Bitcoin Forum
June 22, 2024, 07:48:19 AM *
News: Voting for pizza day contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 [125] 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 ... 391 »
2481  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Double-top on ETH, looks like she's done, put a fork in her... on: February 15, 2016, 06:03:35 AM
Ethereum now has a $400 million market cap and even if the price doesn't increase, the market cap will grow 18% per year due to new coins being created. If without any price increase the market cap in 10 years will be $1.6 billion just due to new coins created.

Any one think that is a good investment  Roll Eyes Hell even if it is a good design, it will be forked. It will never reach critical mass like Bitcoin to sustain a market to a $trillion market cap.

The upside is gone. Only bag holders buying or HODLering now. Any sane person would obviously sell at these prices.
2482  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The Ethereum Paradox on: February 15, 2016, 05:54:36 AM
Just because I caught Szabo in a dull moment and have called attention to his myopia in promoting Ethereum when they haven't even solved the fundamental issues, that means I am bragging  Huh

Ethereum now has a $400 million market cap and even if the price doesn't increase, the market cap will grow 18% per year due to new coins being created. If without any price increase the market cap in 10 years will be $1.6 billion just due to new coins created.

Any one think that is a good investment  Roll Eyes Hell even if it is a good design, it will be forked. It will never reach critical mass like Bitcoin to sustain a market to a $trillion market cap.

The upside is gone. Only bag holders buying or HODLering now. Any sane person would obviously sell at these prices.

And why don't you go read about how dumb Szabo is about the smart contract issue:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13870882#msg13870882

There is the video of him not understanding the externalities issue and Turing completeness (see above link).

And then add this:

I’m not a fan of the term “smart contracts”. For a start, it has been used by so many people for so many different things, that we should probably just ban it completely. For example, the first known reference is from 1997, when Nick Szabo used it to describe physical objects that change their behavior based on some data. More recently, the term has been used for the exact opposite: to describe computation on a blockchain which is influenced by external events such as the weather. For now let’s put both of these meanings aside.

I want to focus here on “smart contracts” in the sense of general purpose computation that takes place on a blockchain. This meaning was popularized by Ethereum, whose white paper is subtitled “A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform”.

And yet you claim Szabo is Satoshi. You guys are a like a dog, you will hump any tree stump.

How about getting in touch with reality.
2483  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Nick Szabo aka Satoshi Nakamoto could be the first crypto super billionaire on: February 15, 2016, 05:48:59 AM
And why don't you go read about how dumb Szabo is about the smart contract issue:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13870882#msg13870882

There is the video of him not understanding the externalities issue and Turing completeness (see above link).

And then add this:

I’m not a fan of the term “smart contracts”. For a start, it has been used by so many people for so many different things, that we should probably just ban it completely. For example, the first known reference is from 1997, when Nick Szabo used it to describe physical objects that change their behavior based on some data. More recently, the term has been used for the exact opposite: to describe computation on a blockchain which is influenced by external events such as the weather. For now let’s put both of these meanings aside.

I want to focus here on “smart contracts” in the sense of general purpose computation that takes place on a blockchain. This meaning was popularized by Ethereum, whose white paper is subtitled “A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform”.

And yet you claim Szabo is Satoshi. You guys are a like a dog, you will hump any tree stump.

How about getting in touch with reality.
2484  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What is the first thing you look for in a new cryptocurrency? on: February 15, 2016, 04:44:38 AM
I never take any new altcoin seriously.

Then you won't necessarily buy at the very low prices if Bitcoin's adoption and price history is duplicated.

Of course though I agree with you, but I can analyze which coin will be the next Bitcoin so I will likely know it very early. You probably can't.

Yours would be the only altcoin I would not hesitate to buy right off the bat, no questions asked.  And you are absolutely right about my skill set.

Thank you but that also makes me feel uncomfortable. Hopefully you will invest on the merits of the product, not just the developer. There is a big difference between talking here on the forum and performing as a developer. I have to make that transition.

