rich1.0npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wthttps://nostr.ae/npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wtnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19 📝 Original message:"prima facie" generally means that in a court case the burden of proof shifts from one party to another. For instance, if you have a federal trademark registration that is prima fascia evidence of those rights even though they could still be challenged. To say a prosecutor would have prima fascia evidence of a crime because double spend was detected is quite a stretch. On 6/19/2015 12:36 PM, Matt Whitlock 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. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >