I don't believe they secretly delivered software with the "intent to change the features of the underlying asset of a certain ticker symbol". BCH is still BCH, its most important features fortunately intact.
The rolling checkpoints were a safety against the publicly declared threat to deeply re-org the chain.
They can be removed from clients that have them, without any impact on the chain, once the threat has dissipated.
I reject you calling the actions of exchanges to protect themselves against such a threat a conspiracy.
I also reject your claim of "secretly". Developers from various BCH clients was deliberating publicly on measures to counter the threats declared against BCH. The issue was public in the media before the split.
Finally, everything is "controversial" in Bitcoin. We learned that during many years of good faith proposals to increase the block size limit on BTC.
When there are people who want something, and others who don't, then there is either reconciliation or a split. "There will be no split!" sounds like a deception when someone releases a client with obvious hard-forking code changes.
[doublepost=1554121379][/doublepost]
I would condemn anyone for banning a member of their development teams simply because such a member had received notice of what on the face is a frivolous, intimidatory lawsuit.
But in ABCs case, like I said, I have good evidence to believe that's not what happened at all, so I dismiss that, and think your hypothetical is completely unnecessary.
[doublepost=1554121431][/doublepost]
@cypherdoc I believe
@digitsu can speak for himself
