📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19
📝 Original message:"prima facie" generally means that in a court case the burden of proof
shifts from one party to another. For instance, if you have a federal
trademark registration that is prima fascia evidence of those rights
even though they could still be challenged. To say a prosecutor would
have prima fascia evidence of a crime because double spend was detected
is quite a stretch.
On 6/19/2015 12:36 PM, Matt Whitlock 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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
Milly Bitcoin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rv…hc5wt
2023-06-07 15:39:14
in reply to nevent1q…fc9w
Author Public Key
npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wtPublished at
2023-06-07 15:39:14Event JSON
{
"id": "5b6dac5744045958e93ce3782c1b11c260f5aafb8981e0749ae7f70a1f3bb682",
"pubkey": "1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50",
"created_at": 1686152354,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6b4025f674cbd304cabd44490b09b3ceb927f752f6a9f4513b25fefc95bdc008",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f403f824c0a2f8892f60e216218224d172bc7b6dd9b80cbf586bf0938e863a06",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"027567a4e17dce56d63f7b2665183420d28913e75a237b20f25938d1ffe872b9"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:\"prima facie\" generally means that in a court case the burden of proof \nshifts from one party to another. For instance, if you have a federal \ntrademark registration that is prima fascia evidence of those rights \neven though they could still be challenged. To say a prosecutor would \nhave prima fascia evidence of a crime because double spend was detected \nis quite a stretch.\n\n\n\nOn 6/19/2015 12:36 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote:\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 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\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e",
"sig": "50fcfda23a3af0371145c7636624804515eea0040ac2712c1fa1273dfd457aefa59a29ab0573f58c0c87c030e97e9b347279afa13c7287a2ef357388d037c2a5"
}