Edited ch09_fees.adoc with Atlas code editor

ch09_fees.adoc

@@ -534,13 +534,15 @@ money from you.
 Protocol developers have been working on mitigating problems with
 transaction pinning for several years.  One partial solution is
 described in <<cpfp_carve_out>>.  Several other solutions have been
-proposed, and at least one solution is being actively ((("transaction fees", "fee bumping", "transaction pinning", startref="transaction-fee-bump-pin")))((("fee bumping", "transaction pinning", startref="fee-bump-pin")))((("transaction pinning", startref="transaction-pin")))((("RBF (replace by fee) fee bumping", "transaction pinning", startref="rbf-pin")))((("CPFP (child pays for parent) fee bumping", "transaction pinning", startref="cpfp-pin")))developed as of
+proposed, and at least one solution is being actively ((("transaction fees", "fee bumping", "transaction pinning", startref="transaction-fee-bump-pin")))((("fee bumping", "transaction pinning", startref="fee-bump-pin")))((("transaction pinning", startref="transaction-pin")))((("RBF (replace by fee) fee bumping", "transaction pinning", startref="rbf-pin")))((("CPFP (child pays for parent) fee bumping", "transaction pinning", startref="cpfp-pin")))((("transaction fees", "fee bumping", "CPFP carve outs", id="transaction-fee-bump-carveout")))((("fee bumping", "CPFP carve outs", id="fee-bump-carveout")))((("carve outs (CPFP)", id="carveout")))((("CPFP (child pays for parent) fee bumping", "carve outs", id="cpfp-carveout")))developed as of
 this writing&mdash;https://oreil.ly/300dv[ephemeral anchors].
 
 [[cpfp_carve_out]]
 === CPFP Carve Out and Anchor Outputs
 
-In 2018, ((("transaction fees", "fee bumping", "CPFP carve outs", id="transaction-fee-bump-carveout")))((("fee bumping", "CPFP carve outs", id="fee-bump-carveout")))((("carve outs (CPFP)", id="carveout")))((("CPFP (child pays for parent) fee bumping", "carve outs", id="cpfp-carveout")))developers working on LN had a problem.
+++++
+<p class="fix_tracking">
+In 2018, developers working on LN had a problem.
 Their protocol uses transactions that require signatures from two
 different parties.  Neither party wants to trust the other, so they sign
 transactions at a point in the protocol when trust isn't needed,
@@ -549,7 +551,8 @@ later time when the other party may not want to (or be able to) fulfill
 its obligations.  The problem with this approach is that the
 transactions might need to be broadcast at an unknown time, far in the future, beyond any
 reasonable ability to estimate an appropriate fee rate for the
-transactions.
+transactions.</p>
+++++
 
 In theory, the developers could have designed their transactions to
 allow fee bumping with either RBF (using special sighash flags) or CPFP,