when its cheaper to mine they will mine and then sell.. causing price drop
when its not so cheap to mine and inconvenient at the time to start mining they will just buy, causing a price rise
If they choose to buy instead, the difficulty will fall, allowing other miners to mine and not buy If they choose to mine, the difficulty will rise, causing other miners to stop mining and buy. In both cases, the demand does not change, so the price does not change. adding to this. when mining and price are soo close that there is no profit in it they wont sell (hlping creating a support line)
they also wont sell at a loss
Miners will sell at a loss. They must sell in order to cover their costs. Also, if traders never sell at a loss, wouldn't the price still be at $20,000? a. the main mining farms that set the baseline value have lower costs than everyday joe. what you find is the little hobbiests with higher costs give up first. which is a small fraction of hashing rate but translates to alot of market turbulance. in short a preference to buy does not translate into a difficulty drop... sorry it just dont the main mining farms dont just turn off their rigs at the whims of the market. thats for the small hobbiests to play that game. the main mining farms actually do OTC trades. and its the OTC traders that then play the whims of the markets when pools dont want to sell at a low rate. maybe i dumbed down things a littlebit too much I do not trust such analyses, because you can not actually predict the price of bitcoin, no one has managed to do it several times in a row.
from my view its not about predicting a price. its about. to put it in other terms the difference between the wholesale and the retail price. if there is too much of a gap then that means too much hype/speculation//bubble and not a good time to buy. when the gap is small its good value and good time to buy again big gap = large potential for a dip again small gap=small potential for a dip |
|
|
|
I'm just going to cross-paste my reply from the other topic, because I get the impression it's not an easy point to counter: The only sensible answer is "wait and see". If users begin running code that would permit blocks which are larger than currently allowed, something might change. If users continue to run code that would reject larger blocks, it won't.
But what you should always try to remember is this: All these people out there running code are doing so to enforce their preferences, not yours. I can't speak for everyone out there, but I have a sneaking suspicion they don't feel any pressure to increase their burden simply in order to reduce yours. And this is absolutely what you are asking of them when you insist they should store and circulate these larger blocks for you.
No ifs, buts or maybes. It'll only happen if or when users want it. rebuttal this topic shows people want it. why are they not getting it because CORE are not writing the code to even give users to even let the users choose why not.. well thats been discussed. they prefer offchains and alt networks to push people over to thus refuse to release code for an upscale of the base block and if non-core devs dared write code and released something that people would want. guess what. core would just mandate they 'f**k off' as they did in 2017 so yea tell people to just wait like sheep for core to release code because we both know everyone on the btc network has to do that now. wait and see what core spoons out. people have no choice for what the btc network changed into.. core now bypass consensus that was your whole flip flop. you kept saying there was no democracy you kept saying there is no consensus the only thing you couldnt accept was there used to be, before core made it their sole network where they became the central decision maker of coded rules to implement on the network. but have a good day mr flippity flop |
|
|
|
by making it cheaper, more people remain interested and keep doing it.
making it expensive to use deters people from using it
If the above theory is correct then BTC would have been the least used/adpoted coin now by now, what you actually find is that in 2014-2015 bitcoin had massive merchant adoption. but due to no significant scaling proposals and how fee's started to become more than pennies. merchants started to drop off in 2016-2019 yep less real merchants (and no dont talk about the crappy 'virtual avatars' and digital kittens people can buy. i mean real world merchants) The main issue with big blockers is underestimating technology limitations, do you know that a person in my country needs to spend at least a full month salary to actually run a bitcoin node with the current blocksize ? let alone a 16mb or more,
and here we go.. another 'leaper' script instead of a 'scaling' script.. come on no one is talking about 16mb or gigabytes by midnight. calm down I pay a fortune for 2mb connection with a very limited quota, it's pretty damn expensive for me to maintain a node so that I can solo mine on it and verify transactions, how do you expect me to propagate a 500mb block
you need to understand that the world does not revolve around 1st class rich and well developed countries like yours, in fact when you think about it, a 500mb block is insane ,and only a handful of people can actually keep up with such blocks.
