Fix minor wording (to --> from)

Author: EthanHeilman

bip-0360.mediawiki

@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ While P2TR outputs (and ECC-based key-path spends) will remain an option for fol
 
 First off, P2TSH script-path spends are larger than P2TR key-path spends, because you have to include the control byte and post the script with every transaction. That said, script-path spends from P2TSH outputs will be slightly smaller than script-path spends from P2TR outputs because there is no need to reveal any internal public key. For a more complete comparison of input witness sizes, the “Transaction Size and Fees” section may be reviewed later in this proposal.
 
-Additionally, there is a privacy tradeoff when comparing P2TSH and P2TR, which is that users will functionally reveal that they are spending to a script tree whenever they are using P2TSH output, since P2TSH outputs can only be spent via script-path spend. In P2TR when you spend an output as a key-path spend, you don’t reveal any script or if you had any scripts at all. This trade-off only exists when comparing P2TR key-path spends to P2TSH script-path spends; P2TR and P2TSH provide the same level of privacy when both are script-path spends.
+Additionally, there is a privacy tradeoff when comparing P2TSH and P2TR, which is that users will functionally reveal that they are spending from a script tree whenever they are using P2TSH output, since P2TSH outputs can only be spent via the script-path spend. In P2TR when you spend an output as a key-path spend, you don’t reveal any script or if you had any scripts at all. This trade-off only exists when comparing P2TR key-path spends to P2TSH script-path spends; P2TR and P2TSH provide the same level of privacy when both are script-path spends.
 
 '''Note:''' P2TSH and P2TR both provide greater optionality and privacy regarding script policy compared to P2SH [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki (BIP 16 - Pay to Script Hash)].