No hosted (shared) EWallets (e.g., Coinbase, Instawallet, Mt. Gox, etc.) will work with SatoshiDICE.

BitLotto shows a list of compatible clients:

 - Bitcoin  [Bitcoin-Qt, and bitcoind clients from Bitcoin.org.]
 - Electrum
 - Armory
 - BitcoinJ
 - MultiBit
 - Blockchain.info  [Hybrid EWallet]
 - Strongcoin
 - Blockchain (Android)
 - BitcoinSpinner (Android)
 - Bitcoin Wallet (Android)
 - Blockchain (iOS)

VirWoX is about your only option.  How that works is that you use PayPal to buy Second Life Lindens (SLLs).  Then you convert those SLLs for BTCs.
 - http://www.VirWoX.com

Otherwise, cash methods work pretty well for buying bitcoins.  There may even be a trader local to you:
 - http://www.LocalBitcoins.com

BitFunder, I believe.

 - https://bitfunder.com

Well, that hadn't lasted long.


Though losses were absorbed by the exchange:


But the severity hasn't yet been disclosed:

Doing a whois on the domain now shows SUSPENDED on this:


And as a result, there is no longer DNS resolving occurring (and thus the service is effectively now offline).

A lot of merchants set their exchange rate based on the current best bid at Mt. Gox bid, or on Mt. Gox last.  So if you are buying something of a larger value from a merchant that uses best bid as the rate, then it usually is worth the money to narrow the spread a little.  You can trade a few pennies on Mt. Gox and as a result maybe save a few dollars (or a lot more) by getting a better price quote from the merchant.

Coinbase is one such bitcoin seller that uses best bid.

I was thinking there would be a service by now that one could pay and it would attempt to raise the best bid.   Maybe someone has done this and that's what you are seeing.

Eyeballing this, it roughly correlates to an increased number of transactions as well. 

I would be curious to know if the average for output #1 is increasing much though.

Bug report:  The amount field needs some input validation performed.  If the value has a trailing space (e.g., "0.12 " instead of "0.12", that amount will be recognized as  Satoshis (0.00000012 BTC) and not BTC.

This occurs for both Quick Send as well as Custom.

For bitcoin to be an alternative to traditional remittance transfers a convenient, inexpensive method for the recipient to obtain cash is needed.  The solution is convenient only when the recipient doesn't have to travel far and it is inexpensive when no intermediary is assessing fees to provide the convenience.

The average cost for this was about 10%, but the World Bank is attempting to effect a lowering of that to 5% through "enhanced information, transparency, competition and cooperation with partners":
 - http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTFINANCIALSECTOR/0,,contentMDK:22383199~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:282885,00.html

Even 5% is more than enough to generate a nice little side income for people to trade bitcoins face-to-face.   So before there is a need for some machine to automate this process, what should be seen first is a growing number of individuals offering this trading.   When there is a sufficient amount of that activity, then steps to automate it at an even lesser cost start to make sense.

Rather than starting a new thread and hoping that BitInstant notices it, how about re-posting your inquiry in the BitInstant support thread:

BitInstant Support Thread (Active Customer Support)
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128314.0

You might want to submit your site to Mem's list:

mem's BITCOIN GAMBLING LIST
- http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75883.0

My apologies, you are correct.

I recomputed and the variation margin does indeed show correct.

Using the 15.879 selling price as the PriceClose, and the 15.575 (from the last variation margin print occurring a couple days earlier) as the PriceOpen and plunking those into the formula from:
 - https://icbit.se/BUH3

gives:
VM = (-(1 / 15.879 - 1 / 15.575) * 10) = 0.01229199 BTC per contract (amounts below one satoshi gets truncated).

It still would be nice for there to be shown the history of daily clearing prices.  (And also the ability to access the charts and order book without first authenticating, incidentally.)

When you access http://Blockchain.info/wallet and enter your password, that password is not being sent to blockchain.info/wallet.  Instead the Javascript code running in your browser uses that password decrypt the wallet that it obtained from blockchain.info/wallet (where only an encrypted copy of your wallet is stored).   So, Blockchain.info/wallet doesn't have access to your private keys inside your wallet.

Because of this, it is not considered a hosted (shared) EWallet, but instead it falls under the category of a hybrid EWallet.  (Hybrid, because it acts like a locally installed client yet is accessible from a browser with no software installation required.)

