bip8: tiny wording fixups #1073

pull darosior wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from darosior:bip8_nits changing 1 files +2 −2

darosior commented at 12:32 PM on February 26, 2021: member

RE-reading through the BIP i found some sentences to make it seem like LOT was always true but it was made optional.

in bip-0008.mediawiki:19 in b2d7f46245 outdated

  15 | @@ -16,13 +16,13 @@
  16 |  
  17 |  This document specifies an alternative to [[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9]] that corrects for a number of perceived mistakes.
  18 |  Block heights are used for start and timeout rather than POSIX timestamps.
  19 | -It additionally introduces an additional activation parameter to guarantee activation of backward-compatible changes (further called "soft forks").
  20 | +It additionally introduces an optional activation parameter to guarantee activation of backward-compatible changes (further called "soft forks").

michaelfolkson commented at 1:11 PM on February 26, 2021:

The parameter isn't optional. What you set the parameter to is optional. I would rather:

"It additionally introduces an ~additional~ activation parameter that can guarantee activation of backward-compatible changes"

darosior commented at 1:18 PM on February 26, 2021:

Thanks, added!

michaelfolkson commented at 1:12 PM on February 26, 2021: contributor

I do think the wording could be sharpened but I think the first suggested change isn't optimal either. Happy with the second suggested change.
bip8: mention in intro the forced activation is optional
Signed-off-by: Antoine Poinsot <darosior@protonmail.com>
a118ef42a6
darosior force-pushed on Feb 26, 2021
michaelfolkson commented at 1:26 PM on February 26, 2021: contributor

ACK
luke-jr merged this on Feb 26, 2021
luke-jr closed this on Feb 26, 2021

Contributors

darosior

michaelfolkson