From 61f3763dc883a16bd1af36483b91b4086c615ba3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: clenser Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:23:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Edited ch12_mining.adoc with Atlas code editor --- ch12_mining.adoc | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/ch12_mining.adoc b/ch12_mining.adoc index d86db7ac..f8780c57 100644 --- a/ch12_mining.adoc +++ b/ch12_mining.adoc @@ -2108,7 +2108,7 @@ activation of((("consensus rules", "soft forks", "BIP8 mandatory lock-in", start === Speedy Trial: Fail Fast or Succeed Eventually -Although BIP9 by itself did not seem to result in the activation of +Although ((("consensus rules", "soft forks", "speedy trial activation", id="consensus-soft-speed")))((("forks", "soft forks", "speedy trial activation", id="fork-soft-speed")))((("soft forks", "speedy trial activation", id="soft-fork-speed")))((("speedy trial activation", id="speed-trial")))((("activation (soft forks)", "speedy trial", id="activation-speed")))BIP9 by itself did not seem to result in the activation of segwit despite widespread support for the proposal, it was unclear to many protocol developers that BIP9 was itself a failure. As mentioned, the failure of miners to initially signal support for segwit may have @@ -2132,7 +2132,7 @@ activated about six months later. To proponents of speedy trial, it was a clear success. Others were still disappointed that BIP8 wasn't used. It's not clear whether or not speedy trial will be used again for a -future attempt to activate a soft fork. +future attempt to activate a ((("consensus rules", "soft forks", "speedy trial activation", startref="consensus-soft-speed")))((("forks", "soft forks", "speedy trial activation", startref="fork-soft-speed")))((("soft forks", "speedy trial activation", startref="soft-fork-speed")))((("speedy trial activation", startref="speed-trial")))((("activation (soft forks)", "speedy trial", startref="activation-speed")))soft fork. === Consensus Software Development