skwp · November 14, 2023 20:25 · Nov 14, 2023 · Nov 14, 2023 · Nov 14, 2023 · Nov 1, 2023
diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 // INSTRUCTIONS:
 // Go to chat.openai.com
-// Edit the bullets below to suit your own opinionn, then paste it with the prompt on top:
+// Edit the bullets below to suit your own opinion, then paste it with the prompt on top:
 
 PROMPT: Generate a comment to fincen objecting to proposed rule FINCEN-2023-0016 using these bullets as input. Make it read naturally and drop the roman numeral formatting
 

diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
@@ -37,11 +37,12 @@ The proposed rule attempts to stigmatize using addresses only once. In fact, thi
 VII. Joint transactions are normal Bitcoin usage
 The programmable nature of Bitcoin means that certain types of transactions which this rule wishes to classify as problematic are actually completely normal and common. Such transaction types include: joint accounts (also known as multis) which may be held by spouses, or officers in a corporate environment, as well as lightning channels, which are a joint transaction type that enables parties to spend small amounts of Bitcoin quickly and cheaply. This rule risks labeling a huge portion of normal use as suspect. Not only is this problematic for liberties, but it is also completely ineffective at stopping actual threats by deluging the system with noise.
 
-
 VIII. Stifling American liberties doesn't prevent illicit usage in other areas
 
 It's vital to recognize that while these rules might be applicable within the U.S., a significant portion of cryptocurrency activities occurs outside our borders. Implementing stringent rules might inadvertently push more users to platforms that are less transparent and harder to oversee. In the name of stopping terrorism, FinCEN is simply stifling American adoption of this new technology, while doing nothing to address the underlying problem.PROMPT: Generate a comment to fincen objecting to proposed rule FINCEN-2023-0016 using these bullets as input. Make it read naturally and drop the roman numeral formatting
 
-
 Reconsider unconstitutional invasion of privacy rights
-Seek balanced approach to avoid mass surveillance that Americans reject
+
+Seek balanced approach to avoid mass surveillance that Americans reject
+
+We must remain true to our constitution and Article 12 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy". The government has no right to interfere with our privacy without due process.
diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
 PROMPT: Generate a comment to fincen objecting to proposed rule FINCEN-2023-0016 using these bullets as input. Make it read naturally and drop the roman numeral formatting
 
 I. Cryptocurrency mixing has legitimate uses
+
 Majority of users not engaged in illegal activity
 Illicit transactions are <0.15% of all cryptocurrency transactions
 Increases financial privacy and security against hacking/theft
@@ -41,49 +42,6 @@ VIII. Stifling American liberties doesn't prevent illicit usage in other areas
 
 It's vital to recognize that while these rules might be applicable within the U.S., a significant portion of cryptocurrency activities occurs outside our borders. Implementing stringent rules might inadvertently push more users to platforms that are less transparent and harder to oversee. In the name of stopping terrorism, FinCEN is simply stifling American adoption of this new technology, while doing nothing to address the underlying problem.PROMPT: Generate a comment to fincen objecting to proposed rule FINCEN-2023-0016 using these bullets as input. Make it read naturally and drop the roman numeral formatting
 
-I. Cryptocurrency mixing has legitimate uses
-Majority of users not engaged in illegal activity
-Illicit transactions are <0.15% of all cryptocurrency transactions
-Increases financial privacy and security against hacking/theft
-Public blockchains like bitcoin encourage bad actors to use other cryptocurrencies
-
-II. Regulation is unconstitutional government overreach
-Mass surveillance of innocent citizens is dangerous precedent
-Compare to illegal mass surveillance programs (Snowden)
-Violates civil liberties and principles America founded on
-
-III. Regulation creates burdens and stifles innovation
-Huge compliance burden on financial institutions
-Discourages cryptocurrency privacy innovation
-Hurts small startups
-
-IV. Fails to address illicit activity
-Criminals will use foreign exchanges or other money laundering methods
-Only hurts lawful privacy-seeking users
-
-V. Less intrusive alternatives exist
-Selective monitoring of suspicious transactions (probable cause)
-Balanced approach to protect privacy while allowing lawful monitoring
-
-VI. Single time address use and mixing are normal Bitcoin usage
-The proposed rule attempts to stigmatize using addresses only once. In fact, this is the correct and recommended course of action in the protocol. Doing otherwise would be revealing your transaction history and balances to anyone you spend with. This would be akin to handing over your entire paycheck to a store clerk to buy a candy bar. If someone does not mix, they would reveal their entire balance whenever they spend their Bitcoin. This may put people at risk of physical harm, especially in low income and high crime areas. Not only is this rule harmful to everyday usage of currency, but the amount of mixing and single time address use by law abiding citizens is so high that the rule would render reporting completely ineffective. FI's would be forced to report literally every transaction.
-
-VII. Joint transactions are normal Bitcoin usage
-The programmable nature of Bitcoin means that certain types of transactions which this rule wishes to classify as problematic are actually completely normal and common. Such transaction types include: joint accounts (also known as multis) which may be held by spouses, or officers in a corporate environment, as well as lightning channels, which are a joint transaction type that enables parties to spend small amounts of Bitcoin quickly and cheaply. This rule risks labeling a huge portion of normal use as suspect. Not only is this problematic for liberties, but it is also completely ineffective at stopping actual threats by deluging the system with noise and forcing the reporting of every transaction by every user of Bitcoin, violating the 4th amendment.
-
-
-VIII. Stifling American liberties doesn't prevent illicit usage in other areas
-
-It's vital to recognize that while these rules might be applicable within the U.S., a significant portion of cryptocurrency activities occurs outside our borders. Implementing stringent rules might inadvertently push more users to platforms that are less transparent and harder to oversee. In the name of stopping terrorism, FinCEN is simply stifling American adoption of this new technology, while doing nothing to address the underlying problem.
-
-
-Conclusion
-
-Reconsider unconstitutional invasion of privacy rights
-Seek balanced approach to avoid mass surveillance that Americans reject
-
-
-Conclusion
 
