Fix the vast majority of the violations

EIPS/eip-1.md

@@ -38,7 +38,8 @@ An EIP must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete descr
 ### Special requirements for Core EIPs
 
 If a **Core** EIP mentions or proposes changes to the EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine), it should refer to the instructions by their mnemonics and define the opcodes of those mnemonics at least once. A preferred way is the following:
-```
+
+```shell
 REVERT (0xfe)
 ```
 
@@ -48,13 +49,13 @@ REVERT (0xfe)
 
 Parties involved in the process are you, the champion or *EIP author*, the [*EIP editors*](#eip-editors), and the [*Ethereum Core Developers*](https://github.com/ethereum/pm).
 
-Before you begin writing a formal EIP, you should vet your idea. Ask the Ethereum community first if an idea is original to avoid wasting time on something that will be rejected based on prior research. It is thus recommended to open a discussion thread on [the Ethereum Magicians forum](https://ethereum-magicians.org/) to do this. 
+Before you begin writing a formal EIP, you should vet your idea. Ask the Ethereum community first if an idea is original to avoid wasting time on something that will be rejected based on prior research. It is thus recommended to open a discussion thread on [the Ethereum Magicians forum](https://ethereum-magicians.org/) to do this.
 
 Once the idea has been vetted, your next responsibility will be to present (by means of an EIP) the idea to the reviewers and all interested parties, invite editors, developers, and the community to give feedback on the aforementioned channels. You should try and gauge whether the interest in your EIP is commensurate with both the work involved in implementing it and how many parties will have to conform to it. For example, the work required for implementing a Core EIP will be much greater than for an ERC and the EIP will need sufficient interest from the Ethereum client teams. Negative community feedback will be taken into consideration and may prevent your EIP from moving past the Draft stage.
 
 ### Core EIPs
 
-For Core EIPs, given that they require client implementations to be considered **Final** (see "EIPs Process" below), you will need to either provide an implementation for clients or convince clients to implement your EIP. 
+For Core EIPs, given that they require client implementations to be considered **Final** (see "EIPs Process" below), you will need to either provide an implementation for clients or convince clients to implement your EIP.
 
 The best way to get client implementers to review your EIP is to present it on an AllCoreDevs call. You can request to do so by posting a comment linking your EIP on an [AllCoreDevs agenda GitHub Issue](https://github.com/ethereum/pm/issues).  
 
@@ -64,9 +65,9 @@ These calls generally result in a "rough consensus" around what EIPs should be i
 
 :warning: The EIPs process and AllCoreDevs call were not designed to address contentious non-technical issues, but, due to the lack of other ways to address these, often end up entangled in them. This puts the burden on client implementers to try and gauge community sentiment, which hinders the technical coordination function of EIPs and AllCoreDevs calls. If you are shepherding an EIP, you can make the process of building community consensus easier by making sure that [the Ethereum Magicians forum](https://ethereum-magicians.org/) thread for your EIP includes or links to as much of the community discussion as possible and that various stakeholders are well-represented.
 
-*In short, your role as the champion is to write the EIP using the style and format described below, shepherd the discussions in the appropriate forums, and build community consensus around the idea.* 
+*In short, your role as the champion is to write the EIP using the style and format described below, shepherd the discussions in the appropriate forums, and build community consensus around the idea.*
 
-### EIP Process 
+### EIP Process
 
 The following is the standardization process for all EIPs in all tracks:
 
@@ -84,7 +85,7 @@ If this period results in necessary normative changes it will revert the EIP to
 
 **Final** - This EIP represents the final standard. A Final EIP exists in a state of finality and should only be updated to correct errata and add non-normative clarifications.
 
-**Stagnant** - Any EIP in `Draft` or `Review` or `Last Call` if inactive for a period of 6 months or greater is moved to `Stagnant`. An EIP may be resurrected from this state by Authors or EIP Editors through moving it back to `Draft` or it's earlier status. If not resurrected, a proposal may stay forever in this status. 
+**Stagnant** - Any EIP in `Draft` or `Review` or `Last Call` if inactive for a period of 6 months or greater is moved to `Stagnant`. An EIP may be resurrected from this state by Authors or EIP Editors through moving it back to `Draft` or it's earlier status. If not resurrected, a proposal may stay forever in this status.
 
 >*EIP Authors are notified of any algorithmic change to the status of their EIP*
 
@@ -98,12 +99,12 @@ Each EIP should have the following parts:
 
 - Preamble - RFC 822 style headers containing metadata about the EIP, including the EIP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), a description (limited to a maximum of 140 characters), and the author details. Irrespective of the category, the title and description should not include EIP number. See [below](./eip-1.md#eip-header-preamble) for details.
 - Abstract - Abstract is a multi-sentence (short paragraph) technical summary. This should be a very terse and human-readable version of the specification section. Someone should be able to read only the abstract to get the gist of what this specification does.
-- Motivation _(optional)_ - A motivation section is critical for EIPs that want to change the Ethereum protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the EIP solves. This section may be omitted if the motivation is evident.
+- Motivation *(optional)* - A motivation section is critical for EIPs that want to change the Ethereum protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the EIP solves. This section may be omitted if the motivation is evident.
 - Specification - The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current Ethereum platforms (cpp-ethereum, go-ethereum, parity, ethereumJ, ethereumjs-lib, [and others](https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Clients).
 - Rationale - The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. The rationale should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion around the EIP.
-- Backwards Compatibility _(optional)_ - All EIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their consequences. The EIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. This section may be omitted if the proposal does not introduce any backwards incompatibilities, but this section must be included if backward incompatibilities exist.
