đź“… Original date posted:2015-06-19
đź“ť Original message:Even if you could prove "intent to pay," this would be almost useless. I can sincerely intend to do a lot of things, but this doesn't mean I'll ever actually do them.
I am in favor of more zero-confirmation transactions being reversed / double-spent. Bitcoin users largely still believe that accepting zero-conf transactions is safe, and evidently it's going to take some harsh lessons in reality to correct this belief.
On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:42 am, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> 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.
>
Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] /
npub17q…upwet
2023-06-07 15:39:08
in reply to nevent1q…208e
Author Public Key
npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwetPublished at
2023-06-07 15:39:08Event JSON
{
"id": "9766ee873bdcb72962cbf1a5916f7979e5fa7a1656395433692d237749443d95",
"pubkey": "f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91",
"created_at": 1686152348,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6b4025f674cbd304cabd44490b09b3ceb927f752f6a9f4513b25fefc95bdc008",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f38a8b01ea00e267595356b84c3f2ef3a88532cd0d385d74e120bb1b25a8f8dd",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:Even if you could prove \"intent to pay,\" this would be almost useless. I can sincerely intend to do a lot of things, but this doesn't mean I'll ever actually do them.\n\nI am in favor of more zero-confirmation transactions being reversed / double-spent. Bitcoin users largely still believe that accepting zero-conf transactions is safe, and evidently it's going to take some harsh lessons in reality to correct this belief.\n\n\nOn Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:42 am, Eric Lombrozo wrote:\n\u003e 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\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Matt Whitlock \u003cbip at mattwhitlock.name\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranvier at riseup.net wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e I'd also like to note that \"prima facie\" doesn't mean \"always\", it means\n\u003e \u003e\u003e that \"the default assumption, unless proven otherwise.\"\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \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",
"sig": "1a200ae31f691cd23c81afb875adf4342bfc60478eeaa3423d8a898202e5c8a5bce12d0669ffe4a204823cab578e54c8a94160bcd01143756939cb7cc510350b"
}