What changed, and why it matters
This commit fixes two spelling/grammar mistakes in code comments and documentation strings within a Bitcoin signature hashing file. There are no code behavior changes, no bug fixes, and no security implications.
No security action needed. This is a cosmetic/documentation typo fix.
Security signals we found
No strong security signals were identified.
Evidence from the diff
The diff modifies only documentation text in bitcoin/src/crypto/sighash.rs: adding the word ‘to’ in a comment about signature hash computation, and correcting ‘is’ to ‘as’ in a Taproot error enum variant description. No executable code, logic, types, or APIs were changed.
Changed components
bitcoin/src/crypto/sighash.rs (documentation/comments only)Inspect captured patch +2 / −2
diff --git a/bitcoin/src/crypto/sighash.rs b/bitcoin/src/crypto/sighash.rs
index 6e4baf9b..0b0806cc 100644
--- a/bitcoin/src/crypto/sighash.rs
+++ b/bitcoin/src/crypto/sighash.rs
@@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ impl EcdsaSighashType {
///
/// This might cause unexpected behavior because it does not roundtrip. That is,
/// `EcdsaSighashType::from_consensus(n) as u32 != n` for non-standard values of `n`. While
- /// verifying signatures, the user should retain the `n` and use it compute the signature hash
+ /// verifying signatures, the user should retain the `n` and use it to compute the signature hash
/// message.
pub fn from_consensus(n: u32) -> EcdsaSighashType {
use EcdsaSighashType::*;
@@ -1206,7 +1206,7 @@ impl Encodable for Annex<'_> {
pub enum TaprootError {
/// Index out of bounds when accessing transaction input vector.
InputsIndex(transaction::InputsIndexError),
- /// Using `SIGHASH_SINGLE` requires an output at the same index is the input.
+ /// Using `SIGHASH_SINGLE` requires an output at the same index as the input.
SingleMissingOutput(SingleMissingOutputError),
/// Prevouts size error.
PrevoutsSize(PrevoutsSizeError),
Why this scored 15/100
Community notes
Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.
The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.