Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5zH9-0000ft-PR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:36:19 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.44]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5zH8-0000WQ-Ss for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:36:19 +0000 Received: from resomta-ch2-19v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.115]) by resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id iGam1q0012VvR6D01GcDiR; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:36:13 +0000 Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:186:c000:825e:e9f4:8901:87c7:24a0]) by resomta-ch2-19v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id iGcC1q00C4eLRLv01GcC1M; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:36:13 +0000 From: Matt Whitlock To: justusranvier@riseup.net Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:36:11 -0400 Message-ID: <1727885.UUNByX4Jyd@crushinator> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.9 (Linux/3.18.12-gentoo; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <812d8353e66637ec182da31bc0a9aac1@riseup.net> References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org> <04CE3756-B032-464C-8FBD-7ACDD1A3197D@gmail.com> <812d8353e66637ec182da31bc0a9aac1@riseup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [69.252.207.44 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Z5zH8-0000WQ-Ss Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:36:19 -0000 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.