fix grammatical mistakes.

[bskrksyp9]

Grammatical errors, typo has been corrected.

Description

Related Issue

[jmcook1186]

thanks!

[gatsby-cloud]

✅ ethereum-org-website-dev deploy preview ready

• Deploy preview
• Build logs · 35m build time

[nhsz]

Suggested change

A transaction has "finality" in distributed networks when its part of a block that can't change without a significant amount of ETH getting burned. On proof-of-stake Ethereum, this is managed using "checkpoint" blocks. The first block in each epoch is a checkpoint. Validators vote for pairs of checkpoints that it considers to be valid. If a pair of checkpoints attracts votes representing at least two-thirds of the total staked ETH, the checkpoints are upgraded. The more recent of the two (target) becomes "justified". The earlier of the two is already justified because it was the "target" in the previous epoch. Now it is upgraded to "finalized". To revert a finalized block, an attacker would commit to losing at least one-third of the total supply of staked ETH. The exact reason for this is explained in this [Ethereum Foundation blog post](https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/05/09/on-settlement-finality/). Since finality requires a two-thirds majority, an attacker could prevent the network from reaching finality by voting with one-third of the total stake. There is a mechanism to defend against this: the [inactivity leak](https://eth2book.info/bellatrix/part2/incentives/inactivity). This activates whenever the chain fails to finalize for more than four epochs. The inactivity leak bleeds away the staked ETH from validators voting against the majority, allowing the majority to regain a two-thirds majority and finalize the chain.

A transaction has "finality" in distributed networks when it's part of a block that can't change without a significant amount of ETH getting burned. On proof-of-stake Ethereum, this is managed using "checkpoint" blocks. The first block in each epoch is a checkpoint. Validators vote for pairs of checkpoints that it considers to be valid. If a pair of checkpoints attracts votes representing at least two-thirds of the total staked ETH, the checkpoints are upgraded. The more recent of the two (target) becomes "justified". The earlier of the two is already justified because it was the "target" in the previous epoch. Now it is upgraded to "finalized". To revert a finalized block, an attacker would commit to losing at least one-third of the total supply of staked ETH. The exact reason for this is explained in this [Ethereum Foundation blog post](https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/05/09/on-settlement-finality/). Since finality requires a two-thirds majority, an attacker could prevent the network from reaching finality by voting with one-third of the total stake. There is a mechanism to defend against this: the [inactivity leak](https://eth2book.info/bellatrix/part2/incentives/inactivity). This activates whenever the chain fails to finalize for more than four epochs. The inactivity leak bleeds away the staked ETH from validators voting against the majority, allowing the majority to regain a two-thirds majority and finalize the chain.

shouldn't be it's part of here?

[bskrksyp9]

But what i felt is that., it is a possessive pronoun form as since it represents the ownership of a transaction's block but not about transaction itself..

may be someone can give clarity & correct me if i am wrong here...