Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19 📝 Original message:Even if you could prove ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19
📝 Original message: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'll ever actually do them.
I am in favor of more zero-confirmation transactions being reversed / double-spent. Bitcoin users largely still believe that accepting zero-conf transactions is safe, and evidently it's going to take some harsh lessons 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 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 <bip at mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranvier at 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.
>
📝 Original message: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'll ever actually do them.
I am in favor of more zero-confirmation transactions being reversed / double-spent. Bitcoin users largely still believe that accepting zero-conf transactions is safe, and evidently it's going to take some harsh lessons 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 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 <bip at mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranvier at 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.
>