1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <milly@bitcoins.info>) id 1Z5zVM-0001Uv-6m
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:51:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitcoins.info
designates 70.90.2.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=70.90.2.18;
envelope-from=milly@bitcoins.info; helo=mail.help.org;
Received: from mail.help.org ([70.90.2.18])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z5zVL-0001wm-4G
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:51:00 +0000
Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA
; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:50:50 -0400
Message-ID: <5584486D.6020309@bitcoins.info>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:50:53 -0400
From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org> <04CE3756-B032-464C-8FBD-7ACDD1A3197D@gmail.com> <812d8353e66637ec182da31bc0a9aac1@riseup.net>
<1727885.UUNByX4Jyd@crushinator>
In-Reply-To: <1727885.UUNByX4Jyd@crushinator>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.1 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z5zVL-0001wm-4G
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:51:00 -0000
"prima facie" generally means that in a court case the burden of proof
shifts from one party to another. For instance, if you have a federal
trademark registration that is prima fascia evidence of those rights
even though they could still be challenged. To say a prosecutor would
have prima fascia evidence of a crime because double spend was detected
is quite a stretch.
On 6/19/2015 12:36 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranvier@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
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
|
