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 <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.

Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to