500mb block.. again calm down with the apocalypse leaping to high blocksize immediately. i could kind of tell you are just repeating nonsense cases as soon as you used the word 'bigblockers' which just shows everyone which scripts you ben reading Rushing to increase blocksize the way BSV did for example will very shortly lead to 10-20 large companies running every single node, technically back to square 1 where a "bunch of rich white men sit together in a closed room and decide for everybody else".
again think SCALING not LEAPING. really. chill on the 500mb scripts your thinking of |
|
|
|
2. It's clear that full nodes can meet the increased requirements
Since the last bubble popped, the fees were consistently low, so there's no urgent need for another blocksize increase right now. If we increased the blocksize just to better handle the sudden spikes of transactions, it would just create unnecessary permanent load on nodes that can't be reversed back.
what TECHNICAL problems are there that current computers cannot meet though segwit does not ustilise the '4mb'... by devs saying '4mb' they seem fine with system requirements of 4mb also hard drives are not 1990's floppy disks but 1tb ssd the size of a international postage stamp also unlike blocks of 2014 block headers are broadcast and verified in seconds and the transaction data (the main bloat of a block) would be majority verified long before the header even gets mined. thus much faster also the fudgey math of the 4x isnt producing a 4x transaction potential so if devs are ok with 4mb of data.. then just do the logical thing and open up the base block to such that the 4mb allowance is actually 4mb allowance without the bait and switch hidden data and unaccounted data oh and if you say tx fee's are low. great. keep them low but let pools earn more by having more transactions. EG 8000tx a block at 1 sat/tx is 4x more than 2000tx at 1sat/tx. trying to constrain the baseblock at 1mb just to say pools ned 'demand' to stop people just playing 1sat is foolish. pools can earn more without the constraint imagine it like a lottery. where the prize has to be $10. would u prefer 1 person paying $10 a ticket. or 10 people paying $1 a ticket by making it cheaper, more people remain interested and keep doing it. making it expensive to use deters people from using it and dont bother turning it into a debate about full nodes will cost thousands of dollars for servers. sorry but we are not in the floppy disk era where 1 floppy is $1 and how 250,000mb would be $250k we are in the world of cheap hard drives where by default computers have 1tb hard drives we are in a world of fibre and 5g.. we are not stuck at dialup speed i never hear netflix customers complain that netflix decidd to only stream in 480 res.. netflix streams at HD and the internet hasnt blown up in an apocalypse |
|
|
|
cant believe ETFbitcoin prefers that people give funds to custodians for 6 months and plays around with pegged tokens called milisats in that time.(3 oncahain a year: 1open, 1 close-aggregate-reopen, 1close)
he might aswell just stick to fiat and banks be his custodians of his value(hint: he lost memory of bitcoins true purpose if he really loves the idea of turning bitcoin into just a reserve store for custodians)
Using LN paper as example why block size need to be increased doesn't mean i support locking funds for 6 months (it's simply ridiculous). I only support using LN for micro-transaction with far shorter timelock. yet you advertise LN as a best case scenario usage of just 3 tx a year While i strongly prefer combination of both off-chain and on-chain scaling (not block size increase), there's upper limit of those scaling solutions.
Even lightning network paper mention the need of block size increase on unrealistic best scenario (where everyone use LN and only make 3 transaction/year).
you actually done a strikethrough. to advocate you think its best and not unrealistic to expect 6month locks And if people use custodial service to use LN, it's their problem. There's way not to use custodial service if you run your own full nodes client or use watchtower.
dang you really dont even know how LN works, yet advocate for it for a watchtower to even have power to stop one of the parties from early broadcast. the watchtower has to have signing control level above the parties. meaning funds are not in your full control. thus they are your custodian its the same as having a joint bank account with your wife.. but it aint money under a pillow that you both quibble over in private. but under the watch of a bank watching over it and ensuring your wife doesnt spend all your savings without your consent yep LN will cause more users to end up using litewallets as thy would see less point in running a full node if they only touch the btc network once every 6 months.
