From f83011f40da2a147d3f7e87d73c82d8cd85cf3e5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ryan Havar <rhavar@protonmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:10:10 -0700
Subject: Minor grammatical fixes to bip79

---
 bip-0079.mediawiki | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

(limited to 'bip-0079.mediawiki')

diff --git a/bip-0079.mediawiki b/bip-0079.mediawiki
index 286e543..86e7968 100644
--- a/bip-0079.mediawiki
+++ b/bip-0079.mediawiki
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ One of the most powerful blockchain analysis heuristics has been to assume all i
 
 We however can bust these assumption with a sender-receiver coinjoin. To prevent costless spy/DoS attacks, we require the sending party to provide a fully-valid ready-to-propagate transaction to initiate the process, that the receiver can broadcast if the sender never completes the coinjoin thus tying the cost to that of spending a utxo. Most promisingly, bustapay transactions do not have an identifiable structure so any network analysis will be not able to tell if a given transaction is a bustapay transaction or not which erodes the confidence of their entire models, providing positive externalities for the entire bitcoin ecosystem.
 
-Bustapay transactions also they do not grow the receiver's count of unspent transaction outputs, and in fact gives the receiver an opportunity to better manage their utxo set, something normally only done when sending payments. Large utxo sets are often problematic and expensive, and frequently requiring privacy-destroying consolidation.  Besides busting clustering assumptions, bustapay also provides a layer of obfuscation of send amounts.
+Bustapay transactions also do not grow the receiver's count of unspent transaction outputs, and in fact gives the receiver an opportunity to better manage their utxo set, something normally only done when sending payments. Large utxo sets are often problematic and expensive, and frequently requiring privacy-destroying consolidation.  Besides busting clustering assumptions, bustapay also provides a layer of obfuscation of send amounts.
 
 It is worth noting that this specification has eschewed complexity and potentially useful extensions on the assumption that simplicity is of the most important to encourage adoption.
 
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ Once the receiver has seen the finalized transactions on the network (and has en
 
 == Specification ==
 
-The standard way of letting a sender know where to send a bustapay transaction is done via a bip21 encoded address. The key value "bpu" (short for "BustaPayUrl") should be used. An example such address would be bitcoin:2NABbUr9yeRCp1oUCtVmgJF8HGRCo3ifpTT?bpu=https://bp.bustabit.com/submit  It is highly encouraged that urls are kept short.
+The standard way of letting a sender know where to send a bustapay transaction is done via a bip21 encoded address. The key value "bpu" (short for "BustaPayUrl") should be used. An example of such address would be bitcoin:2NABbUr9yeRCp1oUCtVmgJF8HGRCo3ifpTT?bpu=https://bp.bustabit.com/submit  It is highly encouraged that urls are kept short.
 
 When the sender is creating a "template transaction" it is done almost identically to creating a normal send, with the exception that *only* segwit inputs may be used. The sender is also encouraged to use a slightly more aggressive feerate than usual as well as BIP125 (Opt-in Full Replace-by-Fee Signaling), but neither is strictly required.
 
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ After validating the partial transaction, the sender signs all its inputs to cre
 
 === Transaction Publishing ===
 
-One the final transaction is created, the sender should publish it directly onto the bitcoin network. If the sender does not do this after a reasonable time (e.g. 1 minute), the receiver should publish the template transaction as an important anti-spy/anti-DoS tactic . The sender may also choose to publish the template transaction instead of the final transaction if they believe the receiver to have unreasonably lowered the feerate of the transaction (i.e. increased the size of the transaction, but not the feerate enough). And both parties can consider publishing the template transaction even after the finalized transaction is on the network (taking advantage of replace-by-fee) if the final transaction is not confirming and the template transaction has more fees.
+Once the final transaction is created, the sender should publish it directly onto the bitcoin network. If the sender does not do this after a reasonable time (e.g. 1 minute), the receiver should publish the template transaction as an important anti-spy/anti-DoS tactic . The sender may also choose to publish the template transaction instead of the final transaction if they believe the receiver to have unreasonably lowered the feerate of the transaction (i.e. increased the size of the transaction, but not the feerate enough). And both parties can consider publishing the template transaction even after the finalized transaction is on the network (taking advantage of replace-by-fee) if the final transaction is not confirming and the template transaction has more fees.
 
 
 === Implementation Notes ===
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