Thanks again for the encouragement.

Maybe I can sign off with this message. Hope so...
2485  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The Ethereum Paradox on: February 15, 2016, 04:22:29 AM
I was trying to follow along. It's pretty techy stuff. I'll back away quietly now. Lips sealed

Sorry I don't have the time to write up things in more clarifying words for readers.

And I really would like to exit this thread, unless someone has a challenge to any of my points?

Please don't think I was trying to shut you up. I just answered tersely.
2486  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Nick Szabo aka Satoshi Nakamoto could be the first crypto super billionaire on: February 15, 2016, 04:19:01 AM
Sure...  Hypocrite.

And who says I'm lying?  Szabo is Satoshi.

Proof?

I thought so!  Roll Eyes

(I hope you understand the definition of 'proof'. It is not the same as 'maybe').
2487  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The Ethereum Paradox on: February 15, 2016, 04:10:20 AM
Sorry to interupt, but: we need a Turing complete scripting language sidechain for smart contracts? Is that right? The Bitcoin blockchain won't cut it? Are there any working smart contracts yet in the wild?

CIYAM just claimed that Burst and Qora are running smoothly. Please read the prior several posts of this thread.

CounterParty is running on top of Bitcoin's block chain. I wrote upthread that Bitcoin's block chain can be made Turing complete by externalities.
2488  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What is the first thing you look for in a new cryptocurrency? on: February 15, 2016, 04:02:28 AM
I never take any new altcoin seriously.

Then you won't necessarily buy at the very low prices if Bitcoin's adoption and price history is duplicated.

Of course though I agree with you, but I can analyze which coin will be the next Bitcoin so I will likely know it very early. You probably can't.
2489  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The Ethereum Paradox on: February 15, 2016, 04:00:16 AM
(AT has been running "live" for over one year on two separate blockchains without any serious issue and supports parallelisation of smart contracts)

Here you imply that you've designed something that solves the issues we are discussing in this thread.

You didn't acknowledge the design of those block chains and the relationship of those designs to the topic of discussion I have been making in this thread.

Also you assert parallelization, but I have already stated that parallelization will only work if there are not partitions and if the VM does not accept any state changes from the current block. So what are you really claiming?

Edit: I don't understand this CIYAM. First we approached each other in PM about working together (after I commented in a public thread asking why we hadn't considered working together). Then he seems to get jealous that I am getting attention in this thread. So I Pm'ed him to ask why he is getting so offended, then he replies he never wants to talk to me again. Is this behavior of a stable person  Huh I am just wondering what I did that set him off kilter? Does he feel I am discrediting all programmable block chains (or would cause less money to flow to him)? But that is not what I wrote:

I've maintained for weeks now in my comments that the verification/validation will always become centralized for crypto currency (including smart contracts) and the cost of verification is more acute for long-running scripts.

I've also written that I think the problem can be solved by controlling centralized verification with decentralized UNprofitable proof-of-work.

Thus I believe smart contracts are still plausible on public decentralized block chains. Ethereum is pursing the wrong design though.

So I can only conclude that either CIYAM just woke up on the wrong side of the bed today, or he is jealous of the attention I am getting. Or he feels I am not qualified.

Getting into childish word games is surely below your incredibly high IQ isn't it?
2490  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The Ethereum Paradox on: February 15, 2016, 03:33:50 AM
I didn't write 'orthogonal'. I wrote 'independent'. I hope you understand the distinction?

Getting into childish word games is surely below your incredibly high IQ isn't it?

(think I'm ready to leave this topic now)

Childish only for someone who doesn't understand the importance of definitions and math. Childish is attacking someone for writing:

But I don't see anything about verification and Nash equilibrium. I do not see a complete specification of how the mining and verification works and the game theory thereof.

Why so emotional? Is what I wrote above really deserving of the way you reacted?

