I had another debate in the CoinJoin thread a few weeks ago with gmaxwell and I won. Unfortunately, winning at spectator sports ≠ winning on the pitch  Yeah and I posit that @gmaxwell is going to be the spectator when it really matters. Side-chains are fundamentally flawed and can't ever work securely. Lightning Networks can't work decentralized. Perhaps Blockstream's Confidential Transactions (aka CT) might end up being an important technology but that is not clear yet. I may have devised a more efficient solution improving CCT (but it is also possible I have a math error in that work I did). CCT ≠ CT, they are two different technologies that have roughly the same functionality. Cryptographers are specialists. But blockchains require also wider range of divergent thinking skills. |
|
|
|
That was the original choice but forced me to employ <pre> tags on all promotional code samples on the non-existent ICO-stage website, which was deemed to be excessive complexity tacked on an otherwise elegant, simple language. We just didn't think speculators would get quite the same FOMO effect without the <pre>. |
|
|
|
I think you can't really win against a violence monopolist that is after you. However, you can do your thing with a violence monopolist that doesn't know you really exist.
You see, my hope for crypto is actually much more down-to-earth. I think that we are moving towards a from of global communism, with tax rates close to 95% or even 99%. Right now effective tax levels are of the order of 70%, which means that on every economical interaction, both parties need to produce 3 times more than what they obtain in the trade. If I want to trade my apple for your orange, I need to produce 3 apples, and you need to produce 3 oranges, so that I can obtain 1 orange, and you can obtain one apple. I think this factor will go up to 20, or even to 100 in the near future when global communism diverges. Which means that if I officially want to trade one apple against one orange, I need to produce 20 apples or even 100 apples, and you will need to produce 20 oranges, or even 100 oranges, so that I obtain 1 orange, and you obtain 1 apple.
Under such taxation, no economic freedom can exist, but we will all get a lot of very low quality state service and have to do a lot of very useless work, to obtain very large bruto wages, which are then pruned off, to only have a few percent of it as genuine buying power outside of state support which is abundant, but of extremely low quality, except for an elite which will live in relatively large luxury. Of course, under such severe taxation levels, the slightest bit of non-taxed economic activity will be actively repressed.
It is to fight those circumstances that I see "small, local crypto" as useful, where small underground local economic relationships can make life a lot better. Joe grows some real vegetables (almost impossible to obtain through state support), and trades them for some quality education for his children, given by a neighbour that is knowledgeable of mathematics (quality education will be totally absent in state educational systems, which are just brainwashing institutions where the bare minimum to do your Amazon job is thought with totally inadequate teaching methods), and another neighbour that is knowledgeable of english. Someone else is a medical doctor, and is helping people secretly getting better - public health services are of extremely bad quality and no-one ever gets cured there. Local networks of people help each other underground, and for that they need a local kind of currency. It allows you to get one-another some quality food, quality education, quality medical help, quality personal assistance, .... all things that are done in small local economies. The small amount of economic needs outside of these local communities, like some electronic devices that work, that are not entirely compromised by state hackers and so on, will need more global currencies ; but this is much more dangerous to do - so one can use the little economic power-after-tax to buy these few "global" things that can hardly be locally produced. But most of the "dark market economy" is simply locally grown quality food, local personal services to one-another (education, medical help, personal help like keeping children, helping older people.,...), and such things. It is too dangerous to set up any material production. And yes, some people will get caught, but if the networks are sufficiently local, small, distributed and changing, the system can not be brought down as a whole.
It is this kind of "dark market" that I hope things like monero (clones ?) can help when global communism will set in.
