1
0
mirror of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git synced 2026-02-23 15:38:22 +00:00

Fix typos on 17 files.

This commit is contained in:
Alexander Cyon
2024-05-28 19:25:46 +02:00
parent e2f7481a13
commit 1eefea0456
17 changed files with 29 additions and 29 deletions

View File

@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ Deployment could be done via BIP 9 VersionBits deployed through Speedy Trial.
The Bitcoin Core reference implementation includes the below parameters,
configured to match Speedy Trial, as that is the current activation mechanism
implemented in Bitcoin Core. Should another method become favored by the wider
Bitcoin comminity, that might be used instead.
Bitcoin community, that might be used instead.
The start time and bit in the implementation are currently set to bit 5 and
NEVER_ACTIVE/NO_TIMEOUT, but this is subject to change while the BIP is a draft.
@@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ We treat the number of inputs as a `uint32_t` because Bitcoin's consensus decodi
to `MAX_SIZE=33554432` and that is larger than `uint16_t` and smaller than `uint32_t`. 32 bits is also
friendly for manipulation using Bitcoin's current math opcodes, should `OP_CAT` be added. Note that
the max inputs in a block is further restricted by the block size to around 25,000, which would fit
into a `uint16_t`, but that is an uneccessary abstraction leak.
into a `uint16_t`, but that is an unnecessary abstraction leak.
=====Committing to the Sequences Hash=====
@@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ scripts cannot be spent at the same index, which implies that they cannot be spe
This makes it safer to design wallet vault contracts without half-spend vulnerabilities.
Committing to the current index doesn't prevent one from expressing a CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY which can
be spent at multiple indicies. In current script, the CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY operation can be wrapped
be spent at multiple indices. In current script, the CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY operation can be wrapped
in an OP_IF for each index (or Tapscript branches in the future). If OP_CAT or OP_SHA256STREAM are
added to Bitcoin, the index may simply be passed in by the witness before hashing.
@@ -476,7 +476,7 @@ An example of a script that could experience an DoS issue without caching is:
<H> CTV CTV CTV... CTV
Such a script would cause the intepreter to compute hashes (supposing N CTV's) over O(N*T) data.
Such a script would cause the interpreter to compute hashes (supposing N CTV's) over O(N*T) data.
If the scriptSigs non-nullity is not cached, then the O(T) transaction could be scanned over O(N)
times as well (although cheaper than hashing, still a DoS). As such, CTV caches hashes and computations
over all variable length fields in a transaction.
@@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ sponsors might be considered.
An opcode which verifies the exact amount that is being spent in the
transaction, the amount paid as fees, or made available in a given output could
be used to make safer OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY addressses. For instance, if the
be used to make safer OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY addresses. For instance, if the
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY program P expects exactly S satoshis, sending S-1
satoshis would result in a frozen UTXO and sending S+n satoshis would result in
n satoshis being paid to fee. A range check could restrict the program to only