Harley Davidson's EV debut could electrify the motorcycle industry - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/harley-davidsons-ev-debut-could-electrify-the-motorcycle-industry/?utm_source=tcfbpage&sr_share=facebook <comment><USER3> I'll say it.

This will fail.

1\. Harley demographic is entrenched, hard to pivot. Most associate with wealthy boomers and 'lowlifes', or working class murica. Not things as popular today. Other, better, performance ebikes exist, and outside this restrictive submarket, but are not thriving. And I will casually remind readers of Southparks opinion. That said, they do have diehard fans that would buy anything they made.

2\. Motorcycles are all about freedom. Range issues, or even the idea of them, robs confidence. This will change, but gas is way more energy dense and on a bike it matters even more than cars. Going into the mountains is not when you want to wonder if your range will halve going up hills with gusto, or screwing it on for the corners.

3\. Price perception. The electric will be awesome. Torque is so fun on bikes. But to harley riders, I think it will fell like a 'toy'. And for the price point, its gonna be a tough sell.

4\. Tinkering. You do not buy a harley as an intelligent person without ever expecting to work on it. Hell, that is part of the classical appeal of them. There are more than a few explorations of life and motorcycle maintance in print. Maybe this is just my bias, but the connection with the machine is part of what makes motorcycling so intimate.

I very much welcome being incorrect. I shopped for an ebike and bought another used sportbike instead.

<comment><USER4> I'm hoping they, or someone succeeds, and I think the market will develop.

In addition to carbon emissions reduction, the most immediate benefit is a godly reduction in noise pollution. In SF we have these bastards who love nothing more than to rev up their engines and make noise, on residential streets, at night. I so loathe that aspect of bikers.

<comment><USER5> "In SF we have these bastards who love nothing more than to rev up their engines and make noise, on residential streets, at night."

This is pretty much everywhere in the US. Aside from local ordinances, there is nothing you can do about. To call people bastards for a loud bike is one thing, but have you ever heard 'loud pipes save lives'?

<comment><USER4> On the highway, that's fine, on busy streets, that's fine. I get it. On quiet residential streets, at night, it's being a selfish prick. Normal bikers accelerate and are heard but aren't overly noisy. These other people on the other hand intentionally want to be annoyingly overly loud.

The sequence is, slow for a stop sign or intersection, full throttle, then heavy breaking for the next block, full throttle, mind you, modified, again. It's infuriatingly annoying.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. The problem I see with similar comments here about noise and the character of these (fair to say overly obnoxious) riders, and how it affects your life, is that the same can be said of All of other loud vehicles. It's like complaining about the character of people with too loud of music blaring. They like it loud. They're different than you. This is America, where it's loud, and youre free to be loud too. This coming from someone who is especially sensitive and irritated by noises Im not making myself.

<comment><USER6> All loud vehicles piss me off, and so do people who play music too loud. Your right to be loud stops at my ears.

"Loud pipes save lives" is ridiculous. If you need to be irritatingly loud to be safe then your hobby is too dangerous.

<comment><USER7> _Your right to be loud stops at my ears._

I wish soundproofing standards for buildings were much higher.

Apartment listings only ever focus on just one of the major senses, vision. They make sure the photos look good with prop furniture and just the right lighting. But the experience of actually living in a place involves all of the senses.

I would love to see an apartment listing saying "60dBA soundproofing", "99.9% odor isolation", etc. All of the senses matter.

<comment><USER8> That would still mean you can't enjoy balconies.

<comment><USER7> I used to want a balcony until I lived across from a building with balconies. Especially during summer, there's always someone having a loud party until late at night, and it's a different unit every time so harder to enforce noise limits and clean air smoking bans. So the downside of balconies is you have to share noise/airspace with everyone else with a balcony.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One thing to understand, my Harley riding brethren, Harley _cannot_ be targetting you. They are clearly targetting new riders. The combustion engine is a hobby as much as anything for 1/2 the riders I know; for them, it's the fun of owning a bike. Unless you have a lot of money, the only way to fix an oft-broken motorcycle is by doing yourself. I've owned a similar (not Harley) bike for a number of years. Parts are always vibrating off off the damn thing. It is loud; I do believe it helps make you visible. Yes, that is anecdotal, but I have ridden bikes with all types of pipes and I find it 100% true. I am much safer (heard) with my La Chopper's Curvedd pipes than the very quiet stock pipes; meaning, many fewer close calls.

So, they are looking for riders that don't care that their machines will (ostensibly) be more reliable (less vibration), saves money on fuel, and is quiet and efficient. I care about none of those things, BUT I want Harley to stay in business, and if they can do that while attracting new riders, I fully support them.

A side note, gas sport-bikes accelerate insanely fast now ... imagine how fast they will with an electric engine ... scary!

<comment><USER10> The main issue I have with Harley and all the loud bikes is that riders are remarkably rude and inconsiderate. Yeah, I'm passing a very general comment around, but I don't think it's wrong.

Any time you ride that thing past someones home you wake everyone up if they're sleeping and completely ruin any sense of quiet that may have existed.

