant tax authorities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER123> Interesting, HN articles about bitcoin typically have a few "tulips", "ponzi" and "obvious scam" comments.

But none yet here. Is HN finally warming up to bitcoin, 10 years after it was invented?

</comment><comment><USER124> The fact that bitcoin even HAS a "dollar value" attached to it is a testament to the FAILURE of bitcoin's original sole objective.

<comment><USER125> Today it's pretty much just for launderers, criminals, gamblers, and people who don't know how it works/people looking to take advantage of people who don't know how it works.

<comment><USER126> Is there something wrong with that? Sounds like freedom to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER127> By "unknown", does that mean that none of the source addresses that collectively sent the sum to one address did not have previous transactions from sources that were known? I rather doubt it, unless the sources were mining wallets (which would show up as coin bases).

On my phone I'm not going to research it :)

<comment><USER51> > On my phone I'm not going to research it :)

You don't have to be happy about being unable to do like a single click. I agree the headline was confusingly written but happily stating that you're not going to put any effort in whatsoever... I think that's why you are/were being downvoted, not for the question.

<comment><USER127> I read the article. I also looked at the transaction. But the transaction was made up of maybe two dozen input addresses, and I didn't feel like walking backwards through each of those on my phone.

My question was, has nobody walked them all back to a known address? I find it hard to believe that one of those inputs wasn't downstream of some transactions from a known address.

It's not necessary for me to explain this here, and you were being helpful to me; I'm just clarifying what my intent was with that apparently misleading? statement was.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER128> Watching things like this, I think bitcoin could eventually replace the government-backed currency.

Everyone can watch them move. If you spend 1$ from that wallet to buy even a mars bar, your identity will be known to others. How CLEAN and clear is that?

<comment><USER129> Only if people own their wallets and transactions happen on-chain. We're far from that point, both for technical and social reasons. I like having my money in a bank and using my Visa card because I feel safe doing it. If I lose my card or get a bogus transaction? Just use your insurance. Beyond that, if you want additional services not provided by a blockchain such as getting a loan, I'm sure banks will ask you to put your money into one of their accounts so that they can do... banking. I love it when a cryptocurrency enthusiasts replies to "bitcoin is useless in the real world" with "well actually my Coinbase-issued off-chain-settled Visa card works really well thank you". Congrats, you've got yourself a bank.

If your wallet is actually owned by a bank then chances are your actual purchases will be obfuscated. Banks will only settle transactions with other trusted establishments "in bulk" to speed things up and reduce fees.

Don't drink the overenthusiastic cryptofanatic kool-aid, banks are going nowhere. Those who say that cryptocurrencies can replace them either don't understand banks or they don't understand cryptocurrency. Probably both.

<comment><USER128> Theoretically crypto will never replace government backed currency if the world economy and politics is _stable_.

Look at Turkey. Venezuela. Argentina. China. North Korea. People are already not trusting government backed currency. I don't mean to over generalize. I just want to say it's not just a dream. It's possible.

<comment><USER130> And if the world economy and politics isn't stable your USB key isn't going to buy you something to eat any more than your amex.

At least cash can be burnt for warmth.

<comment><USER128> Nope, you got it wrong. Look at Venezuela.

If people can trust people they can trade. With crypto government trust can be replaced.

<comment><USER131> Crypto is only working in places like Venezuela because other states ARE stable (America). If the whole worlds situation goes to shit then it's just as worthless as fiat.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Do you want to start making more sh*t? Feedback requested on project idea - <AUTHOR> https://www.turnmvp.com/4f TL;DR: I am a Dreamer who wants to become more of a Maker. I have thought about creating an online project to help people like me make something new everyday and showcase it to the world. I would love your feedback on it: https://www.turnmvp.com/4f. Many thanks.
Longer version: so I consider myself more of a Dreamer/Thinker rather than a Maker. I figured one way I could train myself to make more stuff is by starting a 365 project and make something new everyday. Whether it's a simple webpage, a haiku or a new type of sandwich, I would make something everyday and share it with the public (you know, for the support factor).
When a couple of my other Thinker friends told me they'd like to be able to do that too, I knew I couldn't just use Tumblr or some other blog site anymore. I thought having a community of makers and maker-aspirants helping each other along would be awesome to have. I figured it'd be a huge support group for other maker-wannabes like myself.
So I turn to you to offer me some insight and thoughts into what you think of this. Would you use something like this? Have you already?
I'm all ears! Feel free to sign up as well if you think you'd use it. At this point, I'm just trying to figure out if there would be interest in it.
The link once again: https://www.turnmvp.com/4f
Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> This looks interesting. What exactly is the service that this provides? I had a hard time figuring it out from the landing page. It looks like a social media site for 'makers'?

I stopped the quiz at the beginning when it asked for my gender. I understand you want analytics but that thing is kind of annoying. Also I'm not buying into the whole 'maker versus thinker' dichotomy. I'm more concerned about what rights your site will try to assert over user content and user profiles. Is it going to require a facebook/twitter/whatever sign in?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. Can you elaborate further on what you mean by not buying into the maker vs thinker dichotomy? Do you mean to say that everyone is a little bit of both? If so, then yes I would agree. I just look at it with myself as being a test subject. I would love to be more prolific at delivering and producing things, but I find myself reading and 'dreaming' a lot more.

