Miners can do whatever they want, including "ignoring" transactions.  

I'm not sure the exact behavior of the Bitcoin.org client.

Using the description from the Wiki (posted above), the
 
If a fee of 0.0001 BTC is paid, the client will relay it.   If that fee is not paid, the client will still relay it even if no fee is paid as long as all outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger and the total size is less than 10KB.  It does not appear that the age of a coin has any affect on whether or not the node will relay the transaction.

Now just because a node will relay the transaction doesn't mean the fee is sufficient to get it included in a block in a timely manner.

This looks like a two for one.  From another thread:

Good call.

 $ host bitexchange.biz
bitexchange.biz has address 109.163.231.157

 $ host sellbitcoins.to
sellbitcoins.to has address 109.163.231.157

I've submitted a complaint to voxility.net, hopefully they will take action.

There are accusations of that site being a SCAM and there has been no response to the accusations.

 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=132015.msg1417350#msg1417350

Just out of curiosity, that forum user account wasn't even registered until after that date.  How did you come across that service?

There are accusations of that site being a SCAM and there has been no response to the accusations.

 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=132015.msg1417350#msg1417350

There are accusations of your site being a SCAM and you have not responded to the accusations.

 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=132015.msg1417350#msg1417350

There are accusations of that site being a SCAM and there has been no response to the accusations.

 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=132015.msg1417350#msg1417350

The deflation argument is that a person with the currency is not spending because that person is expecting the value of the currency to be higher in the future and thus the same amount of money will buy more in the future and thus current spending is deferred.

When a decision to spend has already been made (e.g., for food, or purchases that are necessary) a person with bitcoins will be making a decision on whether to spend with bitcoins or to spend with fiat money.  

But bitcoin transactions have lower costs for a merchant than that merchant has when the customer pays using a payment network card (e.g, 3% for payment card transaction, versus no cost whatsoever to a merchant to receive bitcoins as the transaction fee is paid by the sender, and is so small -- under a penny, that it isn't a factor in the consumer's decision on payment method).

We are already seeing merchants passing along these savings by giving a discount for purchases that are paid using bitcoins, and other merchants are becoming low-cost leaders by accepting only bitcoins (e.g., BitcoinStore.com).  (Incidentally, with high-risk merchants, e.g., Travel, paying 8% payment network costs should be where Bitcoin sees the greatest initial traction as a result of this).

Because I can easily replenish my bitcoins that I am using for spending (e.g., send a bank transfer / Dwolla / etc to an exchange), I as a consumer am financially better off paying with bitcoin now and taking the discount (and replenishing the number of bitcoins spent) than I will gain by simply sitting on my bitcoins.

So when the decision is simply to spend bitcoins or to spend dollars, the payment network costs have a bigger impact on that spending decision than does the anticipation of even lower prices in the future (when priced in terms of bitcoins that would be spent).

This use of seller is (optionally) plural:


But then each use of the term seller after is singular:


Of course with each counterparty there is an increase in expense and administrative work by the buyer (multiple bank wires cost more than a single wire, managing multiple escrowed buys simultaneously introduces confusion and delays, etc.).

Is it simply where the buyer allows for there to be up to a certain number of sellers?

Here are the types of denial-of-service attacks the bitcoin.org client and others that behave similarly will protect against:
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Denial_of_Service_.28DoS.29_attacks


 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Spamming_transactions

So the network doesn't know the difference between your flooded transaction sent from older coins in your wallet and my transaction sent from older coins in my wallet where both of us are paying the same fees and sending at the same time.     But after you've spend that transaction, your change that you've received  is now a newer coin.  And if you try to spend the change, your transaction does not look like mine and if a miner has to start choosing which transactions to include in a block, your spam-like transaction doesn't get chosen.  

The bitcoin network is handling 50K transactions per day easily now.  So to properly prepare for this attack you might want to have a wallet with a couple hundred thousand addresses (or more) each with a bitcoin or so of funds for each address.

So harassing bitcoin as it exists today is certainly possible, it is just requires resources normally outside the range of someone curious if it could be done.  Additionally, if there is a pattern seen as being disruptive, there are changes to the client that the miners can perform to give preference to transactions that don't look like yours -- though you too might be able to adjust in response.  And an arms-race proceeds.  You would need to be determined to have a lasting impact.

Contact Us is for like press inquiries or busines development.

You want support (it was to the left of the "Contact Us" link)
 
 - https://support.mtgox.com/home  <---- Click "Submit a request" at the top.

File a ticket there.

Ripple has the same hurdle as does Bitcoin:  PayPay, VIScAm, Mastercrap, JP Morgue, Western ULose, etc.

- http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees#Minimum_transaction_fees

Then it is 0.0005 per additional KB of data.

Well, first thing is check your disk space.  Maybe it is running full and stopping?

Also make sure you are using the most recent client.

FPGA rigs?

Maybe you might want to try explaining that to the community here first.

Assuming this is money you'ld rather not lose, that might be a good first step.

If you can't find a trade here, consider VirWoX.   There you can buy Second Life Lindens (SLLs) using a credit card and then trade SLLs for BTCs.
 - http://www.VirWoX.com

Also, intermittently you might find a few with BTCQuick (most of the time it shows "out of stock" but if you monitor their forum thread you might catch some being available.)
 - http://btcquick.com/ocart/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=64

Otherwise, conducting a trade for cash, locally is one option:
 - http://www.LocalBitcoins.com

Or through any of the other methods.

If you have a Chase bank near you, you can deposit cash that will be credited to your exchange account at BitMe.com:
 - http://BitMe.com

Then there is BitInstant, deposit cash at 7-11, Walmart, CVS, or other Moneygram location:
 - http://www.BitInstant.com

There may be other methods that work for you as well:
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Buying_bitcoins

You can open a new ticket on the Bitcoin project on GitHub:
 - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues

If you aren't sure it is a bug, you might share your problem here and maybe there is some workaround or other useful information you'ld end up with.

Well, nothing wrong per-se, but neither of those included a transaction fee.

About a week ago, payment of a transaction fee with your wager was made a requirement to be able to get the wager processed (and paid out) prior to it getting one confirmation:

You might wish to read:

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