Rephrase "previous design choice" to "list above"

Author: OrfeasLitos

bip-schnorr.mediawiki

@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ Using the first option would be slightly more efficient for verification (around
 In the case of ''R'' the third option is slower at signing time but a bit faster to verify, as it is possible to directly compute whether the Y coordinate is a square when the points are represented in
 [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cryptography/Prime_Curve/Jacobian_Coordinates Jacobian coordinates] (a common optimization to avoid modular inverses
 for elliptic curve operations). The two other options require a possibly
-expensive conversion to affine coordinates first. This would even be the case if the sign or oddness were explicitly coded (option 2 in the previous design choice). We therefore choose option 3.
+expensive conversion to affine coordinates first. This would even be the case if the sign or oddness were explicitly coded (option 2 in the list above). We therefore choose option 3.
 
 For ''P'' the speed of signing and verification does not significantly differ between any of the three options because affine coordinates of the point have to be computed anyway. For consistency reasons we choose the same option as for ''R''. The signing algorithm ensures that the signature is valid under the correct public key by negating the secret key if necessary.