The world you are preparing for I refuse to live in. I'd much rather take 10 bullets than live one day in your vision of our future. IMO you are already a slave. You've defeated yourself and accepted it by being willing cower and cope with a dysfunctional State. For me, hell no! We Americans did not give up our guns! I am an optimist and if ever comes time to fight global absolute totalitarianism, then let's go ahead on guns blazing and not this hiding like slithery worms under a rock shitlife. I admire warriors. I am very physical, not just cerebral. Edit: for the small community anonymity wherein you trust your community but not the State, then much better you never send your transactions to the blockchain, only the hash. Then even if the State has your IP address or a powerful quantum computer it won't help them. |
|
|
|
You won't be bringing your ruler because you aren't a man. And you won't even show up, because you are chickenshit. You can't walk your tough guy talk. You are now on ignore. And will stay there for ever, or until you show up. Should have put you on ignore a long time ago, so that we didn't reach this toxic point. I guess I am too willing to give people umpteen chances to reform themselves. But I really need to be more forthright when dealing with strangers over the Internet, because clearly there are some sick motherfuckers out here. iCEBREAKER you are a pathetic psycho sociopath. Several people have confirmed to me the same appraisal of your incessant belligerence, unnecessary personal insults, exceedingly foul mouth, and other anti-social behavior. man·hood ˈmanˌho͝od/ qualities traditionally associated with men, such as courage, strength My advice to men is don't create war where you aren't prepared for extreme violence. I personally don't condone unnecessary violence and I avoid violent confrontation where it can be avoided. But I do condone warriors and some native american warriors for example know how to extract your heart with their bare hands so fast that they can eat it in front of you before you die. Really it is not wise to pick unnecessary fights with men you don't know. If you've got some mental problem, it behooves you to get some help before you mess with the guy who ends your miserable life. |
|
|
|
Proof-of-Non-existence is still in the design: Re: Superior off-chain anonymity? And the programming language: Operation ShitCODE Cleanout. Enough of these C++ coins. All coins not coded in Brainfuck are hereby on notice of their imminent demise. Only one of the above quotes is serious. Edit: |
|
|
|
Listening more to this specific 39 min point (he mentions Monero): https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY?t=2321I am thinking the Roger Ver's promotion of Dash may be intended to put pressure on Bitcoin community to move faster on progress. He may be in effect sending the message, " if we don't get our act together, maybe shitcoins can become relevant". He may just be using Dash as a disposable proxy in his political battles in the Bitcoin community. He also states at the 35 min point that he seems to be willing to sacrifice decentralization because his #1 priority is to scale Bitcoin as fast as possible: https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY?t=2100Roger reiterates his disgust with Bitcoin core at the 5:35 min point in different video: https://youtu.be/XdyIJ-BUPaU?t=339 |
|
|
|
So why do you indulge in the fallacious conflation of privacy provision (ie 100% fungibility) with "creating dark markets?"
I didn't. Yes, you did. Right here: I didn't conflate. I accused them of creating dark markets as a plan to be " THE coin everyone is using". I didn't accuse them of not creating privacy. You conflated and placed your incorrect assumption of my intent on me with an erroneous insult to my person. Whereas, I was not insulting any person, but rather criticizing a strategy. If you want to make irrelevant off-topic insults to me personally then fine. Do it to my face like a real man. And let's test our manhood. Otherwise keep our discussions civil and on point. I think that many in the monero community think it will be THE coin everyone is using, but I have no illusions.
Yeah by creating dark markets.  You only mentioned DNMs; you failed to mention all the other XMR use cases, such as off-chain BTC linkability breaking for better privacy. I have not denied the importance of privacy. Just reading through my posts over the past two days will present a couple of instances of myself pointing out that even the mainstream will need privacy. But IMO privacy isn't a feature that will drive mass adoption. Yet when Monero emphasizes or associates with dark markets, they are in the minds of the mainstream essentially associating the project with crime and I think that is not a wise priority for the marketing if mass adoption is the goal. What i meant with my previous message is that if the masses have such a low attention for privacy and new generation will perceive this as a standard, maybe this is a sign of times and a transparent blockchain goes along with the habits and perceptions changing
I was planning to reply to you again, because I realized that I hadn't entirely addressed your original point. You beat me to it while I was eating. When analyzing things we have to be very careful not to overgeneralize and conflate orthogonal details. First of all, the masses aren't sharing their financial privacy on Facebook. The "lolcats" aren't their monetary transactions. Their financial history is still protected by their bank. If you suddenly asked them to put this financial history on public Facebook feeds, I think many (if not most) would balk. Secondly, as the coming war between liberals and conservatives intensifies, I don't think people will want their financial life to be publicly scrutinized, because as we know almost everyone is a hypocrite and does some of the same things in their private life that they criticize in public. Thirdly, people put up a public persona on these social networks, but it doesn't mean they share everything there. Not all of them would announce online that they just cheated on their wife. Privacy isn't going away. It is fundamental to human nature. Without some privacy them social networking (in general, not just the online fad) is in a Prisoner's Dilemma which is a suboptimal game theoretical quagmire. If we posit that people will suddenly stop being sneaky, then I don't think we understand human nature. People game their circumstances in which ever way they estimate will optimize their outcomes. Opportunity cost of not doing so. I do agree with you that financial privacy may be ignored by many until they get burned a few times. And it may also not be (almost certainly isn't) the #1 USP of decentralized technology. My plan isn't to use privacy as a USP to the masses, rather make it automated for them, so they don't even know they are using it. It is a USP to our speculator markets herein though.
