 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
In the last days I haven been looking into the option of using a mobile payment processor like Zong, where people could pay with their mobile phone. It seemed like a good fit, because mobile phones are actually used a lot to buy various forms of (centralized) virtual currencies - like Facebook Credit for example.
Zongs transaction costs were very high the last time I looked. Something like 25% on a 10$ purchase. Thats just daylight robbery.. |
|
|
|
What about Moneybookers?
Moneybookers won't allow any kind of exhange system.. |
|
|
|
Years ago PayPal's terms of service pretty much ruled out currency exchanging.
Private individuals would tick off some other option than "this is me selling currency" or "this is a currency exchange", instead claiming it is a personal debt owed or the sale of a service. Because to say it was a currency exchange or sale of currency would in those days have been against PayPal's terms.
I am not aware of that part of their terms having changed since then. Has it?
-MarkM-
We actually had gotten past this stage with paypal already. They do allow currency exchange under the condition that you are implement a closed system: Meaning that you use PayPal as your sole PSP for all money entering and leaving your system. But they do not allow any circumvention of their chargeback policy in this scenario. For us it was too much of a risk being dependenct on one single PSP. There are too many stories of frustrated merchants out their, who do not understand why their account was put on hold or even canceled. |
|
|
|
May I suggest you use Western Union ?
No risk of chargebacks. Chargeback part is nice. But their fees are attrocious. Especially when do international payments. We need to be able to accept amounts between 5 - 50 USD/EUR/GBP And they don't seem to have an API to automate the payment process What's wrong with Paypal (I know it's a silly question  ). Are you afraid of chargebacks or is there some other issue as well? PayPal ist working great from a technical perspective. But we fear that for some very strange reason, they might put our account on hold.. We want to offer at least a second payment option. So it's a bit of risk mitigation thing. The other part is the 45day rule we had to implement because of the chargeback risk. |
|
|
|
|
Very cool idea.
Here my 2 bitcents:
- Work on your communication for the uninitated.
- After logging on, it took me a while to figure out how your service works.. I was expecting a list of users with an info on if they want to sell or buy. Having my contact info floating around, after saving was confusing. (I won't rule out that I completly misunderstood something..)
- The search function is not available when logged in..
- Use something like Ideainfomer to gather/manage the feedback..
|
|
|
|
May I suggest you use Western Union ?
No risk of chargebacks. Chargeback part is nice. But their fees are attrocious. Especially when do international payments. We need to be able to accept amounts between 5 - 50 USD/EUR/GBP And they don't seem to have an API to automate the payment process |
|
|
|
Has anybody used Global Digital Pay?(as a buyer or seller) https://www.globaldigitalpay.comGreat benefit is the fact that as merchant you cannot be charged-back. For the buyer it seems to a bit of jungle finding the right exchange partner to get funds on your account.. |
|
|
|
its just the podcast with an image.. no video  |
|
|
|
I asked Steven Gibson for the video, but he just sent me the link to the Podcast, saying that I should/could edit out the non-Bitcoin parts. Heres the http://aolradio.podcast.aol.com/sn/sn0287.mp3Anybody feel like editing it? |
|
|
|
Looks cool. It's neat that you essentially found a way to make people wait 45 days for PayPal bought coins without it being to annoying since the buyer feels like they already bought and spent the coins immediately after tipping. And the person who got the tip can't complain too much since it was money for "nothing".
I have enough connections that I can get coins immediately with my PP, but I'm going to buy some from you if the 30 cents is a valid offer. Does that stay updated? How many can/will you sell at that rate?
