Hi all, I'm having some trouble with the Bitcoin Classic BCC wallet. I used the latest Bitcoin Core wallet to move my Bitcoins and keep them safe. I then took my old wallet.dat and used the bitcoin classic BCC wallet but when I put it in and ran the wallet, it says I've sent all my BCC? I never moved it and the amount that's been sent is using the same BTC public key and for the same amount. I've not lost any BTC but if I don't get to sell my Bitcoin Cash I will be kinda bummed. Any help anyone? US$500 reward for information leading to the recovery of funds (or 10% of the Bitcoin Cash, whichever is the lesser. Paid in BTC) On the positive side the transaction public key does not show up on the Bitcoin Cash block explorer. https://blockchair.com/search?q=1MzMVpvSc9LWi947a4E3LvzkGNrLqsJh1NBut in my wallet it shows as spent, having said that I immediately shut down the wallet and didn't let it sync... so anyway, I'm a bit lost here. I have about 6 old wallet.dat files that I could try but am nervous to try again until I get some help. |
|
|
|
|
I am wanting to separate out and sell most of my BCC. I have a second laptop for the purpose and downloaded the Bitcoin Classic full node that supports BCC but it's stuck with 1.5yrs to go and says no block source. Anyone have any good suggestions? Their website is crap and the help link goes to a 404 page lol
|
|
|
|
To confirm, I just checked ... here are the active nodes on the network:
So, add these to your maxcoin.conf file ... I just updated mine.
addnode=89.212.78.74:8668
addnode=104.234.220.135:8668
addnode=76.181.12443:8668
addnode=24.45.109.26:8668
addnode=46.11.165.127:8668
addnode=41.148.107.27:8668
And a couple of IPv6 addresses.
addnode=[2001:0:9d38:953c:303d:15fa:b34a:83d4]:3870
addnode=[2001:0:9d38:78cf:10d9:3bed:b09e:177b]:8668
addnode=[2001:0:5ef5:79fb:4e6:d9:e723:6a37]:63874
addnode=[2001:48f8:28:11e:5ded:6f88:6b4:c79e]:59196
I'm trying to use a GUI wallet, not mine the coin... if you download a wallet it should just work. If it doesn't, then please explain to me like I'm 5 how do I add those to the .conf file. I know how to find my wallet.dat in the roaming/maxcoin file but I don't see any ".conf" file so I don't know how I'm supposed to add nodes. I'm sure I'm not unique, not everyone mines |
|
|
|
God, here's is why Maxcoin gets no respect and needs direction, so, I'm here to help ... On the site, https://www.maxcoin.co.uk/"Instantly send money to anyone for free." Well, that is wrong, I averaged transaction fees of 0.0081 Maxcoins for 23 transactions; there is a cost involved with transaction fees; as much as it is really really low, there is still a fee; the best in the business, much better than Bitcoin, in fact Bitcoin has fees as high as $4+ dollars, for reference, where Maxcoins have fees 1/25 of a penny. So, if anything, it should read; "Instantly send Maxcoins to anyone for an incredibly low fee." Using "money" as the key word on the front page, yet, we are trying to beat the banksters remember - irony at its best. Again: "Maxcoin is one of the most secure crypto currencies around, firstly because it's open source and secondly, it's based on next generation encryption, SHA3." Come on, have you guys not been paying attention? Should read: "The Winner of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), SHA-3, a.k.a "Keccak", is used in Maxcoin, the faster next generation cryptocurrency." "Maxcoin is completely community driven." Well, that scares me ... How about the next line, "Maxcoin has NO dedicated, skilled, and NO cognizant foundation team." No "cognizant" foundation team ... are you serious ... so, we don't have a "knowledgeable" foundation team. Someone less educated than me would be scared to understand what that means, not understanding the difference between a foundation, an organisation, a support group or community. Man, if I was a new chap to this site, I would ask, "Why on earth are you gloating about not having any dedicated, skilled or "knowledgeable" team. WTF??? So, any slap happy finger typing fool on a keyboard can make changes to the protocol??? Thanks for pointing out some important mistakes in the basic understanding of how the fees work. I understand why you suggest that not having a dev team means anyone can make changes but this is wildly off base. Not having a dev team does NOT mean any slap happy finger typing fool can make changes, BUT, not having miners means that despite your reasoning being off base, your concern is still valid, just not for the reasons you