{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:\"prima facie\" generally means that in a court case the burden of proof \nshifts from one party to another. For instance, if you have a federal \ntrademark registration that is prima fascia evidence of those rights \neven though they could still be challenged.  To say a prosecutor would \nhave prima fascia evidence of a crime because double spend was detected \nis quite a stretch.\n\n\n\nOn 6/19/2015 12:36 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote:\n\u003e On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranvier at riseup.net wrote:\n\u003e\u003e I'd also like to note that \"prima facie\" doesn't mean \"always\", it means\n\u003e\u003e that \"the default assumption, unless proven otherwise.\"\n\u003e 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.\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e"}