From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:46:35 -0400
Message-ID: <2285442.evbbAUJO17@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.9 (Linux/3.18.12-gentoo; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <83A7C606-B601-47D2-BE10-2A1412D97514@gmail.com>
References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org>
	<1727885.UUNByX4Jyd@crushinator>
	<83A7C606-B601-47D2-BE10-2A1412D97514@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	justusranvier@riseup.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
Precedence: list

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'l=
l ever actually do them.

I am in favor of more zero-confirmation transactions being reversed / d=
ouble-spent. Bitcoin users largely still believe that accepting zero-co=
nf transactions is safe, and evidently it's going to take some harsh le=
ssons 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 exp=
licitly define one rather than relying on =E2=80=9Cprima facie=E2=80=9D=
 assumptions. Otherwise, I would recommend not relying on the existence=
 of a signed transaction as proof of intent to pay=E2=80=A6
>=20
>=20
> > On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> =
wrote:
> >=20
> > 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."
> >=20
> > Why would you automatically assume fraud by default? Shouldn't the =
null hypothesis be the default? Without any information one way or anot=
her, you ought to make *no assumption* about the fraudulence or non-fra=
udulence of any given double-spend.
>