fixed typos and wording

1 files changed, 4 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/bip-0131.mediawiki b/bip-0131.mediawiki
index 3b1661c..1efe713 100644
--- a/bip-0131.mediawiki
+++ b/bip-0131.mediawiki
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ with coalescing transactions in all instances.
 
 == Isn't this BIP bad because it encourage address re-use? ==
 
-Address re-use comes in two forms: reuse from the ''sender'', and re-use from the ''receiver''.
+Address re-use comes in two forms: re-use by the ''sender'', and re-use by the ''receiver''.
 
 Re-use by the sender is basically using the same address for the change output. This is generally considered bad
 since people looking through your transaction history can determine who you do business with. When
@@ -89,16 +89,14 @@ by the sender.
 
 On the other hand, address re-use by the ''receiver'' occurs under completely different circumstances.
 When you publish an address and have multiple people send to that address, you are engaging in address re-use
-from th receiver. This activity has historically been considered bad because it leads to re-using a private key.
-When you re-use a private key too many times, you run the risk of somebody performing statistical analysis
+from the receiver. This activity has historically been considered bad because it leads to re-using a private key.
+When you re-use a private key too many times, you run the risk of an attacker performing statistical analysis
 on the multiple signatures, which can lead to an attacker finding out your private key.
 
-This BIP introduces a way to spend multiple inputs without re-using the private key. In a sense, this BIP
+This BIP introduces a way to spend multiple inputs ''without'' re-using the private key. In a sense, this BIP
 fixes the problem that makes address re-use bad for the receiver. After this BIP becomes implemented
 and deployed, address re-use by the receiver will no longer be considered bad form.
 
-
-
 ==Copyright==
 
 This document is placed in the public domain.