Update 01_introduction.asciidoc (#686)

01_introduction.asciidoc

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ With core knowledge of the Lightning Network, you can help shape the future of t
 
 We assume you already have some basic knowledge about Bitcoin, but if not, don't worry – we will explain the most important Bitcoin concepts, those you must know to understand the Lightning Network, in <<bitcoin_fundamentals_review>>. If you want to learn more about Bitcoin, you can read _Mastering Bitcoin_, available for free online.
 
-While the bulk of this book is written for programmers, the first few chapters are written to be approachable by anyone regardless of technical experience. In this chapter, we'll start with some terminology, then move to looking at trust and its application in these systems, and finally we'll discuss the history and future of the Lightning Network. Let's get started.
+While the bulk of this book is written for programmers, the first few chapters are written to be approachable by anyone regardless of technical experience. In this chapter, we'll start with some terminology, then move to look at trust and its application in these systems, and finally we'll discuss the history and future of the Lightning Network. Let's get started.
 
 
 === Lightning Network Basic Concepts
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ Imagine a family lunch, with a parent and two children. The children are fussy e
 
 There are a few different ways that fairness can be achieved in this strategic interaction between two siblings that do not trust each other and have competing interests. The naive but commonly used method is for the parent to use their authority as a trusted third party: they split the bowl of chips into two servings. This is similar to traditional finance, where a bank, accountant or lawyer acts as a trusted third party to prevent any cheating between two parties who want to transact.
 
-The problem with this scenario is that it vests a lot of power and responsiblity in the hands of the trusted third party. In this example, the parent is fully responsible for the equal allocation of chips, the parties merely wait, watch, and complain.  The children accuse the parent of playing favorites and not allocating the chips fairly. The siblings fight over the chips, yelling "that chip is bigger!", and dragging the parent into their fight. It sounds awful, doesn't it? Should the parent yell louder? Take all of the chips away? Threaten to never make chips again and let those ungrateful children go hungry?
+The problem with this scenario is that it vests a lot of power and responsibility in the hands of the trusted third party. In this example, the parent is fully responsible for the equal allocation of chips, the parties merely wait, watch, and complain.  The children accuse the parent of playing favorites and not allocating the chips fairly. The siblings fight over the chips, yelling "that chip is bigger!", and dragging the parent into their fight. It sounds awful, doesn't it? Should the parent yell louder? Take all of the chips away? Threaten to never make chips again and let those ungrateful children go hungry?
 
 A much better solution exists: the siblings are taught to play a game called "split and choose". At each lunch one sibling splits the bowl of chips into two servings and the *other* sibling gets to choose which serving they want. Almost immediately, the siblings figure out the dynamic of this game. If the one splitting makes a mistake or tries to cheat, the other sibling can "punish" them by choosing the bigger bowl. It is in the best interest of both siblings, but especially the one splitting the bowl, to play fair. Only the cheater loses in this scenario. The parent doesn't even have to use their authority or enforce fairness. All the parent has to do is _enforce the protocol_; as long as the siblings cannot escape their assigned roles of "splitter" and "chooser", the protocol itself ensures a fair outcome without the need for any intervention. The parent can't play favorites or distort the outcome.