I have no idea what the real reason is, but there are at least a few disgruntled former shareholders or people in it for the lulz out there.
The fact that the forums and the explorer are on different hosts and within different IPs with no association other than being part of Nu, and both were attacked at the same time, is suspect.
Oh, I do, I do.
Just have a look at all the flaws I pointed out regarding centralization, missing revenue (by design), lack of accounting, trading BTC/NBT instead of NBT/USD etc.
I could go on for some time, but you know all that already if you read my posts.
Isn’t providing information about flaws a good way to improve a project?
At the same time it can be used as test points for future customers and investors.
They’ve really improved the procedure for certificates! Thought I’d give a short example, but it’s always annoying to find incomplete instructions, so.
Browsers on a website with extended validation should display the company providing the verified trust, instead of a string that the CA decides (Subject Organization name).
There’s HPKP to our defense that enables specifying the only CAs to be trusted for that domain. To be precise, the public key of any certificate.
I just noted it as it was not obvious in your post. I don’t care what people use. The only reason would be to have extended verification, which I believe Let’s encrypt doesn’t offer. And whether you want to support Let’s encrypt or another company.