Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master'

# Please enter a commit message to explain why this merge is necessary,
# especially if it merges an updated upstream into a topic branch.
#
# Lines starting with '#' will be ignored, and an empty message aborts
# the commit.

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/bip-0145.mediawiki b/bip-0145.mediawiki
index b04c9e6..cac838d 100644
--- a/bip-0145.mediawiki
+++ b/bip-0145.mediawiki
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ The template Object is revised to include a new key:
 |-
 ! Key !! Required !! Type !! Description
 |-
-| costlimit || No || Number || total cost allowed in blocks
+| weightlimit || No || Number || total weight allowed in blocks
 |}
 
 The '!' rule prefix MUST be enabled on the "segwit" rule for templates including transactions with witness data.
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ The Objects listed in the response's "transactions" key is revised to include th
 |-
 | txid || String || transaction id encoded in hexadecimal; required for transactions with witness data
 |-
-| cost || Number || numeric cost of the transaction, as counted for purposes of the block's costlimit; if key is not present, cost is unknown and clients MUST NOT assume it is zero, although they MAY choose to calculate it themselves
+| weight || Number || numeric weight of the transaction, as counted for purposes of the block's weightlimit; if key is not present, weight is unknown and clients MUST NOT assume it is zero, although they MAY choose to calculate it themselves
 |-
 | hash || String || reversed hash of complete transaction (with witness data included) encoded in hexadecimal
 |}
@@ -66,12 +66,12 @@ It additionally also adds a new way of counting resource limits, and so GBT must
 
 ==Rationale==
 
-Why doesn't "costlimit" simply redefine the existing "sizelimit"?
+Why doesn't "weightlimit" simply redefine the existing "sizelimit"?
 * "sizelimit" is already enforced by clients by counting the sum of bytes in transactions' "data" keys.
-* Servers may wish to limit the overall size of a block, independently from the "cost" of the block.
+* Servers may wish to limit the overall size of a block, independently from the "weight" of the block.
 
-Why is "sigoplimit" redefined instead of a new "sigopcostlimit" being added?
-* The old limit was already arbitrarily defined, and could not be counted by clients on their own anyway. The concept of "sigop cost" is merely a change in the arbitrary formula used.
+Why is "sigoplimit" redefined instead of a new "sigopweightlimit" being added?
+* The old limit was already arbitrarily defined, and could not be counted by clients on their own anyway. The concept of "sigop weight" is merely a change in the arbitrary formula used.
 
 Why is "sigoplimit" divided by 4?
 * To resemble the previous values. (FIXME: is this a good reason? maybe we shouldn't divide it?)