Edited 03_how_ln_works.asciidoc with Atlas code editor

03_how_ln_works.asciidoc

@@ -331,12 +331,12 @@ In the case that you broadcasted an earlier commitment transaction, the timelock
 When publishing a commitment transaction during a force close, the on-chain fees will be higher than a mutual close for several reasons:
 
 . When the commitment transaction was negotiated, the channel partners didn't know how much the on-chain fees would be at the future time the transaction would be broadcast. Since the fees cannot be changed without changing the outputs of the commitment transaction (which needs both signatures) and since the force close happens when a channel partner is not available to sign, the protocol developers decided to be very generous with the fee rate included in the commitment transactions. It can be up to five times higher than the fee estimators suggest at the time the commitment transaction is negotiated.
-. The commitment transaction includes additional outputs for any pending routing attempts Hash Time-Locked Contracts [HTLCs], which makes the commitment transaction larger (in terms of bytes) than a mutual close transaction. Larger transactions incur more fees.
+. The commitment transaction includes additional outputs for any pending routing attempts hash time-locked contracts [HTLCs], which makes the commitment transaction larger (in terms of bytes) than a mutual close transaction. Larger transactions incur more fees.
 . Any pending routing attempts will have to be resolved on-chain, causing additional on-chain transactions.
 
 [NOTE]
 ====
-Hash Time-Locked Contracts (HTLCs) will be covered in detail in <<htlcs>>.
+Hash time-locked contracts (HTLCs) will be covered in detail in <<htlcs>>.
 For now, assume that these are payments that are routed across the Lightning Network, rather than payments made directly between the two channel partners.
 These HTLCs are carried as additional outputs in the commitment transactions, thereby increasing the transaction size and on-chain fees.
 ====