Orthogonal means your VM can be used with any block chain design and the design your VM is not impacted by any block chain considerations. Independent means that the performance of your VM is not dependent on which block chain design is chosen.

The point is your VM will not perform correctly[1] if the wrong block chain design is chosen. Therefor you can't claim you've solved the same issues that we are analyzing about Ethereum. Ethereum's problem is not the VM but rather the verification issue and game theory of mining.

Sorry you seem to not realize what this thread has been about.

Edit: also there needs to be some overview and explanation of your VM, it's purpose, etc.. The way you organize your documentation, there is nothing for the reader to get any coherence of what is being documented and why. For example, the AT spec doesn't even define 'host'. You just jump right in without giving the reader any idea what the technobabble is about. No diagrams, no explanation of terms, no overview, etc..

I wasn't criticizing you.

[1]from the perspective of the holistic system. Obviously the VM functions orthogonally to the holistic outcome of the system.
2491  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The Ethereum Paradox on: February 15, 2016, 03:28:07 AM
You can't proclaim a scripting VM for block chains works, if you don't specify the mining and game theory for the block chain.

The entire point I am making is the VM isn't independent of the mining and game theory for the block chain.

It is running on two entirely different kinds of block chains - if you are really interested to study them go ahead but AT is orthogonal to that (it is block chain agnostic).

I didn't write 'orthogonal'. I wrote 'independent'. I hope you understand the distinction?
2492  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The Ethereum Paradox on: February 15, 2016, 03:24:12 AM
For those that aren't kids: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364594.0

(AT has been running "live" for over one year on two separate blockchains without any serious issue and supports parallelisation of smart contracts)

But I don't see anything about verification and Nash equilibrium. I do not see a complete specification of how the mining and verification works and the game theory thereof.

That's funny - first you criticise Vitalik for being too abstract and "in the clouds" and now you criticise AT for being too practical and grounded.

I never wrote that which is underlined. I said the link you provided is missing specification of the mining and game theory for the block chain. Please don't put words in my mouth that I did not write.

If you would like to do some mathematical analysis you are most welcome to but you should realise that I didn't have anything to do with either of the two blockchains that AT runs on (it isn't a blockchain even so your question about mining makes very little sense actually).

You can't proclaim a scripting VM for block chains works, if you don't specify the mining and game theory for the block chain.

The entire point I am making is the VM isn't independent of the mining and game theory for the block chain.

If Burst and Qora are doing centralized verification, then they will run smoothly (except for any issues due to being centralized). Or if those chains are claiming they are decentralized without partitions but haven't scaled yet, then they will run smoothly (until they scale up). If they are using partitions, they will break.
2493  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The Ethereum Paradox on: February 15, 2016, 03:20:19 AM

Btw, note how the ETH price rises when I am sleeping and someone makes comment doubting whether I am correct. Then I post again reinforcing my points, and the ETH price falls again. The speculators are really confused. And this is going to be an evidence that Ethereum is an illegal unregistered investment security. I don't know if the regulators will do anything about it though. Depends if speculators file a legal case perhaps.


I really feel sorry for you.  Now you are even moving ETH price with your comments? Oh boy...

Paid Ethereum shills operating from newbie sock puppet accounts want readers to be ignorant of the facts. Look at the timing of my key posts in the linked thread and compare it to turning points the detailed price history over the past days.
2494  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Nick Szabo aka Satoshi Nakamoto could be the first crypto super billionaire on: February 15, 2016, 03:05:21 AM
Sourgrapes.

A billionaire can't spend all of his money in 100 lifetimes. Petty lying just to steal the lunch money of other idiots on this forum is for low life scum.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/qa/is-there-something-more-important-than-money/

How new Alts / Scamcoins steal your Bitcoins


It seems every day a new alt coin pops up. They are easy to make - most are just clones of coins
that were programmed by someone else and just given a new name, a few graphic tweaks, etc. to make it look new.
It doesn’t take much work - a new scam coin is born.   Most of the devs who create these coins have only one intention - to steal bitcoins from others.  This explains how they do it. 