If your neighbor fired up a chainsaw (or six) 20 feet from your house at all hours of the day, I imagine you'd consider that neighbor similarly.

So if they loud bikes go away, I'm all in favor. I think you're all acting like jerks for riding them.

<comment><USER11> I was under the impression that motorcycles were made to be artificially loud, as just like the existence of the engine, the bike being loud is a major selling point. Is this true?

The problem is that they are so fast. So if you call in a seriously scary and illegal noise at night the culprit could be a state over before anyone arrives. So it's obviously a non starter and nobody calls the police. But then there is a cultural of it being normal and so the problem never goes away and only gets worse.

Motorcycles are your right to ride if you have a license. Scaring the living daylights out of people every day is not.

<comment><USER12> Not at all true, unless you add an illegal straight through or race pipe. Or remove the baffles.

Motorcycles are comparatively loud, especially big V twins, because a) a surprising percentage is intake noise - there's a _huge_ intake pulse from a 1200cc V b) the engine is open rather than behind a closed bonnet with noise absorption c) they tend to rev much higher than equivalent car engines (not Harleys)

Passing the legislated noise tests (specified engine revs etc), bikes are often quieter than a car. With some bikes now too quiet for comfort around pedestrians in town. Harleys somehow are always obnoxiously loud - My guess is probably mostly from intake pulses given current EU noise regs.

<comment><USER13> I don't know about the EU, but straight pipes are somewhat common in the US, and de-baffled exhausts are almost ubiquitous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> From my understanding of Harley fans is that they really really like their air-cooled engines. V-Rod, Street 750 have all gotten flak for not being 'true' harleys....because they improved on lot of the outdated tech. They can't sell even the newer bikes (revenue has fallen and closing down factories) because the demographic is steadfast in their vision of classic harley.

Porsche enthusiasts also show similar preference for air cooled 70~80s models which appreciates in value....but they kept almost all parts of the formula (the car look, clock, engine in the rear) the same because when they went with a bold new look (like the tear drop of early 2000s) they were facing an uphill battle.

It's sort of like the HN comment I see calling for petrol cars to be banned because electric vehicles are going to render the old ones extinct.

There is a true lack of understanding the market and the buyers in a space that most HN'ers are not the target demographic.

<comment><USER15> the 996 era 911 is certainly the least loved porsche 911 and it was initially due to being the first water cooled engine, but now it's because the horrible egg headlights and the fact it isn't old enough to be classic yet. The 991.1 and 991.2 have sold incredibly well and the 918 showed porsche enthusiasts hybrid would actually make their cars faster. When the 992 includes electrification there is going to be a huge demand.

The air cooled leap in value didn't happen until more than a decade after porsche switched to water cooling when people realized vintage 911s had been undervalued for decades (they are excellent cars, especially with modern tires). There is likely now a bubble, especially with 912s, but there are tons of porsche guys buying both old and new stuff.

I don't see current Harley guys taking to electric very well, but this is about getting a whole new generation of buyers, not about keeping their aging boomers happy.

<comment><USER16> At the same time that the 996 was a controversial success for Porsche, the 928 was an eventual, controversial failure. Even though I own a 928 I don't know nearly enough about the 928's history to talk about why it failed, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with its rapid departure from the 911's style and layout. My big question is will an electric Harley be just enough, too little, or too much of a change from its heritage to succeed?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Techcrunch don't understand motorcycles do they?

Trouble with motorcycles is, at least in the EU, too many years of governments putting the fix for bad car drivers onto the motorcycle license. The capacity limits and multi-part test etc are quite off-putting for new riders. Unsurprisingly, it's still car drivers causing most rider deaths. On the plus side you develop a definite 6th sense for those that _will_ pull out - <USER2> looking straight through you. You also end up a much better car driver.

Lifestyle ranges _are part of the problem of decline._ The manufacturers, Harley included - perhaps especially, have catered more and more for the born again bikers spending a lot of $$$ in their 40s+. The cost has got rather silly and many models, even Jap middleweights, have reached the cost to buy of a cheaper car. When I started only the Goldwing and rarer Italian managed that.

So whilst I'd _love_ for an EV bike to revitalise things, I suspect they'll be more of the same for the 40+ born again biker.

Source: Almost 35 years of motorcycling and trying to encourage the kids to take up biking.

Edit: This has been gaining plenty of up _and_ downvotes. I'm intrigued - what's controversial here?

<comment><USER17> >Trouble with motorcycles is, at least in the EU, is too many years of governments putting the fix for bad car drivers onto the motorcycle license.

Yes, but as you know, even if the motorcycle is in the right, physics doesn't care. I quit riding recently after 8 years of serious riding, 18 of casual, because our sales guy, who has years of riding experience got T-Boned on a legal left turn with his wife on the back. They were "ok," meaning not dead and no brain damage, but they were pretty beat up. The moral of the story for me was, no matter how good and experienced a rider you are, you can still get clobbered.

>The cost has got rather silly and many models, even Jap middleweights, have reached the cost to buy of a cheaper car.

Between you and me and all the blind drivers, I'd rather buy a used sport convertible with a manual transmission. Just about the same experience for the same money, minus most of the risk of death.

