[dane-pgp]

In the comments, someone suggests that the holder of the wallet should create a transaction which just sends some small amount of bitcoin to themselves, to prove that they still have the keys, to which they get the hilarious response:

"The fees for like transferring 10 Euros back to self are much higher than the amount itself"

Somehow I get the feeling this isn't what Satoshi had in mind when he invented a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system".

[ryanlol]

This was just a misunderstanding, the $81 fee would have been for consolidating the hundreds of individual transactions making up that $1.3M.

You can transfer bitcoin for less than a dollar. The fees have nothing to do with the amount of money you are spending, but rather with the complexity of your specific transaction.

After being explained what his (complicated, aimed at power users) wallet software is doing, this was the reaction of the person holding the money:

>Thanks, this makes me think of Bitcoin as being more useful as a payment tool again.

Turns out it’s really not that bad if you look beyond the headlines. There have been days when the fees were crazy, but that’s far from being the norm.

[wmf]

It's possible to sign data and prove ownership of an address without sending a transaction.

[tinus_hn]

In other news, safely storing $1.3M at a bank is now apparently free.

[ryanlol]

But making 500+ international bank transfers probably isn’t.

[wmf]

It's not free; the bank will actually pay you.

[tinus_hn]

In many countries today the banks will charge you negative interest. And don’t forget that with amounts of money it’s no longer insured so if there is a bank run you’re toast.