diff --git a/ch12_mining.adoc b/ch12_mining.adoc
index 10b92007..49feb8df 100644
--- a/ch12_mining.adoc
+++ b/ch12_mining.adoc
@@ -2055,7 +2055,7 @@ https://oreil.ly/FoCsz[BIP9
 
 === BIP8: Mandatory Lock-in with Early Activation
 
-After BIP9 was successfully used for the CSV-related soft fork, the next
+After((("consensus rules", "soft forks", "BIP8 mandatory lock-in", id="consensus-soft-bip8")))((("forks", "soft forks", "BIP8 mandatory lock-in", id="fork-soft-bip8")))((("soft forks", "BIP8 mandatory lock-in", id="soft-fork-bip8")))((("BIP8 mandatory lock-in", id="bip8")))((("mandatory lock-in", id="mandatory-lockin")))((("lock-in, mandatory", id="lockin-mandatory")))((("segregated witness (segwit)", id="segwit-bip8"))) BIP9 was successfully used for the CSV-related soft fork, the next
 implementation of a soft fork consensus change also attempted to use it
 for miner-enforced activation.  However, some people opposed that soft
 fork proposal, called _segwit_, and very few miners signaled readiness
@@ -2104,7 +2104,7 @@ was the reason it did eventually activate.  They claim that, if taproot
 had not been activated quickly, other users would have also begun
 running BIP8.  Unfortunately, there's no way to prove what would have
 happened, and so we can't say for sure how much BIP8 contributed to the
-activation of taproot.
+activation of((("consensus rules", "soft forks", "BIP8 mandatory lock-in", startref="consensus-soft-bip8")))((("forks", "soft forks", "BIP8 mandatory lock-in", startref="fork-soft-bip8")))((("soft forks", "BIP8 mandatory lock-in", startref="soft-fork-bip8")))((("BIP8 mandatory lock-in", startref="bip8")))((("mandatory lock-in", startref="mandatory-lockin")))((("lock-in, mandatory", startref="lockin-mandatory")))((("segregated witness (segwit)", startref="segwit-bip8"))) taproot.
 
 === Speedy Trial: Fail Fast or Succeed Eventually