I placed an order a few days ago at dr-btc.com which seems to be the same website on a new domain (90% confident)

The order was 'completed' July-23 and IndiaPost tracking number provided.

HOWEVER - the IndiaPost tracking site says "Consignment details not found."

And the contact us form returns:

"There was an error trying to send your message. Please try again later."


So yeah...
Any updates from the previous posters who placed orders?

If a scam site, it's had a lot more effort put in than most.

Hey all,

We're a startup with a micro-rewards platform that simplifies rewarding 'stuff' down to a binary decision and a simple click.  It works by having the user pre-decide their fixed amount (say 25¢ or whatever).  Users (payers) can use fiat or bitcoin, money goes to the recipients bitcoin address.

At it's simplest, it works with just a URL with a bitcoin address eg:  https://tib.me/mytibs9YhLYtrVhQkmTdbDS51H54WyrxTx Since that's a testnet address, it opens in 'demo mode'.

The concept was essentially inspired by bitcointalk three years back - people were putting their bitcoin 'tipjars' in their signatures here, and I started thinking about what it would take to actually get people (myself included) to reward useful posters, because the 'cognitive hassle' of actually making a payment was enough to stop it happening.

Since profiles here can have bitcoin addresses, it'd be dead easy to integrate a profile or signature 'tip' button into the site.  Not just for our service of course, the member could choose a service, or just a bitcoin URI.

I'm interested in peoples thoughts.  More about us at https://tibit.com. 

 --Justin

Thanks :-)

The new account is for the 'brand', and also useful to have a company account I can hand over as we grow...

This is my personal account.

Except bitcoin's?

BTC

I wanted to stay true to the one that's already known by most people.

My suggestion is for a 'reference design' which will naturally be reinterpreted by typeface designers

This might or might not work, depending on your installed fonts, but here for example is $ in Calibri $ and Courier New $

Who's this 'we'?  A quick google search shows that 99% are using the B-double-bar.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bitcoin&tbm=isch&qscrl=1

And that doesn't exist in Unicode, although in a few comprehensive and well implemented fonts, B͈̎ (0x0042, 0x030E , 0x0348) can work sort-of okay.

It's been 'locked in' as part of FontAwesome, which is something of a de-facto collection of useful 'dingbats' that haven't made it into unicode.



And even here on bitcointalk.org, putting BTC in square brackets in a post gives BTC

There might be some holdouts, but consensus was reached on the symbol for Bitcoin over a year ago.

This is a GOOD THING.  Why co-opt something with entrenched historical meaning for something totally new?  Generally, I think all the uses of various existing UNICODE B's and b-shaped symbols is daft.  It's not hard to get something added into unicode if we can show it's being used.  The Bitcoin B-double-bar was under discussion previously; the only reason it's not already part of the unicode char set is that the person making the case for it never responded to the unicode committee's questions.


I think it's more important to make it resonate with the B-double-bar, which has different stroke widths for the vertical bars and the stem.

Yes.


No, I don't think so.

The point is that by fixing a target now, that makes it easier for real-humans and existing software to work with the currency, for now (and a few years), that potentially helps immeasurably with bitcoin adoption and accommodation between now and then.

Right now, satoshis as 'base units' are fairly intrinsic to the protocol - yes, in theory, and undoubtedly eventually in practice as well, another n bits of divisibility can be added - but I understand that to be a non-trivial exercise. So the 'moving target' is not arbitrary for today and not tomorrow, and the question will need to be readdressed later - but 'later' will not be as critical to bitcoin emergence  and adoption as 'now'.

[infact, if it was just for 'now' we'd all be talking mille-bitcoin]

Still you're point is valid - in the bigger picture, this is very much a tactical rather than strategic move. 

And you know that if we go with µB͈̎ people are going to call it you-bitcoin, and write it uB͈̎ and that's just going to make me cringe and want to thump people...

I'm no fan of the name 'bits', (e.g. "how many bits per bit is that?") BUT I think it's too late - and I won't be getting pulled into that debate.  And there's no reason why the name and symbol need to combine.  After all, dollar doesn't start with S (as in $) and neither Sterling nor Pound start with an L (as in £).   

I have some ideas, as I'm sure others do; BUT that is a trivial concern compared to a symbol for 'bits', which I would like to get some broad buy-in for sooner rather than later.

