That reagent test looks just yellow+black to me, not green. Did you test a grain of your product? If so, please also try testing a dilution of your product to match the dilutions tested by ecstasydata above (2mg/ml and 4mg/ml).
That could be the only reason your test looks suspicious, so definitely give that a shot and see if you get a cleaner result.
Otherwise, there's some other possibilities to consider--because that black looks a lot like ecstasydata's bromodragonfly black. Be careful, folks.
Bromodragonfly/3c-b-dfly isn't a potential contaminant--the disaster last time was due to a mix up, nothing more. But 2c-b-dfly could potentially be a contaminant, depending on how the lab in question decided to go about this synth. And I don't think that one has ever been characterized in man.
I would like to see someone get some independent lab work done on this stuff--not that the lab in question isn't reputable, but it would still be good to see.
https://bitnest.netfirms.com/external.php?id=%7DbxUgX%5DCY%04%05p%7Bv%19%05WRL%02TAt%60%60
This is side-by-side analysis of 2c-b-fly, 2c-b-dfly, 3c-b-fly, and 3c-b-dfly by a few different analytical techniques, for reference, in case anyone wants to take a shot at working over a sample themselves. It's pretty comprehensive, and the compounds should be pretty easily distinguishable, so it's not too hard a job.
There's a few different ways to go about making these compounds, and I don't know the synth that the lab in question chose, but one option involves hydrogenation of a benzodifuran (dfly) precursor to the dihydrobenzodifuran (fly). That's all that has me slightly worried.
Also our resident lord and savior Xorkoth already stepped in about naming sources, so he's obviously on top of the last few posts, and I'll presume that he's comfortable handling this forum in the manner he pleases. But for a compound this rare, quoting your source's price is effectively quoting your source.