First they clone an existing coin, make a few tweaks, make a website (which helps scam coins look legit) then they pre-mine a good amount of coins which they will dump later on.
After the coin is up and ready for launch it is  Announced on various sites - bitcointalk.org, reddit, etc.


They get the coin listed on an exchange or two and then deposit a portion of their pre-mine coins they already
have saved up. They may make a few Bitcoins after their coin gets listed, but this is not the way they
intend to get your Bitcoins.   They let their coin do whatever the market wants for a month or two, maybe try to hype it up a little thru various forums and trollboxes to help legitimize it.  They don’t want to pump it as soon as it gets listed on an exchange - this would be obviously suspicious.


Then the day comes where they decide to make their move. They start by buying up the orders on
the exchange(s) to start driving up the price to give the illusion that their coin is starting to take of.  This doesn’t cost them anything because they pre-mined the coins for free and the Bitcoins they are using to buy up the orders go back to them because they are buying the scamcoin from themselves anyways.  After us innocent, unsuspecting users see that this alt
is moving up a large percent is when we start putting our bitcoin orders in so we don’t miss out on this coin that seems to be really taking off.  As soon as enough orders are put in / coins are bought - when the scammer devs are happy with the amount of BTC they have acquired, they dump the rest of their pre-mined coins on the order book to buy
up any lower bitcoin orders still on the books.   Congratulations, you have just become a bag holder of a worthless scamcoin that is back to its previous price of next to nothing, the devs have conned you out of your bitcoins and will let their scam coin die to start working on their next scam.
2495  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The Ethereum Paradox on: February 15, 2016, 02:52:25 AM
For those that aren't kids: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364594.0

(AT has been running "live" for over one year on two separate blockchains without any serious issue and supports parallelisation of smart contracts)

But I don't see anything about verification and Nash equilibrium. I do not see a complete specification of how the mining and verification works and the game theory thereof.
2496  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Spoetnik Altcoin Observer on: February 15, 2016, 02:35:41 AM
Quote from: TPTB_need_war
And he is not paying the developers as far as I know. And I know rpietila.

He has made donations to various aspects of funding along with many other community members.

Yes he even donated to me. And even smooth "donated" to me (paid for some portion of BCX "bounty" which is sort of a pain point so let's drop that).

But I mean that is rather small such a couple of BTC here and there. It isn't like he is paying the $200,000+ a year salaries of top devs.
2497  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The Ethereum Paradox on: February 15, 2016, 02:29:49 AM
Maybe all this is true but it just reminds me of the 1MB blockchain disagreement around BTC. All sorts of technical arguments going back and forth.

They are all wrong about the block size issue. The only solution is CENTRALIZATION OF VERIFICATION. I already explained why.

The reason no one wants to admit that is because they think it means admitting that decentralized crypto is dead. They think the money will stop flowing and crypto will die. So they fight on making delusion.

Note until a coin scales, the centralization issue is avoided. So when you hear smooth et al equivocate, just remember Monero hasn't scaled yet. And remember I warned in 2013 that Bitcoin would have scalecolypse. Everyone equivocated then and I ended up correct.

What's the ultimate aim of this discussion thread? Are people meant to pull out of ETH? Abandon it?

Hell yes! Stopping funding the delusion! I am not sure of r0ach's aim for the thread though. Perhaps he just wanted to open the discussion.

Or fix forward (if it can be fixed)?

I am working on it. And I am not asking for your $18 million + more.

Any highly dedicated capable developer has sufficient resources to go work on it too (at least to produce a rudimentary proof-of-concept which even Ethereum hasn't produced yet). We don't need Ethereum wasting our money on delusion and fat cats.