 Reconsider unconstitutional invasion of privacy rights
 Seek balanced approach to avoid mass surveillance that Americans reject
diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
@@ -1,8 +1,10 @@
-//Credit: original bullets sourced from https://twitter.com/HodlsSherlock/status/1719018446392889820?s=20
+// Credit: original bullets sourced from https://twitter.com/HodlsSherlock/status/1719018446392889820?s=20
 
+// INSTRUCTIONS:
+// Go to chat.openai.com
+// Edit the bullets below to suit your own opinionn, then paste it with the prompt on top:
 
-Introduction
-Purpose is to voice objection to proposed regulation to impose special recordkeeping and reporting requirements on transactions involving cryptocurrency mixing (docket number FINCEN-2023-0016).
+PROMPT: Generate a comment to fincen objecting to proposed rule FINCEN-2023-0016 using these bullets as input. Make it read naturally and drop the roman numeral formatting
 
 I. Cryptocurrency mixing has legitimate uses
 Majority of users not engaged in illegal activity
@@ -35,11 +37,53 @@ VII. Joint transactions are normal Bitcoin usage
 The programmable nature of Bitcoin means that certain types of transactions which this rule wishes to classify as problematic are actually completely normal and common. Such transaction types include: joint accounts (also known as multis) which may be held by spouses, or officers in a corporate environment, as well as lightning channels, which are a joint transaction type that enables parties to spend small amounts of Bitcoin quickly and cheaply. This rule risks labeling a huge portion of normal use as suspect. Not only is this problematic for liberties, but it is also completely ineffective at stopping actual threats by deluging the system with noise.
 
 
+VIII. Stifling American liberties doesn't prevent illicit usage in other areas
+
+It's vital to recognize that while these rules might be applicable within the U.S., a significant portion of cryptocurrency activities occurs outside our borders. Implementing stringent rules might inadvertently push more users to platforms that are less transparent and harder to oversee. In the name of stopping terrorism, FinCEN is simply stifling American adoption of this new technology, while doing nothing to address the underlying problem.PROMPT: Generate a comment to fincen objecting to proposed rule FINCEN-2023-0016 using these bullets as input. Make it read naturally and drop the roman numeral formatting
+
+I. Cryptocurrency mixing has legitimate uses
+Majority of users not engaged in illegal activity
+Illicit transactions are <0.15% of all cryptocurrency transactions
+Increases financial privacy and security against hacking/theft
+Public blockchains like bitcoin encourage bad actors to use other cryptocurrencies
+
+II. Regulation is unconstitutional government overreach
+Mass surveillance of innocent citizens is dangerous precedent
+Compare to illegal mass surveillance programs (Snowden)
+Violates civil liberties and principles America founded on
+
+III. Regulation creates burdens and stifles innovation
+Huge compliance burden on financial institutions
+Discourages cryptocurrency privacy innovation
+Hurts small startups
+
+IV. Fails to address illicit activity
+Criminals will use foreign exchanges or other money laundering methods
+Only hurts lawful privacy-seeking users
+
+V. Less intrusive alternatives exist
+Selective monitoring of suspicious transactions (probable cause)
+Balanced approach to protect privacy while allowing lawful monitoring
+
+VI. Single time address use and mixing are normal Bitcoin usage
+The proposed rule attempts to stigmatize using addresses only once. In fact, this is the correct and recommended course of action in the protocol. Doing otherwise would be revealing your transaction history and balances to anyone you spend with. This would be akin to handing over your entire paycheck to a store clerk to buy a candy bar. If someone does not mix, they would reveal their entire balance whenever they spend their Bitcoin. This may put people at risk of physical harm, especially in low income and high crime areas. Not only is this rule harmful to everyday usage of currency, but the amount of mixing and single time address use by law abiding citizens is so high that the rule would render reporting completely ineffective. FI's would be forced to report literally every transaction.
+
+VII. Joint transactions are normal Bitcoin usage
+The programmable nature of Bitcoin means that certain types of transactions which this rule wishes to classify as problematic are actually completely normal and common. Such transaction types include: joint accounts (also known as multis) which may be held by spouses, or officers in a corporate environment, as well as lightning channels, which are a joint transaction type that enables parties to spend small amounts of Bitcoin quickly and cheaply. This rule risks labeling a huge portion of normal use as suspect. Not only is this problematic for liberties, but it is also completely ineffective at stopping actual threats by deluging the system with noise and forcing the reporting of every transaction by every user of Bitcoin, violating the 4th amendment.
+
+
 VIII. Stifling American liberties doesn't prevent illicit usage in other areas
 