suggest. Here's what worries me far more than not having a dev team  A: Coinwarz has a warning on there MAX page that states "Warning: Maxcoin is no longer being monitored as of 5/24/2017" B: Coinwarz list MAX status as "Unhealthy" C: I've just loaded up a fresh copy of the wallet from the "new" https://www.maxcoin.co.uk/ and maxcoin.org.uk and despite running them (they appear to be identical) for a full 12 hours the wallets failed to find any peers. D: If bagholders have coins they can't sell because they can't get a wallet to sync (I've failed a few times since late 2015) then it would be easy to manipulate the price as there are fewer coins available. E: Max Keiser should be viewed very suspiciously for talking up MAX without addressing any of these points Also worth pointing out that an active dev team SHOULD be involved in mining the coin either directly or indirectly. And I don't know who this dude is ... https://twitter.com/getmaxcoin/status/878272649889296384But, if he didn't realize what he did; he showed his order to SELL, SELL, SELL, SELL, SELL, at 9300,9400,9500,14000,1300 sats respectively. Once again, proving that Maxcoiners are ready to offload their wallets. Dude, at least put a nice picture up to show your buying, whether it goes thru or not ... Seriously, do you guys honestly understand what a guy like me sees when I read this stuff ... I've got money to invest, but, you numb nuts keep showing stuff that only destroys yourselves by not even understanding what you're doing ... Come on, quit dangling your Donkey Balls without direction, for crying out loud. I don't have a twitter account, so, could someone at least teach this dude English, since it is, the internet's language; contradicting yourself throughout the front page needs to be improved ... Man ... Also this tweet is hilarious as he actually seems to be claiming that the 33 votes in his poll represent the "community" lmfao  The rest of what's been said just makes me think there are some people in the world who just love to be dicks... sad to say it but if you tell someone to buy something that you really want to sell, that just makes you a salesman. That's why I'm convinced that's all Max Keiser is... are good salesman. Not a guru, not a god, not a dev, not to be trusted and not a friend... JUST a salesman, nothing more. |
|
|
|
|
Do you have Alt coin wallet.dat's archived in cold storage like I do?
Do you also have old wallet programs that you are able to share?
I was wondering how many others have come back years later to find that the wallet for a particular coin is no longer available.
While some of these coins may be impossible to resurrect I thought that I would do my best to resurrect some by trying to collate a list of place people can go to find Alt coin wallet downloads.
This includes but is not limited to websites, uploaded files that are publicly available and also private files that people would like to make public. I probably even have some myself on old hard drives but am not sure how to make them publicly available or even if they work as I haven't used them for so long.
Here is the list that I would like to resurrect please feel free to pm me if you would like to add a coin to the list. Any suggestions or advice will be greatly appreciated and/or tipped based on the value of the wallet you help me resurrect.
Hopeful Contenders.
BTE - Bytecoin (Not BCN)
KOI - Coinyecoin (Don't give me any BS about it being illegal, it's a code, and I have no time for copywrong)
MAX - Maxcoin (Official site claims Max screwed everyone and does not have a wallet download. While it might be true, I'd still like the wallet)
Hopeless Non Contenders
Coino
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Hello dear fellows,
I'm an economist This is the funniest thing I've seen all day. You say you are an economist which explains why A: You don't understand cryptocurrency B: why you talk about the value of the market without mention of what your valuation is measured in (i.e. Nada what... $US, gold, silver?) and C: why you think people should value your oppinion even though it's provably worthless. Thanks for the laugh Regards?! Don't forget to stick your nose in the air while you ignore crypto, I hope you never own any. |
|
|
|
|
I have a ppc wallet that is still 312 days behind and is still syncing. When I logged into my computer today it tells me that 100 coins have been spent with 50,000 confirmations.
A: How is it possible to confirm when it's just happened
and
B: Have I been hacked?
