I don't understand why they decided to create an incompatible protocol without changing the name. The problem is the reallocation of bits from the block counte

I don't understand why they decided to create an incompatible protocol without changing the name. The problem is the reallocation of bits from the block counter to the nonce, which they even admit might be problematic: "The amount of encrypted data possible in a single invocation is 2^32-1 blocks of 64 bytes each, because of the size of the block counter field in the ChaCha20 block function. This gives a total of 274,877,906,880 bytes, or nearly 256 GB. This should be enough for traffic protocols such as IPsec and TLS, but may be too small for file and/or disk encryption." Are you kidding me? WHY, would anyone deliberately put in a flaw that wasn't there originally? And introduce an completely pointless incompatibility?