此电邮是由 Huobi 提供的服务 – No Service of Huobi on Steem

Dear Justin Sun,

as witness @steemchiller told me, it was my fault to type a space in front of my Huobi STEEM- account. He showed me the real transaction string, I produced.

["transfer",{"from":"afrog","to":"huobi-pro","amount":"1900.000 STEEM","memo":" 279984"}]

 
The space is to find In front of the Huobi Steem wallet address " 279984". An algorithm is producing quotation marks when a number is expected. The whole process does not satisfy users needs at all. It runs on account @huobi-pro and ends in blocking of funds because of a leading space sign.

_{Screenshot-2020-06-02_22-25-49 CEST}

A leading space, in places where numbers are expected, is a very, very common hardly to find mistype in IT. Every developer knows it and wipes it away with the expression trim(). They must not do this in a Steemit transaction formular. But they should do it on huobi-pro with STEEM-transfers. Because they know their number patterns. It's developer standard all over the world to handle faults. Because of a lack in the standards of programming 1900 STEEM are seized on the account of @huobi-pro, now. I have a never ending conversation by E-Mail with Huobi but start to guess, your Steemit programming staff is a good address as well for my complaint. Maybe Justin Sun is able to wake up the operator of @huobi-pro to tell he is sitting on my goods, but the account number is written there. He is free to forward it by hand or clear the numbers in comparison with Huobi database. I am pretty sure there is an algorithm, to clear such easy cases automatically – instead of a fiat clearing procedure. This is against every private policy in coins, when no fiat exchange is asked at all. Huobi told me:

… And we don't know who made this transaction …

This is not true. I've provided all numbers they asked for and the blockchain holds. I am Afrog. This coins are mine and Huobi knows me from the blockchain named Steem.

Thank you for your attention.

Huobi, always strikes the same

由 HBGS-Bonnie 更新于 2020年6月5日 GMT+8 下午2:04:33

Dear Customer,

Thank you for contacting Huobi Global Customer Service Center.

Hello, we are willing to help you to deal with this issue,but we have explained to you many times that ,the reason why we need you to provide the video is that the memo was filled in incorrectly when you deposited, so the asset didn't credited.
And we don't know who made this transaction and to which account the STEEM suppose to deposit. If there is no video, but only according to your statement, we can’t directly send the STEEM to your account, please understand.Thanks.
​
Best Regards,

Huobi Global Customer Service Center

My recent defence against Fiat identification by video:

...the problem is not that we don’t know the information of the transaction, but because the tag was filled in incorrectly, we don’t know who made the transaction.
^{Huobi Support}

We cannot share your opinion and protest in the strongest possible terms.

It is not legitimate to question the identity of a transfer sender just because in his memo a leading space from the number of his Huobi customer wallet accidentally produces an obviously non-machine-readable string. The case gives a deep insight into how your interface to the Steem blockchain works and what you really mean by service. It is not good for your reputation as a stock exchange, nor does it testify to a great blockchain and software knowledge of your developers. The correction of strings by trim() is standard where a number is expected. Instead of making your developments technically correct and customer-friendly, you operate with a rigid disclaimer that turns every blockchain theory and practice upside down. This is the reason, we guess, why you confiscates our assets and ask for a Fiat identification.

As we have already explained, the destination address of our transaction, which you have misrepresented as being false, is readable by anyone! So it is perfectly executable. In all block chain explorers that we know of, the disputed transaction does not show any error at all. So you only have to compare the address with your own issued steemwallet addresses. Already you will find the rightful owner of the coins, who has already identified himself as a new Huobi customer by e-mail, phone number and his steem account. Both on the blockchain Steem and on your stock exchange.

An alternative method to settle the case would be to ask the sender of the confiscated amount on the block chain Steem, where your Company collects coins, how you should deal with the allegedly incorrect transfer. However, your only humiliating strategy is to demand full Fiat legitimation for a simple coin transfer from a already legitimated account, even though this procedure contradicts every known block chain logic of privacy.

The fact that you even bluntly call such behaviour a service is very frightening for all customers. Can't you see that your approach contradicts every block chain logic? You run the risk of making yourself look ridiculous in professional circles by insisting on the Fiat legitimation for a very clear coin transaction. There is just a space in front of the target address. Every developer knows, how to surpress those very common faults. This is not a problen in IT since decades!

As said before, if you do not know how to develop, if you can't communicate with Steem blockchain's users, you should avoid collecting coins from there. We would like to point out once again that in Huobi Group the Chief Of Staff, Ciara Sun, must know who can communicate with Steem customers (login, key, and so on). The Steem Blockchain is owned by her husband Justin Sun.

In order to avoid further disagreements, including with other Steem customers, and the long overdue resolution of this acute case, it would be beneficial for your company if the Huobi exchange staff were to be familiar with the correct assessment and adequate handling of crypto workflows in the meaning of privacy. It cannot be our job to bleed with a full Fiat identification for your own failures in crypto and in software development.

It would be in your own interest to reconsider your rigid, unfriendly and technically incorrect policy.

Best regards

Afrog