As an update their support suggested to clear my DNS cache, and if that didn't work, try the btc-e.nz, a sister site.
I had to look up how to clear the cache, in any case, did not appear to work. The sister site does work though, so I appear to be right for now, though would still rather know why I can't go the usual route.

Is anyone else having this problem or can point me toward solution?

When I try to load the btc-e.com site from any machine or device in my household, I am unable to load the site. It simply says could not locate server or server's DNS address. 
Now the first odd thing is that we have multiple machines and devices, on different networks, using different browsers, and still get the same result.
So you may think obviously the site is just down right?
Apparently not - I see no such problem in blog-land, see other sites quoting BTC-e prices, and several web services I've tried that ping sites to check if they are down or not say there is no problem for them, so it must be me?

I've used the site for years, this is just last day or two.

Any ideas?

Originally I funded purchases of these tokens from BTC in my Multibit Wallet, and the distribution of the colored coins defaulted to the same BTC address from which I paid. I never held these tokens in any other address. But as I mentioned the BTC amounts on which they appear to be piggybacked are too small to meet the BTC-based fee hurdle of transferring them out, which i was not aware would be a problem when I made the original purchases. I would gladly transfer them out at very low to zero fee even if that meant confirms took a day or more, but I dont know if this is possible on Multibit, or if its possible to see the private key to use in an alternate wallet, or if there is another solution.

I have various tokens that run on bitcoin that are trapped in my multibit wallet. One example is OMNI Mastercoin but there are a couple of others. The problem is that the amounts, stored as tagged BTC of much lower value, are too small to cover the fixed multibit fee of sending them out of the wallet. They're only small values, but in principle I don't like the idea of having trapped coins. What is my best option to release them? e.g. Can I set send transaction fee to 0? Can I import the address and tokens into another wallet and how? Thanks for any solution.

Can you publish on steem under a pseudonym instead of Facebook name? Having trouble changing this...

Does anybody know if there is a specific time at which the wallets need to hold Bitshares-PTS to get an allocation to Bitshares? Just wondering when I need to make sure the PTS is tied up there. Thanks.

same problem
deposit sitting on 18 confirmations
Though I did other deposits earlier today went through fine

Thanks for the update above Giancarlo, though it seemed forever in coming. Perhaps once it is all sorted and you have more time, you could elaborate on the event and suggest how this system vulnerability will be rectified going forward.

Thanks and regards.

Thanks ujka

Thanks for your thoughtful comments ujka. The amount I have been re-investing through the RRP has not allowed me to maintain a level production rate and keep up with the increasing difficulty, as per my first paragraph. Is it possible if I had re-invested a higher percentage, perhaps closer to 100%? I doubt it, but even then I've got to take some earnings along the way.

On looking at inputs and returns in BTC only, my contracts are way behind, and I would have benefited from more research in advance to verify their projections. On this basis I don't get how anyone can make mining profits right now. At CEX, the cost per GH/s last I looked was around 0.045 BTC, and based on their profit estimates (linked at bottom of their page) the expected output was 0.022 BTC (quoted as 2.2 BTC per 100 GH/s). Isn't that an expected 50% loss on BTC capital? I might be missing something, but its not stacking up for me.

Anyway, cheers.

Thanks for the suggested link between difficulty and price, which potentially suggests difficulty leads higher price.

What I am trying to figure is if one invests in a miner, is the reality that the higher the BTC price goes the less BTC I will eventually be able to mine? For example, higher mining margins bring increased competition and difficulty, so you just end up mining less than expected? (i.e. price leads to greater difficulty)

Whereas if the price were stable perhaps there's a better shot at mining more BTC?

Or does it not really matter what price does, difficulty will just increase at the same rate regardless.

Hope that makes more sense. Otherwise my apologies!

How should one alter expectations of the future number of BTC mined on any rig available today in the scenarios that 1) BTC price rises a lot, say 5x to $4000 in the next few months) BTC price falls a lot (say 75% back to $200), or 3) BTC price remains stable at the current price around $830. Is there a predictable impact of such price movements on the ability to mine BTC?

Thanks if you can help.

I thought I would share my experience so far regarding Cloud-hashing, positive or negative as it may be, and only the facts I have on my own contracts.

I like to start constructively. Despite service delays and disruptions along the way, Cloud-hashing have ultimately delivered the features to customers they have promised. So some credit is due there. Now on returns...

