Bitcoin Forum
June 15, 2024, 05:40:01 AM *
News: Voting for pizza day contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 [995] 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 ... 1471 »
19881  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: lets people pay with a CC but in the background its fulfilled seamlessly in BTC on: October 14, 2016, 03:14:42 PM

one more thing... I'm looking for online processing company which can offer me such a service.
So I bassicly need an app which I wlil integrate on my website and they will do all "the magic" in the background...

thanks.


due to risks of chargebacks, ID scammers and card cloners such services are high risk. which is why no payment merchant will offer a client(website) to convert funds that do not belong to their 'client' (the website) straight to bitcoin. because the client is the website not individual customer. and if a customer scammed. the website escapes with the bitcoin. making the payment merchant at a loss because they are not directly connected with the scammer.

EG
customer wants to buy a TV via YOU, uses credit card with payment merchant(not you). then YOU supplies TV to customer. and payment merchant gives bitcoin to YOU.
customer chargebacks payment merchant. so payment merchant loses fiat AND btc.
also payment merchant is not you so has no records of a TV being sent, thus cannot show evidence to cancel the chargeback.
also payment merchant never got anything from you directly. so double loss

for risk aversion it will always be a 2 step process due to AML/KYC
meaning you have to receive the credit card funds of many customers to make the funds yours, then you convert them to btc using your credentials
19882  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Kim Dotcom: Bitcache Will Be ‘Off Chain Due to Limitations’ on: October 14, 2016, 02:41:14 PM
in short the risks of offchain are:
after depositing funds, one party in control of the funds can hold the funds to ransom by refusing signing unless terms are met.

this is a flaw all offchain concepts have yet to resolve. the only way to ensure ethical payments off chain. is if its always dual signed and both sides have value(collateral) to lose. that way it resolves the one sidedness aspect that can be abused

The user can close Lightning payment channels themselves, sending the BTC to their ultimate destination. They might forgo cheaper fees if they'd used the channel further, but it's not like the picture you paint, where the funds can be effectively confiscated by the Hub. You might want to do a little more of that researching you claim to be so on top of, or maybe just come up with a lie that's not so simply refuted. What Bitcache will be designed like, I don't know, but using it as a propaganda platform to disparage Lightning isn't going to fly. Lightning does what it does, no amount of weirdo explanations can change it.

ok ill highlight it for you
LN has dual signing... thus allowing as you say for the user to broadcast a settlement. if the second party ransoms them. to get out of the 'system' rather than paying up to the demand
BUT
LN should ensure the second party has some collateral too.. which will ensure both sides sign each new payment ethically. thus the user doesnt require broadcasting as soon as a second party tries to ransom them. because both parties continue to work together ethically due to both having something to lose if each side doesnt agree to sign a new payment.

EG - no ethics no collateral from ransomer
franky1 deposits 1btc to multisig 2AbC5...
carlton deposits 0btc to multisig 2AbC5...
2AbC5... contains 1btc (ethically meant for franky1)

franky1 require carlton to sign if franky1 wants his 1btc back.
carlton refuses to sign unless franky1 hands over 0.5btc.
they are deadlocked
carlton walks off never signing because he lost nothing and wants to screw franky1 over leaving funds locked hoping franky1 gives in later

now imagine - no ethics but with collateral from ransomer
franky1 deposits 1btc to multisig 2AbC5...
carlton deposits 1btc to multisig 2AbC5...
2AbC5... contains 2btc (ethically 1btc meant for franky1, 1btc meant for carlton)

franky1 require carlton to sign if franky1 wants his 1btc back.
carlton require franky1 to sign if carlton wants his 1btc back.
carlton refuses to sign unless franky1 hands over 1.5btc.
franky1 refuses to sign unless carlton hands over 1btc allowing carlton to have his 1btc.
they are deadlocked
eventually they sign 1btc each and stop communicating because carlton doesnt want to lose his 1btc. they stop trading/communicating

