diff --git a/blog/untrusted-the-issue-with-decentralisation.html b/blog/untrusted-the-issue-with-decentralisation.html
index eb1788c..8173614 100644
--- a/blog/untrusted-the-issue-with-decentralisation.html
+++ b/blog/untrusted-the-issue-with-decentralisation.html
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ form of identification; this is where the trust issue of decentralisation<br>
 occurs.</p>
 <br>
 <p>In the decentralised model, keys are kept on the users' devices, in their<br>
-possession. While this soveriegnty is welcomed, it indroduces a critical<br>
+possession. While this soveriegnty is welcomed, it introduces a critical<br>
 flaw in the security of communicating with anyone via a decentralised<br>
 platform; should a user's device be lost, stolen, or otherwise compromised,<br>
 there is no way to know it happened and what the new keys really are, and<br>
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ they be compromised, by providing identification to the virtual private<br>
 server host.<br>
 <br>
 3. I have pinned my website to a globally trusted certificate authority,<br>
-Let's Encrypt, which is a trsuted party to manage TLS certificates and<br>
+Let's Encrypt, which is a trusted party to manage TLS certificates and<br>
 ensure ownership of the domain when connecting to it.<br>
 <br>
 4. I have enabled DNSSEC on my domain, so it is extremely difficult to<br>
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ implement in any form.</p>
 <br>
 <h4>Conclusion</h4>
 <p>Do not demand anonymity; demand privacy and control of your own data.<br>
-Complete anonmyity makes it impossible to have a root of trust, and is<br>
+Complete anonymity makes it impossible to have a root of trust, and is<br>
 typically never necessary. It is possible for someone else to hold your<br>
 keys, without them taking control of them and dictating what you can and<br>
 cannot do (Twitter's misinformation policy comes to mind). If a platform<br>