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 <b...@mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
> 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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to