Edited appdx-forks-history.asciidoc with Atlas code editor

appdx-forks-history.asciidoc

@@ -56,28 +56,28 @@ On July 20, at block height https://etherscan.io/block/1920000[1,920,000], Ether
 
 ((("Ethereum Classic (ETC)","origins")))When the DAO hard-forked Ethereum (present-day Ethereum) gained a majority of the mining power, many assumed that consensus was achieved and the minority chain would fade away, as in previous forks. Despite this, a sizable portion of the Ethereum community (roughly 10% by value and mining power) started supporting the non-forked chain, which came to be known as Ethereum Classic.
 
-Within days of the fork, several exchanges began to list both Ethereum ("ETH") and Ethereum Classic ("ETC"). Due to the nature of hard forks, all Ethereum users holding ether at the time of the split then held funds on both of the chains, and a market value for ETC was soon established with https://twitter.com/poloniex/status/757068619234803712[Poloniex] listing ETC on July 24.
+Within days of the fork, several exchanges began to list both Ethereum ("ETH") and Ethereum Classic ("ETC"). Due to the nature of hard forks, all Ethereum users holding ether at the time of the split then held funds on both of the chains, and a market value for ETC was soon established with http://bit.ly/2qhuNvP[Poloniex] listing ETC on July 24.
 