You're bringing out your contribution to the industry soon. I'm interested to see what it is. If it does everything you say it'll do then then I'll be more than happy to support you and it, and to see it flourish.

I'll tell you one thing. I'm in software, and I'm yet to see any product released (from any manufacturer or any visionary) that does what was promised on it's first release. Just be careful. You might be building a rod for your own back with this thread. If your contribution isn't super-duper on the button perfect on release you might get slaughtered before you've even had a chance to do anything.

I already stated it will be imperfect. The verification will be centralized. But the PoW will be decentralized and unprofitable. But we will see if I messed up any of the Nash equilibrium analysis. I will surely see this when writing the detailed white paper (for the moment it is all in my writings on the forum and in my head).

At the moment, I am focused on being healthy and coding the adoption features. The coin technology is useless without mass adoption, especially in my design because the PoW comes from payers we need a lot of users of the currency not just a speculation circle-jerk. Such things as mass adoption aren't even on Ethereum's radar.
2498  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Crypto Kingdom - 1991 Retro Virtual World(City) on: February 15, 2016, 01:03:50 AM
And why did Risto spend 882 BTC worth of his money on Monero 2 years ago then donate to the project ever since ?
Why ?
What motivation does he have ?
Regardless the coders getting paid to keep working at it don't care.. they are cashing in.
And their early flash mining escapades are just icing on the cake if they ever get big profits + lambo's

You are wrong about this. Risto (rpietila) did that because he always wanted to be important, sit at the head of a huge table in his castle. He thought he could potentially buy the next Bitcoin at a low price and also be a central figure in its rise.

And he is not paying the developers as far as I know. And I know rpietila.

Rpietila is now working his game and is not so active in Monero (except his game uses XMR for tokens as far as I know).

Monero isn't a scam. It might be a circle-jerk, but not a scam.
2499  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Spoetnik Altcoin Observer on: February 15, 2016, 01:02:25 AM
And why did Risto spend 882 BTC worth of his money on Monero 2 years ago then donate to the project ever since ?
Why ?
What motivation does he have ?
Regardless the coders getting paid to keep working at it don't care.. they are cashing in.
And their early flash mining escapades are just icing on the cake if they ever get big profits + lambo's

You are wrong about this. Risto (rpietila) did that because he always wanted to be important, sit at the head of a huge table in his castle. He thought he could potentially buy the next Bitcoin at a low price and also be a central figure in its rise.

And he is not paying the developers as far as I know. And I know rpietila.

Rpietila is now working his game and is not so active in Monero (except his game uses XMR for tokens as far as I know).

Monero isn't a scam. It might be a circle-jerk, but not a scam.
2500  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The Ethereum Paradox on: February 15, 2016, 12:33:26 AM
Guys about the issue of whether Ethereum is running out of funding, my point is that they were running out of funding, except for the ETH they own which before this recent rise in the price was not valued very high. Moreover, there was not sufficient volume so if they had tried to sell, they would have driven the price down (especially factor in the amount of ETH being created from mining ongoing).

Thus I am saying this recent shrilling for the Casper vaporware is likely to drive the price AND VOLUME of ETH upwards to take more money from speculators.

And I am saying they have wasted the $18 million they got. Heck I could probably design a solution for ~$20,000 (or not more than $100,000). It doesn't take $18 million to make smart contracts work with a centralized verification which is what they will eventually realize is the only way to make it work (per my upthread posts explaining why).

They will waste more $millions, because that is what they do. The pattern is already clear. People/organizations don't change (until they are forced to by economic reality, which apparently is discipline the market is unwilling to do as you all are giving Vitalik more money to play with).

How new Alts / Scamcoins steal your Bitcoins


It seems every day a new alt coin pops up. They are easy to make - most are just clones of coins
that were programmed by someone else and just given a new name, a few graphic tweaks, etc. to make it look new.
It doesn’t take much work - a new scam coin is born.   Most of the devs who create these coins have only one intention - to steal bitcoins from others.  This explains how they do it. 


