Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:44:08 +0000

On 2015-06-19 16:36, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, [email-masked] 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.