 [[dao_hard_fork_timeline]]
 ==== Timeline of the DAO Hard Fork
 
-- April 5, 2016: Slock.it https://blog.slock.it/deja-vu-dao-smart-contracts-audit-results-d26bc088e32e[creates The DAO] following a security audit by Dejavu Security.
-- April 30, 2016: The DAO crowdsale https://blog.slock.it/the-dao-creation-is-now-live-2270fd23affc[launches].
+- April 5, 2016: Slock.it http://bit.ly/2Db4boE[creates The DAO] following a security audit by Dejavu Security.
+- April 30, 2016: The DAO crowdsale http://bit.ly/2qhwhpI[launches].
 - May 27, 2016: The DAO crowdsale ends.
-- June 9, 2016: A generic https://vessenes.com/more-ethereum-attacks-race-to-empty-is-the-real-deal/[recursive call bug] is discovered and believed to affect many Solidity contracts that track users' balances.
-- June 12, 2016: Stephen Tual https://blog.slock.it/no-dao-funds-at-risk-following-the-ethereum-smart-contract-recursive-call-bug-discovery-29f482d348b[declares] that The DAO's funds are not at risk.
-- June 17, 2016: http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/18/analysis-of-the-dao-exploit/[The DAO is exploited] and a variant of the discovered bug (termed the "reentrancy bug") is used to start draining the funds, eventually nabbing ~30% of the ether.
-- June 21, 2016: The RHG https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4p7mhc/update_on_the_white_hat_attack/[announces] it has secured the other ~70% of the ether stored within The DAO.
-- June 24, 2016: A https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/06/24/dao-wars-youre-voice-soft-fork-dilemma/[soft fork vote] is announced via opt-in signaling through Geth and Parity clients, designed to temporarily withhold funds until the community can better decide what to do.
-- June 28, 2016: A https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/06/28/security-alert-dos-vulnerability-in-the-soft-fork/[vulnerability] is discovered in the soft fork and it's abandoned.
+- June 9, 2016: A generic http://bit.ly/2AAaDmA[recursive call bug] is discovered and believed to affect many Solidity contracts that track users' balances.
+- June 12, 2016: Stephen Tual http://bit.ly/2qmo3g1[declares] that The DAO's funds are not at risk.
+- June 17, 2016: http://bit.ly/2EQaLCI[The DAO is exploited] and a variant of the discovered bug (termed the "reentrancy bug") is used to start draining the funds, eventually nabbing ~30% of the ether.
+- June 21, 2016: The RHG http://bit.ly/2zgl3Gk[announces] it has secured the other ~70% of the ether stored within The DAO.
+- June 24, 2016: A http://bit.ly/2qhruEK[soft fork vote] is announced via opt-in signaling through Geth and Parity clients, designed to temporarily withhold funds until the community can better decide what to do.
+- June 28, 2016: A http://bit.ly/2zgOxUn[vulnerability] is discovered in the soft fork and it's abandoned.
 - June 28, 2016 to July 15: Users debate whether or not to hard fork; most of the vocal public debate occurs on the _/r/ethereum_ subreddit.
-- July 15, 2016: The https://blog.slock.it/no-dao-funds-at-risk-following-the-ethereum-smart-contract-recursive-call-bug-discovery-29f482d348b[DAO hard fork] is proposed, to return the funds taken in the DAO attack.
-- July 15, 2016: A https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/15/to-fork-or-not-to-fork/[vote is held] on CarbonVote to decide if the DAO hard fork will be opt-in (don't fork by default) or opt-out (fork by default).
-- July 16, 2016: https://elaineou.com/2016/07/18/stick-a-fork-in-ethereum/[5.5% of the total ether supply votes]; pass:[~80% of the votes (~4.5%] of the total supply) are pro the opt-out hard fork, with one-quarter of the pro-vote coming from a single address.
-- July 20, 2016: The https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/20/hard-fork-completed/[hard fork] occurs at block 1,920,000.
-- July 20, 2016: Those against the DAO hard fork continue running the old client software; this leads to issues with https://www.coindesk.com/rise-replay-attacks-ethereum-divide/[transactions being replayed on both chains].
-- July 24, 2016: https://twitter.com/poloniex/status/757068619234803712[Poloniex lists] the original Ethereum chain under the ticker symbol ETC; it's the first exchange to do so.
-- August 10, 2016: The RHG https://medium.com/@jackfru1t/the-robin-hood-group-and-etc-bdc6a0c111c3[transfers 2.9] million of the recovered ETC to Poloniex in order to convert it to ETH on the advice of Bity SA; 14% of the total RHG holdings are converted from ETC to ETH and other cryptocurrencies, and https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/millions-of-dollars-worth-of-etc-may-soon-be-dumped-on-the-market-1472567361/[Poloniex freezes] the other 86% of deposited ETH.
+- July 15, 2016: The http://bit.ly/2qmo3g1[DAO hard fork] is proposed, to return the funds taken in the DAO attack.
+- July 15, 2016: A http://bit.ly/2ABkTuV[vote is held] on CarbonVote to decide if the DAO hard fork will be opt-in (don't fork by default) or opt-out (fork by default).
+- July 16, 2016: http://bit.ly/2RuUrJh[5.5% of the total ether supply votes]; pass:[~80% of the votes (~4.5%] of the total supply) are pro the opt-out hard fork, with one-quarter of the pro-vote coming from a single address.
+- July 20, 2016: The http://bit.ly/2yJxZ83[hard fork] occurs at block 1,920,000.
+- July 20, 2016: Those against the DAO hard fork continue running the old client software; this leads to issues with http://bit.ly/2qjJm27[transactions being replayed on both chains].
+- July 24, 2016: http://bit.ly/2qhuNvP[Poloniex lists] the original Ethereum chain under the ticker symbol ETC; it's the first exchange to do so.
+- August 10, 2016: The RHG http://bit.ly/2JrLpK2[transfers 2.9] million of the recovered ETC to Poloniex in order to convert it to ETH on the advice of Bity SA; 14% of the total RHG holdings are converted from ETC to ETH and other cryptocurrencies, and http://bit.ly/2ETDdUc[Poloniex freezes] the other 86% of deposited ETH.
 - August 30, 2016: The frozen funds are sent by Poloniex back to the RHG, which then sets up a refund contract on the ETC chain.
 - December 11, 2016: IOHK's ETC development team forms, led by Ethereum founding member Charles Hoskinson.
 - January 13, 2017: The ETC network is updated to resolve transaction replay issues; the chains are now functionally separate.
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ Within days of the fork, several exchanges began to list both Ethereum ("ETH") a
 
 [[eth_etc_differences_evm]]
 ==== The EVM
-((("EVM OPCODES")))For the most part (at the time of writing), the two networks remain highly compatible: contract code produced for one chain runs as expected on the other; but there are some small differences in EVM OPCODES (see EIPs link:https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-140.md[140], link:https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-145.md[145], and link:https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-214.md[214]).
+((("EVM OPCODES")))For the most part (at the time of writing), the two networks remain highly compatible: contract code produced for one chain runs as expected on the other; but there are some small differences in EVM OPCODES (see EIPs link:http://bit.ly/2yIajkF[140], link:http://bit.ly/2qhKz9Y[145], and link:http://bit.ly/2SxsrFR[214]).
 
 [[eth_etc_differences_core_development]]
 ==== Core Network Development