As far as rights go, everything you produce and post will be completely owned by you. Frankly, I don't see this being in either person's interest. I don't want to own the rights of content that I wouldn't know what to do with and be held liable, and you don't want to hand over ownership of your creations.

At the moment, I am thinking you will be able to browse other people's creations without needing to sign in, just like Tumblr or Pinterest, etc. But if you want to create your own profile, then obviously you will need to sign in, either through FB/Twitter/natively, etc.

Hope this answers your questions!

<comment><USER2> It just seemed like an odd choice to have to make when signing up. I didn't know how I was supposed to interpret the choices but more importantly I didn't know whether one or the other might end up affecting the account in a way I might not like in the future. What happens if I sign up as a 'thinker' then decide i want to 'make' something? Is there a 'thinker' account type and a 'maker' account type? It's fine in terms of a philosophical exercise but I want to know how it affects what i'm signing up for.

<comment><AUTHOR> It doesn't affect it all. The question was just for my own data analysis, as you said. Sorry for the confusion.

Aside: so far it seems Thinkers and Makers are evenly divided, suggesting that both sets of people find the idea equally interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I realize my karma points are at nil. I used to be an occasional lurker. I'm interested in having a discussion too. This is not a browse-by link dropping.</comment>


How Georgia doxed a Russian hacker (and why it matters) - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/how-georgia-doxed-a-russian-hacker-and-why-it-matters/ <comment><USER2> It's quite funny and genius. Article says that malware used by Georgia is not specified, but from original PDF report it's clear that they have used his own exploit to attack him!

From PDF: "then gave Cyber Attacker Fake ZIP Archive with his own virus inside and the name "Georgian-Nato Agreement"."

It was possible because they already had an access to his C&C servers.

</comment><comment><USER3> For me, this matters less because of "what chance do the rest of us have?" and more about implications for so-called "hack back" initiatives and the thorny problem of attribution. I don't have access to the evidence that the Georgia CERT does, of course, but their analysis goes far beyond using a webcam and geolocating an IP address.

It's interesting that somebody that isn't a military organization or law enforcement (strictly speaking) comes out and admits that they infiltrated the exfiltration with their own malware. The idea has been around a long time but they had pretty good results, apparently!

</comment><comment><USER4> Well, to anyone who can comprehend that .pdf research in full, it will be crystal clear that this hacker CAN NOT be working for Russian government.. he must had his personal, likely scouting for classified info reasons, but it all can be hardly defined as a "government attack" based on his (below average) skill level, his surroundings and a physical location.

<comment><USER5> I don't think a judgement can be made at this point as to whether he was or was not working in collaboration with some form of Russian gov.

I picture a somewhat disorganized system of Russian gov. employees sometimes working together and other times in opposition.

The Wikipedia article about the Russian FSB mentions certain internal groups spying on one another. It wasn't that long ago when federal agencies like the CIA and FBI were at odds and spying on each other.

<comment><USER6> Could very well be a co-optee which the KGB used to do a lot in the past and presumably the FSB is no different.

Lets be honest no sensible Russian is going to say no to the FSB if they ask for a favor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> WTF is doxing?

<comment><USER8> <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doxing>

<comment><USER9> This is not so much doxxing as a 21st Century Wanted Poster

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So, what's next? Will the world start buying computers and phones without webcams? Seems like stories concerning malevolent webcam usage comes up about every six months.

<comment><USER11> Why stop buying laptops with webcams when applying a $0,01 piece of tape over it is all that is required if you're worried about it?

<comment><USER12> There's also the standard built-in microphone. The best option is to disassemble the laptop, remove the webcam hardware, and clip the leads to the mic--detatching it from the motherboard. If you need a webcam use an external.

<comment><USER13> Don't forget to pee in Mason jars so they can't harvest your precious bodily fluids!

Seriously though, paranoid much?

<comment><USER10> So... peeing in Mason jars is a sign of paranoia?

<comment><USER13> Maybe. Unless you're a long-haul trucker trying to shave some time, but those are typically plastic bottles.

Or I suppose some extended coding sessions? I can't imagine a real need for such extreme tactics but who am I to say it doesn't happen.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


AirPods: Just as bad as you thought they'd be - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/article/3123810/personal-technology/airpods-just-as-bad-as-you-thought-they-d-be.html <comment><USER2> Opinion piece from somebody who says "I've gotten my first look at Apple's AirPods".

