On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranv...@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

Reply via email to