<comment><USER18> Aah, yes, the right of weight.

As for the sports car, I totally understand the choice. Unfortunately, for under a couple of million dollars a car will never have the same potential for acceleration as even a relatively modest motorcycle. And you... loose something visceral when you can't lean into turns.

If a person is OK with that, however, a used sport car is definitely a reasonable investment for some wheeled fun.

<comment><USER19> There are quite a few videos of Tesla S's beating motorbikes. They are expensive but not million dolar expensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> We just published a study on the environmental performance of current and future battery and fuel cell motorcycles ([https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261917318238) ; also available via scihub). The supporting information is open Jupyter notebooks, though some of the background data is closed.

The environmental performance of electric motorcycles is different than cars:

\- Cars need ancillary services like heating, increasing battery size

\- Motorcycles have no real chance at regenerative braking

\- Motorcycles are driven fewer kilometers than cars, making the impact of the vehicle more important (as opposed to the fuel).

Currently, we estimate that battery motorcycles are preferable across a variety of environmental indicators, though results differ for small and large motorcycles, which have very different usage patterns.

Feel free to contact me directly if interested in discussing or collaborating on open source life cycle assessment code or data ([https://brightwaylca.org/](https://brightwaylca.org/), [https://chris.mutel.org/](https://chris.mutel.org/)).

<comment><USER21> _Motorcycles have no real chance at regenerative braking_

They do, but it has to come from the front wheel. An electric generator would be heavy and add significant unsprung weight.

KTM experimented with a 2wd dirt bike. It used hydraulic lines to transfer energy to the front wheel. A similar system could be used for regenerative braking.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/motocrossactionmag.com/amp/all-...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/motocrossactionmag.com/amp/all- wheel-drive-ktm-is-the-bloom-off-the-rose)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Loud pipes just piss people off. And ruin your hearing. And most likely the person in the car is yacking on the phone anyone and not listening to your $500 chrome moly straight pipes.

Harley is dying and needs to do something to attract younger buyers into the fold. Hopefully this will do that.

<comment><USER23> Harley is definitely not dying.

<comment><USER24> Their audience is though- the average age of a Harley owner has been trending upwards for decades. I believe it is somewhere around 67 right now, seriously. There may be some younger people buying Harleys still, but for a very long time the trend has been in the other direction. When the Boomers are gone, the company is going to have an existential crisis unless they figure out some way to expand their appeal to new demographics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> As a rider "loud pipes save lives" is just justification of people who want to make noise but won't own the responsibility of admitting it. My motorcycle has a horn that faces forward for a reason. I use it respectfully all the time for my own safety.

Riding a motorcycle without a horn is as irresponsible and dangerous as riding one with bald tires or poorly maintained brakes.

Take responsibility for your own safety. Ride defensively. Don't be a jerk.

<comment><USER26> My bike is exceptionally quiet, and I get constant flak from "fellow riders"[1] at work. When they call my bike a scooter because it's so quiet, that tells me a lot about why they bought their bike. When they then also claim that they only care about noise because of safety....

[1]: Who haven't been on their bikes in years.

<comment><USER27> I like walking, and honestly, it makes me feel very happy to know that there are bikers who don't ride noisy bikes. There's nothing more depressing than being in what feels like a perfect wilderness, except the sound of motorbikes roaring through the valleys.

<comment><USER25> Not sure if you are talking about dirt bikes or just road bikes in a more rural setting. I can however imagine there are things more depressing than engine noise so your claim is hyperbolic.

I do not ride a quiet motorcycle on the street. My pipes are louder than stock (no baffles) but I still have mufflers. This bike is louder than stock because I like how it sounds. I admit that makes me a bit of a jerk. I don't hide behind dubious claims of safety.

<comment><USER27> Road bikes, actually. It just takes one road, and unfortunately the kind of places that are good to walk in are also fun to bike in.

I think as it goes, the 'jerk'-ness of riding a loud motorbike is a small subset of the greater jerkness of petrol-based vehicles in general. As a value proposition, widespread car ownership is about the most horrible idea for public transportation imaginable, in most places.

I'm really looking forward to the end of it, to be honest. Public transport has lots of nice side-effects - like increasing general health (through reducing polution, for instance), or making the elderly more able to get around. Cars just have negatives - and most of the time, they're just a really uncomfortable way to sit still in traffic.

<comment><USER26> That's why I have a motorcycle. All the personal freedom of a car, minus a touch for inclement weather, but with 70+ MPG. And more entitle to boot.

It's not _good_ for the environment/traffic, but I'd like to think I'm helping a little on both pollution and noise.

<comment><USER27> That actually makes some sense - but I'd still rather everybody used public transport. If you've ever seen a video of what streets used to look like before cars, you can really see what driving has done to public spaces, and perhaps, to our society. It's made us a good bit more atomized, zipping from private space to private space, stuck in these really expensive monads.

<comment><USER26> _I don 't know why my phone corrected enjoyable to entitle above, but it's amusing._

I don't disagree on public transit, but IMO on an individual level it's not practical until group buyin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This could be quite cool, and something I'd certainly be up for test-riding.

