Update EIP-1015: Fix typo

EIPS/eip-1015.md

@@ -10,37 +10,37 @@
 ---
 
 
 ## Simple Summary
 
 This EIP changes the block reward step by instead of setting it to be hard coded on the clients and to be given to the miner/validator etherbase, it should instead go to an address decided by an on-chain contract, with hard limits on how it would be issued (six month lock-in; issuance can only decrease or be maintained, but not increase;). A decision method is suggested but not essential to the notion of this EIP. This would **not be a generic governance solution**, which is a much broader and harder topic, would **not** affect technical upgrade decisions or other hard forks, but seen as *a forum to attempt to prevent contentious hard forks* that can be solved with the issuance.
 
 ## Summary
 ### Thesis: many controversial issues boil down to resources
 These are current EIPs that are being developed or debated. They might seem unrelated but they have something in common, that they can be resolved by proper channel of funds.
 
 #### Casper and PoS
 
-Moving to PoS has been on the roadmap since day 0 for ethereum, along with a reduction in issuance to a cost equivalent to the Validator's cost of security (considered to be more eficient than PoW). But the exact issuance necessary for PoS has yet to be determined and is currently being researched. Casper validation will be an on chain contract and therefore it will need to be funded. It's unlikely that a definitive final answer on how much issuance is needed for validation will be reached in the next years as new research will uncover new arguments, so it would make sense to allow some flexibility on this matter
+Moving to PoS has been on the roadmap since day 0 for ethereum, along with a reduction in issuance to a cost equivalent to the Validator's cost of security (considered to be more efficient than PoW). But the exact issuance necessary for PoS has yet to be determined and is currently being researched. Casper validation will be an on chain contract and therefore it will need to be funded. It's unlikely that a definitive final answer on how much issuance is needed for validation will be reached in the next years as new research will uncover new arguments, so it would make sense to allow some flexibility on this matter
 
 #### Issuance Cap at 120 Million
 
 [EIP-960](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/960), Vitalik's not so jokey april's fool has been taken seriously. It proposes the issuance to be slowly reduced until it reaches 120 million ether. One of the main counterpoints by Vlad can be simplified by [we don't know enough to know what that ether can be used for](https://medium.com/@Vlad_Zamfir/against-vitaliks-fixed-supply-eip-eip-960-18e182a7e5bd) and Vitalik's counterpoint is that [reducing emissions can be a way to reduce future abuse of these funds by finding a schelling point at 0](https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/to-be-clear-im-not-necessarily-wedded-to-a-finite-supply-cap-a7aa48ab880c). Issuance has already been reduced once, from 5 ether to the current 3 ether per block. The main point of a hard cap is that a lot of people consider *not issuing* as having a positive contribution, that can outweigh other actions. Burning ether is also a valid issuance decision.
 
 #### Asics and advantages of PoW
 
 [EIP-960](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-969) proposes a change in algorithm to avoid mining being dominated by ASICS. Counter arguments by Phil Daian argue among others than [resisting economies of scale is futile and there might be specific security advantages to specialized hardware](https://pdaian.com/blog/anti-asic-forks-considered-harmful/). One of the main arguments for PoW mining, even when it doesn't provide security, it is useful as a fair distribution mechanism, that **PoW allows any person with a computer, internet access and electricity to obtain currency without having to deal with government imposed currency controls**.
 
 #### Recovery Forks
 
 After the Parity Multisig library self destruction, three different strategies have been attempted to recover the funds: [a general protocol improvement to allow reviving self destructed contracts](https://gist.github.com/5chdn/a9bb8617cc8523a030126a3d1c60baf3) (which was considered dangerous), a [general process to recover funds](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/867) and a [specific recovery of the multisig library](./eip-999.md). The latter two are finding a lot of resistance from the community, but it's unlikely that these issues are going away soon. The affected parties have a large incentive (fluctuating at almost half a billion dollars) to keep trying, and it's an issue that is likely to occur again in the future. If they get reimbursed, [there are many other special cases of ether provably burnt or stuck](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/156) that might deserve the same treatment. If they get shut down, they have an incentive to move forward a fork implementation: even if they are a minority chain, it's likely they'll recover an amount larger than 0, which is what they would otherwise, and it means the main ethereum community might lose a valuable team of developers. 
 
 
 #### Other Public Goods
 
 There are many other types of public goods that could be funded by issuance. By *Public Good*, I'm using a strict definition of something that brings value to everyone, both those who funded it and free-loaders, making it hard to fund it exclusively by traditional private incentives. They can be research, whole network security, [incentivize full clients and networking](./eip-908.md), fair distribution of tokens etc.
 
 ## Proposed Solution
 ### Issuance Contract
 
 This EIP proposes a future hard fork where block reward is not issued to miners/validators etherbase, but instead to a single contract, that then will activate the default function (with a fixed amount of gas) and then it will forward the ether to other contracts which will finally distribute to their final destinations. 
 
@@ -115,5 +115,5 @@
 
 
 
 ## Copyright
 Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](../LICENSE.md).