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

From: Eric Lombrozo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:42:33 -0700

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 <[email-masked]> 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.