It would also be quite ironic, in an enjoyable sort of way, to see Harley- Davidson at the top of the pack in terms of innovation. Just hope it's got as much go as it does show, unlike most of their other offerings: Rod series aside[1], their bikes are absolutely worse than other major manufacturers' by almost any measure you care to name (performance, handling, reliability, fuel efficiency, weight, features, price, and TCO). I think the only attributes they've been winning on recently are swagger and decibels which, in fairness, are probably the two main reasons to buy a Harley... so I suppose they at least know their market.

[1] And lots of people complained about the Nightrod because it wasn't a "real" Harley: it had a Porsche designed engine that incorporated modern features such as water-cooling (I'm being totally serious).

<comment><USER17> Like just about any marketing campaign, HD sells emotion rather than an actual product.

One of the reasons people are drawn to HD is they are highly customizable, with a huge aftermarket of parts that are mostly "bolt on," meaning a knucklehead like me can do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I got excited in the article, especially the mention of the Zero SR bike with 135 mile range for $10k. Well the Zero SR starts at $16k. The Zero S with less range and power is around $10k.

</comment><comment><USER30> I hear people do not like loud bikes, but as a big bike rider I loved the straight pipes on my Harley. It meant cars around me were aware of my presence, which felt critical to my survival. As a biker my biggest risk is cars being oblivious to my existence.

A silent motorcycle while cool would be a huge risk for people changing lanes on top of it, pulling out in front of it.

Edit: Speelling

<comment><USER31> Only time I hear those loud pipes is when they pass me and when they wake me up.

<comment><USER32> Yep. The "loud pipes" are only loud when the motorcycle is already _in front of_ you, not in, say, your blind spot where it matters.

<comment><USER30> I can only speak from experience. I rode a very quiet shaft driven bike for 3 years, and then I switched to a loud Harley. On city streets people were aware that I was there when driving the louder bike. On the quiet bike they would not notice me until I came right up alongside them. But that is the experience of one person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I find the drastic drop in motorcycle sales interesting. I used to ride and really love it (and miss it). But I haven't owned a bike in 4 years. For me the increase in traffic and more importantly the dramatic increase in distracted drivers due to cell phones makes riding more dangerous than I'm comfortable with. I wonder if others feel the same.

<comment><USER34> I still ride and but stopped riding street because it wasn't fun being in traffic due to the reasons you mentioned. I still like the occasional back road ride but don't own a street bike anymore. I ride exclusively off-road now. While I might risk an injury, I'm probably not going to be killed. Off- road riding and particularly motocross has vastly improved my skill level when I do ride on the road. I credit my dirt skills with saving my life on the freeway when someone pulled into my suddenly lane and I locked up the rear wheel (mistake!) on an oily patch of road. Since I was familiar with the rear wheel sliding and being locked up, my reflexes took over and I didn't panic, at least not until after. I'm not saying that I didn't have to change my underwear afterwards but I didn't end up getting run over by the car behind me.

The drop in sales you point out is the recession and crash of the housing market in 2008.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Not that weight was ever a concern for Harley... But the thing that makes bikes fun _is_ power to weight ratio. It's impossible not to grin when straddling upwards of a hundred horsepower on a frame that weighs less than a thousand pounds.

My R6 weighed 359lbs and had a 123hp. It was hilariously fun to ride.

<comment><USER36> Apples and oranges. The R6 is a sports bike. Harley makes cruisers. 460lbs is light for a Harley, especially with batteries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Not really. A) It's missing the "feel" of a Harley (e.g. the feeling of the engine between your legs), and B) Riding it in big cities where the sound of the Harley gas engine is an advantage (car drivers can hear you and not hit you when you're in the blind spot) means the quiet electric engine could actually get you killed.

<comment><USER38> Is it? The"loud pipes save lives" argument seems to be mostly a myth (I can't find any credible research backing it at least).

<comment><USER12> It's a myth. They will prevent some accidents with pedestrians or bicycles in town because they haven't looked properly. That accident won't kill you anyway.

A loud pipe will make bugger all difference when you're doing 50+ down a major road and _that_ idiot in the 4x4 on the side road junction looks right at you, then pulls out anyway. He probably has music on so gets little input, and no direction, from your nice open pipe.

What saves lives there is the biker actively moving across driver field of vision - eg weave in lane or more dramatic if you think he's going anyway. More motorcycle awareness on the car test might help, but that's not politically popular.

<comment><USER39> You contradict yourself, I believe. Rider vs pedestrian can cause fatal injuries to both actually. Most likely to a pedestrian, of course, but it's still a human life, isn't it?

<comment><USER12> I understand, at least according to numerous speed campaigns by govt here, that accidents at speeds of 30mph or less are unlikely to kill. As speed limits in town are 30 with some areas 20mph, risk of death to either is low.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Thank God. Loud motorcycles are one of the top problems of my community. Please, use a muffler.

</comment><comment><USER41> Loud pipes save lives is something I f-ing hate as I live at the bottom of a steep hill up which motor bikes love to show off their obnoxiously load farting sounds.