Just my $0.02 worth   :-)

There is a critical difference - everyone knows that 'dollar' is the standard unit, in the main, all software and formal presentation is in unit dollars, both because that is the standard unit, and because that is the normal scale for everyday transactions.   

The logical comparison is much closer to 'cents' '¢' that to 'grand' (and while the US has quarters, dimes, and nickels, that is far from the norm)

The move to 'bits' is more fundamental, in that it will likely be the predominant usage down the line, and furthermore, will be the basic denomination coded into many systems, with satoshi 'cents'.  For display purposes we, along with many other companies, will be showing values in 'bits'; and it is much better for the ecosystem to support quick understanding and ease of use of 'bits' in the everyday world.

With momentum really starting to build behind using 'bits' as the primary unit for Bitcoin (as pointed out elsewhere, two decimals fits much better into legacy finance systems) I've been pondering symbols.

I was trying to tie in greek letter mu (µ) as the SI unit for a millionth, but nothing seemed to work.

Above all else, I wanted it to have an explicit relationship to the dominant Bitcoin symbol (and pursue the optimal route, of coming up with something unique rather than just cludge-repurposing some existing unicode char.

Please comment, remix, argue, encourage, discourage, as you feel appropriate below.

I remember a time, not all that long ago, when the HDD light performed exactly the function very well...

Hi folks.

For some 3rd party integration testing, we need a fair chunk (one-two hundred for now) of real-testnet btc.

I think I might have made a bit of a mess yesterday, by dumping a KnC Jupiter onto the testnet, while my testnet bitcoind was still playing catchup - I had something like 25000 test btc showing in my wallet, and then none - so I guess I created a local orphan chain or something?  Whatever they were they seem to have gone now.

I think I've split a bit of my Jupiter off now...


And have apparently mined one block for 25 coin at txid 31e23ded018e48789f6f9e92937db53e02ac92f91754fa7c5a245b1ba6316653
(although I'm not 100% sure if the bitcoin.cz pool was enabled at that time.)

It seems odd that the output from cgminer is all about Pool 0, never about Pool 1 (that I've caught anyhow) - I'm guessing this has something to do with pool-mining vs solo-mining?  I'm wondering if having cgminer split between testnet and the real net like this might confuse it somehow?

So anyhows, I'd just like to know if I should be doing anything differently to either minimise testnet impact, or to collect the coins we need.

Thanks - and apologies for any noobishness...

Coming soon ... http://www.ciphertrade.com/


We met with their developer, and were impressed. 

They are totally serious about becoming legitimate in the eyes of the UK regulator.  I also know their lawyer, and while I don't know any details of how, I am confident that they are also totally genuine and serious about expecting to obtain that legitimacy within a few weeks.

I will just briefly mention in case it is useful somehow, that once and only once I had a post disappear on the BFL forums...  I was reminded of it reading through that transcript.

In it, I recall that I stated that it seemed to me that the BFL staff were doing their all to get stuff shipped [I was naive, sue me! lol] but that if it turned out that any of their staff already had minirig ASIC miners chugging away while the customers were kept waiting for their boxes, that would almost certainly constitute a fraud perpetrated against their customers, no matter what the website refund etc T&Cs were.

I probably didn't bold and underline fraud in that post, it was more of a throwaway comment - although my left eyebrow might have raised slightly when I couldn't relocate the post on the forum...

I do rather hope someone has mused upon the possibility in the general direction of Ms. Mahoney at some point?

CipherTrade is well worth keeping an eye one.  London UK based, with a strong desire to be regulator compatible.

http://www.ciphertrade.com/

While I like the service, a huge part of the reason I ordered one of these today was to have a functional debit card with a bitcoin logo on it.  Despite reading the FAQ, I missed the card images at the bottom.  If I had seen that, I would not have ordered.  I suggest that if you ever get to be in the position to have cards produced with your own artwork, you offer a free replacement to existing customers.  In the meantime I suggest you put on each mock image of a card on the site that the image is 'not actual card imagery'.

Pretty sure it is valid, and it's a bit worrying maybe.  Dunno, I'm not an expert. 

https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs

https://ghash.io/ (https://cex.io/) is my guess.