mirror of
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git
synced 2025-06-24 15:53:02 +02:00
BIP3,37,39,42,52,62: fix typos (#1824)
Co-authored-by: Mark "Murch" Erhardt <murch@murch.one>
This commit is contained in:
parent
4b568f2c37
commit
befa252b51
@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ following list and address each as appropriate.
|
||||
* Rationale — The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what inspired the design and why particular
|
||||
design decisions were made. It should describe related work and alternate designs that were considered. The rationale
|
||||
should record relevant objections or important concerns that were raised and addressed as this proposal was developed.
|
||||
* Backward Compatibility — Any BIP that introduces incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibities and their severity as well as provide instructions on how
|
||||
* Backward Compatibility — Any BIP that introduces incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity as well as provide instructions on how
|
||||
implementers and users should deal with these incompatibilities.
|
||||
* Reference Implementation — Where applicable, a reference implementation, test vectors, and documentation must be
|
||||
finished before the BIP can be given the status "Complete". Test vectors must be provided in the BIP or
|
||||
@ -686,7 +686,7 @@ feedback, and helpful comments.
|
||||
raised that making announcements to the Bitcoin Developer Mailing List would introduce unnecessary noise, our
|
||||
rationale is that 1) moving Complete and Deployed BIPs to the Closed status will be a rare occurrence, 2) status
|
||||
updates will usually not generate a lot of discussion, 3) while the mailing list should preferably only used for
|
||||
getting review for new BIPs, it is the only channel available to us that can be consider a public announcement to
|
||||
getting review for new BIPs, it is the only channel available to us that can be considered a public announcement to
|
||||
the audience of the BIPs repository: even if the authors, implementers, or other parties interested in a BIP do not
|
||||
see the announcement themselves, they may be made aware by someone that does see it.
|
||||
[^superseded-by-proposed-replacement]: **Why is Superseded-By replaced with Proposed-Replacement?**
|
||||
|
@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ A ''Merkle tree'' is a way of arranging a set of items as leaf nodes of tree in
|
||||
** Check whether this node corresponds to a leaf node (transaction) that is to be included OR any parent thereof:
|
||||
*** If so, append a '1' bit to the flag bits
|
||||
*** Otherwise, append a '0' bit.
|
||||
** Check whether this node is a internal node (non-leaf) AND is the parent of an included leaf node:
|
||||
** Check whether this node is an internal node (non-leaf) AND is the parent of an included leaf node:
|
||||
*** If so:
|
||||
**** Descend into its left child node, and process the subtree beneath it entirely (depth-first).
|
||||
**** If this node has a right child node too, descend into it as well.
|
||||
|
@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ Credits: @Kirvx @NicolasDorier @ecdsa @EricLarch
|
||||
4. Only infinitive verbs, adjectives and nouns.
|
||||
5. No pronouns, no adverbs, no prepositions, no conjunctions, no interjections (unless a noun/adjective is also popular than its interjection like "mince;chouette").
|
||||
6. No numeral adjectives.
|
||||
7. No words in the plural (except invariable words like "univers", or same spelling than singular like "heureux").
|
||||
7. No words in the plural (except invariable words like "univers", or same spelling as singular like "heureux").
|
||||
8. No female adjectives (except words with same spelling for male and female adjectives like "magique").
|
||||
9. No words with several senses AND different spelling in speaking like "verre-vert", unless a word has a meaning much more popular than another like "perle" and "pairle".
|
||||
10. No very similar words with only 1 letter of difference.
|
||||
|
@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
|
||||
|
||||
==Abstract==
|
||||
|
||||
Although it is widely believed that Satoshi was an inflation-hating goldbug he never said this, and in fact programmed Bitcoin's money supply to grow indefinitely, forever. He modeled the monetary supply as 4 gold mines being discovered per mibillenium (1024 years), with equal intervals between them, each one being depleted over the course of 140 years.
|
||||
Although it is widely believed that Satoshi was an inflation-hating goldbug he never said this, and in fact programmed Bitcoin's money supply to grow indefinitely, forever. He modeled the monetary supply as 4 gold mines being discovered per mibillennium (1024 years), with equal intervals between them, each one being depleted over the course of 140 years.
|
||||
|
||||
This poses obvious problems, however. Prominent among them is the discussion on what to call 1 billion bitcoin, which symbol color to use for it, and when wallet clients should switch to it by default.
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ The HeavyHash is performed in three stages:
|
||||
|
||||
# Keccak hash
|
||||
# Matrix-vector multiplication
|
||||
# Keccak of the result xorred with the hashed input
|
||||
# Keccak of the result xored with the hashed input
|
||||
|
||||
Note that the most efficient matrix-vector multiplication is performed on a
|
||||
photonic miner. However, this linear algebra operation can be performed on any
|
||||
|
@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Several sources of malleability are known:
|
||||
|
||||
# '''Non-DER encoded ECDSA signatures''' Right now, the Bitcoin reference client uses OpenSSL to validate signatures. As OpenSSL accepts more than serializations that strictly adhere to the DER standard, this is a source of malleability. Since v0.8.0, non-DER signatures are no longer relayed already.
|
||||
# '''Non-push operations in scriptSig''' Any sequence of script operations in scriptSig that results in the intended data pushes, but is not just a push of that data, results in an alternative transaction with the same validity.
|
||||
# '''Push operations in scriptSig of non-standard size type''' The Bitcoin scripting language has several push operators (OP_0, single-byte pushes, data pushes of up to 75 bytes, OP_PUSHDATA1, OP_PUSHDATA2, OP_PUSHDATA4). As the later ones have the same result as the former ones, they result in additional possibilities.
|
||||
# '''Push operations in scriptSig of non-standard size type''' The Bitcoin scripting language has several push operators (OP_0, single-byte pushes, data pushes of up to 75 bytes, OP_PUSHDATA1, OP_PUSHDATA2, OP_PUSHDATA4). As the latter ones have the same result as the former ones, they result in additional possibilities.
|
||||
# '''Zero-padded number pushes''' In cases where scriptPubKey opcodes use inputs that are interpreted as numbers, they can be zero padded.
|
||||
# '''Inherent ECDSA signature malleability''' ECDSA signatures themselves are already malleable: taking the negative of the number S inside (modulo the curve order) does not invalidate it.
|
||||
# '''Superfluous scriptSig operations''' Adding extra data pushes at the start of scripts, which are not consumed by the corresponding scriptPubKey, is also a source of malleability.
|
||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user