Bring on the understated. The quiet and classy. The silent but deadly farting sounds.

</comment><comment><USER42> Part of the fun of riding a motorbike is hearing the majestic roar from the engine as you accelerate from 1-60 mph in a handful of seconds. This is not for everyone, no, but electric motorbikes makes me personally laugh.

<comment><USER43> What makes me laugh is the silent burst from 0 to 60 of my Zero while your still waiting for the first roar. Snarky aside are you in it for the acceleration? If you are the electric is something you might want to try.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> This is a great application for police motorcycles. Instantaneous acceleration, and long periods of completely idle. Couple it with being US made, and the police forces will eat them up.

</comment><comment><USER45> Is there anybody making an enclosed 1,2 person trike? That seems like a way to get to a 300 mile EV sooner and more than enough for city use.

<comment><USER46> Arcimoto: [https://www.arcimoto.com](https://www.arcimoto.com)

100 mile range rather than 300, but interesting concept nonetheless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> " It has 74 horsepower, a 93 mph top speed, 50 mile ride time,"

50 miles?!? Is that it??

</comment><comment><USER48> Electric motorbikes are very common outside US.

<comment><USER39> Hm, where exactly? "Outside US" is a lot of space. I saw electric bicycles, and electric scooters in some European countries, but they are still far from being called common. And so far I never saw anything looking like a real motorcycle with electric engine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Sounds like a bunch of grumpy grandpas in here today.

"Those hogs are too loud!" "My delicate hearing!"

I can agree though that the "loud pipes save lives" argument is silly.

The truth behind the loud Harley mystique though, is much simpler and obvious to those who have ever ridden one: crack that throttle and a smile is inevitable. It just feels good to ride a big, rumbling, thundering internal combustion engine. Yes, you might channel your inner knuckle dragging primate, but it doesn't mean you are one, or need to be one to understand it.

<comment><USER50> That noise is an externality. It's pollution. I can't count how many times I've been woken up in the middle of the night by someone riding down my street on a Harley. Those things should be taxed into extinction.

<comment><USER49> Its really not. If it sounds like a dishwasher it just isn't the same.

That being said, it is rude to use excessive throttle in residential areas after hours.

<comment><USER51> You are factually incorrect. It is an externality and it is pollution. And you own the hatred that falls upon ALL of your fellow riders. So thanks, for that.

Everyone who doesn't own a Harley thinks it sounds terrible and hates it. The only reason you don't hear more about it is because people are too polite to speak up. You are the yappy-dog-in-a-grocery-store-dressed-up-as-a-service-dog of the vehicular world. 100% self centered entitlement, relying on the courtesy of others to tolerate your atrocious behavior.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mint now lets users keep track of their Bitcoins - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/01/30/popular-financial-planning-service-mint-now-lets-users-keep-track-of-their-bitcoins/#!tWS01 <comment><USER2> This integration is NOT SECURE.

Mint asks for your API key, which Coinbase implements rather poorly. Your API key will grant any application FULL ACCESS to your Coinbase account, so if Mint gets compromised, the attacker can send your Bitcoin to another account. And Bitcoin transactions are irreversible.

Yes, you do give Mint your bank account credentials, but if someone steals your username/password and use it to send a transaction, you can get it reversed.

Mint can easily fix this by using Coinbase's OAuth API instead of using an API Key, which allows for selective permissions (read-only) to be set.

<comment><USER3> Why do they need Coinbase? Just give them your address, which is public information anyhow.

<comment><USER4> I think if you are using an exchange your coins are not really in a known address. The exchange probably stores your coins, along with others, in many of its wallets.

However I do see how the ledger comes into play for your personal coin addresses. That is actually a powerful concept and pretty cool.

From a Mint perspective adding meta-data for coin transactions would be a good start to help categorize coin spends/receives. Another approach would be well known receive address sets. For example 'Grocery Store X' would have one (or multiple) well known 'receive addresses' that Mint could categorize appropriately.

<comment><USER5> At Coinbase, this is not true. You own your addresses. There is no "Hot Wallet". This may not be true of coins you just bought, that have just been added to your balance, but it's certainly true of coins you received as payment (to an address that you knew / gave to a customer / used in an API payment button on a website).

What Mint can't do without access to the API is know all of your owned addresses and aggregate their balances into one. Now as for the rest of your ideas, I'm not from California, but I honestly don't see any vendors signing up to use Bitcoins. Everywhere I go will take the Paypal card, but nowhere is offering to take bitcoin via NFC or QR code. Maybe "if you build it they will come."

I would like to have a way to export a global public key from my private key, such that customers could generate their own receiving addresses (for my wallet) without any sort of access to my private key, or third party. I have no idea if this is even a thing, but I also can't say for sure that it's not possible. If it were possible, I think it would also make it possible to pin the exact balance of a wallet, so I suspect it's not possible/an undesirable idea.

<comment><USER6> The thing is called a Master Public Key:

[https://github.com/kangasbros/electrumpos](https://github.com/kangasbros/electrumpos)

[http://acceptbit.com/](http://acceptbit.com/)

<comment><USER5> Thank you! I see it takes a certain kind of wallet, a "hierarchical deterministic" wallet. That sounds reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wish they'd add support for not double-counting my credit card purchases instead.

