BIP-99: fix footnotes and drop missing reference

[torrpriius]

No description provided.

[jonatack]

Unsure about the proposed link. It might be more useful to either fix the footnotes formatting so that they work, or remove them.

[torrpriius]

@jonatack
I've updated the footnote formatting to match the rest of the document. The placeholder [non_proportional_inflatacoin_fork] has been replaced with a numbered reference [3], and all in-text mentions have been aligned accordingly. The link now points to a relevant Bitcointalk discussion that illustrates the concept of a "schism hardfork" described in that section.

[jonatack]

Hi @torrpriius, the footnote formatting looks like a good improvement. I am unconvinced by the proposed new link.

[torrpriius]

Hi @jonatack, i kept the [3] reference to stay consistent with the other footnotes and added a clear TODO in the footnote asking for a reliable source.
This keeps the structure clean, and others can easily add the right link later when it's found.

[murchandamus]

Thank you for taking a look at how to improve the formatting of this document.

[murchandamus]

this reuses the [3] for a second reference.

[murchandamus]

You accidentally dropped this reference.

[murchandamus]

I dropped the missing reference instead of guessing at the open todo, and fixed the formatting of the footnotes by using the reference syntax.

[murchandamus]

@jonatack: Unless you think we should keep the prior open todo, this may be RFM.

[jonatack]

ACK 7ab94f8

Thanks @torrpriius for updating and @murchandamus for the fixups.

[jonatack]

Updated the PR title/description.