I feel confident my Encryption is strong enough and it seem strange that I would be hacked and yet not have all my coins taken
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any special requirements when importing an encrypted wallet.dat file.
Also
If I've already downloaded the blockchain with a new wallet that has a zero ballance is there a way to update the wallet.dat that will allow it to work with the blockchain that's already downloaded or will I need to download the entire blockchain again.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks,
I will also be fully supporting BIP000 and currently running a full node with BIP000 that runs successfully and remains unbroken. Thanks so much for coming up with BIP000. BIP000 is a great solution to rebuke the scaremongering that those peddling "fixes" have been crowing about.
No doubt there will be some of those scaremongers replying here to say how the block size is going to be reached etc etc. Their solution ignores the solutions that are already in place in BIP000.
Without going into a full explanation, basically there are market forces for memory capacity that have not yet had a chance to work. Increasing the capacity simply cheapens the market for buyers and sellers while make it less profitable for those who secure the network (i.e. miners). This is NOT my idea of smart.
I'm so happy to see someone come up with BIP000 as it puts a label on my preferred solution to the current political problems masquerading as block size problems.
Running a full node of BIP000 is the most powerful vote I know how to make.
Keep up the good work
|
|
|
|
Seriously guys, what's the issue the 8 MB thing? Doesn't Bitcoin need to scale?
So whats the problem? I don't get it.
1MB poeple think it's not a problem because miners will increase fees and so there will be less demand to TX because it cost to much The 8MB people think it's their right to enforce their superior idea on stupid people. For a really dumbed down version of 8MB people's point a view click here |
|
|
|
|
Like others, I'd be pissed off if I thought that the majority could say "fuck the minority, we are going to take over whether you like it or not".
The choice between Bigger Block sizes or Bigger Block sizes with IP spying is false choice, a Hegelian dialectic to get Bigger Blocks. Not "Everyone" believes in this so called "Consensus" that these bullies keep crowing about.
So you can choose, but no, you can't choose your selfish idea, you can only choose our selfish idea, or our more selfish idea!!!
gee thanks, I feel so much freedom now NOT
has Bitcoin become a Democrazy now?
|
|
|
|
I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical statement: There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.
I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.
I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.
Actually, you never challenged my argument. And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument because you realized that I'm a douche bag who doesn't actually listen to logic unless it's in my favor: It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.
Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him. Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be. His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary. Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted. In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"
I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately so I can attack it, as that is my primary concern in all of this.
bitofaloserprodogy. lol! good one. in all seriousness though, I find his position "core plus big blocks is best, but if we can't have that, go with XT" to make sense. what's your position? Keep the 1mb limit? So we are supposed to have a choice between Bitcoin with larger Blocks, or BitcoinXT with larger blocks. It's not a real choice if you are boxed into to choosing between two equal stupid ideas You have freedom of choice, between eating the cyanide cake or they cyanide biscuits. Welcome to freedom!!! My Position is not to worry about it. If I wanted to be part of the "Majority" I wouldn't have an interest in Bitcoin. Bitcoins success is its a protocol that can arrive at agreement between parties that do not trust each other. XT requires us to trust the the list of IP's being filtered will not include ours, ie, it's not a trustless protocol worrying is what marketing people use to sell stuff, I'm not interested in being consumed by the BS fear mongering that Bitcoin is going to crash because it's too popular. I mean come on, how can anyone take that argument seriously lol... you have to be a moron to think that it's going to be sooooo popular that it will crash, and yet soooooo dangerous that people will be afraid to use it... but wait, there's more After that I turn off - Click |
|
|
|
Present a logical argument against spying on IP addresses or admit you are a Anti-XT shill
There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus. I have presented you with a logical counter argument, so therefore I will not admit that I am a moron or an XT shill. lol You didn't actually bother to read it all did you lol. You have presented an argument on an alternative topic. Not everyone thinks we need bigger block sizes hahahahaha... oh no, please save us from our small minds I agree with the earlier post about the Hegelian dialectic... and I have no doubt the number of people fighting to change Bitcoin are inflated by Government Shills, Chad Poo Color aka BitOfaLoserProdigy has already admitted as much I have read it all actually, I presumed that what was meant, was for me to present an argument against the spying on IP addresses within XT, I figured that the question is about BIP101, so therefore the extra features within XT (IP prioritization to prevent DDOS attacks through tor), are optional and therefore should not be a reason to not support BIP101. What was the question then which according to you I have failed to answer? The whole thing was a parody, the point was that the choices are stupid, it's like now we are supposed to have a choice between Bitcoin with larger Blocks, or BitcoinXT with larger blocks. It's not a real choice if you are boxed into to choosing between two equal stupid ideas Your statements where not an argument against IP filtering but rather for larger block sizes. Anyway, on reflection I've edited the questions to make the stupidity more accurately reflect the OP. Thanks for your input You have freedom of choice, between eating the cyanide cake or they cyanide biscuits. Welcome to freedom!!! |
|
|
|
I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical statement: There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.
