This happened on an order I placed earlier in the week - I sent an email, and about an hour later it was updated to show that the order was paid.  It arrived, on time, today.  Hopefully you have similar luck    I believe my email was during business hours in China, fwiw.

I don't think bitcoin mining will make any difference in worldwide energy usage - you're right it is too small.  I am talking just about localized usage in areas where rates are low - I do think dozens of MW can make a difference in price in local areas where price is low and supply is in the thousands.  For one, the energy usage for bitcoin mining is continuous - once you have a 15 MW datacenter in place, it will draw 15 MW 24/7/365, or as close to it as possible, by design. 

Data centers in the US of comparable size already struggle with varying power costs, enough that researchers are proposing algorithms that would allow data companies to shift server load to data centers where the price is low at the moment.  (http://www2.ece.ohio-state.edu/~xwang/papers/icpp12_datacenter.pdf)  Bitcoin mining does not have that option - it has to run constantly.  It's not hard to find articles discussing concern on an increase in energy prices in areas where companies propose to build data centers that would utilize dozens of MW. 

My point is only that while Bitcoin miners can locate themselves where power costs are lower than average, they cannot necessarily count on power use that is dramatically lower than average, at least not on a large scale. 

Makes sense for the materials, but would there be an impact on electricity prices, particularly if ASICs were centralized in a low-rate area? Particularly in the case of places like Kuwait, where someone pointed out that electricity rates are extremely low ... in many of these areas they are low because the region is energy-rich and the government subsidizes the cost of electricity.  I doubt those same governments would subsidize a massive, for-profit ASIC farm.  They can run the farm themselves, but then their cost of electricity is what they could otherwise sell that electricity for, not the cost minus the subsidy.  In other areas, prices may be low due to weak demand.  What would adding 15 MWh (roughly the cost for 10 PH/s, right?) do to the electricity market in some of the low cost areas in Russia, for example (where prices vary greatly, I understand).

I may be off in my calculation, or the amount of electricity is similarly small compared to the size of the overall market.  Otherwise, it is best to use a rate of electricity where there would be no marginal impact on price by adding the additional power consumption - I don't know what that rate is, though I would guess it is closer to the rates seen in the US and Europe than other places.

At some point would the number of ASICs produced increase the price of their raw materials, silicon, PCB, power supplies, as well as the price of electricity?  Or is supply of these things so great that the increase in demand won't materially change the prices of those components? 

No, by default the game is provably fair.  Provable is an adjective, it means that something is capable of being proven.  Just-dice can be proven to be fair.  As Doog explained, the user just has to take certain steps to do that.  And, as far as I know, of those who did take those steps, just-dice has been proven fair 100% of the time.  

Every user has the ability to prove that the game that they just played is fair.  It sounds like you just want the site to make it easier for users to prove that the game is fair.  Doog's position appears to be that the benefits of that, if any, are outweighed by the negative impact those changes would have on user experience.  If anyone disagrees, I'm sure there are other dice sites that make it easier to prove fairness, and if not, create one!  Maybe you're right, Doog is wrong, and users do prefer the steps to prove fairness to be easier, even if it requires changes that may be a detriment to the user experience.  Maybe there's some room for innovation there, and it can be done with little to no cost to the user experience.  

The point is, the game is fair, and with some effort that can be proven by anyone playing it if they follow Doog's instructions.  Just-dice is provably fair to gamblers.

The potential for anyone in Doog's position to do something dishonest (walk away with investor money, cheat his own site, switch the game with a different game that is unfair) has nothing to do with the fairness of the game.  That potential exists whenever someone must place their trust in someone else.  You can never prove that there is a 100% chance of honesty.  But you can make a rational, informed judgment, and all things considered this seems to be a pretty safe one considering the various incentives, at least in this context (I know little about and can't comment on whether the site is safe from hackers, for example, though it is a pretty big target and as far as I know other than a manual payout mistake early on, not much of any has been lost).

I have 300 RIC for sale @ 0.008 ea.

About 11251175 more available (1425 total) if you're interested, though I am inclined to wait until they are on an exchange as this coin is very difficult to mine and there will not be much of a supply for quite a while.  But I will listen to offers.  

PM me with offers, price is firm on the first 300, though.  All trades through escrow.

Edit:  No, you can't have remote access to my computer to prove that I have the coins.  We will use escrow, period.  To anyone else selling/buying, please don't fall for this one.

Edit 2:  300 SOLD.  Not letting any more go at the 0.008 price, but will listen to offers on the remaining 1175.

I think the impact is due to the damage to the perception of bitcoin in general.  Unfortunately Mt. Gox was still a major exchange, even after all their problems throughout 2013 and even before.  

Best case scenario, Mt. Gox is able to wind down in an orderly fashion, and people finally move to better exchanges (and we need better ones).

Worst case - this drags out, Mt. Gox keeps changing the story, and in the end lots of people lose a significant amount of money.  

Either way, bitcoin's reputation took a hit, and that is reflected in the price.  How much is not yet known, and that is why things will be volatile for a bit.