now imagine - ETHICAL and collateral from both
franky1 deposits 1btc to multisig 2AbC5...
carlton deposits 1btc to multisig 2AbC5...
2AbC5... contains 2btc (ethically 1btc meant for franky1, 1btc meant for carlton)

franky1 require carlton to sign if franky1 wants his 1btc back.
carlton require franky1 to sign if carlton wants his 1btc back.
they agree fair payment for fair services/products
they continue communicating and trading for days, weeks months

thus dual signing allows trade, and collateral allows eventual agreement so both dont lose. ethics allows continual trading/communication

lastly you are trying to promote LN as a bug free, perfection right now. even though it has not been completed..
its like your promoting cars that can fly will never crash before one is even built.
19883  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists on: October 14, 2016, 02:23:38 PM
ill say it one more time CONSENSUS should never be baited and switched to dictatorship. otherwise bitcoin is no better than fiat

Let's debate, among WHO should a consensus be reached.

If I understand you correctly, you say among EVERYONE, where each individual has an equal voting right. With that, I disagree. Consensus should be reached among economic majority. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Should individuals, having a bigger economic impact, have a bigger say? By all means, yes. --> this is not a democracy. It's anarcho-capitalism. (which Satoshi, being a crypto-anarchist, was close to in thinking).

Does that mean, only one version of bitcoin software? No. Always more versions, but the fact remains, that for the system to work, one software needs to prevail, and heavily.


This is how I think the system was set up: The miners choose the firmware, that best represents the interests of the economic majority. If miners would choose the firmware that represents the choice of equal weighted bitcoin user voices, that would be a democracy. And that would be BAD.

Should the body of bitcoin core decision makers be unified and only one software allowed? Hell NO. Centralization represents everythig, the bicoin is against!

one software doesnt need to prevail and decisions should not be based on the economic majority.
lets explain:
economic majority.
day one coinbase has NO coins. day two 500,000 people deposit 1btc each into coinbase.
day 3. the people have no vote. coinbase has a vote to a total of 500,000 out of ~16m right now (3.1%)

is it fair that a corporation has 3.1% and each customer does not even have 0.00000625% each, but instead no vote at all. due to coinbase having the funds under coinbase keys?? so coinbase does the deciding

having more money is meaningless. the amount of funds someone has, has no relevance to the diversity, distribution and security of the blockchain.
eg satishi himself has over 800k bitcoins. yet he runs no nodes, no miners and has no impact on bitcoins security right now. he has not been involved since before 2011. emphasis: he has no impact on protecting bitcoin as it stands now.

P.S: dont get me wrong if it was based on economics i would have more votes then many people. but that does not mean its a fair excuse to change security, diversity, distribution. because funds does not secure bitcoin.. nodes and mining does.

consensus compromise
todays proposed consensus.
    core wants 1m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit
      BU wants variable base 16 critical limit
      XT wants 2mb base 32 critical limit
classic wants 2mb base. 32 critical limit

while no majority is established they can all run at the same time because the current 1mb rule fits all proposals because under 1mb data is accepted by them all.
none of these proposals are a controversial fork, all proposals are consensual.

they all want something to change. so its not about killing off all proposals and then have one king. its about compromise by coming to a consensus.
EG BEFORE december 2015 it was
   core wanted 1mb base 32 critical limit
     BU wanted variable base 16 critical limit
     XT wanted 8mb base 32 critical limit
classic wanted 8mb base. 32 critical limit

EG AFTER december 2015 it was
   core wanted 2m base 32 critical limit
     BU wanted variable base 16 critical limit
     XT wanted 2mb base 32 critical limit
classic wanted 2mb base. 32 critical limit

and the compromise was 2mb base. where IF everyone actually coded this compromise everyone would be on the same level, and there would be majority acceptance of 2mb with no disruption once the majority of nodes upgraded to their favourite brand of that consensus

we thought core would after agreeing to this, would finally write an implementation so that the 2mb can go into affect.
but then they decided to throw a spanner in the works.