And when called out for it, you go right back into your usual bipolar schizo schtick, whining about your victimization while simultaneously posturing like a thug.
There you go again like a wimp-ass prick instead of civilized human being. Poor little internet tough guy
Walk your talk tough guy. You need a good ass whooping. And eventually with that foul mouth of yours, you are going to get one (not necessarily by any particular person but just statistically speaking). Virtually every post you write is some foul mouthed ad hominem attack. You don't dare talk this way in real life. You only do this hiding in your basement like the little guy operating the Wizard of Oz. |
|
|
|
I've been excerpting from my whitepaper rough draft over the past few months. Here is another tidbit: Re: Roger Ver - bitcoin jesus going off the rails?? have you been rogered?Roger Ver doesn't seem to comprehend the consensus technology of blockchains. For example, he doesn't seem to understand that CPFP is the natural incentive for miners given a large enough fee incentive, regardless if the optional RBF wasn't selected for the transaction. Also he doesn't seem to understand that as the block reward declines and transaction fees become a larger portion of the block reward, then the incentive for miners to autonomously adopt CPFP increases. 7.6.1 PoW Zero Confirmation TransactionsThese payment channel transactions are even faster and more secure than Bitcoin’s “zero confirmation” transactions because from the moment the signed transaction is received by the payee, it isn’t required to even immediately propagate it across the network to prevent a double-spend. Bitcoin’s “zero confirmation” transactions rely on the somewhat dubious security of the preponderance of systemic hashrate reporting having seen the unconfirmed transaction first and stored it in their memory pools. But even when the transaction is marked to not use Opt-in Replace-by-Fee (aka “RBF”), [^RBF] if the miner policy of Child Pays For Parent (aka “CPFP”) [^CPFP] selfishly favors replacing the first seen with the transaction having the most fees, double-spends of unconfirmed transactions would become trivially easily in Bitcoin. [^0-conf-security] As transactions fees become a greater proportion of block reward as the rate of minted tokens decline for Bitcoin, the selfish policy is economically more incentivized― any way in general PoW with declining minted rewards is eventually incentives incompatible and consensus diverges. [^RBF] Opt-in RBF FAQ. Bitcoin Core, §What is opt-in RBF?, Feb 1, 2016. [^CPFP] maservant. Replace-by-Fee vs Child-pays-for-Parent?. Bitcoin.stackexchange.com, Nov 18, 2016. [^0-conf-security] Ariel Horwitz. Conspiracy against “instant” Bitcoin transactions: RBF, CPFP and Scorched Earth. 99bitcoins.com, §Child-Pays-For-Parent (CPFP) vs. Replace-By-Fee (RBF), Sep 8, 2015.
