{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-07-07\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e This is not a hard fork, simply adding a new limit is a soft fork. You\n\u003e appear to be confused - as originally written, AFAIR, Jeff's btc1 branch\n\u003e did not increase the block size, your specification here matches that\n\u003e original change, and does not increase the block size.\n\nIndeed, their code previously did not increase the blocksize but it\nwas adjusted at the last minute to do so-- so it may actually do that\nnow. Because they don't appear to have implemented any tests for it, I\nwouldn't be too surprised if it still didn't work at all but also\nwouldn't be surprised if it did.\n\nYou are correct that the specification text appears to refer to the\nprior change that did not. (In my response I just assumed that it\nmeant what they actually did-- good catch)."}