Fix typo (#42)

* Fix typo

* Better fix

ch01.asciidoc

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ Before the Timelock expired A would not be able to have the refund transaction b
 This would give B the security to receive more updates as long as the channel would be `open`. 
 
 This mechanism would allow two users to engage into several smaller transactions which all happened outside of the Bitcoin network.
-While this construction of the unidirectional payment channel would have solved the custody problem of exchanges it was nevery widely implemented.
+While this construction of the unidirectional payment channel would have solved the custody problem of exchanges it has never been widely implemented.
 We can only speculate for reasons and guess that the overhead communication would have had to be standardized - as it is nowadays in the Lightning Network specification - which might have been too much overhead in the early days of Bitcoin.
 Also as a payment channel this system was not too useful as the channel could only at total send the total amount of provided Bitcoin in the funding transaction.
 Once the timelock was over or all Bitcoin were sent to B the channel would have to be closed.