Listening more to this specific 39 min point (he mentions Monero): https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY?t=2321I am thinking the Roger Ver's promotion of Dash may be intended to put pressure on Bitcoin community to move faster on progress. He may be in effect sending the message, " if we don't get our act together, maybe shitcoins can become relevant". He may just be using Dash as a disposable proxy in his political battles in the Bitcoin community. He also states at the 35 min point that he seems to be willing to sacrifice decentralization because his #1 priority is to scale Bitcoin as fast as possible: https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY?t=2100Roger reiterates his disgust with Bitcoin core at the 5:35 min point in different video: https://youtu.be/XdyIJ-BUPaU?t=339 |
|
|
|
Roger Ver doesn't seem to comprehend the consensus technology of blockchains. For example, he doesn't seem to understand that CPFP is the natural incentive for miners given a large enough fee incentive, regardless if the optional RBF wasn't selected for the transaction. Also he doesn't seem to understand that as the block reward declines and transaction fees become a larger portion of the block reward, then the incentive for miners to autonomously adopt CPFP increases. 7.6.1 PoW Zero Confirmation TransactionsThese payment channel transactions are even faster and more secure than Bitcoin’s “zero confirmation” transactions because from the moment the signed transaction is received by the payee, it isn’t required to even immediately propagate it across the network to prevent a double-spend. Bitcoin’s “zero confirmation” transactions rely on the somewhat dubious security of the preponderance of systemic hashrate reporting having seen the unconfirmed transaction first and stored it in their memory pools. But even when the transaction is marked to not use Opt-in Replace-by-Fee (aka “RBF”), [^RBF] if the miner policy of Child Pays For Parent (aka “CPFP”) [^CPFP] selfishly favors replacing the first seen with the transaction having the most fees, double-spends of unconfirmed transactions would become trivially easily in Bitcoin. [^0-conf-security] As transactions fees become a greater proportion of block reward as the rate of minted tokens decline for Bitcoin, the selfish policy is economically more incentivized― any way in general PoW with declining minted rewards is eventually incentives incompatible and consensus diverges. [^RBF] Opt-in RBF FAQ. Bitcoin Core, §What is opt-in RBF?, Feb 1, 2016. [^CPFP] maservant. Replace-by-Fee vs Child-pays-for-Parent?. Bitcoin.stackexchange.com, Nov 18, 2016. [^0-conf-security] Ariel Horwitz. Conspiracy against “instant” Bitcoin transactions: RBF, CPFP and Scorched Earth. 99bitcoins.com, §Child-Pays-For-Parent (CPFP) vs. Replace-By-Fee (RBF), Sep 8, 2015. |
|
|
|
So why do you indulge in the fallacious conflation of privacy provision (ie 100% fungibility) with "creating dark markets?"
I didn't. That reeks of the .gov goon squads well worn parade of terrist/childpron/druglord hobgoblins.
I try to be a realist, even though philosophically I am aligned as a minanarchist. You don't go fostering destruction of society with drugs and expect to not have a backlash. That has nothing to do with "creating dark markets."
I was referring to attempts to create user adoption by espousing for example decentralized ebay-like concept that accepts anonymous payments. Even if you argue that it is all for privacy and not for selling drugs online (yeah right ), I still argue that privacy is not a primary mass market driver. As usual, the tone of your reply exemplifies that you are incapable of fostering civilized discussion. And IMO this reflects poorly on Monero's community. If I was in fluffypony's position as BDFL, I would have publicly spanked and disowned you by now (being a decentralized project you could freely ignore it). Linus isn't afraid to do this. Again another reason why even though i think @fluffypony is a super nice guy, I don't see him as a capable leader. I actually thought your reply to @charleshoskinson was very well organized and bordering on respectful discourse. Then you backslide again. Since you know better yet do it anyway, the simplest explanation does not (to say the least) paint you in a flattering light.
You are so brave from behind the protection of the Internet and government laws. How about you walk your talk wimp? I don't care about my life. Try me. |
|
|
|
You point will be valid when end to end the entire system is assumed trustless until it is not.
I'm sorry if i'm not understanding you fully. That could be my limited understanding of so many things. However I can only see it from my perspective here and have replied obviously from that pov.
I understand that you think that, and this must also be what people think when they ask for "crypto regulation" and crypto law and so on. But I think there's a fundamental problem when you do that. Thinking about this some more, I think @cryptohunter is correct. The "scam" of regulation can only destroy the "scam" of faux decentralization, because real decentralization can't be regulated. So bring on the SEC! Then we will find out what is truly decentralized. Tada.  Good philosophical argument but those that get lied to and deceived and subsequently lose greatly financially may wish to disagree with you.
I'm sorry, but that is similar to going in the arena where one "fights without rules" and then complain that the fight wasn't fair, because you got seriously hurt by the guy with a sledge hammer. And if we need to form a governance system to stop the "scam", then we've just created another "scam" because all governance systems are Tragedy of the Commons power vacuums which will always end up controlled by a strongman. So we must win by finding a decentralized model which trumps the centralized models in the free market. Operation ShitCODE Cleanout. Enough of these C++ coins. All coins not coded in Brainfuck are hereby on notice of their imminent demise. |
|
|
|
I see potentially a web of gazillions of currencies, connected by gazillions of distributed exchanges.
