I removed "You have". Now it's all in one sentence -- less ambiguous and more concise I believe. The more verbose alternative would be:
>You have *time* until ...
You are right [Umar](@bolatovumar) , I have not found a single source on the web with _two-of-two_, _2-of-2_ seems to be the standard. I edited my pull request, so now the changes do not include 2-of-2 modification. I find the issue of '2-of-2' vs 'two-of-two' interesting and may soon create a question on [English Stack Exchange](https://english.stackexchange.com/) in order to get their opinion.
It would be well to maintain consistency in spelling out the numbers (provided that they are not code/math/ BTC amounts) that are < 10. I left out "chapter 6" and the like unchanged.
[A post about style][1] for the reference.
>In scientific and technical writing, the prevailing style is to write out numbers under ten. While there are exceptions to these rules, your predominant concern should be expressing numbers consistently.
[1]: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/when-to-spell-out-numbers/
Incorporated some edits from the defunct pull request below to make this section read a little more easily. Some particulars
* Instead of stating as good way, bad way, ugly way -> state as their technical name and put (the good way) bracketed after
* The first and third examples referred to "you" and the second referred to "Alice and Bob". All three now refer to "you"
* Each paragraph now describes the method with a one liner
* Some miscellaneous detail
https://github.com/lnbook/lnbook/pull/307