First they clone an existing coin, make a few tweaks, make a website (which helps scam coins look legit) then they pre-mine a good amount of coins which they will dump later on.
After the coin is up and ready for launch it is  Announced on various sites - bitcointalk.org, reddit, etc.


They get the coin listed on an exchange or two and then deposit a portion of their pre-mine coins they already
have saved up. They may make a few Bitcoins after their coin gets listed, but this is not the way they
intend to get your Bitcoins.   They let their coin do whatever the market wants for a month or two, maybe try to hype it up a little thru various forums and trollboxes to help legitimize it.  They don’t want to pump it as soon as it gets listed on an exchange - this would be obviously suspicious.


Then the day comes where they decide to make their move. They start by buying up the orders on
the exchange(s) to start driving up the price to give the illusion that their coin is starting to take of.  This doesn’t cost them anything because they pre-mined the coins for free and the Bitcoins they are using to buy up the orders go back to them because they are buying the scamcoin from themselves anyways.  After us innocent, unsuspecting users see that this alt
is moving up a large percent is when we start putting our bitcoin orders in so we don’t miss out on this coin that seems to be really taking off.  As soon as enough orders are put in / coins are bought - when the scammer devs are happy with the amount of BTC they have acquired, they dump the rest of their pre-mined coins on the order book to buy
up any lower bitcoin orders still on the books.   Congratulations, you have just become a bag holder of a worthless scamcoin that is back to its previous price of next to nothing, the devs have conned you out of your bitcoins and will let their scam coin die to start working on their next scam.



Btw, note how the ETH price rises when I am sleeping and someone makes comment doubting whether I am correct. Then I post again reinforcing my points, and the ETH price falls again. The speculators are really confused. And this is going to be an evidence that Ethereum is an illegal unregistered investment security. I don't know if the regulators will do anything about it though. Depends if speculators file a legal case perhaps.



As for whether I am correct and Vitalik is wrong, he will probably go off some tangent trying to devise some algorithmic way to address my point about the Nash equilibrium collapse with partitions due to the externalities of scripting. Because that is who his is. He is not pragmatic. He is unable to see the reason to give up and ship code that is centralized.

Or he will ignore and obfuscate. Yeah I did notice they are sort of trying to hide the fact that they also doubt themselves. They hide it in layers upon layers of complexity of technobabble. But I am able to dig through that. You guys can't easily.

Note I do agree the Vitalik writes some tantalizing blog posts. He is mathematical and he incorporates academic level understanding and terminology. I am not criticizing him in every facet. Researchers are often not good in business. We need researchers. But we typically don't hand them an $18 million budget.

People don't change. Vitalik is a research complexity machine. I am a person who created CoolPage for millions of users and was an early developer of Corel Painter which has shipped to millions of users. I've been very ill for the past 3 years, thus I changed.

If I am healthy, I will do what I do, which is make real products for millions of users and "SHIP IT". And Vitalik will do what he does, which is make complexity, live in fantasy land in his mind, and waste money.

In other words what I mean is I find a way to cut through the chaff and get down the final generative essence, which in this case is:

VALIDATION MUST BE CENTRALIZED. Any one who says different is deceiving you (and possibly themselves).



Btw, the decision to use PoS (i.e. deposits for consensus-by-betting) is to avoid the problems with PoW such as electricity consumption. My point about Nash equilibrium failure modes for partitions with programmable scripting applies even if they tried to use PoW.

So some issues are orthogonal. It is difficult to explain all the ways of thinking about this to others. I surmise that r0ach and enet may understand. monsterer understands some of it. CIYAM may understand, but I need to study his AT before I can comment on his level of understanding.

I was hoping smooth would comment but he may feel he hasn't yet spent enough time analyzing Ethereum.
Pages: « 1 ... 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 [125] 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 ... 391 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!