I used to think that. I even offered an idea and discussed (in the Bitcoin Technical discussion forum) with @TierNolan and @jl777 how to deal with the jamming (Sybil attack) problem of his atomic cross-chain exchange protocol. Distributed exchanges (plural as a form of decentralized exchange singular) won't ever be adopted because speculators want the highest liquidity, the lowest spreads, the fastest trades, and the most accurate aggregate trading statistics. We don't want speculators, do we ? Nothing stops them from trading IOU on centralized exchanges. IMO the " my way or the highway" attitude is why you are not Mark Zuckerberg. Gazillions of currencies won't work because there are huge losses for businesses and individuals when not having the same unit-of-exchange as the unit-of-account.
That's nevertheless what is currently the case in the fiat world. How many national currencies exist ? Before the Internet, consumers never transacted outside their national currency. Now we must move to a global unit-of-exchange and account. Why do you think Rothschilds created Bitcoin! You can't go backwards. Sorry. What is important to me, is that the protocols, the technology, the emission schemes, and all that are all different and change all the time.
You are not aligned with the trend of the entropy to maximum. The national currencies are a Coasian cost that must now end, as we move to globalized B2B, B2C and even P2P commerce. Q: Why are there so many alternative cryptocurrencies?A: Because all crypto-currencies to-date are speculative "investments" (gambles), not currencies. The demographics of crypto-currencies are currently speculative gamblers, not currency users. Thus there is always a demand for a new speculation which can be purchased earlier and cheaper. If someone ever creates a currency, then the users will demand there only be one, because having one unit-of-account means currency users aren't stressed with exchange volatility. Exchange volatility actually decreases currency use, because users have an incentive to not spend when the price is lower than their entry price, and not sell when the price is going higher. Btw, the reason we are moving to a global currency is because currency users are beginning to transact globally more often, e.g. ordering online from Alibaba or DHgate, migrant workers remittances, etc.. |
|
|
|
I see potentially a web of gazillions of currencies, connected by gazillions of distributed exchanges.
I used to think that. I even offered an idea and discussed (in the Bitcoin Technical discussion forum) with @TierNolan and @jl777 how to deal with the jamming (Sybil attack) problem of his atomic cross-chain exchange protocol. Decentralized exchange singular (not distributed exchanges as that is what we have now) won't ever be adopted because speculators want the highest liquidity, the lowest spreads, the fastest trades, and the most accurate aggregate trading statistics. I have instead switched my focus to a payment channel invention I have which can make it impossible for centralized exchanges to lose coins (i.e. the user never gives up the private key control). Gazillions of currencies won't work because there are huge losses for businesses and individuals when not having the same unit-of-exchange as the unit-of-account. Hedging just the major currencies is already a major headache for international corporations. This is why Germany created the Euro so they could charge the cost of the appreciation of the German mark (due to Germany's higher industrial productivity) to the PIIGS. I think that many in the monero community think it will be THE coin everyone is using, but I have no illusions.
Yeah by creating dark markets. |
|
|
|
I don't know how you quote little bits of text so i just put mine in red.
Could you please edit your post and use blue color instead? The psychometrics of color says that red is for shouting, thus IMO should be reserved for extreme emphasis (when required). Blue is also annoying but less so. Just retype the 'red' with 'blue' manually (you can can even use copy+paste and double-click the word 'red', then Ctrl+V for paste) Here is how to do the quoting: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+quote+portions+with+PHPBB |
|
|
|
Good philosophical argument but those that get lied to and deceived and subsequently lose greatly financially may wish to disagree with you.