think about it
As if people bother use full node wallet these days for on-chain transaction. IMO people who bother run full node client today won't use light or custodial wallet if they want to use LN. LN only function well if A. people can plan spending habits. people cannot successfully plan a fortnight-month all the time. thus LN would require people closing and reopening channels fortnightly/monthly not 6monthly B. to close and re-open without impacting the blockchain. they have to custodian up funds for 6 months and then let the custodian 'manage' and maintain offchain contracts of 2-4 weeks and re-aggregate funds offchain to avoid broadcasts C. the promo of LN is fast transactions such as buying coffee or groceries without causing a queue.. people use mobile cell phones not desktop computers to buy quick fast stuff in retailers. meaning not a full node but a litewallet app so again when using a lite wallet app daily and not needing to touch the blockchain for 6 months. people wont see the point in running a full node the solution to make people want to be full nodes is actually make using onchain useful for everyday tasks, not 6monthly chores LN does not have the same security as bitcoin LN has many ways to lose funds. even LN devs have lost funds LN has many flaws such as routing, regular funding, spending limits, trust of the other party think about it all someone has to do is wait for you to go to bed and thy can broadcast their prefered tx, that stiff's you LN is designed go falsely make people trust custodians and others having control over your spending decisions. all while saying and pretending its as secure as bitcoin by playing the bitcoin brand game of 'layers bitcoin' even though the reality is that its a separate network without all of bitcoins security measures |
|
|
|
|
you said 'Trump had a minor business relationship with Epstein that fell through, had very little social contact with him,'
i debunked the minor business relationship as theres proof everywhere it was more then a decade of friendship
i debunked the lack of social contact again via the proof of their interactions lasting over a decade
its not an assumption. theres photos and videos that show there was more than
'minor business relationship, very little social contact'
sorry but the videos and photos and quotes and eye witnesses prove more than your lack of evidence of the opposite
anyway back to my original point. this topic is void on content.. as the 'story' has been in the public domain for decades. the only thing this topic is about is how someone got fired to releasing a video.. but the content of the video is not a 'bombshell'
|
|
|
|
|
private prisons can still make money even if people are not convicted with just taking drugs.
all thy do is realise they have more room to keep people with higher crimes for longer. so it becomes making murders get full life behind bars rather than early release due to overcrowding(good behaviour excuse). thus prisons retain the same budget because their cells remain full but this time of high level criminals doing more time
i find it foolish to release murder and rapists early just to make room for someone that has not harmed another person (drugs for personal use only)
|
|
|
|
My input was based on all the hidden factors that contribute to the costs of running a prison, and not just for water, and food costs, but for everything. I'd agree 11k is no where near that of the American prisons, but I can't possibly comment on that. Although, water charges for a prison will be much more than your regular household due to the fact that they would need regular quality assurance checks. This isn't one sample per prison. Its a sample of each length of water main over 5 meters I believe.
However, my point being is its these little things which aren't often public knowledge that we don't think of. My original point which was poorly presented I'll admit wasn't about justifying the costs, but giving a little insight into the hidden factors of running something like this with all the rules, and regulations that are put in place.
AFAIK, UK prisons actually provide very good quality of food to the prisoners. I think it was either Charles Bronson or another high profile prisoner who has publicly said that they have been treated extremely well compared to 30 years or so ago.
my points was about not 11k but an acceptable assumption of $£30k.. however seeing places like america that are charging $80k is obvious sign of extreme funds wastage yes 11k is the minimal cost for people.. and yes add in guards(£5k per inmate) and hidden costs like extra hygiene checks can bring things upto say £$30k sound reasonable. but the $80k seems very iffy to explain anyway. even with the differential of say 11k for a nominal living in the community non convict on benefits vs a 30k prisoner. my main topic point was is that 19k difference spending on prison a good resource for certain crimes. could that 19k difference instead go towards putting people into community projects, rehab, victim reimbursement, social services, healthcare to solve the underlying causes of the crime, to actually offer a better chance of the prisoner to not repeat their illicit acts again |
|
|
|
different animals have different levels of 'sentience' for instance run over a bird, no harm
Not trying to be a preachy vegan (feel free to complain about it though, I can take it :p ) ... but have a look at tool use in New Caledonian crows, if you're interested. I mean by the crows, not 'in' the crows. Yuk. sentience and 'reason' the ability to think 'reason' is the difference between a bacteria and a animal. animals can think and plan. yep they know what to eat, where to find it and how to get to their food but sentience is more about the ability to feel. such as questioning their reason to be alive and getting emotional about it the laws of sentience ripples to things about is it murder if an animal is killed or is it just an incident it ripples into things like is aiding a comatose person to die classed as murder or euthanasia same as people in vegetative states. its why people are literally called vegetables when they have no cognative awareness of their life. it impacts things like medical proxy why by a next of kin can decide on another persons medical choices if their cognative abilities are in question it impacts who is a guardian/carer of an animal or child depending on the level of cognition. its why when a dog craps in a public area, its not the dogs fault for crapping but the dogs owner fault if the dogs owner does not cleanup. again there are different levels of sentience a bluetit bird doesnt have the cognative ability to plan on using tools, all it knows is to follow its friends (flock/murmuration) where as crows and magpies have more cognative abilities. but still not enough to be classed as sentient whereby its lawfully classed as murder to run over a bird by giving animals the same 'sentience' level as man. is obviously going to cause animal-slaughter to be punishable to the same level as man-slaughter thus its not just going to be about 'aww that birds smart' but cause people to be criminals for accidently running ovr a bird, or make farming illegal just like euphanasia is. |
|
|
|
|
i think its time you stopped taking drugs now.