instead of segwit 2mb base 4mb weight to stick to consensus while also offering segwit. they back tracked to 1mb again
with
   core wanting 1m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit

which core now wants to become a dictatorship by killing off the other implementations so they dont have to compromise and dont have to uphold their initial agreement.

which is lame because they pretend in a year or so to "maybe" implement: 2m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit, but they want to kill off the competition that is holding up their: 1m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit

the even funnier part is.
users, nodes, merchants, miners never had a single say via economics or node count that 1m base 4mb weight is the desire in 2015.
instead they went on a R3KT campaign to make sheep jump into the wolves mouths by prtending the wolves were in the other direction. (ye core devs are funded by R3 too)

in short all core need to do is make 2m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit and then ALL implementations have what they want and core also gets segwit. with no dictatorship.

due to consensual compromise
19884  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Federal Reserve wants to speed up blockchain implementation on: October 14, 2016, 01:56:05 PM
Cool, the faster blockchain stuff is pushed in the mainstream the more Bitcoin will get mentioned in there as well as a side effect since it's impossible to talk about blockchain technology without mentioning Bitcoin and not looking like an idiot.

yep. and it seems hyperledger is centric on identification. where users register (possibly their social security number), which is tethered to ALL their medical, banking, border crossing, computer and internet use.

which will double highlight the requirement of 'middlemen' knowing all peoples business and being involved in all decisions. making people more aware of the fact they have less control of their 'identity' and 'assets' then they thought before.

which will make people look for an alternate to the future fiat system
19885  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Quantum Computing, Internet of Things & Bitcoin Will Soon on: October 14, 2016, 01:27:25 PM
in regards to the "hashing" algorithms (sha256).. quantum computers are not going to be very efficient at breaking or brute forcing, compared to traditional binary computers.

however the elliptic curve is a weakness because quantum computing can be very efficient at solving this alot more quickly, compared to traditional binary computers.
we should worry less about sha256 and more about ecdsa when thinking about threats from quantum computers.
19886  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Kim Dotcom: Bitcache Will Be ‘Off Chain Due to Limitations’ on: October 14, 2016, 12:52:02 PM
remove all the bells and whistles and buzzwords and you come to the simple scenario of:

deposit funds into a bitcoin address that has some form of signature authorisation by kimdotcom(and hopefully the customer equally), and then all payments for content are then done without a blockchain, without validation by thousands of nodes, without secure data locks of millions of asics. on a system owned by kimdotcom.
with the end hope that there have been no arguments or blackmail, ransom, abuse on that system. to have an honourable onchain transaction, when withdrawing.. that has fairly and ethically audited who deserves what, by signing the initial deposited funds out to whoever deserves it.

lets hope when offering 'offchain' solutions the difference between those solutions and other existing payment services. is that LN (and hopefully megaupload) have the sender and receiver required to BOTH sign funds to agree to a payment for content. rather than just the sender pushing or the receiver pulling.

if there is no dual signing involved in each payment then its no different than:
depositing funds on an exchange to then play around on the mysql database where the exchange controls what 'balance' the customer deserves or claim "hack and run".(pulling)
depositing funds into a bank to then play around with their database where the banks decides if the customer deserves the funds or freeze account
(pulling and pushing)

in short the risks of offchain are:
after depositing funds, one party in control of the funds can hold the funds to ransom by refusing signing unless terms are met.

this is a flaw all offchain concepts have yet to resolve. the only way to ensure ethical payments off chain. is if its always dual signed and both sides have value(collateral) to lose. that way it resolves the one sidedness aspect that can be abused
19887  Other / Off-topic / Re: How many bitcoins do you have in hand now? on: October 14, 2016, 12:12:12 PM
anyone admitting how many they have, be prepared to be hassled by scammers trying to be your new best friend or try linking you to stuff.

i feel sorry for anyone admitting their wealth
19888  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Federal Reserve wants to speed up blockchain implementation on: October 14, 2016, 11:32:49 AM
old news, fed reserve is deep in the blockchain creation process..
they are part of the hyperledger group who are working with blockstream.