I'm sorry, but that is similar to going in the arena where one "fights without rules" and then complain that the fight wasn't fair, because you got seriously hurt by the guy with a sledge hammer. And if we need to form a governance system to stop the "scam", then we've just created another "scam" because all governance systems are Tragedy of the Commons power vacuums which will always end up controlled by a strongman. So we must win by finding a decentralized model which trumps the centralized models in the free market. That is why I've stated lately that the only way to beat the " mining the speculators" paradigm (e.g. Dash and Ethereum and the 100s of useless tokens ICOs that smart contracts spawns) is to beat them with 100 million users adoption. Because speculators can inexorably be induced to join the model of mining the greater fools. One of the reasons I don't join Monero is that a significant part of that community thinks you don't need to make blockchains popular and you can hide out in tiny community of illegal anonymity (hoping to stay under the radar of collapsing governments) orthogonal to the NWO. Sigh. Edit: however speaking up on forums in a decentralized manner is part of the free market. I suggested to consider the benefits of using more apt terminology such as "not trustless" or "permissioned" instead of "scam", although I realize most readers don't understand the implications of those more precise terms. |
|
|
|
This is exactly why I dislike DASH. Although I understand that the technology used by DASH needs governance in order to have trusted mixers. DASH is the best one could do for anon without advanced crypto tech like ring signatures or zero knowledge proofs, but it meant the end of decentralisation. As such, DASH did what it had to do: build a fiat-like system.
It should change its name to DIAT: digital fiat.
I wasn't going to mention this recent speculation of mine, but since you mention that... I had thought that I had pushed Evan to the masternode concept ( our own egos get in the way of our objectivity, but I think I just wasn't that interested to research more and accepted the easiest assumption). Someone dug up my post from back during the beginning of the Darkcoin. But based on what I read recently about some statements Evan made during the XCoin stage before Darkcoin (c.f. the link @arielbit provided upthread), I am now speculating that Evan knew exactly that CoinJoin would require the scheme Dash became. I am thinking Evan wasn't this bumbling half-smart, amiable programmer I took him to be (i.e. not quite idiot and not quite sophisticated is what I thought), and instead had already devised a masterplan and my post was what he was waiting for, so he immediately after that suddenly had the idea for masternodes to prevent the jamming issue with CoinJoin. I haven't really delved into the forensic evidence to try to build a strong case. I don't have time (nor mental energy) for that diversion. Note even Monero needs to trust mixnets, because if the IP address (or other metadata) can be correlated, then it can aid in unmasking the Cryptonote rings. Monero offloads this issue onto the users and Tor or I2P. So it remains an unsolved (probably intractable) problem in general. Anonymity will never be 100% ironclad. So it isn't a valid justification to corrupt the blockchain (as Dash does) for that which can't be solved. The distinguishable characteristic of ring signatures is that you can mix the inputs autonomously and provably (i.e. without needing to trust any nodes or servers or anyone), then you could (as @smooth once quipped) have a pigeon carry your transaction to the blockchain. In other words, Cryptonote rings make transport anonymity orthogonal to input/output mixing anonymity. So in short, Cryptonote is superior to CoinJoin-like except afaics it won't allow you to prove in homomorphic zero knowledge the sum of the inputs you've spent (not sure about the outputs you've received and I will need to study RingCT again). Yet Dash doesn't even have homomorphic zero knowledge technology. Dash is the lowest-tech Pong of anonymity tech. |
|
|
|
Moneroman888 had a similar style @Memento. Turn people off by posting. It was a sockpuppet account meant to devalue what he was pumping. A counter-shill. You must be one for Dash. Your thread is ridiculous. I am now infected with your stupidity. May god have mercy on your soul.
But wasn't that chart image produced officially by the Dash team? They are so stupid that they counter-shill themselves with their ridiculous claims. They really think speculators are so ill-informed that they will fall for it (and they might be correct!). |
|
|
|
@qwizzie, I can't keep my side of the truce, if Dash doesn't keep its side. The lies which attempt to steal my market concept force me to respond as follows: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1739268.msg18048987#msg18048987@charleshoskinson, you of all people should be aware of the EXTENSIVE research which shows that all fungible resources become power-law or exponentially distributed. Why on God's earth would it be different in the case of Dash, especially starting from the admitted instamine "bug" (and using their control over the money supply to vote not to restart the launch without the bug). Surely you understand the power of ROI compounding w.r.t. to insider control over voting and masternode revenue (and also there were I heard instances where only a minority of vote was necessary to form a quorum on budget proposals). Also you should know that democracy is a Tragedy of the Commons power vacuum which is always filled by a strongman: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984Are you naive? Oh come on now, are you trying to pretend also? Your statement is incredulous as if you are naive 5 year old, which you obviously are not. I know you've been working towards decentralized governance as one of themes of interest at your IOHK, but decentralized governance is impossible. The absence of governance is what we want for a blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