<comment><USER8> Ha, yes... and support for not counting money transferred from savings to checking as income would be nice too.

<comment><USER9> And the money withdrawn from PayPal account to bank account.

<comment><USER10> And realizing that my credit card bill that's due Feb 2nd was paid a month ago.

<comment><USER11> This is my biggest issue with them: bill payments. They don't match up bill reminders with transactions. So, as you said, something you've paid still shows up as due and once the due date goes by, if you haven't paid it, it just disappears off your list even though it's still outstanding. They really need to fix this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Should read "Mint now supports tracking Bitcoins in your Coinbase account"

</comment><comment><USER13> I like that they're still referred to as a "startup" even though they exited for $170m nearly 5 years ago.

<comment><USER14> good point, duly updated [author here]

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't recommend anyone leaking info about the amount of Bitcoins you have or spend to any third party.

</comment><comment><USER16> Does anyone think there is room for a new mint-like service?

<comment><USER17> www.hellowallet.com

If anyone is interested in an account with us for user research, leave a reply. It's normally $100 a year. I'll circumvent that.

<comment><USER18> See my comment above. Where most of these tools fail is with investments (brokerages, 401k, and real estate). If yours can do that, I'm certainly interested.

Really, there's nothing out there for the power user. I believe that market would pay for a good product that doesn't try to push stuff on them (ahem... wealthfront).

If you're looking for a user with real estate assets, I'd be interested in helping by being a tester.

<comment><USER17> You are right. That there isn't much out there for the "power" users.

We (HelloWallet) are much more focused on holistic financial wellness. But we are working on some very exciting investment-oriented products as we speak.

It still would be interesting to get your perspective if you want to create an account:

[https://my.hellowallet.com/PublicHWWebApp.html?p=hackernews#...](https://my.hellowallet.com/PublicHWWebApp.html?p=hackernews#CreateYourAccount)

<comment><USER18> Budgeting isn't really an issue for me (managing my savings and investments is). Until I can find a better site that supports mortgages and investments, mint works the best. Though, I'd be happy to try hellowallet once there are some more advanced features.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Would be nice if they decided that cashflow forecasting (Microsoft Money and Quicken Online both did that well-ish) was important to add. That's the single reason I haven't gone with Mint.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think they should be focusing on opening Mint up into new markets (namely the UK) rather than this!</comment>


Judge Rules FBI Must Reveal Malware It Used to Hack Over 1,000 Computers - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/judge-rules-fbi-must-reveal-malware-used-to-hack-over-1000-computers-playpen-jay-michaud <comment><USER2> The Justice Department contends that the act of viewing a child porn image revictimizes the child each time the view occurs and is the basis for arguing that viewing child porn is not a victimless crime. Yet the FBI seized a server and allows such images to be downloaded and viewed thousands of times over a 2 week period. This would be like seizing the operators of an underground rape dungeon where patrons pay to rape children - and allowing such an establishment to run for 2 extra weeks to catch the patrons, regardless of any collateral damage that occurs to innocent children as a result. People would be up in arms over this. So, does viewing an image of child porn cause additional harm to the child in the image or not? Which is it? (This of course excludes instances where the viewer is paying/supporting production of the material)

<comment><USER3> The dissonance is accepted in this case because of the repulsive nature of the crimes, as determined by our current social consensus.

Philosophical purity is very appealing, but ultimately the justifications we use for why the law is the way it is only have to stand up long enough to convince most interested parties that we're doing the right thing.

<comment><USER4> Stated another way, the law is being ignored because these particular criminal defendants' rights don't matter when they're inconvenient, based on the crime(s) they were accused of.

When the law is influenced by societal consensus the legal system becomes a farce.

<comment><USER5> I think when the law is not influenced by societal consensus it becomes a farce. In many ways the societal consensus on morality is law wheather it maintained by the state, vigilantes or in this case a legal fiction which is some combination of both.

<comment><USER6> I think this quote by the recently passed Justice Scalia is appropriate here

"the Constitution, or any text, should be interpreted [n]either strictly [n]or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Unless this is different from the shellcode they used when taking down Freedom Hosting, I'm not sure what releasing it would do. There are already numerous analyses of the code:

\- Vlad Tsyrklevich: [http://tsyrklevich.net/tbb_payload.txt](http://tsyrklevich.net/tbb_payload.txt)

\- Gareth Owenson: [http://owenson.me/fbi-tor-malware- analysis/](http://owenson.me/fbi-tor-malware-analysis/)

\- My own analysis based on running it in PANDA: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ReverseEngineering/comments/1jpln2/...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ReverseEngineering/comments/1jpln2/has_anyone_else_taken_a_look_at_the_shellcode/cbh1qpe) (you can also get the recording of the shellcode executing and step through it here: [http://www.rrshare.org/detail/26/](http://www.rrshare.org/detail/26/) )

It's not big, and we have a pretty good idea what every piece of it does.

Of course, I suppose we don't know that the malware it used in this case is the same as the one in the Freedom Hosting case, so I guess it would be nice to compare and contrast them.