 It's vital to recognize that while these rules might be applicable within the U.S., a significant portion of cryptocurrency activities occurs outside our borders. Implementing stringent rules might inadvertently push more users to platforms that are less transparent and harder to oversee. In the name of stopping terrorism, FinCEN is simply stifling American adoption of this new technology, while doing nothing to address the underlying problem.
 
 
 Conclusion
+
+Reconsider unconstitutional invasion of privacy rights
+Seek balanced approach to avoid mass surveillance that Americans reject
+
+
+Conclusion
+
 Reconsider unconstitutional invasion of privacy rights
 Seek balanced approach to avoid mass surveillance that Americans reject
diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+//Credit: original bullets sourced from https://twitter.com/HodlsSherlock/status/1719018446392889820?s=20
+
+
+Introduction
+Purpose is to voice objection to proposed regulation to impose special recordkeeping and reporting requirements on transactions involving cryptocurrency mixing (docket number FINCEN-2023-0016).
+
+I. Cryptocurrency mixing has legitimate uses
+Majority of users not engaged in illegal activity
+Illicit transactions are <0.15% of all cryptocurrency transactions
+Increases financial privacy and security against hacking/theft
+Public blockchains like bitcoin encourage bad actors to use other cryptocurrencies
+
+II. Regulation is unconstitutional government overreach
+Mass surveillance of innocent citizens is dangerous precedent
+Compare to illegal mass surveillance programs (Snowden)
+Violates civil liberties and principles America founded on
+
+III. Regulation creates burdens and stifles innovation
+Huge compliance burden on financial institutions
+Discourages cryptocurrency privacy innovation
+Hurts small startups
+
+IV. Fails to address illicit activity
+Criminals will use foreign exchanges or other money laundering methods
+Only hurts lawful privacy-seeking users
+
+V. Less intrusive alternatives exist
+Selective monitoring of suspicious transactions (probable cause)
+Balanced approach to protect privacy while allowing lawful monitoring
+
+VI. Single time address use and mixing are normal Bitcoin usage
+The proposed rule attempts to stigmatize using addresses only once. In fact, this is the correct and recommended course of action in the protocol. Doing otherwise would be revealing your transaction history and balances to anyone you spend with. This would be akin to handing over your entire paycheck to a store clerk to buy a candy bar. If someone does not mix, they would reveal their entire balance whenever they spend their Bitcoin. This may put people at risk of physical harm, especially in low income and high crime areas. Not only is this rule harmful to everyday usage of currency, but the amount of mixing and single time address use by law abiding citizens is so high that the rule would render reporting completely ineffective. FI's would be forced to report literally every transaction.
+
+VII. Joint transactions are normal Bitcoin usage
+The programmable nature of Bitcoin means that certain types of transactions which this rule wishes to classify as problematic are actually completely normal and common. Such transaction types include: joint accounts (also known as multis) which may be held by spouses, or officers in a corporate environment, as well as lightning channels, which are a joint transaction type that enables parties to spend small amounts of Bitcoin quickly and cheaply. This rule risks labeling a huge portion of normal use as suspect. Not only is this problematic for liberties, but it is also completely ineffective at stopping actual threats by deluging the system with noise.
+
+
+VIII. Stifling American liberties doesn't prevent illicit usage in other areas
+
+It's vital to recognize that while these rules might be applicable within the U.S., a significant portion of cryptocurrency activities occurs outside our borders. Implementing stringent rules might inadvertently push more users to platforms that are less transparent and harder to oversee. In the name of stopping terrorism, FinCEN is simply stifling American adoption of this new technology, while doing nothing to address the underlying problem.
+
+
+Conclusion
+Reconsider unconstitutional invasion of privacy rights
+Seek balanced approach to avoid mass surveillance that Americans reject