firstly your defending trump like he is your pop idol.. then in the same breath trying to hide your loyalty by saying anyone that links him to bad stuff is his fan
sorry but your 'cover up' to hide your obsession makes no sense to a sober person.
the only reason why he is mentioned is because clinton is old old news and not a relevant person today. but trump is in the white house right now meaning his actions are relevant as they can affect people.
but your denial of trumps grotesque quotes about his own daughter and other women and even how he has been seen for 15 years having social parties with epstein and cheer leaders and such. just shows how ignorant you are to see the evidence and prfer to be blind to it to defend trump
you said little social intraction and
sorry but blind loyalty is not contagious people wont become trump fans and follow your lead
and people can see your loyalty even if you try to hide it
its just a shame that you dont see it because it looks like you will end up just defending him as if your life depends on it.
you said 'Trump had a minor business relationship with Epstein that fell through, had very little social contact with him,'
i debunked the minor business relationship as theres proof everywhere it was more then a decade of refriendship
i debunked the lack of social contact again via the proof of their interactions lasting over a decade
the only thing i could possibly think you meant was a game of word play
'trump had a minor business relationship'
'trump had a 'underage child' business relationship. meaning he was manager of a child sex trafficking ring alongside epstein..
is that the hint you are trying to suggest?
|
|
|
|
|
golds COST is its mining cost. golds PRICE is the speculative 'spot' price above cost
the amount of ADDED value on top of cost is the speculative of demand and desire
same goes for crypto
if there is a strong cost of production that will ofcourse and obviously react to form the base line support of the price(periodic low)
many PoS coins have no underlying cost thus their prices are pure speculation.
however POW does have intrinsic value
what people forget those is that christmas 2017-newyear2018's super manic price bubble spike was just hyp. the underlying value was still only a couple thousand and settled to $5k by summer of 2018
which is why the $20k hype bubble didnt last
mining pool s got cheap efficient ways to mine in october which translated to a mining cost down to below $4k which caused the november price to react in the $4k
people need to stop just using the price chart, and definetely stop just using an ATH(all time high) as a reference point.
but instead imagine there is a hiddenline below the price where the real 'intrinsic' value is and above that line is the speculative value
once people start to look it it from that point. things become clearer
much like the gold wholesale vs spot price
anyways. if basing estimates on the mining cost baseline
if miners remained as the $2k 56terrahash generation at 5c electric a kwh
to have a $100m btc the hashrate would need to be over 150,000exahash
so going from 100exa to 150,000
is like if we imagine a hashrate increase of 60% rise a year
1 year 160exa
2year 260exa
3year 410exa
4year 650exa
5year 1,000exa
6 year 1600exa
7year 2,600exa
8year 4,100exa
9year 6,500exa
10year 10,000exa
11 year 16,000exa
12year 26,000exa
13year 41,000exa
14year 65,000exa
15year 100,000exa
16 year 160,000exa
but again theres IF's involved
|
|
|
|
|
(after reading other topic)
cant believe ETFbitcoin prefers that people give funds to custodians for 6 months and plays around with pegged tokens called milisats in that time.(3 oncahain a year: 1open, 1 close-aggregate-reopen, 1close)
he might aswell just stick to fiat and banks be his custodians of his value(hint: he lost memory of bitcoins true purpose if he really loves the idea of turning bitcoin into just a reserve store for custodians)
the 4mb WEIGHT is not actually a 4mb hard drive capacity. nor 4x transaction potential
its just a bad math equation while still keeping transactions reliant on the 1mb base block data limit.