<comment><USER8> One benefit is to have documented evidence that FBI did release malware to the public. There has been little to no discussion on safeguards or liability when it comes to government published malware, and I wonder if a concrete example can enable such discussion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Imagine a later hardline: "FBI Ordered to Reveal the Code Used to Backdoor San Bernadino Suspect's Phone"

<comment><USER10> The accused is conveniently dead in this case. In the next case, a defendant's lawyer would surely want to inspect the instruments used to gather evidence.

<comment><USER11> Maybe we should appoint public defenders for the conveniently dead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am more concerned that there is no limits to what they can do in regards to a honeypot (trap/etc). You would think child porn would be one thing they would not go this far with.

Regardless, I think someone with expertise should be allowed to review any code developed by the government in such operations only to ensure it does not somehow violate the rights of innocents

<comment><USER13> The judge is not concerned [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/judge-rules-fbi- running-chi...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/judge-rules-fbi-running- child-porn-site-for-13-days-was-not-outrageous-conduct-playpen)

<comment><USER14> Can't wait til they run an actual brothel this way. I mean, it is only a couple of throw away society doesn't care about and just imagine all the monsters we could catch doing so... :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Sure, here it is compiled to assembly and stripped of all comments." is sort of what I'd expect

<comment><USER16> If you analyze malware for a living, then the assembly _is_ the source code. :)

It's really not that much of an issue. It makes things more fun.

I am curious about whether they developed the malware in-house or if they hired a contractor. Is there any information out there on this? I wouldn't be surprised if they cut out parts, which may hint at a particular contractor having developed the malware.

Also, I still do not understand why TOR Browser Bundle allows scripts by default.

<comment><USER17> > Also, I still do not understand why TOR Browser Bundle allows scripts by > default.

The best diet is the one you can actually stick to. The best birth control is the one comfortable enough to use. The best anonymity software must be usable enough for Joe Average.

If the situation is high-stakes, TBB comes with NoScript installed. And you should probably get a burner laptop, do all your web browsing off TAILS, and randomly change your physical location.

<comment><USER16> > If the situation is high-stakes, TBB comes with NoScript installed. And you > should probably get a burner laptop, do all your web browsing off TAILS, and > randomly change your physical location.

You are absolutely correct about practicing good opsec, however I have to challenge the usability argument. TOR is already less usable due to many sites blacklisting TOR exits nodes and latency (although connecting to a hidden service is a better idea, and avoids the blacklisting issue. And yet hidden services tend to avoid the JS requirement as well). If Joe Average is willing to put up with that in order to stay anonymous, I'm sure Joe would be willing to disable scripts.

On the other hand, if Joe doesn't understand why having scripts enabled is a security risk, then this might be a better reason to have scripts off by default, anyway.

<comment><USER18> Average Joe probably worries about Average Hacker/Average Stalker

If he's up against the government, he's going down.

<comment><USER16> That's assuming that average hackers don't use script browser exploits...

And the FUD about there the government being so competent that it's impossible to hide from them has to stop. It's just so entirely useless and devoid of reality. If you were going down, for example Snowden would be an unknown name to us.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So the headline uses the word "pedophiles", but in the article the word is nowhere to be found. Maybe that's because this sting isn't necessarily about pedophiles, but about people watching and trading child pornography. Using "pedophiles" only serves to reinforce the stigma of a already heavily stigmatized minority.

The word "pedophile" should be defined as someone with a sexual attraction towards children. It doesn't describe behavior: people can choose to not act on the attraction, and many, invisible as they are, in fact do not. Also, the people operating and visiting that hidden service could have had other reasons for visiting. They are not necessarily all pedophiles.

<comment><USER20> I feel that people who watch child porn and find it appealing rather than repulsive - qualifies you as a pedophile in my book. It's certainly a lesser crime than actual sexual assault of a child. But watching sexual assault for enjoyment and trading in these videos is still a crime. The term pedophile fits just fine as far as I'm concerned.

<comment><USER21> It's an overgeneralization, it's like conflating straight males with people that watch a male raping a female.

<comment><USER20> I's say it would be more like comparing a male who rapes a female with a male who watches that rape.

Regardless, though, the term "pedophile" by definition is someone who is sexually attracted to children. There is no distinction about whether or not they actually committed a sexual act with a child. A person who commits a sexual act with a child is by definition a pedophile and a rapist, since children cannot legally give sexual consent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> URL should be changed to the source [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/judge- rules-fbi-must-reveal...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/judge-rules-fbi- must-reveal-malware-used-to-hack-over-1000-computers-playpen-jay-michaud)

<comment><USER22> Yes. Changed from [http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/19/fbi-reveal-code- lawsuit-d...](http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/19/fbi-reveal-code-lawsuit-dark- web-pedophiles/), which points to this.</comment></comment>


What to Do When a Patient Has a 'Do Not Resuscitate' Tattoo - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/12/what-to-do-when-a-patient-has-a-do-not-resuscitate-tattoo/547286/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Submitted many times, to very little discussion. Multiple sources, you may care to look at the stories from them all:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15832229](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15832229)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15831290](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15831290)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15829715](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15829715) (1 comment)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15829334](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15829334)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15828221](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15828221) (2 comments)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15823925](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15823925)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15823925](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15823925)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15821482](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15821482) (1 comment - a spoiler)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15820538](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15820538) (1 comment)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15819652](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15819652) (2 comments)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15819127](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15819127) (1 comment)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15818693](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15818693)

<comment><USER3> HN needs an upgrade...

