- http://brainwallet.org/#generator

TradeHill provided its users a hosted (shared) EWallet.  That means the user account is assigned an address from the wallet, but the wallet is owned and managed by the EWallet provider.

Bitcoin is a pseudonymous digital which can be used anonymously.   In this instance, those funds were transferred and spent long ago. 

You can try to contact TradeHill to see if you have (had) an account with a balance yet.

 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contingency_plans

Well, here's the situation currently.

You said you have unconfirmed transactions, one of which is:
 - http://blockchain.info/tx/15a6b72a33caab01671736371d3f25ea31ac39cd9dca95f3a28bb2d2f75e9986

But Blockchain.info doesn't know about it.  That means one of two things ...   your client never broadcasted it (unlikely) or it is a double spend and thus no nodes will relay it.

So, to eliminate the former, make sure your Bitcoin-Qt client has connections, the blockchain has completed sync, and has been left running for about an hour (so that the client will try to re-broadcast any transactions it knows about yet at the same time do not show yet as having any confirmations.)

If that occurs, and the transaction still doesn't appear in blockhchain.info, then you are in the situation where you have for whatever reason a spend transaction(s) that are invalid and the network peers won't relay them to other nodes.

The only two solutions for you at that point are 1.)  to perform wallet surgery to remove all transactions and then -resync, or 2.) to import the private keys from your wallet.dat into a new wallet.   I believe you can do this with Blockchain.info with Drag & Drop like this:
 - https://blockchain.info/wallet/import-wallet


As soon as the client no longer has those bogus transactions those BTC will re-appear as being spendable ... assuming the inputs they use (transactions which you previously received) were not double spends.  While entirely possible that you ended up with a double spend on a transaction (presuming it first had a confirmation and the Bitcoin-Qt was willing to use it) there were no orphaned block forks on Feb 27th when that transaction shows as being first received by Blockhain.info.   So Im stumped as to how this happened.    But the remedy is there if that is what happened ... to do the wallet surgery.

If those transactions you received have already dropped from the Blockchain.info then they should drop from your client as well.  If you look at the wager that caused that payout using SatoshiDICE's site for any wager you can get the status and links to payout transactions.   Sometimes they send out payouts that cause problems.  Looks like that is what happened.  You may already have received the replacement payouts, but only you know which transaction IDs are yours to be able to confirm that each payout has occurred.

It will be noticed if SatoshiDICE has any outstanding payouts to make so usually there's nothing you need to do on your end to cause a replacement payout to occur if the first one ended up not confirming (like this one you provided as an example).

Pywallet is a tool that can perform wallet surgery against your wallet.dat.  You execute it in the same directory as your wallet.dat.  You'll want to back up the wallet.dat prior to doing any work with pywallet.



Which client was used to create the spend transction, Bitcoin-Qt or Blockchain.info/wallet?


So that transaction doesn't show on the network.  Was that the wager transaction?  And if so, does it currently show 0/unconfirmed?   If so, that is a problem and performing wallet surgery with pywallet is probably your only resolution.

You can, but for the inputs on that transaction it needs to know the transaction hashes (and indexes) that are being spent.  This comes from the blockchain.  It doesn't have to be a live or even recent copy of the blockchain, as long as it was as as-of when all transactions received and now being spent had at least one confirmation (and have not been spent since).

 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Raw_Transactions

So even an offline computer with a copy of the blockchain and a wallet.dat can be used to compose the raw transaction.  That raw transaction can then be transported (via e-mail attachment, flash drive/sneakernet, or whatever communication method you want, and broadcast.  It can be broadcast by any Bitcoin.org client node (sendrawtransaction API method), or using services:

 - https://blockchain.info/pushtx
 - http://brainwallet.org/#tx

You probably already know the relationship between supply and demand.  For instance, a restaurant can sell more tacos at $1 than it can at $2.  The restaurant could test the market by offering tacos at various prices.  If it records sales at each level (let's say they sell 100 tacos a day when the price is $2, and 500 tacos when the price is $1) it could then plot that data on a graph, and the result would be a line.   In most markets the plotted line will have a curve, so that line is called the demand curve.  

