The rationale was duplicating some of the motivation. The motivation had a sentence that read weird.
While rephrasing the sentence, take the opportunity to link to the now-proposed Utreexo BIP. Also
remove a duplicate link reference.
Jon pointed that i use "mitigation" to refer both to the items of this
BIP, and for the existing workarounds to make SPV verifiers safe in the
presence of 64-byte txs. This commit rephrases the latter usage.
The paragraph in its entirety is already unambiguous that all signature-checking operations
*present* in the Script (as opposed to *executed*) are counted. However i received feedback that the
"potentially executed" language in the first sentence of this paragraph may be confusing. This is
because it is in theory possible to have a more accurate upper bound by analyzing the possible
spending paths and use the maximum number of signature-checking operations in either to check
against the limit.
This commit rewords the first sentence to use the word "present" to be extra-clear before even
describing how the accounting is performed in later sentences.
```
sed -z -i 's/Author: /Authors: /' bip-0*.md
sed -z -i 's/Author: /Authors: /' bip-0*.mediawiki
```
Also align correctly in case of multiple authors.
```
sed -z -i 's/Type: Standards Track/Type: Specification/' bip-0*.md
sed -z -i 's/Type: Standards Track/Type: Specification/' bip-0*.mediawiki
```
After the scripted changes, the changes to BIP-40, BIP-41, and BIP-63
were undone, because it breaks CI.
These three BIPs only exist conceptually and their proposal documents
are missing which causes changes to them ot break the CI. I defer the
changes to these BIPs to a separate pull request to get CI to pass.