I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.
I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.
Actually, you never challenged my argument. And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument because you realized that I'm a douche bag who doesn't actually listen to logic unless it's in my favor: It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.
Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him. Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be. His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary. Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted. In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"
I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately so I can attack it, as that is my primary concern in all of this.
|
|
|
|
Present a logical argument against spying on IP addresses or admit you are a moron XT shill
There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus. I have presented you with a logical counter argument, so therefore I will not admit that I am a moron or an XT shill. lol You didn't actually bother to read it all did you lol. You have presented an argument on an alternative topic. Not everyone thinks we need bigger block sizes hahahahaha... oh no, please save us from our small minds I agree with the earlier post about the Hegelian dialectic... and I have no doubt the number of people fighting to change Bitcoin are inflated by Government Shills, Chad Poo Color aka BitOfaLoserProdigy has already admitted as much |
|
|
|
edited for clarity A group of developers looking to create the "killer bitcoin app" foresaw that the 1 MB block size limit would eventually cause problems that need to be resolved, the solution they devised was BlockStream. An increase in the block size makes Blockstream no longer the "killer app" they hoped it would be, and so they appose the increase. It's that simple. Yes they have found a way to solve the problem without forking Bitcoin but they are the bad guys because I don't like them Now they are in a position in which they have invested a great deal into solving the problem of small block sizes on the false assumption that Bitcoin would never be forked. The proposal by Gavin and Hearn challenges their pet (problem solving) solution that they have invested in. Gavin and Hearn will not be making profits from Bitcoin XT because they work for nothing and don't care about Bitcoin at all, but you had better believe the developers of Blockstream will be profiting from the block size remaining in it's current working form. This "split" is being caused by the developers who are deeply invested in Blockstream not those who've forked Bitcoin, and the lack of consensus (ie faith that we should all think exactly the same) with Gavin and Hearn is what is triggering such uncertainty in the Bitcoin Community. These "small blockists" (the unimportant minority) who have a financial interest in keeping the Bitcoin the way it is are causing this VERY DANGEROUS rift in Bitcoin, not those who are forking Bitcoin. A fork that increases block size takes at least 6 months to accomplish, and if we wait until a massive increase in adoption occurs and people discover 8 hour transaction times and very very high fees, Bitcoin will be destroyed in the eyes of the masses. Gavin and Hearn are right to push this change as a preemptive strike that will cause massive problems in the confidence in Bitcoin in the eyes of the masses now instead of waiting for Bitcoin to do it on it's own. We have to act early to create these problems. And Bitcoin XT is not being forced on anyone. 75% consensus is more of a majority than it takes to vote in a president of the United States and we all (yes ALL of us) love democrazy and how voting produces such wonderful presidents. I think it is very reasonable to allow people to "vote" in the way Bitcoin XT is being presented. The argument that increased blocks requires to much memory and too high speed of internet is no argument against block sizes. It is only an argument for innovation in memory and internet speeds. And this is inevitable. That's why I keep starting new threads about XT because it's inevitable and I need to sell it to all those minority who have not chance of stopping us anyway, because, well because I'm right about all this stuff. I think the major problem is that "Bitcoin XT" has a name, which is different than just "Bitcoin" creating the "illusion" in the minds of people that it is something fundamentally different, when really it's "Exactly" the same. (like black is white if you change it's name.) Other changes have been implemented into bitcoin in the exact same way that Bitcoin XT is currently being implemented in the past, but they never had a fancy name like Bitcoin XT does before. If you watch this video with Andreas Antonopolus speaking with Gavin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ his intentions are clear, and Antonopolus does a wonderful job of framing the problem and the proposed solutions. I don't think Antonopolus would remain silent if he thought this were a major threat to bitcoin on a fundamental level. If you watch this video with Hearn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxsWjeiQ76s it is also clear the intentions behind XT are intentions we all share for Bitcoin. The arguments for Bitcoin XT are logically and I agree with them, that's why I state the logical arguments so clearly. The arguments against Bitcoin XT are fear based, emotional, and irrational. And that's why I tell you to be afraid, emotional and worried about the dangers for bitcoin! I think the fear that people are expressing is being caused by people who have a deep interest in not frightening people with a change of block size, not those with a deep interest in frightening people about small block sizes. I think this split is very dangerous and you should be afraid and emotional, and unless anyone can present a clear and logical argument for why the block size should not be increased, I wil follow my heart and support Bitcoin XT (,By logical, I mean if favor of XT). The BlockSize increase is necessary to destroy our enemies and a good thing for bitcoinXT! Imagine if there were no block size limit and Jeff Garzik and Peter Todd and gang were suggesting we implement a limit, the resistance would be immense! They would never get 75% to vote for it! But Bitcoin XT conceivable could (and should!) because it is necessary lest we wait for a rush of new users who fill up the blocks and transaction times of 8 hours and huge fees and BlockStream steps in to offer the solution and rake in the profits! I keep asking for a logical argument to oppose Bitcoin XT to convince myself that I'm actually interested in logical arguments. I am yet to find a logical one because listening to logical arguments would fry my small minded brain! Present a logical argument against spying on IP addresses or admit you are a Anti-XT shill |
|
|
|
|
OMG another bunch of Dictators telling the minority we are not important.
Bitcoin is NOT a Democrazy, Get over it losers. That's why I like it.
If 5% of Bitcoiners are able to keep Bitcoin the way it is and tell the 95% to jump off a cliff, I for one will be rejoicing that the Dictator types who keep crowing about "Consensus" have finally had there asses handed to them.
I hope they all keep banging their heads against this brick wall long enough for the minority to find a way to cut all their heads off.
They should go and crawl back their "Government" and cry... "MOOOOOOOOMMMMMM, the minority won't let us take over Bitcoin... MooooooOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!"
|
|
|
|
I don't know you so it would presumptuous of me to call you friend. I am afraid you have me wrong if you think I don't want XT, what I don't want is a leader who is selling larger block sizes while pushing IP filtering. It's dishonest but not unexpected.
The whole point of a trustless protocol is that no one of should have to be "with" anyone
You are right and I think this is a very important moment for bitcoin. My hope is that block sizes will be increased via Core and that perhaps we will learn from this a better way to "choose the choices" or arrive at consensus on these questions. Until then though I must shill for XT. What is no surprise to me at all is that you are a shill. I don't say it lightly, it's proven by that way you've avoided very carefully the two subjects that most terrify to any XT shill. IP filtering Trustless protocol I agree it's an important moment for trustless protocols, luckily there is a ton of ALT coins to hedge against this stupidity. Anti-XTers are not harming Bitcoin anymore than Xter shills are harming Bitcoin. The argument is not unexpected and is harming the price, but not the protocol, until it's broken, you are nothing more than a speed bump that will soon be long forgotten. Take care Shill This is you:
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
Classic |
|
|
|
This is you:
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
What this lacks in logic it makes up for some how by being uncannily accurate. Now that you mention it, that is exactly what the OP sounds like My friends, if you do not want XT, please provide a better solution. I am in support of increasing the block size via Core. Let's start promoting that. Who's with me? I don't know you so it would be presumptuous of me to call you friend. I am afraid you have me wrong if you think I don't want a name change (XT), what I don't want is a leader who is selling larger block sizes while pushing IP filtering. It's dishonest but not unexpected. The whole point of a trustless protocol is that no one should have to be "with" anyone |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