even parts of segwit transactions need to sit in the 1mb baseblock limit thus limiting how many segwit transactions can be added
this is why after 2010 saying that bitcoin can do 7tx/s (600k a day) we have not still. even after segwit even surpassed 600k a day nor even attempted to get 2.4m that they 'imply' by suggesting the 4mb weight means the same thing as a 4mb block
anyway. in 2014-5 bitcoin could handle 1mb blocks. and yes there were many improvements too since then. meaning 4 years later 4mb of true legacy space is EASY
threats like linear sigops validation are a simple fix by just limiting sigops per tx
so bitcoins ability to scale onchain are there. but core just wont release the code and will strike off any other dev team that opposes cores standing
to all those folk prefering people lock funds up for 6 months at a time and use mobile apps that are server api'd to 'factories/watchtower' services.. is actually more of a 'server'/'client' scenario then the crap spouted about the btc network becoming a server farm of nodes.
yep LN will cause more users to end up using litewallets as thy would see less point in running a full node if they only touch the btc network once every 6 months.
think about it
i still cant believe people actually want to advice others that locking funds into hubs/factories/watchtowers(corporate banks 2.0) is the route they prefer
(facepalm)
the btc network can handle more transactions a day by raising the baseblock and getting rid of the fudgy math of the 4x weight. the issue is not technical. its not just political. and core the the ones preventing it
|
|
|
|
The flaw with your thinking , is that the baseline value, ie: amount of electricity paid in fiat to produce a bitcoin will support the price,
as miners will never sell below that price.
And while you are right some miners will never sell below that cost, those same miners can't continue to mine without earning that baseline value, and what we see is miners just going bankrupt.
what your not seeing is the farms with the lowest costs that determine the baseline. these will continue far beyond the hobbyiests and dis-organised pools that have higher costs. the higher cost pools would fluctuate and have drops in their hashpower which leaves those at the baseline cost get more of the slice of the pie, thus survive longer what you are not seeing is i said while miners progress and increase hashpower and thus bump up the competitive costs of the baseline costs. the dynamics play out as i described. but i said WHILE. meaning that pools can sometimes get cheaper due to more efficient miners and also drop in difficulty. thus the price can go down. again for emphasis i have not said any guarantee's of price changes either way. im just clarifying things people should be aware of so that people know its not a bitcoin to $100m or bitcoin to $0 binary option Because here is your problem, Governments all around the world are confiscating any bitcoins they can claim were used in criminal enterprises, they then sell those bitcoins at an open market, where they had zero baseline, so it is pure profit.
The Govs can sell confiscated bitcoins over and over again, making a profit while causing your miners to bankrupt themselves.
This shores up their fiat while crashing your bitcoin, and they can do this forever, or until all of bitcoin miners are broken.
In the end, Government seizures will be bitcoin's greatest enemies, and the one destroying your baseline.
govs dont sell on public exchange market. instead they do auctions. you might wanna do more research but lets say a early adopter threw coins at an exchange to sell at any price.. thats just temporary price drama. buyers will see it as discount day to get cheap coins. thus small temporary drama so relax a little |
|
|
|
I strongly doubt that in ten years it would happen. Let’s be realistic. Bitcoin is still growing prematurely and the popularity of Bitcoin is not that much i.e. based on how many people knew about it. If I would go strolling and would ask a random stranger if they knew or heard about Bitcoin then most of the time they would answer no.
ask that person if they know of, 'chip and pin' debit card. ask that person if they know of, 'applepay' alot more people would have heard of those, even if they have been a thing for less time bitcoins issue is not that media is not talking about it. its that btcnetwork innovation has ben stifled and so merchants are prefering not to use it thus people dont se it as useful, thus not care or desire to remember it if they hear it in the media just thinking all that 'mainstreaming' and 'adoption' requires is for people to hear about it by blasting it into new/tv/movies wont get the 'adoption' we need to keep bitcoin relevant and keep miners interested.. we should be pushing the devs to ensure they keep the btc network useful and get real world merchants to accept it due to it being practical to use. and criticise devs if they prefer to promote other networks/payment solution that are not the real btc network |
|
|
|
whilst miners still mine and at a cheapest cost to mine being say above $8k. and those not able to get that cheap mining cost are willing to buy at $8100
those miners wont sell for less than cost and those buying will buy for more, causing a price rise
so if mining costs go up the baseline 'value' goes up(periodic low)
as for the speculative price(periodic high). no one can predict when or how much it will be. but as long as their is baseline value that increases then the price will increase.
