fix wording in comment

[NaN-git]

This PR corrects a misleading comment that seems to mix up primary and secondary proof of work.

[antiochp]

I'm not sure these changes make sense?

Old

Ratio the secondary proof of work should take over the primary, as a function of block height (time). Starts at 90% losing a percent approximately every week. Represented as an integer between 0 and 100.

New

Ratio the secondary proof of work should be taken over by the primary, as a function of block height (time). Starts at 90% losing a percent approximately every week. Represented as an integer between 0 and 100.

This part no longer makes sense -

Ratio the secondary proof of work should be taken over by the primary

[NaN-git]

I'm not sure these changes make sense?

Old

Ratio the secondary proof of work should take over the primary, as a function of block height (time). Starts at 90% losing a percent approximately every week. Represented as an integer between 0 and 100.

New

Ratio the secondary proof of work should be taken over by the primary, as a function of block height (time). Starts at 90% losing a percent approximately every week. Represented as an integer between 0 and 100.

This part no longer makes sense -

Ratio the secondary proof of work should be taken over by the primary

Yeah, you're right. After reading your comment I understood the original comment. My understanding of the comment was that the secondary POW should take over the primary POW.
Can it be changed to something like target ratio of secondary POW to primary POW?

[antiochp]

Can it be changed to something like target ratio of secondary POW to primary POW?

Yes. I think this does make more sense. 👍

[NaN-git]

Yes. I think this does make more sense. +1

Done

[antiochp]

👍