I remember last year during the alt boom in spring/summer 2013, coins would go for weeks without being added to an exchange. It was always such a huge risk, you could mine for weeks and your coin never hits cryptsy. Maybe there was a reason for that. We can avoid situations like this, and broken shit coin debacles like NJA on bittrex. I do feel for halibit though, poor guy just trying to kick off alcurex with some new coins to promote interest.
Maybe there is a reason why many people don't take it lightly to restart blockchains. It just puts a bad light on the altcoin community. I think it is an advantage if exchanges can afford to pick up fresh and promising altcoins. Most importantly, it is an advantage for a new altcoin itself if there is an exchange and other infrastructure. This gets people interested, and lets the coin grow. No reasonable man would punch right in the face of the exchange operator by doing a technically completely unnecessary blockchain restart, stating that it's ok to scam the shit out of them because he didn't allow exchanges.
It would be a pity if one rotten orange spoiled the whole altcoin box, and we would get to a situation where exchange operators are too scared to pick up new coins.
I do remember a few pages back the dev clearly stating restarting the blockchain is a possibility. There is a reason this is only version 0.0.0.3.
It still doesn't explain why a blockchain restart is being done for a small fix. There may be changes where it's really hard to do them without a restart, but the PoW hash thing is far from such a situation. Which leaves us with the question how we should ever trust anything to the blockchain. Who knows if the dev will do another blockchain restart with an even bigger and swankier pre-mine, just in order to unlock the next advertised feature? And what if small bugs occur later on? In my opinion, these are the situations where it becomes obvious if an altcoin has a capable dev team, and is willing to put this potential to the advantage of the community. And unfortunately, NUD failed on this.
I do like this coin and this dev though. Some may think he is a prick, but he is no nonsense. Builds his coin, his way, straight up no bullshit. First time in ages I have actually felt like a dev isn't lying through his teeth to me. For that fact alone, you have earned the piddly little 0.05 BTC I just sent to the donation address.
Bear with me, but are you getting paid for stating something like this? Advertising bcrypt was untrue. Now he changed the situation to bcrypt being actually there, and the 0% pre-mine becomes a lie. What next?
Don't get me wrong. I am completely fed up with all the coingen crap the altcoin community gets flooded with, so this one seemed like a refreshing ray of hope. But a (crypto-)currency is always a community thing, and you cannot do things "your way" without building up a community, which involves respecting their motivations rather than kicking their asses. People are generally willing to put some dedication into a promising project. People brought in testing/reviewing workforce. People brought in mining power. People brought in the recognition by an exchange. All they expected was that they get the usual predictability which a blockchain cryptosystem brings. And the dev took exactly this and showed the community that he cares shit about them.
I would like to charge a fee at least for cover asset transfer fees or something like 0.5% of each withrawal.