Agreed on the transparency bit. Hiding behind some claim of 'security' is facetious given that in the 10 years of Bitcoin there has never been a security breach, deliberate double spends or illegal seizure of any funds --despite all the hashwars and forks.Like Dr. Craig Wright try to teach people: Ownership of keys is not ownership of funds. @theZerg, @solex and @Peter R does not own the BU funds. The membership should be informed about what's happening with the funds. If the funds have been used privately by some or all of the three key holders, it would be a serious breach of trust.
Not a mistake at all.the replay protection and EDA from the initial ABC/BTC fork were meant to ensure the split to two chains. that was a mistake (or intentional) .
Could you share some more details about this? I believe there will be court cases related to this, and the facts should be brought to daylight.Exchanges practically demanded replay protection for a Bitcoin fork.
That's why BCH implemented it and performed the cleanest fork to date.
it was. the continual switching and oscillation prior to the EDA would have resulted in one coin winning; desirable unless you're a divider.Not a mistake at all.
that's because it was never needed. it's for dividers. like you.For some reason, exchanges did not insist that BSV requires replay protection, like they did for BCH and the proposed Segwit2x fork.
I have never converted any crypto on behalf of BU. Tax implications is one of the unresolved obstacles that prevented BU from executing BIP072 over the timeframe intended. @solex has been working hard for over a year now--and as a volunteer I should add--to set up the correct legal framework to allow conversions to take place safely and without exposing BU, its directors, or its members to any legal ambiguities or risks.