📅 Original date posted:2017-07-07
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This is not a hard fork, simply adding a new limit is a soft fork. You
> appear to be confused - as originally written, AFAIR, Jeff's btc1 branch
> did not increase the block size, your specification here matches that
> original change, and does not increase the block size.
Indeed, their code previously did not increase the blocksize but it
was adjusted at the last minute to do so-- so it may actually do that
now. Because they don't appear to have implemented any tests for it, I
wouldn't be too surprised if it still didn't work at all but also
wouldn't be surprised if it did.
You are correct that the specification text appears to refer to the
prior change that did not. (In my response I just assumed that it
meant what they actually did-- good catch).
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 18:04:02
in reply to nevent1q…5yay
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 18:04:02Event JSON
{
"id": "788f1e16b055cb26faa652b2f5be0dbd89077d73086cdbde31769e6af56bb081",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686161042,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"74e46143b6146bfbf41855e76069c36a2cf73fb16bb2644a1bf3b792696fbbf0",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"24333b2572ab39cb121f6ffe9ca2d850b9295b1d3e10cb1fda0192faa636ff6e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba"
]
],
"content": "📅 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).",
"sig": "8150fa7ce129c13f6eb4619ae05fe1437228b8929892ef8ba0f8e1476e9221b5db008bcde2c36c7e24772431af6e67042d804893b276fd500172e55098de8149"
}