Now that restaurant doesn't have much wiggle room on its supply, but it could get price quotations from its suppliers asking how at various larger order sizes, what kind of discounts could it get.  Let's say if they place an order to buy ingredients for 100 tacos the supplier's best price is $1.20 each.  But if they buy ingredients for 500 tacos the price is $0.90 each.   Plot those points on a graph and you get another line.  Again, with most suppliers the line will have a curve as well, so that line is called the supply curve.

If that's not clear, here's a video describing economic diagrams.
 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfxPqXxq1Jo <-- Demand curve.
 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnVsPEr9teQ <-- Supply curve.


Now the depth charts are essentially the same thing, they show the supply and demand at different prices.  



A depth chart for a bid/ask market has two lines, one for BIDs (BUY orders) and one for ASKs (SELL orders).  Mt. Gox live chart has an Orange line for BIDs (BUY orders), a Blue line for ASKs (SELL orders), and a third line, Green showing history.   Ignore the Green line, as you can't go back in time.  Only the Orange and Blue lines matter in the now.


Again, a line on a chart is simply made up by plotting dots.  Each dot on a depth chart line represents how much can be traded at that point.

BIDs (BUY orders) are placed with dollars.   I might enter that I want to buy 2.0 BTC at $33 each, but really that is a total bid size of $66 USD for trade at $33 or lower.

ASKs (SELL orders) are placed with bitcoins.  I would enter that I want to sell 3.0 BTC at $35 or higher.

Now the charts are cumulative.  So if Alice bids 2.0 at $33 and Bob bids 3.0 at $34, the cumulative number of bids at $33 is $168 cumulative (both Bob's $102 plus Alice's $66 are for sale at that price point.).

So to plot the BIDs (Orange line), at every increment along the horizontal axis (at the bottom of the chart) representing each price point, e.g., $32, $33, $34, etc.) add up all the bids at that price point or below and plot that total along the vertical axis (along the left of the chart) representing total dollars of orders at the level.

The ASKs (the Blue line) have the same concept but the total accumulated value shows up on the right hand side, in terms of BTCs but stretched out so that those values correspond to the USD amounts on the left vertical axis (e.g., if the spot price of $35, then the mark for 100 BTC of cumulative asks would line up vertically with the $3,500 USD mark on the left side vertical axis.)


So at any point on the Bids (Orange) line you can put your finger there and know exactly how much you could sell (from where it sits on the left / vertical axis) at that price (from where that point sits on the bottom / horizontal axis.)

And simlarly at any point on the Asks (Blue) line you can put your finger there and know exactly how many BTCs you could buy (from where it sits on the right / vertical axis) at that price (from where that point sits on the bottom / horizontal axis.)

So that's the basics on what a depth chart shows.

If you are asking how do you trade off of that, well, that's leaves the realm of economic charting and basic math and goes instead to psychology.    If there is a demand curve that looks abnormal in some certain way, some traders might think that means it is time to buy.  Or if the line grows or shrinks, some interpret that as a being a trading signal and trade off that.     But those are opinions.  

And for that, that's what that other thread is good for.  All 10,000+ comments of it.

When you use a hosted (shared) EWallet you are sending your money to someone else to hold.  You must trust them that when you wish to send a payment or withdraw that your request will be honored.

While I don't know of any reports (good or bad) about ZenWallet, [Edit: At least one report of "BAD", .. see below] I do see the domain was registered anonymously.

Anonymously run EWallets don't have a great track record in the bitcoin ecosystem, starting with MyBitcoin, TORWallet, and on ever since.

At the same time, they provide another E-Wallet option and have been around for over half a year.


For small amounts you might consider this wallet method for manual mixing purposes perhaps where the benefits offset the risk.   They do charge a fee for each transaction so if it does get used there is incentive for the operator to keep it alive and growing versus just running with the funds.

tl:dr; If there were a question raised as to how one could acquire coins and then disappear without a trace, this would be an example of how it could be done.

