diff --git a/Comments:BIP-0038.md b/Comments:BIP-0038.md
index 3ec1101..718cb40 100644
--- a/Comments:BIP-0038.md
+++ b/Comments:BIP-0038.md
@@ -2,4 +2,4 @@ Designed for single-key "paper wallets", which are not a good idea in general. -
 
 I assume this is not meant as a general recommendation against "paper wallets", but rather paper wallets that consist of a single key?  If so, is there an equivalent BIP (or discussion) on passphrase-protected HD paper wallets? --Jonathan Cross, 2017-01-17
 
-The design may have been intended for paper wallets, although there is nothing inherently bad about either a paper wallet or encryption of a single key. I would agree that a "single-key" *wallet* is a bad idea from a privacy perspective, but there are other perfectly "good" scenarios for encryption of a single secret. The are however **significant** security problems one aspect of BIP38. The issue is documented in detail [here](https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/BIP38-Security-Considerations). --Eric Voskuil, 2017-01-21
\ No newline at end of file
+The design may have been intended for paper wallets, although there is nothing inherently bad about either a paper wallet or encryption of a single key. I would agree that a "single-key" *wallet* is a bad idea from a privacy perspective, but there are other perfectly "good" scenarios for encryption of a single secret. The are however **significant** security problems with one aspect of BIP38. The issue is documented in detail [here](https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/BIP38-Security-Considerations). --Eric Voskuil, 2017-01-21
\ No newline at end of file