📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 2015-06-19 16:36, 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.
If we have ECDSA proof that an entity intentionally made and publicly
announced incompatible promises regarding the disposition of particular
Bitcoins under their control, then why shouldn't that be assumed to be a
fraud attempt unless shown otherwise?
There are ways of achiving transaction fee adjustment after broadcast
that do not present the appearance of, or opportunity for, fraud. If
those options are available and the user chooses not to use them in
favor of the option that does, that makes bad intentions even more
probable.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=xtXD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
justusranvier at riseup.net [ARCHIVE] /
npub1qf…lfn9a
2023-06-07 15:39:13
in reply to nevent1q…vx5r
Author Public Key
npub1qf6k0f8p0h89d43l0vnx2xp5yrfgjyl8tg3hkg8jtyudrllgw2usdlfn9aPublished at
2023-06-07 15:39:13Event JSON
{
"id": "92a329c171b4c4b9e34464ee1b932fe9b27542d6c94e7d9b88f0bf42ca8e8996",
"pubkey": "027567a4e17dce56d63f7b2665183420d28913e75a237b20f25938d1ffe872b9",
"created_at": 1686152353,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6b4025f674cbd304cabd44490b09b3ceb927f752f6a9f4513b25fefc95bdc008",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3efa25fb8e90a569ee5f1318b709a40c567878ecb314d16f27676263928dc7b1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3a24ce2145c5488aebfb0fc113e7d44234e9d3733afa45e2d880eb259c3eade3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA512\n\nOn 2015-06-19 16:36, 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 \n\u003e\u003e 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\n\u003e null hypothesis be the default? Without any information one way or\n\u003e another, you ought to make *no assumption* about the fraudulence or\n\u003e non-fraudulence of any given double-spend.\n\nIf we have ECDSA proof that an entity intentionally made and publicly \nannounced incompatible promises regarding the disposition of particular \nBitcoins under their control, then why shouldn't that be assumed to be a \nfraud attempt unless shown otherwise?\n\nThere are ways of achiving transaction fee adjustment after broadcast \nthat do not present the appearance of, or opportunity for, fraud. If \nthose options are available and the user chooses not to use them in \nfavor of the option that does, that makes bad intentions even more \nprobable.\n\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v2\n\niQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVhEasAAoJECpf2nDq2eYjcwIP/25yoRpNvZkkdFfYiBKaiL/g\nXRH8iFAyM5q3/75sA23vD/fzCNGIRRWYyp8PWk+23NF1gdsgVU6gFNNCUmDbjANv\nnWTt2Bd926St24jcU+OxMewSGlxpenDSFDNQVtxhNFKst6hoPatwK1Zfa0Eq7/Qw\n+r0H2Pse1ulrN4P1n5xnrYMq2w/GF3zinNZbrn2KOZCnsDa8lKlP8y9eNFHBJ//Z\nwDrOcfZ1WLhf5/5xlV1NiH0tdxzABilH0ITimm2LCKbj3JcSJayZlyu4n3NypE0E\ncVFeYpBaVZW9wuKUv/va5fzcyWDFPAo+OrR2B3siAb8nfY1jONXNhuV3yZ76pzMr\nj39lvuSpoTbLobnEWMCJQ5bI/ngbhatT57gqMfF92sO0YjMe/gi/iU6urR9fi5Gz\n3Ov6QA78vxzy/YduFjkc/1FV2dNdbGJtq6b0stmz5TtM1uljeGUoj6JZ8kOJ0EXn\n857KFAqEd3hG9eYtBdFQcYeV2ShndALBQE0k3cqQvV6XYdHwHuTY15i1nq+u91MZ\nVwsR1M69PrDX5Ps6qo1F6QYJA/fA4fyOZ9dwIvh+cgtu4wBptr/NOpL3XH0kE2+G\nb2FRGOwdb2KlejIXSL9p4mfJTX9lmk4twbZe2Spjiy4FinOUyzxEobNoUTMcFCU7\nZu2i5yjMlJzrDB8yXz/N\n=xtXD\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "157d40a27d6cb8103f15411e59c5aae48338d17d3d6580c7c2e9e47022abec0a0d0f94228974bda2addf9d48846101985d121f0df768c856f6f26f5ae1094714"
}