OP's link:
Quote
Earlier this year, the Fed held discussions with software giant IBM about launching its own digital currency. And in March, Jack Henry, a leading US payments solution group, partnered with The Clearing House to look into developing a faster payments system for the US.

then we have:
http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-10-new-firms-hyperledger-blockchain-project/
Quote
published March 29th
Bitcoin development startup Blockstream is among 10 new companies that have joined the open-source Hyperledger blockchain project led by the Linux Foundation.
More recently, the technical steering committee came close to officially approving a plan to merge code contributed by Blockstream, Digital Asset and IBM.
19889  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: First Bitcoin Lightning Network Transaction Tested Successfully on: October 14, 2016, 02:23:40 AM
I have another concern about the Lightning Network. In the beginning there might only be a small portion of of Bitcoin users that will start using it. Will this not cause a problem in the fungibility of BTC? There might be a scenario where the price of Bitcoins outside LN will be higher than the coins "trapped" or "hindered" in LN. So it might create another market for LN Bitcoins versus "real" Bitcoins. What do you think?

quite possible
people can use LN as a peer-to-peer method of doing exchanges. afterall instead of buying coffee with it. it can be anything EG a different currency.

which then starts a different price market.

much like localbitcoin's valuations are more open to variance compared to centralised exchanges
much like bitcoin-OTC's valuations are more open to variance compared to centralised exchanges

ofcourse speculation cannot guarantee if exchanges done on LN will end up with higher or lower valuations compared to centralised exchanges, but we can expect there to be a variance
19890  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: CryptoJam.com Innovation for local buying?? on: October 14, 2016, 12:36:42 AM
technically all the website needs to do is add a "availability" option. which is helpful for traders to not be pestered at work or in bed 24/7
also it helps makes face-to-face more friendly, by having a schedule/routine, which can also be used to promote meetups.

its also good to set up "meetups" so people can socialise and discuss bitcoin while simultaneously doing their exchanging face to face. saving traders time running around to multiple locations.
by having "availability" means you dont have to be a 24/7 open location but instead a once a week meetup at a cafe / pub, for instance. That way it helps to make the feel of exchanging be more relaxed and publicly acceptable. and less like a 'stranger danger dark alleyway trade' that many feel face-to-face exchanges felt like in the past.

by this i dont mean advertise meetups and conferences specifically. i just mean traders and bitcoiners be more organised and socialised to make the face-to-face exchanging a happy event, rather than the negative fear event of the past.

some people can do adhok trades by travelling to each other at different locations. or on set evenings everyone goes to one location and socialise when trading.

all by technically just adding a "availability" option

19891  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is bitcoin System Vulnerable ? on: October 14, 2016, 12:01:26 AM
I don't know, I have bit afraid about quantum computers, because they can solve in theory things very fast compared than normal computers and the cryptography is little weak in this position.

I hope this problem is fixed,before quantum computers be a reality.

quantum computers are process for process a couple tousand times better at some solutions compared to binary computers.
quantum can solve non binary problems faster. because they are not binary logic. and normal computer have issues with non binary logic problems.

but when a quantum has to handle a binary logic problem. it limits quantum to the scope of binary logic and so the effectiveness and efficiency is not 100%

so relax.
19892  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists on: October 13, 2016, 11:05:37 PM
You're suggesting that the Bitcoin user base bets the farm on an untested codebase, never operated in the wild, running an entire economy? Can you see why a rational Bitcoin user wouldn't be interested in experimenting like that? Roll Eyes

It might just be a more rigorous approach to never bet on contentious forks, and just bet on promising altcoins instead. Because if the market makes a poor choice of fork, that altcoin is going to be all you've got left.

im laughing at the hypocrisy.

other implementations have code available since last year..
even today core doesnt have live segwit code today.

