{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranvier at riseup.net wrote:\n\u003e I'd also like to note that \"prima facie\" doesn't mean \"always\", it means\n\u003e that \"the default assumption, unless proven otherwise.\"\n\nWhy 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."}