Edited ch12_mining.adoc with Atlas code editor

ch12_mining.adoc

@@ -1858,7 +1858,7 @@ the old clients, the script contains an NOP code, which is((("consensus rules",
 
 ==== Criticisms of Soft Forks
 
-Soft forks based on the NOP opcodes are
+Soft forks ((("consensus rules", "soft forks", "criticisms of", id="consensus-soft-critic")))((("forks", "soft forks", "criticisms of", id="fork-soft-critic")))((("soft forks", "criticisms of", id="soft-fork-critic")))based on the NOP opcodes are
 relatively uncontroversial. The NOP opcodes were placed in Bitcoin
 Script with the explicit goal of allowing non-disruptive upgrades.
 
@@ -1885,7 +1885,7 @@ activated, any transactions created under the new rules could result in
 a loss of funds under the old rules. For example, if a CLTV transaction
 is evaluated under the old rules, there is no timelock constraint and it
 can be spent at any time. Therefore, critics contend that a failed soft
-fork that had to be reversed because of a bug would almost certainly
+fork that had to be reversed because of a bug would almost ((("consensus rules", "soft forks", "criticisms of", startref="consensus-soft-critic")))((("forks", "soft forks", "criticisms of", startref="fork-soft-critic")))((("soft forks", "criticisms of", startref="soft-fork-critic")))certainly
 lead to loss of funds.
 
 [[softforksignaling]]