Sorry, the 0,30 cent offer is out.. We sold out very quickly. We are trying to get new coins right now. So I'm actually looking for Bitcoins at the moment. We'll have to sell at a significantly higher rate, as a good proportion of the buyers, mainly bought them to speculate. At least thats what I suspect.  We want to enable "the technicaly not savy", to easily aquire Bitcoins. Therfore a higher rate will be necessary to keep out the speculators; probably 0,50 cent looking at the current mt gox rates.. |
|
|
|
Hi, could you please add http://www.youtipit.org to the trading list. YouTipIt is a flattr like online community platform for tipping bitcoins. Thanks, Karsten |
|
|
|
Hi everyone, I'm one of the founders of YouTipIt. First off, thank you all for the great feedback, keep it coming. And appologies for the quirks and bugs. The reason why some of you weren't getting their confirmation mail is so banal that I'm nearly to ashamed to admit it. But thats fixed now  The reason why the bitcoins weren't coming through was twofold: - We initally had configured our backend service to wait for 8 confirmations until we accepted it properly. We've reduced it to one confirmation for the moment. So it should currently take approx. 10 minutes now to get through.. We will be reducing it to 0 confirmations soon though, but put a hold on the Bitcoins until we the reach 8 confirmations.. - The other reason was that we have some stability issues with the bitcoin service. A bit suprising as the service has been running quite stable for the last weeks. But we'll get that one figured out. I'll be adding a monitoring service some time today which will inform us, when the service is down, so that we can respond quicker.. We're currently looking for a plattform to manage feedback and feature request. Something like getsatisfaction would be great. The downside of most of these services is that they require an additional registration, which I always feel is a burden. And they cost real money, which is not one of core competencies.. There's also a thread running on reddit which can be used for feedback: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/f5ado/youtipit_bitcoin_based_flattr_like/ |
|
|
|
|
and is there a reason for this?
|
|
|
|
|
When sending somebody bitcoins using using the rpc-api, I want to add my name and a message.
Currently I'm using sendtoaddress command bitcoinaddress amount [comment] [comment-to].
On the client sending I can at least see the message.
On the recieving end, "From" is unkown and the message does not appear at all.
I've noticed that the GUI greys out the message fields when sending to a bitcoin address.
I fear this is by design..
|
|
|
|
|
I added a .net section with example code to the wiki.
|
|
|
|
|
Cool! It's working now.
The content-type did the trick. I'll gladly add that .net section and I'll also open source my wrapper library in the next days.
Thanks for the help!
|
|
|
|
Who am I to convince you. I'm just the guy in the middle between two implementations of the http protocol. The problem is actually not with jayrock, but with the core .net httprequest object (, which I would have modifed if I could.) .net writes two CRLFs after the last header.. i.e. Connection: Keep-Alive CRLF
CRLF
{"id":1,"method":"getinfo","params":[]} If the above is correct (.net-wise), then I'd be the first person to be using the bitcoin rpc-api from .net?? |
|
|
|
|
doesn't seem to be fixable without any ugly hacks..
All the .net guys I've spoken to say that its an error on the server side i.e. that the http protocol is not implemented properly..
How can I raise this as a bug?
|
|
|
|
you're the man! I've spent all afternoon trying to get this to work.. When manipulating the request in Fiddler it works Looks like I'm going to write my own rpc client  (Don't know about the newlines yet, but that's what I'll try and fix next.) |
|
|
|
Ok this is the authentication request: POST http://localhost.:8332/ HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; MS Web Services Client Protocol 4.0.30319.1)
Host: localhost.:8332
Content-Length: 42
Expect: 100-continue
Connection: Keep-Alive
{"id":1,"method":"getinfo","params":[]}
Fiddler reports the following error though authentication request: Fiddler has detected a protocol violation in session #43. Content-Length mismatch: Response Header claimed 311 bytes, but server sent 296 bytes. Authentication goes through well nonetheless The authenticated request then is: POST http://localhost.:8332/ HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; MS Web Services Client Protocol 4.0.30319.1)
Authorization: Basic dGlwa2c6dGlwa2c=
Host: localhost.:8332
Content-Length: 42
Expect: 100-continue
Connection: Keep-Alive
{"id":1,"method":"getinfo","params":[]} And matching response is: HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error
Date:
Connection: close
Content-Length: 74
Content-Type: application/json
Server: bitcoin-json-rpc/1.0
{"result":null,"error":{"code":-32700,"message":"Parse error"},"id":null} |
|
|
|
|
