From f59b209b913b2b45c99436ac3bce7cd86d623000 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tobin Harding <me@tobin.cc>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 10:33:59 +1000
Subject: Fix typo, remove 'in'

Phrase 'based on in BIP 43' should probably read 'based on BIP 34'.
---
 bip-0009.mediawiki | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'bip-0009.mediawiki')

diff --git a/bip-0009.mediawiki b/bip-0009.mediawiki
index ad11678..f7fbad1 100644
--- a/bip-0009.mediawiki
+++ b/bip-0009.mediawiki
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ A client that does not understand a rule prefixed by '!' must not attempt to pro
 The mechanism described above is very generic, and variations are possible for future soft forks. Here are some ideas that can be taken into account.
 
 '''Modified thresholds'''
-The 1916 threshold (based on in BIP 34's 95%) does not have to be maintained for eternity, but changes should take the effect on the warning system into account. In particular, having a lock-in threshold that is incompatible with the one used for the warning system may have long-term effects, as the warning system cannot rely on a permanently detectable condition anymore.
+The 1916 threshold (based on BIP 34's 95%) does not have to be maintained for eternity, but changes should take the effect on the warning system into account. In particular, having a lock-in threshold that is incompatible with the one used for the warning system may have long-term effects, as the warning system cannot rely on a permanently detectable condition anymore.
 
 '''Conflicting soft forks'''
 At some point, two mutually exclusive soft forks may be proposed. The naive way to deal with this is to never create software that implements both, but that is making a bet that at least one side is guaranteed to lose. Better would be to encode "soft fork X cannot be locked-in" as consensus rule for the conflicting soft fork - allowing software that supports both, but can never trigger conflicting changes.
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