And how many mining firms have gone bankrupt , because at the end of the day, No one really has to buy bitcoins, as they can get by without it. Let's Say , a Company makes a Car out of solid gold worth $1 million dollars. People need a car and some people use gold, but no one needs a car made out of gold. So no one buy it, no matter how scarce the supply. Bitcoin lost it's niche years ago, and miners will just go bankrupt, there are no guarantees the price can keep going up. And the past 2 years show a downward trend , ie: the price bubble popped. im not guaranteeing or suggesting bitcoins value would increase to say 100million loaves of bread. im just pointing out that while miners still mine and create the baseline value support. that bitcoin can grow im also pointing out that again on a bread value comparison bitcoin might get a lower bread value of under 100m loaves and higher than 8000 loaves. no one can tell how many loaves it would buy. but that loaf value might be equivalent to $100m due to fiat inflation also im just pointing out that over the last 2 years the value has been on a 2 year flat-upward trend. you seem to be standing at the top of the $20k mountain looking down rather than standing at ground level looking up |
|
|
|
|
bitcoin is already worth more than $100m....
.. oh did you not mean zimbabwee dollars
anyway
bitcoin 'could' be worth $100m US.. but as zimbabwee as proven. so could a loaf of bread be worth that, when/if US fiat goes into super inflation.
i personally cant see bitcoin buying me 100million loaves of bread. in my lifetime
(if bread were $1 right now)
but its more plausible to think of it as $100m in terms of $$ due to a super inflation
where by it converts to buy me more than 8000+ loves of bread which are valued as $100m
|
|
|
|
$10,000,000 per coin means a total supply of $210 trillion. The base money of all the world's currencies plus the value of all the gold in the world doesn't even come close. So, even if Bitcoin replaces all the money and all the gold, it won't be worth $10,000,000 per coin.
bitcoins 'market cap' is not a representation of dollars hoarded in bank accounts to represent bitcoin value and back up every coin bitcoins market cap is just math of the price of one coin sold.. multiplied it has nothing to do with how much base money is allocated/backed by bitcoin for instance i can make a coin with 50trillion premine and sell just 1 coin for $5 .. yep total funds involved $5.... and that creates a market cap of $250 trillion |
|
|
|
|
whilst miners still mine and at a cheapest cost to mine being say above $8k. and those not able to get that cheap mining cost are willing to buy at $8100
those miners wont sell for less than cost and those buying will buy for more, causing a price rise
so if mining costs go up the baseline 'value' goes up(periodic low)
as for the speculative price(periodic high). no one can predict when or how much it will be. but as long as their is baseline value that increases then the price will increase.
|
|
|
|
no googles quantum computer solved a qubit problem in 3 minutes that would have taken a binary system 10,000 years its like saying to raise their hand when a drum beats. the test is designed for a hearing person (quantum) but they then put another person its not designed for to the test. and the DEAF person(binary) is not sure so he just raises his hand 10000times until he gets his hand up in sync with a drum beat yes there are things that quantum computers. once programmed what to look for can b faster. but depnding on the problem and the solution required can make the difference of a factor of 2x or a factor of 1752000000x but even if 10,000 years does translate to 3 minutes thats still a 5664354297767760000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 year problem in binary translated to a 1699306289330328000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 minutes problem in qubit (1939847362249233000000000000000000000000000000000000 centuries) |
|
|
|
|
gotta laugh at your trump supporter loyalty, but trying to say those calling him out are the trump fetishes
funnier part is how the interview video you linked actually counters your narrative
1. lawyer contacted trump due to having connections - proof trump involved
2. lawyer is happy to drop legal proceedings for a price 'settled for undisclosed amount' - lawyer happy to be bribed to keep quiet
3. trump gave evidence which helped go against epstein - proof trump knew something
4. trump wasnt deposed(financial handshakes) and distanced himself(personally) from epstein only after lawyers got involved.. not as soon as learning about epsteins proclivities a decade earlier
if you make one more post defending trump. then you might as well just war a trump loyalist shirt
also that video proves epstein stuff was going on more than just 2-3 years ago. thus making this topic about a bombshell redundant
again its all been public info for decades
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