real segwit code has not been running on bitcoin mainnet.
yet many implementations have been running 2mb block rule on bitcoin mainnet since last year
2mb implementations dont force blocks over 1mb. they instead accept blocks under 2mb. meaning all blocks 0byte-999kb are acceptable too

also carlton you are confusing a contentious fork with a consensus fork.
no one has proposed a contentious fork. every implementation has proposed a consensus fork. so why are you even trying to suggest contentious forks are what the debate is about.

contentious fork and consensus fork are two different things.. please research. please learn or please go back to fiat.
we already know you want to increase the number of minable units, extending mining completion from the year 2141 to atleast the years 2181. so how about you go play around with monero and mess with moneros rules.. with your friends you are loyal too.

afterall if you feel you have the right to tell others to go away, then we have the right to tell you the same too.

but anyway your post are scraping the bottom of the barrel and really running dry of valid points. so its time to just move on. i cant see you adding anything valid to this topic.

have a good day
19893  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Hard Fork Poison Pill via ETF on: October 13, 2016, 10:31:51 PM

taking gold as an example

imagine gold as box one. has its own market.

imagine gold ETF as box two. it has its own market too.
also inside box two are 4 more boxes and each box has their own market also.

now imagine you want to buy something in box two. you will NOT be handed the contents of box one.
box two only contains paper with statements saying that box two may or may not have links to something that is in another box.
but stipulates you cannot physically have the other box, you can only trade the paper statement.

box two trading does not affect the supply or demand of box one.
19894  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is bitcoin System Vulnerable ? on: October 13, 2016, 10:21:05 PM
At the moment there is no 100% "malware proof" system so I guess Bitcoin system is vulnerable too. The question is how.much is realy vulnerable and how likely is for something like this to happen. Having in mind the Bitcoin system structure there is no much chance for such security breach, at least not at the moment.

we should never think of bitcoin as indestructible otherwise people get lazy and dont continue protecting it.
EG one:
it only requires a hacker to use bitnodes website to find all IP addresses of all ~5200 nodes and some possible DDoS/virus tool to delete the historic data before taking them offline all in one swoop.

the chances of that being possible is low. but we should not think ~5200 nodes is a safe secure number to live with. we need more nodes to further reduce risks

EG two:
if all ~5200 nodes were running the code of one implementation, and that implementation has a bug/intentional trojan. again the whole lot goes.

the chances of that being possible is low. but we should not think one implementation is safe to live with. we need more diversity to further reduce risks.

Quantum Computers will cause the demise of Bitcoin. That's my fear.  

quantum computers work differently. and can do some surprising things that binary(regular) computers cant.
but getting a QC to solve a binary computer. restrains QC into certain limitations. which only results in a QC beign 2x efficient in comparison to regular computers when it comes to solving binary logic. ASICS and the amount of ASIC running has already averted the risk QC can pose.
so relax. D-waves QC may be technically faster then many regular computers but is no way near the power of an asic, and no way near the power of all the asics mining bitcoin.

but we should continue increasing the difficulty and adding more ASICS to continue strengthening bitcoin so that other technology cannot overtake in the distant future
19895  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Hard Fork Poison Pill via ETF on: October 13, 2016, 10:01:51 PM
ETF's are not handing people actual assets.
ETF's are just an account balance, of a share, of a company, who may or may not have the actual assets they report.

ETF's do not hurt real assets. as they are 2 separate markets
19896  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists on: October 13, 2016, 09:53:44 PM
i did address it. heck i went back and emboldened underlined it to show where your
" You know as well as I that there is no 2nd and 3rd place if you fork the Bitcoin network to a different protocol, so it's a zero sum game. "
falls apart

its not a game of 1 winner. its a game of diverse teams that should discuss and debate what needs to change and come to a majority compromise they are all happy with so that there is no dictator but a decentralized CONSENSUS

It is a game of 1 winner, you can't have competing consensus rules running simultanously, because no system can operate using 2 sets of competing rules. Duh.