A foreign country's laws can apply to US companies, if they do business in that foreign country and that foreign country decides that its laws apply to companies operating outside its borders.  Mr. Santori's point on enforcement would apply as well - the US may not cooperate in enforcing that foreign country's laws.  Or they may.  Enforcement depends on a whole host of factors, and treaties are just one factor.

As others have said, divisibility defeats the "too high to be used in small transaction" argument.  Otherwise, stability is a good thing.  Hopefully, sometime soon, we'll all wake up to hear something like: "The US Dollar was down about 1% against Bitcoin in early trading this morning on rumors that the Federal Reserve will ...."

You're paying for the exchange of one currency to another. 

I'm glad you were able to get a response.  They are still ignoring me, but hopefully this means that they are just backlogged and trying to get through requests.  Either way, this is totally unacceptable in my opinion.  I certainly will never trust them with my money again. 

I plan on filing a complaint with the Colorado Dep't of Regulatory Agencies - Division of Banking by COB today if I do not hear back from them.  It is fairly simple, the link is here - http://cdn.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DORA-DB/CBON/DORA/1251626387387.

It seems that they are not registered in Colorado as a Money Transmitter, at least not under the name that they use, though I do not know if they are required to be registered. 

A quick search for "btcquick" here - http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityCriteriaExt.do - shows that they are registered to do business in Colorado.  It appears that they are run out of a residential apartment in Littleton, CO. 

Same problem here - waiting on 1.2 btc that were promised on January 13 - the $$ was taken out of my account on January 7. 

I've sent a number of emails and opened a ticket.  In the past, they were always very quick to respond.  Now, they've apparently adopted the Coinbase model of customer support.

Good to hear you received a firm date - mine are only a day late so I haven't asked yet.  You are right - the date they say the deposit will be in your bank, it should be there, unless your bank somehow holds it up.  Up until this past week, deposits to my account posted early on a consistent basis.  This is the first late one.  They should say something like "your funds will be deposited to your bank no later than xx date."  If that date if 5 days from now, and the deposit posts in 3 days, great.  But at least I know not to plan on having use of those funds for 5 days. 

In a perfect world, it would be next day, every time. 

I wish there was a way to short GHS on cex.io - the price over the past 10 days or so seems irrational, and there's nothing I can do about it - that I know of.

Possibly - they've been great so far so I hope that this is just a one-time thing.  It would be helpful if they explained any delays, service interruptions, etc. quickly on their blog.  Most people don't mind waiting a couple days (if it is just that), as long as they know what is going on. 

It's also interesting that their pricing is closer to Gox than to Bitstamp recently, and the buy/sell spread has been low (though it spreads out when volatility increases) - maybe they are experiencing increase demand for coins, and are buying at a higher price to keep up with the demand.  I guess it takes them longer to receive money than to send it out, so the delays could be a reflection of the higher demand. 

Not necessarily a bad thing.  This run-up has been interesting in a number of respects.  There seem to be patterns of buying at different times per day - possibly correlating with when buyers' exchange accounts are replenished with transfers from their fiat bank to the exchange?

Same problem as well - usually if I sell by COB the deposit hits my account the next day ... day after at the latest.  Still waiting on 2 from the 30th...  Has anyone sold coins since Oct. 30 and received a deposit?

I don't know for certain, but that message probably came from an outside company used to defend against DDOS attacks.  In other words, that message came before you were redirected to the dice game's website.

So basically, a $ is worth less on MtGox due to uncertainty and difficulty in withdrawing it.  Thus, traders demand more $ on MtGox in exchange for a bitcoin. 

The cost of the uncertainty and difficulty can be measured by the difference between the MtGox price and the Bitstamp price, with an adjustment for fees.

Sound right?

Could be part of an overall price increase related to possible expansion of the war in Syria.  Oil and gold are up too over the past couple days, while equities are down. 

The odds of a single player getting blackjack on the first hand of a fresh 8-deck shoe are 2*( 4/13 )*(( 4*8 )/( 52*8-1 )) or 4.7451344%.

The odds of that happening 5 times in a row, assuming each new hand is a new shuffle and is completely independent, are (2*( 4/13 )*(( 4*8 )/( 52*8-1 )))^5, or 0.00002406%.  Put another way, there is a 1 in 4,156,276 chance of that happening over the course of 5 hands.  Very unlikely, but the more hands you play, the more likely it becomes that it will happen.  Bitzino's blackjack can be played very fast. I haven't calculated my rate of play but I wouldn't be surprised if I could play 15-20 hands per minute if I really tried.  I've seen some major streaks, both good and bad.  It is amazing how your mind will trick you even when you know the odds and are reasonably certain the game is provably fair.  And it it seems like a natural human tendency to think "Hey, I'm lucky!" or even "Hey, I'm good!" when a streak went in your favor (as a few did for me last week), and "Hey, they must be cheating somehow I haven't thought of!) when a streak went against you (as a few have for me recently).  Of course, there was no horseshoe up my ass that later left, and the game is fair.  

At the end of the day (and I have no stake either other than as a player) I choose to gamble at Bitzino for two reasons - (1) a solid reputation of honesty, openness, and fairness built over time and (2) pretty much the most favorable game of blackjack for the player that you can get.  The house edge is very small here.