-- Test Cases _(optional)_ - Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Tests should either be inlined in the EIP as data (such as input/expected output pairs, or included in `../assets/eip-###/<filename>`. This section may be omitted for non-Core proposals.
-- Reference Implementation _(optional)_ - An optional section that contains a reference/example implementation that people can use to assist in understanding or implementing this specification. This section may be omitted for all EIPs.
+- Backwards Compatibility *(optional)* - All EIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their consequences. The EIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. This section may be omitted if the proposal does not introduce any backwards incompatibilities, but this section must be included if backward incompatibilities exist.
+- Test Cases *(optional)* - Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Tests should either be inlined in the EIP as data (such as input/expected output pairs, or included in `../assets/eip-###/<filename>`. This section may be omitted for non-Core proposals.
+- Reference Implementation *(optional)* - An optional section that contains a reference/example implementation that people can use to assist in understanding or implementing this specification. This section may be omitted for all EIPs.
 - Security Considerations - All EIPs must contain a section that discusses the security implications/considerations relevant to the proposed change. Include information that might be important for security discussions, surfaces risks and can be used throughout the life-cycle of the proposal. E.g. include security-relevant design decisions, concerns, important discussions, implementation-specific guidance and pitfalls, an outline of threats and risks and how they are being addressed. EIP submissions missing the "Security Considerations" section will be rejected. An EIP cannot proceed to status "Final" without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers.
 - Copyright Waiver - All EIPs must be in the public domain. The copyright waiver MUST link to the license file and use the following wording: `Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](../LICENSE.md).`
 
@@ -143,7 +144,7 @@ Headers that permit lists must separate elements with commas.
 
 Headers requiring dates will always do so in the format of ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd).
 
-#### `author` header
+### `author` header
 
 The `author` header lists the names, email addresses or usernames of the authors/owners of the EIP. Those who prefer anonymity may use a username only, or a first name and a username. The format of the `author` header value must be:
 
@@ -163,25 +164,25 @@ It is not possible to use both an email and a GitHub username at the same time.
 
 At least one author must use a GitHub username, in order to get notified on change requests and have the capability to approve or reject them.
 
-#### `discussions-to` header
+### `discussions-to` header
 
 While an EIP is a draft, a `discussions-to` header will indicate the URL where the EIP is being discussed.
 
 The preferred discussion URL is a topic on [Ethereum Magicians](https://ethereum-magicians.org/). The URL cannot point to Github pull requests, any URL which is ephemeral, and any URL which can get locked over time (i.e. Reddit topics).
 
-#### `type` header
+### `type` header
 
 The `type` header specifies the type of EIP: Standards Track, Meta, or Informational. If the track is Standards please include the subcategory (core, networking, interface, or ERC).
 
-#### `category` header
+### `category` header
 
 The `category` header specifies the EIP's category. This is required for standards-track EIPs only.
 
-#### `created` header
+### `created` header
 
 The `created` header records the date that the EIP was assigned a number. Both headers should be in yyyy-mm-dd format, e.g. 2001-08-14.
 
-#### `requires` header
+### `requires` header
 
 EIPs may have a `requires` header, indicating the EIP numbers that this EIP depends on.
 
@@ -214,7 +215,7 @@ The current EIP editors are
 - Micah Zoltu (@MicahZoltu)
 - Sam Wilson (@SamWilsn)
 
-Emeritus EIP editors are 
+Emeritus EIP editors are
 
 - Casey Detrio (@cdetrio)
 - Nick Johnson (@arachnid)
@@ -251,15 +252,15 @@ The editors don't pass judgment on EIPs. We merely do the administrative & edito
 
 The `title` field in the preamble:
 
- - Should not include the word "standard" or any variation thereof; and
- - Should not include the EIP's number.
+- Should not include the word "standard" or any variation thereof; and
+- Should not include the EIP's number.
 
 ### Descriptions
 
 The `description` field in the preamble:
 
- - Should not include the word "standard" or any variation thereof; and
- - Should not include the EIP's number.
+- Should not include the word "standard" or any variation thereof; and
+- Should not include the EIP's number.
 
 ### EIP numbers
 

EIPS/eip-100.md

@@ -23,17 +23,20 @@ If `block.number >= BYZANTIUM_FORK_BLKNUM`, we change the first line to the foll
 ``` python
 adj_factor = max((2 if len(parent.uncles) else 1) - ((timestamp - parent.timestamp) // 9), -99)
 ```
+
 ### Rationale
 
 This new formula ensures that the difficulty adjustment algorithm targets a constant average rate of blocks produced including uncles, and so ensures a highly predictable issuance rate that cannot be manipulated upward by manipulating the uncle rate. A formula that accounts for the exact number of included uncles:
+
 ``` python
 adj_factor = max(1 + len(parent.uncles) - ((timestamp - parent.timestamp) // 9), -99)
 ```
+
 can be fairly easily seen to be (to within a tolerance of ~3/4194304) mathematically equivalent to assuming that a block with `k` uncles is equivalent to a sequence of `k+1` blocks that all appear with the exact same timestamp, and this is likely the simplest possible way to accomplish the desired effect. But since the exact formula depends on the full block and not just the header, we are instead using an approximate formula that accomplishes almost the same effect but has the benefit that it depends only on the block header (as you can check the uncle hash against the blank hash).
 
 Changing the denominator from 10 to 9 ensures that the block time remains roughly the same (in fact, it should decrease by ~3% given the current uncle rate of 7%).
 
 ### References
 
-1. EIP 100 issue and discussion: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/100
-2. https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/uncle-mining-an-ethereum-consensus-protocol-flaw/
+1. EIP 100 issue and discussion: <https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/100>
+2. <https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/uncle-mining-an-ethereum-consensus-protocol-flaw/>