<comment><USER4> They're different sites, so it's more like media needs an upgrade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's really important to have proper discussions around what you want to happen if you're incapacitated and need medical attention.

Do you want to be resuscitated? Do you want to be intubated and hook up to breathing machines? Do you want to be fed by tube? How long do you want to be in that state?

Most people avoid these discussions, putting their families into really difficult positions at times when things are hard enough.</comment>


Gmail, now with 10 GB of storage (and counting) - <AUTHOR> http://gmailblog.blogspot.in/2012/04/gmail-now-with-10-gb-of-storage-and.html

<comment><USER2> All the while, I just got my office mail downsized from 3 gigs to 1 gig and had to scrap a years worth of my mail history. Why do companies (at least the small to mid-sized ones) even bother with in-house exchange servers and the hassle that comes with it any more? *

* I know the size comparison is apples to pears since Google Apps is still priced by size, but still. This is stuff that really should be outsourced.

<comment><USER3> A lot of companies (or at least several I've worked with) have policies that emails must not be kept for more than one or two months. I gather in-house exchange servers helps to enforce that.

I was told that this is because such a policy allows the company to respond to subpoena requests by simply saying "our policy is to discard all emails after two months, so we cannot comply with this request."

<comment><USER4> Is that valid if employees keep their own backups, and the subpoenaed emails do still exist?

<comment><USER5> Yes. The subpoena is not for every person that may have a copy of the e-mail, ever. It's for a piece of evidence that that specific entity may have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is great and everything, and I've been a happy user, but my Gmail opens slower than ever lately. Any plans to address that?

</comment><comment><USER7> Blogspot + NoScript != love ... sad.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't understand why they didn't make the Google Drive have 10 GB, too.

<comment><USER9> Most people will not fill 10 GB of emails in their lifetime. When you open it to syncing photos, videos, music, etc., they will fill 10 GB of stuff in a nanosecond.

<comment><USER10> > Most people will not fill 10 GB of emails in their lifetime.

Who won't? I bet you lots of money that most people will have more than 25 GB of email in their lifetine.

<comment><USER11> At my current pace -- 1.5GB in 8 years on gmail -- I will fill up 10GB in about 48 more years, when I'm in my 70s. I'm probably an above average case, so I don't know how many people will hit 25GB in their lifetime unless something drastic happens.

I may have received more than 10GB of email in my lifetime, but I certainly don't store it all (though I'm not skimpy either), so I think 25GB might be high.

<comment><USER10> > At my current pace -- 1.5GB in 8 years on gmail

I used to use 2 megabytes on Hotmail. Now I have a gig in gmail without any significant attachments. I think e-mail growth is exponential, so going from 2 megs to a gig means I'll definitely hit my quota in a few years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yahoo mail is unlimited, and has been for a long time. I prefer its interface too.

</comment><comment><USER13> if dropbox could only up the space on their free plan...

</comment><comment><USER14> Plenty of ppl complaining about Gmail speed. I must say, with AdBlock ON, over the span of couple years I have never even once experienced G being slow...

just my 2c.

<comment><USER14> as usual its ok to downvote, just state why you downvoting. Plenty people, including myself, are upvoting when someone says something simple and interesting, something I didnt know before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Awesome - I can share even more things in the cloud that will be inspected, categorized and used by Google Services and shared with US authorities on request! Perhaps I can get some more ads now while I surf the web while being mapped by Google.

Thank you so much Google! You are truly making the web a better place. For you.</comment>


Ask HN: RV living in SF as a developer? - <AUTHOR>

The rent in SF is beyond ridiculous. Is it cheaper to rent a RV and park it in a RV park next to BART/Caltrain station? Any success stories? <comment><USER2> I'm not aware of any RV parks in SF. Why don't you just move to Oakland/Berkeley? You can get downtown in about the same amount of time, if not less, and you have a better chance of finding a place with a backyard larger than a postage stamp.

</comment><comment><USER3> Pretty nice article:

[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/These-young-SF- profess...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/These-young-SF- professionals-choose-to-live-in-RVs-4778625.php)

</comment><comment><USER4> Check out this guy. He lived in an apartment in the SF area: [http://earlyretirementextreme.com/rv-vs- apartment.html](http://earlyretirementextreme.com/rv-vs-apartment.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> Previous HN thread (28 days ago):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6311370](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6311370)</comment>


San Jose Is the Most Forgettable Major American City - <AUTHOR> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/san-jose-is-the-most-forgettable-major-american-city/?ex_cid=538twitter <comment><USER2> Except for the airport. It has one of the nicest airports in the country. The TSA agents are mostly friendly and they smile while they give you a rub and tug.</comment>