There is the possibility that the site is compromised and the attacker replaces the Javascript that is served with the site with a version that captures the wallet identifier and password and then uses that to steal your bitcoins.   The protection against that is Blockchain.info's tool called the Javascript Verifier, available as a browser plugin or Java applet.  The verifier will alert if the Javascript code served by the site is different from the version that Blockchain.info has checked into GitHub.
 - https://blockchain.info/wallet/verifier

Because an online poker player can purposely lose to another player, that essentially is a form of an Account-To-Account (A2A) transfer, so that makes sense that a a confirmation or two is a requirement before the funds can be used for play.

Millibit seems to be the most commonly used term for each 0.001 BTC (1 mBTC).
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/MilliBit

The academic explanation:




 - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/contango_backwardation.asp

Another thread where this is discussed:

Why are bitcoins in december better than bitcoins today? (ICBIT)
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110583.0

And Fireball posted how to take advantage of these situations:

Spot/Futures Arbitrage (with some bots source code)
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131622.0

The situation likely exists due to ICBIT being one of the few methods where leverage exists.  One of the few other methods of obtaining leverage is to buy a call option at MPEx. for instance, however Bitcoin's volatility is so high that premiums for that are high as well.  There are other differences as well.  With options, you can hold those until expiration even if the exchange rate makes a huge move against you.  With a futures contract purchased using leverage, an investor could see forced margin selling as a result of an unfavorable move to the exchange rate.

Today (Jan 12, 2012) was the second day in a row with no print for variation margin on BUH3 (meaning the same clearing price three days in a row), and now today had no print for variation margin on CLG3 either.

I then made a trade after the Jan 12 clearing time where I sold BUH3.  It printed a variation margin with last= my selling price.  But in doing the math to verify, it doesn't jive if the last clearing price on BUH3 was still  "last = 15.5750", and instead the Jan 12th clearing would have needed to have been an amount higher than that.

Fireball, whassup with that?  [Edit: i goofed in my calculation.  icbit did compute the variation margin correctly.]

If I have $100 USD at an exchange, I can buy about $100 worth of bitcoins.

Then the person I send those coins to can go to the same exchange and convert those bitcoins back to just about $100 USD. There will be some loss due to exchange fees, so maybe when all is said and done the person I sent the coins to gets only $99.

The point is that this process is identical whether you are sitting on your coins or not. This is also identical whether the BTC/USD exchange rate is $14 or $40.

Where the problem comes in with you sitting on coins is whether you will you continue to hold if there is a selloff underway, and thus make the selloff even worse.

So the problem comes down to it contributing to "hoarding" increases exchange rate risk.  But it does not prevent others from using bitcoins as a currency for trade.

Doing what you describe doesn't always result in a double spend.  The difference is that with SatoshiDICE, if your initial wager does confirm you still get back 98.1% over the long run -- i.e., these are wagers and the house edge is 1.9%, so over time, the cost of failed attempts is only 1.9%.  So if it succeeds once every fifty times, you profit.
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=130764.0

Now instead if you are the thief and paying for coffee, and this double spend attempt succeeds only one out of five times, the coffee shop will thank you for coming back so many times in your attempts to cheat them (as the shop still makes money overall even after losing the revenues from the one sale where the double spend attempt succeeded.)

And the only reason that double spend on SatoshiDICE worked was because the transaction was initially being ignored by the main pools (being that the amount of data was larger than normally allowed without a fee being paid, and then no fee was paid) so eventually a miner who was likely using a modification (not part of the Bitcoin.org client) which accepts a subsequent transaction where a higher fee is paid, even if it is a double-spend.  Don't expect the major pools to adopt this modification.

While a merchant can't cut the risk entirely, there are a few things that will make attempting double spends like these to be uneconomical for the thief.  SatoshiDICE modified their backend to no longer show wino/loss immediately (on 0/unconfirmed) for transactions where no fee was paid until those no-fee-paid transactions see one confirmation.   A merchant could take a similar approach and also impose a delay when no fee is paid.

As far as retep's find, I look forward to knowing what was discovered.  

Double-spending
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Double-spending

Or a cheap Android tablet even.

Or even simply a second computer using an HTML5 version of OTP authentication:

How to use 2-factor auth on mtgox, even without a smartphone
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=111943.0