Franky "Daaaaaaaad, can I have Bluuuuuuue Power Ranger for Christmas?"
FrankyDad "no you little turd, your Mother and I have already reached a consensus on this"
Franky "But Daaaaaaaaad, consensus means a disagreement!"

LOL epic fail
"you can't have competing consensus rules running simultanously"

yet, there are already many implementations running right now.

go play with fiat and marry banker. you really do not understand bitcoin
19897  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists on: October 13, 2016, 09:37:16 PM
i did address it. heck i went back and emboldened underlined it to show where your
" You know as well as I that there is no 2nd and 3rd place if you fork the Bitcoin network to a different protocol, so it's a zero sum game. "
falls apart

its not a game of 1 winner. its a game of diverse teams that should discuss and debate what needs to change and come to a majority compromise they are all happy with. this prevents a dictatorship and instead keeps the decentralized CONSENSUS, which has been rule one of bitcoins ethos

trying to claim bitcoin has always been a dictatorship and has never had consensus is your failing. but i can see why you try to assume it.. because you want a dictatorship

ill say it one more time CONSENSUS should never be baited and switched to dictatorship. otherwise bitcoin is no better than fiat
19898  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists on: October 13, 2016, 09:27:19 PM
If you want to have an entirely separate argument about what Core do with their code, you're more than welcome to.  They are free to publish whatever code they wish and no one is in a position to stop them.  They are also free to accept or deny code contributions from any individual and no one is in a position to stop them.  In fact, I'm pretty sure we agree on that part.  

But the argument you originally made is that Bitcoin is not a free and open market.  This is disproven by the simple fact that there are competing Bitcoin protocols right now.  Anyone is free to release their own implementation of the Bitcoin client with any modifications they so choose.  If the market decides overwhelmingly that the modified code is superior, that's the code Bitcoin then adopts.  It's beautiful.  I wouldn't change it for the world.  

Carefully worded, but not a true description of what's really happening.

Describing the fork clients as "competing" protocols implies there might be room for whichever protocol loses the competition. You know as well as I that there is no 2nd and 3rd place if you fork the Bitcoin network to a different protocol, so it's a zero sum game. This is not equivalent to a free market competition, as there is only one bed to sleep in. It's equivalent to a majority led compulsory purchase order "not your house any more, get out". Your argument is wrong, it does not observe the free market or property rights.

If you were really interested in an actual free market, you'd be arguing for a scenario that actually conforms to free market dynamics. Stealing someone else's project doesn't count.


carlton wants dictatorship so that only the dictator agrees to their own rules in a circle jerk and then changes things without consent.

carlton never thinks about real consensus and a community compromise, you know real consensus. where it is not one or the other but general agreement of the rules by the majority.

carlton has lost the libertarian mindset (though im starting to think he never had it).. each day he digs a hole a little deeper and cant back up his points.
even the copyright and patent arguments he tried suggesting failed him.

cant wait for his next bait and switch argument to dig himself a little deeper
carlton you love the capitalist, corporate control of a money system. so go play with fiat. you will be happier living a 100% fiat lifestyle
19899  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists on: October 13, 2016, 09:01:37 PM
ooooh so github now own bitcoin.. not the community, not the devs, not blockstream not even satoshi.. but github owns bitcoin?
hmm lets check that out

Nope, Github are the repo platform, not the repo itself.

Your trolling is terrible, and you never have a substantive argument, your only recourse is always to distort or subvert the truth as your rhetoric. That's why you're losing, because you're selling a lie.

did you not read the terms of github.. i pasted it in the last post.
19900  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists on: October 13, 2016, 08:50:30 PM
The place were the code is published is private.

ooooh so github now own bitcoin.. not the community, not the devs, not blockstream not even satoshi.. but github owns bitcoin?
hmm lets check that out
Quote
github:
F. Copyright and Content Ownership
We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.


care to bait and switch some more until the hole your digging is so deep your cant escape?
Pages: « 1 ... 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 [995] 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 ... 1471 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!