[Update: disappear without a trace]

Are you using the Bitcoin.org client (e.g., Bitcoin-Qt)?

The bitcoin.org client doesn't easily let you get in this situation (unless you have the wallet holding your private keys running in two different places simultaneously perhaps.

With the Bitcoin.org client (e.g., Bitcoin-Qt) the only way to remove a transaction that ended up being a double spend is to use pywallet and remove all transactions and then launch the Bitcoin.org [Edit: Bitcoin-Qt] client and let it reindex the trasnsactions.

As far as that transaction -- it no longer is known by the bitcoin network, so it never reached six confirmations.  There's no ability to tell if it was a double spend or if it just didn't confirm because of too small a fee, or whatever.   It's gone now though, that's certain.

That's for cashing out bitcoins only, not to buy bitcoins.   Their fee is nearly 10% for the lower denominations, and not much less for the higher.  Other than that, worked great!

Yup, but the problem was that Blockchain.info knew about an old transaction that no other nodes know about.  And thus the funds were already spent as far as Blockchain.info was concerned.     So creating the transaction in some other clients and broadcasting it was needed to invalidate the transaction that Blockchain.info won't purge even though it has been two weeks with no confirmations.


I'm glad you were able to get that resolved!

VirWoX.  There you first buy Second Life Lindens (SLLs) and pay with credit card.  Then convert the SLLs to BTCs, and withdraw BTCs.
 - http://www.VirWoX.com

You can use credit card through LiqPay for deposit to Bitcoin-24.com
 - http://www.Bitcoin-24.com

Sometimes BTCQuick.net has stock: (small order sizes only)
 - http://www.BTCQuick.com

Bitcoin-Central.net, BTC-e (not sure if still do, but possible),

BITSTAMP really was the SEPA king.  Mt. Gox has SEPA through a bank in Poland, but like you said you don't want the ID part.

There's also BitcoinsInBerlin.com, Bitcoin.de, Bitcoin Nordic, Instawire, VirWoX, and possibly more:
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Buying_bitcoins

As far as brute-forcing keys:



 - https://i.imgur.com/VjtG3.jpg

Coming soon to BitAddress.org, encrypted paper wallets:

Coming at some point ...

CoinSetter.com
Kraken
WeExchange.co (options)


Oh, ... "Securities" options.  Sorry.   No clue, other than S&P500 futures on http://ICBIT.se, settled in BTCs.

Score!


Doh!  Why?


Do you think all that ASIC talk is just a bunch of bullshit?   These are chips that are in production now and will be doing many tens of TH/s and soon maybe hundreds of TH/s as well.  All the GPUs and FPGAs combined doing mining today are doing just a couple tens of TH/s now.    Miners earn proportiional to their hashing contribution.  That means GPUs and FPGAs are about to get maybe just a half or a quarter of the bitcoins compared to what they do now.  Or less even.

I hope I don't come across like Michael Shannon (below) but seriously dude, THERE'S AN ASIC STORM COMING, LIKE NOTHING WE HAVE EVER SEEN.


 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1Z0VhAQdA

Decentralized crypto-currencies could be a one shot deal where only one is the winner and towers over all the others which bounce around at ankle-height.   Bitcoin has a humungous potential vulnerability -- the 51% attack.  The Bitcoin network can be shut down (i.e., all transactions ignored) by any malicious party with 51% of the hashing capacity.

Bitcoin hasn't had anyone (that we know of) even come close to successfully doing a 51% attack.  With multiple ASIC vendors shipping (ASICMiner, shipping to their own mining operatioin) and Avalon ASIC and more coming (BFL, presumably ... have faith   ), there's no way a competing effort using FPGA or GPU has a chance to reach 51%.  Maybe someone is hard at work in stealth mode building new ASIC hardware with an unlimited budget, with malicious intent.   They'll need to beat the free market, and it looks like the free market is winning.  It has quite an advantage though.   Bitcoin is currently paying out $3.5 million worth each month to miners, and miners are buying millions of dollars worth of ASICs.   I can't imagine any single entity that could justify a gamble on procuring ten million USD+ to try to build technology to take on some fledgling digital currency.

