đź“… Original date posted:2015-06-19
📝 Original message:If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should explicitly define one rather than relying on “prima facie” assumptions. Otherwise, I would recommend not relying on the existence of a signed transaction as proof of intent to pay…
> On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
>
> On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranvier at riseup.net wrote:
>> I'd also like to note that "prima facie" doesn't mean "always", it means
>> that "the default assumption, unless proven otherwise."
>
> Why would you automatically assume fraud by default? Shouldn't the null hypothesis be the default? Without any information one way or another, you ought to make *no assumption* about the fraudulence or non-fraudulence of any given double-spend.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/d461c2f9/attachment.sig>;
Eric Lombrozo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1az…t2krq
2023-06-07 15:39:08
in reply to nevent1q…56wz
Author Public Key
npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krqPublished at
2023-06-07 15:39:08Event JSON
{
"id": "f38a8b01ea00e267595356b84c3f2ef3a88532cd0d385d74e120bb1b25a8f8dd",
"pubkey": "e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f",
"created_at": 1686152348,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6b4025f674cbd304cabd44490b09b3ceb927f752f6a9f4513b25fefc95bdc008",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1966c78a72cb99f115c44eaece6fd85cb8f87d2041f9d26abc5d202855e2a65f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should explicitly define one rather than relying on “prima facie” assumptions. Otherwise, I would recommend not relying on the existence of a signed transaction as proof of intent to pay…\n\n\n\u003e On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Matt Whitlock \u003cbip at mattwhitlock.name\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranvier at riseup.net wrote:\n\u003e\u003e I'd also like to note that \"prima facie\" doesn't mean \"always\", it means\n\u003e\u003e that \"the default assumption, unless proven otherwise.\"\n\u003e \n\u003e Why would you automatically assume fraud by default? Shouldn't the null hypothesis be the default? Without any information one way or another, you ought to make *no assumption* about the fraudulence or non-fraudulence of any given double-spend.\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 842 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/d461c2f9/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "0b499df79e026f643b45227576e52753a68282cf3701e3a85e67a2408475f38e3eb3d1afd0b40eabefd1128c8b46336e42188cef949cdd97f74a49adb132f0c8"
}