CCEDK offers liquidity on both buy and sell side of their 6 trading pairs to support Nubits and Nushares!

Let’s dispense of the fiction that the roll-out of NSR markets on CCEDK was carefully planned and that we (the Nu developers) would have had an opportunity to catch this before it was implemented.

  • On November 12, 2014 at 7:38 AM I received an email from you where you relayed a message from Nick. The request was for “100 testnet NSR, urgently”.

  • I immediately sent the coins (1000, vs. 100, because “hey, it’s testnet…”)

  • On November 13, 2014, CCEDK launched four NSR markets.

I’m not interested in arguing “he said, he said”, I just want the record to be clear that it’s not a simple case of implementation details not being shared with CCEDK. People can come to their own conclusions.

@Ben, when did @ronny reach out to you about this? I opened my support ticket on January 6th and on January 30th I received an email from @ronny that they have found the problem. This is not a reasonable amount of time to address an issue as serious as misdirected funds.

January 19, 2015.

I just wanted to point out that I had liked Ronny’s post above before he changed it when it read this instead…

I can only say that I was told from our developer the problem would not have appeared if it had been open source. I have no complaints whatsoever towards any devs of Nubits, and you Ben have done a great job.

Again, I dont have any problem accepting that lack of communication when setting up Nubits and Nushares on exchange is the case of this problem, I do however, notice that the various exchanges added apart from Bter have all had issues similar to what we had, from which I can then conclude that no develeopers from any of these exchanges asked for help when listing the currency on their exchange. I guess we were all thinking our devs knew best, but we have all leearned from this ofcourse.[/quote]

Strange, I thought the forum had the ability to “unlike” a post. Looks like that isn’t the case right now, I just tried on a different post.

Yeah I tried too but no luck. The reason I had originally liked it was because Ronny seemed to admit that maybe he or his employees actually are partly responsible for what happened. But then he had to go and ruin it by changing to this…

Back in 2007 I was fired from my job for the first time in my life. The reason was because there was a new rule which stated I had to wait until 30 minutes after 2nd shift arrived so that I could clean up and properly inform the incoming shift what was going on. I didn’t follow this new rule and left at my usual time. There were several reasons I ignored it. I usually cleaned up my whole area before 2nd shift came in and it only took maybe 2-3 minutes to explain what was going on for the day. I didn’t feel waiting around for 30 minutes was justified. Finally, nobody else on our shift took the rule seriously either and ignored it as well.

One day when walking off the floor at the usual time along with everybody else who didn’t take the rule seriously either, I was singled out by management and let go. I was made an example of to let the other employees know that they were serious about this rule. I was unemployed for a long time and for years I pointed fingers and blamed the company. My poor excuse was that I shouldn’t have been fired because everybody else was doing the same thing as me and leaving early. I didn’t want to take responsibility for my actions that day. I realize now that it doesn’t matter what everybody else was doing. I was still breaking company rules and I should have known better. I have now stopped blaming others for what happened.

I see the same thing in Ronny’s edited reply above. When I read it, it reminds of this: “Why is it my fault? All the other exchanges were doing it too.” Just like my example, it doesn’t matter what other exchanges are doing. You need to take ownership and responsibility for your own problems. Please, no more blaming others.

As Ben said, those implementation details were clearly laid out on the NuBits website. All that needed to be done was to follow them. It wasn’t followed though, and that caused the mess you’re now in. I sincerely hope that when new exchanges decide to support us, the Nu team makes a habit of stressing the importance of following these directions, but you can’t lay the blame on them if the instructions for implementation were clearly laid out and available to everyone. It is the fault of the exchange for not following the instructions and no one else. Please take responsibility.


Having gone through the allcoin bug finding, reporting, and alerting incident, I think it would have been very hard for a normal exchange to find the peculiar edge case of avatar=1 problem. Had I not been a curious experienced Nu user who happened to have some time to investigate, I couldn’t be able to pinpoint and report the problem in a way that allows the exchange team to know where to look right away. This not totally surprising as Nu has many new features. Might this be the problem behind the downing of all Nu related exchanges? If it is not true please clarify.

If there have been more than one case of the avatar problem, I think Nu should be totally honest and act as we ask @ronny to do, admit that We didn’t do enough and we have plan to improve (for example make sure any exchange that carries Nu understand the issue). Attempting to push known issue under the carpet, or just being seen trying to do so, will severely hurt the adoption of Nu. I urge some of the team members to also look at things from the other guys perspective to have a full understanding where Nu is. This is relevant to the current situation where only a few small exchanges are supporting Nu and Nu will be seeking support from more exchanges with open source soon.

As for CCEDK, @ronny should explain what happened although I can wait until he finds out exactly what happened.

1 Like

Poloniex also forgot to include avatar=0 in nu.conf. I noticed that the change from a withdraw I made was put back into a used address. If you put avatar=0 in your own nu.conf and send and examine a transaction on the blockchain, it will show a new address received the change. Without avatar=0 the change is put into the sent address.

They had coding in place so that change from a withdraw was not treated as a deposit and they were not affected. This might say something about the quality product that Poloniex offers, but they still didn’t RTFM.

If this is the case then I agree.

We can always do better and are constantly striving to learn from every situation and improve for the future.

One salient point if you are not familiar with the background: the avatar switch isn’t a “problem”, it’s the reason that each shareholder is able to get their correct amount of peercoin dividends when exporting their keys to their Peercoin client.

1 Like

I’ll also add that it would be a massive help if businesses provided test-only versions of their exchange platforms so issues like these could be discovered before real money was put into play.

I have yet to meet an exchange that offered this, but I hope they exist.

1 Like

Nu is a little different than most crypto listed on exchanges in that it is also a market maker. Exchanges typically cater to us. Perhaps someday we may be in a position to require exchanges to submit to some level of testing before they receive any NuBot liquidity or be listed on . This might lead to somewhat of a Nu Certified exchange concept that some may approach us to offer it as a service, depending on the reputation and depth of the testing.

1 Like

Thanks for explaining that avatar=1 is needed by Nu. However that is not the point. The point is that after the first exchange had been discovered to have this problem, measure wasn’t taken (correct me if this is not true) to let other exchanges aware of the issue.

1 Like

More could have been done, obviously.