From c924647f34f121b6aec51bb3aae8102d27127647 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: clenser Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:03:27 +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 b8899473..2a5f531b 100644 --- a/ch12_mining.adoc +++ b/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]]