I bought 2 year September contracts. According to their on-site advertising at the time of purchase, the minimum expectation for BTC mined per year was equivalent to around 1.3 BTC per GH/s purchased. In the first 3 months I have so far mined around 6% of that annual projection, which with the BTC mining rate declining it should have been over 25%, so it is well behind the advertised BTC projections, even recognising these can only ever be estimates in a rapidly changing environment. I have been re-investing some of the earnings in the RRP (experimenting between 0 and 30%), which has so far given me an extra 20% GH/s on my initial amount. So that at least works, and seems to partially compensate for the exponentially increasing difficulty. Given all of this, I've calculated that over the last 2 months the rate of BTC being mined per day on my accumulated GH/s has fallen by around 40%, probably a better result than without the RRP, but overall still a much lower BTC yield than advertised.

The company presents their results in fiat dollars however. Given the 8-fold rise in BTC value since September, I therefore have received all capital back and then some measured in fiat dollars, consistent with their claim. That could actually be a relevant way to look at things if one is funding the contracts from fiat (as I did), which is how they quote the contract purchase prices. However, Cloud-hashing has no influence over the BTC price change, and ongoing 8-fold increases are certainly not a reasonable norm on which to form future expectations. The fiat dollar return can theoretically only be considered indicative then if one expects ongoing quarterly 8-fold increases in price, or if a legitimate claim can be made that if price had remained more stable, many more BTC would have been mined in line with the initial projections. I am not sure if there is such a valid inverse relationship here, and whether it could be significant enough to support such ongoing fiat return expectations. Perhaps somebody with greater understanding of the technicals of mining can comment on this. If not, fiat return results experienced to date seem unreasonable to expect for the future.

Possibly there is more context that others could provide here about the economics of mining BTC today. I note for example that even on CEX, estimated BTC yields are currently well below the cost per GH/s. So not sure how mining BTC makes sense right now at all in the absence of large price increases (and then if that's what you are relying on, why not buy BTC now instead?).

Regards all.

These are really interesting questions. I had a withdrawal request from June that was not met. Responses they gave me kept indicating another 2 or 3 week backlog, as per their public announcements. Eventually in early August I gave up, and took the price hit on transferring out via BTC. A bird in the hand is better than a dead one in the bush.

I agree this smells of Mt Gox adopting some highly unethical practices to solve cash flow issues. Although this is unproven, Mt Gox has given no evidence of what it has actually paid out in withdrawals once these delays were announced, which banks they have new arrangements with (if any), etc, so they have not been very transparent and therefore invite skepticism even if unfounded. I would be interested to hear who has actually received withdrawals, and how long they waited.

The arbitrage seems easy unless you take into account that we really don't know how much longer the problem will go on for, given past statements have not been met (at least for myself). Until Mt Gox demonstrate otherwise it is possible there could be a bigger danger lurking behind the scenes.

StevenPine

I empathise with the fact that you feel an agreement is being breached. However you have counter-parties on the other side whose agreements should also not be breached.
I think you are being either a little disingenuous or naive here. If you take your non-margined BTC, you know you will be leaving your futures counter-parties holding part of your loss, do you not?
The site admin is doing all they can in the circumstances given there is currently not an open spot market in BTC.

Hi all. Newbie with Litecoin. I downloaded Electrum Litecoin 0.61 for Mac OS X. It did not seem to connect to any servers and I still can't get it to do so. When I press my network button in the client, it shows
Connect To: electrum.litecoin.net:50001:t
Protocol: tcp (instead of http)
Default servers: electrum-bytesized-hosting.com and electrum.litecoin.net.

When I try to change the default server, it does not seem to make any difference. Always saying Not Connected. Can anybody see what I need to do? Thanks

Fireball, the difficulty as I see it is that a market maker or arbitrager needs to have confidence that some or all of their positions will not be unexpectedly and forcibly closed to facilitate the liquidation of another trader, which has happened frequently. This would make it nearly impossible to manage and hedge risk in the book. You might argue this is chicken and egg. Maybe, but can you propose how market makers would be protected from this?

This is a question directed at any physical or online merchants accepting BTC for goods and services and using or observing this forum. The aim is to get some joint understanding on the current growth trend in BTC sales. Could only businesses selling goods or services in BTC reply (i.e. not currency or bit coin exchanges), and only those that have at least 3 months (or close to) of history in selling goods or services in BTC. I have focused on dollar growth rather than percentage growth, as in many cases the starting base will be very low.

Casascius, the 3 party cryptographic escrow sounds like a neat solution. Who offers this service?

Hi Yucca, this sounds interesting. Please repost to this thread when you are complete, and I (and I'm sure others) will certainly take a look.
To bitcoinbitcoin113, many thanks for the links. Exactly what I was after at this stage!