But compare that to a fledgling alt currency that is decentralized and uses a similar proof-of-work approach as well.  Bitcoin long ago subsidized the CPU miners, then the GPU miners then the FPGA miners using the seigniorage that came from an exploding exchange rate (able to pay out currency worth ten to twenty million dollars in each of 2011 and 2012, and at an even greater pace so far for 2013).  Bitcoin is currently probably too big to bust today, but back when it was vulnerable nobody took crypto currencies seriously enough to take a serious stab at killing it.   Alts don't have that luxury.  They aren't getting the high valuation to build a resilient network of hashing capacity before anyone notices.   As long as they stay under the porch, it doesn't matter that they exist.  Start to take significant value from the big dog though and it wouldn't be surprising for a couple hundred grand worth of idled GPU equipment to be recommissioned to see just exactly what happens when a functioning and growing decentralized proof-of-work digital currency gets hit with a 51% attack.

Now that doesn't mean it wouldn't be good for one or more alts to succeed (we all benefit when healthy competition exists), or that I don't want an alt or three to succeed (I've at various times held some alts), it is just that people do things to protect that which is valuable.  Most alts work like Bitcoin where any peer node can introduce a solved block.  Or it can be done through Tor as well.  So a 51% attack can be done without anyone knowing who the attacker is.  Add these up and you get a near certainty that someone would start thinking about doing an attack on an alt once it starts gaining altitude.

That's like listening to MSNBC where they say the stock market rose because Netflix did blah, or Apple blah blah, when really it might have been because of a completely different reason -- more cash floating around chasing the same number of stocks.  Ask ten people and you'll learn of ten different reasons why Bitcoin is today valued the way it is.  None have the exact answer but everyone is right.


Anyone who says they can predict the future is lying.   There are patterns that have happened historically.  Sometimes history repeats itself.  There aren't many times in history a decentralized digital currency has gone from being an experiment to becoming functional as a substitute for fiat currency.  In fact, that's never happened before.  Therefore, nobody knows if all bitcoins combined should today be valued  $20 million USD, $350 million USD or $18 billion USD.    The market says about $350 million USD based on what information is known today.


Lost coins are lost.  To spend bitcoin funds the private key for the Bitcoin address with the funds is needed.  Without that private key those funds can no longer be moved.


Right.


It doesn't.  Well, it does, thanks to the block reward subsidy which currently is inflating the bitcoin currency supply at the rate of 12.5% per year, but that will slow gradually, day by day (as a percent of all currency that exists), until all 21 million bitcoiins have been issued and then there are no more issued at all.


The market does.  The value of the remaining coins would likely increase somewhat proportionately as a result.  Lose a hundred dollars worth of bitcoins?  You'll probably start working on buying $100 worth to replace it as a result.  That's the mechanism that corrects for lost coins.

Then allow me to cut in front of you to ask and what is likely your next question.

But won't the increasing exchange rate as the result of lost coins cause people to hoard?  And the currency will fail then, because nobody is spending their coins?

The answer is ... no.  

Bitcoin is both a currency (used as a store of value) but it is also payment system.  It is an efficient payment system which has properties that will cause it to be preferred over other payment systems.  One of these is non-reversible transactions (no chargebacks).   Another property is low fees (about a penny's worth to send thousands of dollars worth, in many instances).  Another property is that it is universal and it knows no borders. And that it can be used anonymosly.    

Because of these advantages people will prefer to send bitcoins or receive bitcoins (or both) over other payment methods.   So there will always be value to bitcoins because you cannot use the bitcoin payment network without first having bitcoins in your wallet.  

Is hoarding good for Bitcoin?  Hoarding is fine.  It is when those hoarding stop hoarding that a problem presents itself.  That causes volatility.