The conclusion may be correct, but the article doesn't give any indication that he went farther than _looking_.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the best resource for getting back up to speed with modern css - <AUTHOR>

I used to know my way round front end design techniques a couple of years ago, but I guess I'm no longer current. I'd like to know what people regard as the best resources available at the moment for the front end stuff that's changed:<p>* CSS transitions
 * CSS3
 * SASS/other compilers
 * Styling in JS.<p>Basically, what are the cool kids doing nowadays? <comment><USER2> Ana Tudor knows her stuff:

[http://codepen.io/thebabydino/](http://codepen.io/thebabydino/)

[http://about.me/thebabydino](http://about.me/thebabydino)

[http://stackoverflow.com/users/1397351/ana](http://stackoverflow.com/users/1397351/ana)

</comment><comment><USER3> I would find a site that you respect, and then see how they're doing things. That won't help you on the SASS/less end, but you'll be able to see the css and javascript effects. What also helps is keeping a repository of your favorite effects - certain sliders, transitions, etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> [http://blog.alexmaccaw.com/css-transitions](http://blog.alexmaccaw.com/css- transitions)

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://smacss.com](https://smacss.com)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks everyone!</comment>


What should I do? I'm no longer in love with my startup. - <AUTHOR>

I joined the startup scene in SF as a non-tech employee of an ok company (funded, but definitely not on the front page of tech trades). I was fresh out of college and it's been a bit over two years since I've been with the company.
I'm no longer enthused about the problem we're solving, the product, or the space in general. However, I really like my team. We have a great company culture, there's lots of flexibility to wfh, etc... I suppose if this were a romantic relationship, you could say I'm well past the honeymoon stage.
Has anyone else ever felt this way or can anyone else offer tips on how I can get the fire back? <comment><USER2> My advice: tell your manager. Maybe you take on more responsibility, perhaps change roles to stretch your skills. don't suffer in silence.

I was a non-tech employee in a startup just like you. Seven years later I have a highly technical role. Soon I'll move on to something else (management?). Moving roles and changing responsibilities has personally kept me enriched and challenged.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tip. What's the best way to approach this conversation without them becoming alarmed?

<comment><USER3> Stress that you love the team, culture, etc. I think that'll help them to realize you truly want to stick with the company, you are simply not excited about your specific role anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do nothing that you do not love!

</comment><comment><USER5> I am willing to bet that even the founders have felt that way at some point.

I would say that you shouldn't take it as _necessarily_ a permanent feeling, but part of the normal ebb and flow (until proven otherwise). As someone else mentioned, you should speak to your manager and stress the things you like. I would also try to determine beforehand what they could do to make you happy/engaged again. The more guidance you can give your manager, the better the chances that he/she can help you. And, remember, they want to keep you (assuming you are performing), _and_ they prefer you happy, as it's better for them.

Failing all of that, you might consider whether there is another company that can provide what you're seeking. Sometimes, it's just time to move on.</comment>


Ask HN: Self distributing money system with deteriorating coins - <AUTHOR> I have an idea for a coin that I'd like to refer to as Senescence Coin and seeing that there are a bunch of really smart people here, I'd like to hear your thoughts on my proposed monetary system.
Feature 1:
Senescence (biological term) being the condition or process of deterioration with age. <comment>--- The currency would have built in senescence that is reset to zero upon conducting a transaction. The rate of death would be dynamic based on potentially the weighting of current factors in the network/market. For example, in it's infancy there wouldn't be a lot of transactions taking place, so the rate of death would be incredibly slow.
This feature would prevent the hoarding of money.
Feature 2:
First law of thermodynamics - energy of a closed system must remain constant. </comment><comment>--- Upon death of a coin, the coin would be transferred, either into a mining pool or spread across wallets in poorer geographical locations.
The total number of coins in the system should be constant, either in the mining pool or in wallets.
Other potential features to encourage buy-in:
Automatic taxation on every transaction, geographically linked. Could serve to eliminate all other forms of taxation and achieve government buy in. Additionally, it prevents the potential abuse of transferring money around wallets to bypass the feature of senescence.
Anti-fraud, a wallet rating, so users can transact with trusted entities. </comment><comment><USER2> Check merit.world. Kind of similar (in philosophy), but simpler and also answers the first commenter's concern (IMHO).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your comment, I'll take a look.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> chicken and egg problem. Why would I as an individual want to use the coin at first. Without some kind of ponzi scheme component for early adopters it would be hard to get off the ground.

<comment><AUTHOR> Because you might be an individual interested in a fairer economic system?</comment></comment>


Show HN: Galileo, search starred repos from your shell. - <AUTHOR> http://jacksongariety.github.io/Galileo/

<comment><USER2> Really nice interface. Could be a great way to discover interesting repos!</comment>


Ask HN: SEO Industry after panda - <AUTHOR>

It is almost one year since Google introduced Panda. Many old tricks died, new got introduced and died. What is the current status of seo industry. Does they still have happy clients? <comment><USER2> More barriers to entry. You need to wait longer in order to rank, so it's better to get started asap with some content instead of waiting until everything is perfect.

</comment><comment><USER3> As long as SE's are still run by algorithms, you'll always be able to O. That said, this has been the year that many SEO "professionals" lost their ass because in the span of a couple months you suddenly needed also to be: a ux expert, a landing page expert, a writer with exceptional talent for engaging people, and a hosting expert.

The old adage holds true: it sucks to suck.

Josh iPhone</comment>