From 638042fa7951825907b7556ecb66ff955edfe89d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: claylock Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 18:21:22 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Edited ch07_authorization-authentication.adoc with Atlas code editor --- ch07_authorization-authentication.adoc | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/ch07_authorization-authentication.adoc b/ch07_authorization-authentication.adoc index ae4f7e17..e2b3747d 100644 --- a/ch07_authorization-authentication.adoc +++ b/ch07_authorization-authentication.adoc @@ -325,10 +325,10 @@ spend the funds. Some Bitcoin documentation, including earlier editions of this book, uses the term "m-of-n" for a traditional multisignature. However, it's hard to tell "m" and "n" apart when they're spoken, so we use the alternative -t-of-k. Both phrases refer to the same type of signature scheme. +_t_-of-_k_. Both phrases refer to the same type of signature scheme. ==== -The general form of an output script setting a t-of-k multisignature +The general form of an output script setting a _t_-of-_k_ multisignature condition is: ---- @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ OP_0 Some people believe this oddity was a bug in the original code for Bitcoin, but a plausible alternative explanation exists. Verifying -t-of-k signatures can require many more than t or k signature checking +_t_-of-_k_ signatures can require many more than _t_ or _k_ signature checking operations. Let's consider a simple example of 1-in-5, with the following combined script: