Will it be Bitcoin with its Layer Two solutions such as the Lightning Network and Sidechains?
Or Bitcoin Cash with its on-chain scaling solutions by increasing the block size limit?
when you look at things in this perspective you can see that bitcoin can always implement the "block size increase" solution anytime we wanted in the future and have that side of bitcoin cash. but bitcoin cash can never implement SegWit and Lightning Network because if it does then they will be negating the first and only reason they forked off which was because they said 1) no changes like SegWit 2) scaling should only be done on-chain. if you break your only reason for existence then you should not even exist. in short if BCH implements SegWit and LN even if they call it something else and mask it in different ways, BCH price will drop down hard because the little number of believes they have will dump it and go away. this is why i am not in team cash.. but yes i also detest core. .. many people cannot see the big picture of the whole ecosystem to see beyond the 2 team drama of finger pointing. the end result though. bitcoin core WILL NOT have LN as its sole feature to rival other currencies. bitcoin core really will need to decide to do something to the core protocol that adds something that other currencies do not have. bitcoin core will need to step back and publicly announce that they will never again use a 'mandatory dated consensus bypass' upgrade bitcoin core will need to work as a level playing field, allowing other nodes to use consensus. no bilateral split, no REKT campaigns |
|
|
|
|
any way.. while the core defenders keep up the distraction drama of core vs cash.. pointing fingers while barry silbert grabs the branding.
what people are not looking at is that while being told cash is the threat. which its not. other currencies are making a move for the top spot..
but hey. let the core devs and their fans point fingers away from the real big picture.
may all core fans enjoy your little cabin fever of an echo chamber
analogy of a core dev/fanboy
"everyone look at this annoying pimple on my right arm.. but dont look at the skin cancer on the left arm. and definetly dont notice the entire body"
|
|
|
|
.. and then. the laughing part
core backtracked the technical problems for 2mb and then said 4mb weight is fine.. all because they realised THEY needed 4mb for thieir segwit transaction types.. but still didnt want to give the community the 2mb for the legacy transaction types. even though technical details showed 2mb was not a problem anyway. The laughing part? There is no laughing part. The Core developers wanted a block size increase WITHOUT a hard fork which the big blockers were demanding. The Core developers wanted a soft fork and backwards compatibility with the legacy nodes to avoid the risks that came with a hard fork. august 1st was a hard fork. wake up to reality. they even had to make a mandatory date and reject blocks.. you know this. so stop denying it. its actually got code and even block proof it occured. so you cant deny it or prove it did not occur. seems you too have run down the core rabbit hole |
|
|
|
in a more serious note, perhaps people should be taught that Core aren't a centralised authority that controls Bitcoin.
but they are not. core are centralised let me guess. next you are going to say apple is decentralised because employees and interns have their own homes and own commputers.. Core submit code and if the users like it they run that code. Other developers submit code, if users prefer that code, they'll run that instead. That's the beauty of it. However, no one is under any obligation to promote code they might not agree with.
core submit code. and BYPASS consensus. and put in a MANDATORY upgrade date of august 1st others submit code, use consensus.. and core REKT, "fork off" scream, and bilateral split them away show me any network upgrades that have occured on the blockchain since 2013 that have occurd not due to CORES process show me just one seems you have spent a bit of time over at reddit cand started catching the core defense bug.. seems out of the box thinking of bitcoin without you dfending core has now officially been lost. you have now ran down the core rabbit hole. goodluck. but remember core are not immortal. so try not to wast too much time kissing their ass hailing them as kings. one day they will just stop coding and/or retire. but until then other nodes will continue to be REKT, screamed at with "fork off" or get bilaterally split away.. unless they act like sheep to cores roadmap |
|
|
|
|
anyone thinking LN is a feature locked to bitcoin core network would be dead wrong. its not going to be something that renews bitcoin core network with anything that other networks will not also have.
this is because LN will be its own network that many other currencies will use. the core devs admit this. that is the whole point of segwit address format BC1q.
so that other networks can have their own currency identity. such as LTC would have LC1q on the LN network
so while many coins would all be using LN, the question still will be, what has bitcoin core devs done specifically to upgrade the bitcoin core network to make it more feature filled, and atleast more scaling proof than other networks that too will use LN.
emphasise this in your mind when thinking of the answer:
when all currencies use LN. what has the bitcoin core network alone got as a scaling advantage that othr networks wont have?
and to those who hate that people define the network as the bitcoin core network should read some code about what caused the segwit activation. and the new block structure acceptance and the new network topology, the new transaction formats. and that it had to be a mandatory signalling, rather than a consensus choice
bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(), Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
}
the code shows that blocks NOT signalling for cores NEW segwit protocol will get rejected. this included rejecting any legacy(bitcoin 2009-2016) block versions that would have been mined on august 1st 2017
yep bitcoin core network rejected blocks on august 1st that were not signalling cores new protocol. again for emphasis including block formats of bitcoin 2009-2016
which if people could read code shows that bitcoin core is not a continuation of the bitcoin 2009-2016 network but a fork away from it by rejecting blocks of that format known as bitcoin 2009-2016..
also. if cores new protocol was truly backward compatible
(not needing new nodes to translat as a upfilter/bridge node to old clients)
(not refusing to relay unconfirmed segwit transactions to old clients)
then the upgrade could have occured by not changing the versionbits and not have to reject legacy blocks. and instead get the opposition to set a version bit. in which the feature would only activate if there was less than 5% showing the version bit change (95% acceptance).
but no the segwit code is NOT backward compatible. it requires a middleman translater in the form of nodes (as gmax calls upstream filters, luke JR calls bridge nodes) to translate and reformat the blockchain. and the network topology had to change to put the old clients on an outer ring of the network. whereby they are not part of the peer to peer relay network, but downstream/bridged from the relay network
in short analogy english speaking nodes of 2009-2016 do not understand the dutch speaking blockchain of 2017-2018. core/segwit nodes can speak dutch and english. the network of 2017-8 is now dutch but the new population can translate and cut down the dutch informtion into a short version that any remaining minority race(old clients) left can be handed. but english speaking nodes cannot be part of the unconfirmd dutch transaction relay postal service because they wont understand dutch.
emphasis. even the core devs admit to this
now to those that still think that core are kings and deserve the power. where will you stand when they retire, decide to do other projects
EG if all the core devs decided at mid day tomorrow to all stop coding. and then 10 minutes later a bug was found that affects all nodes running cores segwit code. what would your attitude be.
would it be calm collected "its ok" or would you panic
you might think core are your kings. but they are not immortal.
if any of you core defenders actually cared about "bitcoin" as a decentralised network. you would not defend core. you would request they disband their mantatory rules and never use mandatory upgrades again(unless network killing bug found) and only use consensus of a open decentralised network for upgrades. whereby the community combine idea's to a unified compromise that all node client software would release a version of that would require less than 5% opposition to activate.
emphasis: consensus, compromise, community
de-emphasis: mantatory, contentious rejection, control
also bitcoin cash are not backward compatible.
this is why its called a bilateral split. NEITHER side is a true backward compatible continuation of the 2009-2016 network. which is where the debate begins of who should own brand "bitcoin"..
to which the easy answer is NEITHER. no one should own the brand.
instead its much simpler to say
bitcoin core
bitcoin cash
...
i now expect the standard onslaught of reddit script rebuttles defending core, then pretending its not core its bitcoin, then defending core again..
but ultimately not defending the true ethos of bitcoin as a decentalised everyone on the same level playing field of consensus network
have a nice day.
remember core are not immortal. where will you stand if CORE they stopped coding in 24 hours
|
|
|
|
|
as someone else said, it sounds like a user is testing your security.
things they can find out about your system such as
do funds cycle through certain cold wallets inbetween a deposit/withdrawal.
do you even have a cold wallet.
what other addresses are linked to you
|
|
|
|
|
2016 didnt drop below $300
2017 didnt drop below $900
2018 didnt drop below $6000
so chill out guys. stop pretending $20k is the expectation of 'norm'... instead flip your mindset the other way around
those that stand at $20k and look down are always going to think the glass is less than half full and not refilling
those that stand at $6k and look up are always going to think the glass is filling up nicely, even if people are taking a gulp out of it
|
|
|
|
not really negative as it didnt really hype up things like silk road... .. what it did do though, is create the hype of ICO's yep that series created the idea of ICO fundraising for crapcoins |
|
|
|
yes because core have not solved anything the price is not affected by code. the price is fluid and people speculate on greed. 99% dont even know a line of code or who is behind coding it scaling has not be dealt with.. in 2009 they estimated that bitcoin could handle 7tx/s show me a block since 2017 that has exceeded 7tx/s (4200 tx) as for features like segwit. adoption has not jumped to 100% adoption. funny part is that on average its ~10% of a block is segwit. even funnier. the pools that flagged an undying belief that segwit is great code. dont actually trust it enough to use segwit transactions for their own block rewards even while writing this. the most vocal supporting pool of segwit, which is BTCC. is still using legacy addresses for its block rewards https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000002dd71853f6d273cf1ddb30e82316a742adf61e14cfdecc.. lots of people are getting errors. even in the block created while writing this. someone tried to use new scripts. but ended up with the 0.001($7) test amounts being treated as a fee https://blockchain.info/tx/7a0fb9f33a72fe5b7033c9db101760bc79dc2def545f1445b67fc60e7d48c21chttps://blockchain.info/tx/762a4068e2cd9778c74947bd7de041e06deb2d14d3a4417e6a85ddb65139a7f8https://blockchain.info/tx/41cbcafd9d76909bbbdf7ce030e8d464d0717a122b42e2cfca5c1479488b0c94.. the only thing that has changed is that the collaberation of the core devs, their friendly mixers and their friendly pools have stopped spamming the network now their features are locked in. this is not due to their features working, because hardly anyone is actually using them. but due to them needing to spam the network as a propaganda move to make people feel that something needed to be done. and then argue only core could do it.. with that said, no one should just hand core the reigns of bitcoin. because devs retire, devs get bored. devs' get paid off to do nasty things. and without other independant teams separate from core being on the same level playing field of consensus(core dont want a level playing field) it puts too many eggs into one basket. but hey, i know many core promoters will just buzz word that core are kings, core are conservative, core deserve to maintain the network alone care to ask yourself why core devs call it an "experiement" and why after 9 years. core still class it as being beta tested |
|
|
|
I am not afraid. I am avoiding to argue over your useless, fake, lies, big blocker propaganda and your tinfoil hat conspiracies.
Bitcoin is in good hands. The big blockers should be happy with their fork Bitcoin Cash.
here you go again with the "big-blocker" buzzword, it is like a certain time of the day where you sit back and down a gallon of the core reddit script koolaid? firstly the COMMUNITY majority said 2mb core said no.. core then propagandised the "gigabyte block" as "big blockers" core then said 2mb was bad, for technical reasons.. but kept up the gigabyte block propaganda .. and then. the laughing part core backtracked the technical problems for 2mb and then said 4mb weight is fine.. all because they realised THEY needed 4mb for thieir segwit transaction types.. but still didnt want to give the community the 2mb for the legacy transaction types. even though technical details showed 2mb was not a problem anyway. they decided to split the network to get rid of core opposers, so that core could go in one direction away from the rules of 2009-2016. and the rest go in another direction.. yep core diverted directions too.. thats why even core said its a bilateral split and not a unilateral split. P.S try not to wear the core defense cap. because by saying the protocol is safe in thier hands is you giving up your own hands(dcentralisation) and handing bitcoin to core. and try not to get too addicted to the reddit script koolaid. it becomes too obvious when you start using certain buzzwords but lack the full picture of understanding. |
|
|
|
There's a double standard involved here, too. Could you imagine if bitcoin.org did promote both chains,
im not even talking about both chains at this point.. im highlighting the hypocrisy of "core" how those that point fingers to pretend bitcoin is decentralised and no team own it by saying somone needs to be sued.. yet when the debate is flipped.. they then defend how they want bitcoin to b centralised and owned by one team. and that include (the mega hypocritical and even worse part) letting one person say its just one team "core" that are the project so to reword your question to clarify my point.. could you imagine if bitcoin.org DID promote core, btcd, knots, unlimited, xt, classic (all clients of the SAME chain) EQUALLY? OMG mind blowing thought. could you imagine if people stopped defending core and stopped attacking any node that is running on the same network as core.. OMG mind blowing thought again just imagine it. no more directing people to think that core is the master, king, controller. this is why i keep telling people if they really believed in bitcoin decentralisation.. first they must take off the core defense hat, to atleast give themselves purspective. to me its jsut far easier to avoid any debate, argument, misinterpretation and issues by saying when someone asks for bitcoin. you reply cash or core
much like when someone asks for dollar you ask US or canadian
Do you walk into your local British shops and ask " Is that the Egyptian, Lebanese, Syrian or British Pound?" Of course you fucking don't. You'd only ask about those pounds if you specifically wanted to use those particular currencies. If we're not transacting in BCH, we don't need to make any distinction. So give up with the bullshit already. You call it what you want. We'll call it what we want. And I assure you we won't be calling it anything other than Bitcoin or BTC. in america talking to americans, yea just call the dollar the dollar. in england talking other brits, yea just call the pound the pound but ovr the internet.. (sorry to open your mind to this) where the walls expand beyond the room your computer sits. where anyone can be anywhere in the world. when someone mentions dollar sometimes its prudant and easy to ask if they mean US dollar or australian dollar. especially if that person is asking for some EG imagine i was australian and you were american. i say i will give you $20,000, but have you got a $ acepting bank account soon enough we find out that i cant give you australian dollar because you have an american bank account.. so you lose you should have clarifed it was a US bank.. or i should have asked if it was a US or AU.. . thats all im saying. over the internet. you cant just assume. so its simpler to just ask which they are talking about because the brand should not be owned by anyone .. but anyway. it seems the people i debate with are not bitcoin defenders.. but core defenders. and they cant see the hypocrisy of the difference. even whn highlighting the reverse psychology thats being played out the point of calling it bitcoin core instead of bitcoin is this.. if i call it bitcoin core. core defenders pretend and try to say no its bitcoin because core dont own it... 2 seconds later defend that core do |
|
|
|
|
the way i see it
2016 the price did not drop below $300
2017 the price did not drop below $900
2018 the price hasnt droped below $6000
i personally never care for or check for the buzz of ATH (all time highs) as they are just temporary events lasting only seconds or minutes before correcting themselves. in most cases hardly anyone is ready for the event to actually take advantage of it.
most are not logged into an exchange at that exact second to be quick enough to type in an order and press submit.. and so 99% of the community never benefit from it ..
so why should we care. why should we highlight it. why should people hype $20k as if its (foolishly) an expected normal amount to then treat anything below it as a "drop"... it was not a drop. it was a correction
as long as the long term growth continues and there shows good support of continuing rise of THE LOWS compared to previous years. thats all that matters.
january, febuary and march. was a correction. then based on lows and support lines. april and may have seen prices break under previous support lines. which is where the "dip" is.
|
|
|
|
No need of registering insurance company.
not so much an insurance company(government regulated). but a public body that can display they as a multisig co-signer have morals and rules to not spend funds themselves and are not in cahoots with the exchange. usually this would be an pre-established entity who has experience and would happily register their location details to be handed court orders should anything nasty happen. im not saying regulated registration insurance.. im saying public consumer protection insurance. which there is a difference. regulated insured establishments are allowed to break the law, pretend they are bankrupt to not pay out and then go money grabbing consumer protections keeps businesses ethical or suffer repercussions after all. how many bankers went to jail due to the crises. and on the flip side how many bankers got more richer where as if a business with consumer protection certification, would get court orders and bailiffs at their doors in a crisis |
|
|
|
|
bitcoin insurance is a hard thing to achieve. many home insurers do not automatically pay out at request. they investigate and do accounting on the chance/risk that the insured person has not simply hidden the posessions to pretend they were stolen. which is harder to prove because a investigator cannot simply ask neighbours if they seen a removal van at the persons home. so i do not see insurance companies offering a personal insurance. as there are too many ways to fake a claim to get out mor then the person put in.
however
exchanges could decide to put their trade fee's into a trust (multisig) that is co-signed by an insurance company. where by to keep trade fee's down and keep the exchange profitable. can only access the fee's after 12 months of the trade.
EG
imagine in one day trade fee's totaled 7.45btc(Gdax example), over a year totals ~2,700btc
at the 366th day the exchange will get their 7.45btc. but could lose ~2,700btc if they do anything to harm thier customers
its kind of how silk road reportedly operated, by having a reserve/collateral. how how some fiat institutions are set up. though fiat institutions do not get their premiums back after a year, which is why trading fee's can be higher in those cases
|
|
|
|
But my do you support Roger Ver's actions in using bitcoin.com to confuse the users by manipulating the wording on the site and make them believe that "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin"?
do you support theymos's actions using bitcoin.org to confuse the users by manipulating the wording on the site and make them believe that bitcoin core is bitcoin go check it out https://bitcoin.org/en/developmentBitcoin development Bitcoin is free software and any developer can contribute to the project. Everything you need is in the GitHub repository. Please make sure to read and follow the development process described in the README, as well as to provide good quality code and respect all guidelines. Development discussion takes place on GitHub and the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Less formal development discussion happens on irc.freenode.net #bitcoin-core-dev (web interface, logs). check out the readme it asks you to read https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/README.mdWhat is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is an experimental digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world. Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority: managing transactions and issuing money are carried out collectively by the network. Bitcoin Core is the name of open source software which enables the use of this currency. For more information, as well as an immediately useable, binary version of the Bitcoin Core software, see https://bitcoin.org/en/download, or read the original whitepaper. have a proper read of it.. everything is pointing to core as "Bitcoin Core is the name of open source software which enables the use of this currency." "Bitcoin Core is security software that helps protect assets worth billions of dollars, so every code change needs to be reviewed by experienced developers." go on chck out that page. here is the link again https://bitcoin.org/en/developmentshow me anywhere on that page that talks about alternate clients being the "security" of the network. then show me what that page considers as "security software that helps protect assets worth billions of dollars, so every code change needs to be reviewed by experienced developers." WITHOUT it sounding like that they are "other projects"(subtly hinting they are not part of the bitcoin protocol improvement, security, upgrade project) and also go check what developers are told to do. are they told to launch their own software and let consensus play out.. or sumbit code to core.. We know who the Core developers are. Can you tell us who the Bitcoin Cash developers are? There are trolls saying that it has only one developer. Hahaha.
BLOQ, ive told you this before. i have even mentioned a couple names jgarzic and gavin A.. i have even questioned why your pointing fingers at ver when he hasnt even coded cash, and why your not even mentioning jgarzics name even after i have told you on many topics now exactly who is behind bitcoin cash, i even told you who paid BLOQ to create bitcoin cash. and why it was created. I agree. But don't you think Roger Ver should stop his propaganda?
its all drama. like the kardashians. everything ver has done theymos has done too. but dont you think theymos should stop his propaganda?? Honestly, which network is better, BTC or BCH?
honestly. since 2013 core has lost its ideolisms. and i have not even bothered to shift my coins to give me any bitcoin cash though i know they pre-exist already. but i will say that in 10 months bitcoin cash has been accepted by many merchants and also priced itself higher than a few cents a coin so, if i was to base my opinion on the politics, they both have flaws and both dont have the ideolisms of pre 2013, on other aspects like imagine in 10 years if a mining pools needed 2btc in tx fee's to cover costs once the reward:fee ratio flips. then core would be 0.0005btc per tx on a full block (based on current proposed blocksize) cash would be 0.00003bch per tx on a full block (based on current proposed blocksize) |
|
|
|
Ver threw is toys out of the pram then spat out his dummy and created Bcash because he thought by virtue of him being a whale he could control Bitcoin.
you are so amusing ver didnt even create cash you are well and truly stuck reading the propaganda scripts and just copy/pasting junk BLOQ made bitcoin cash atleast do some research. oh and research is not reading reddit. anyway you love scripts so much and you make people laugh with all the trip-ups you make. im guessing your day job is a comedian anyways. have a nice time on the comedy stage. but in no way will you ever star in a documentary. who is roger ver?
just a social drama face used to provoke debate and distract people from the real critical things happening. he didnt code any node is just part of a finger pointing campaign to reverse psych people into wanting to hand core and thus barry silbert the control they want |
|
|
|
No need to try to get all technical with me. In a nutshell, a minority of sheep being huddled along believe Bcash is Bitcoin
lol you are just repeating the reddit drama script. you cant even see the wider picture. the bitcoin cash deception instigated by barry silbert paid individuals is all ust social drama of illsion and finger pointing to try getting the community to say dont let X have it because it should belong to Y lete me explain this to you in terms you might understand when you were born. your parents did not sign a birth certificate for you. so technically you had no parents and no one was a guardian/custodian of you. you had no surname. you could live in anyones house.. later on you decided to live in the core household that was being financed by the barry silber family. although you had visits with other houses many people started calling certain people your mum and dad your parents later on didnt want you to be a free person with no one controlling you. you were a rebel and knew the people you called mum and dad couldnt do anything your mum and dad will still share a bed, and both will still get the same income and live in the same house. but they decide to do some fake drama campaign by dividing the house where your mummy and daddy decided one day to split up. so that the courts would be forced to decide on a parent to become your responsibility. and you would finally be registered to someone as your custodian/guardian they knew that neither by default gets custody of you via an amicable divorse. they are both equal divisions of you. but then your still not registered to a single custodian. you would still be free with no surname so everyone, neighbours, friends and others around hoped things can be amicable and doesnt cause chaos for you and that when people want to talk to your family. they simply ask mummies side or daddies side. but instead. mummy and daddy secretly agreed before the divorse to play some drama and be hypocrits and play games to point fingers in one direction so atleast daddy gets custody of you. so mummy decides to act nuts and shouts out that your her child and only hers. she even says that she gave birth to you and has a trust that was set up of a large sum of money that proves ownership of you. daddy pretends that he wa always around and as you turned into a teen he took over bringing you up and so he deserves the responsibility... mummy =cash daddy= core your future surname=barry-silbert you=bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
you have no original thought you are just copy and pasting the same words. but fail to answer the questions
you do know what a bilateral split is.
and why its different to a unilateral split
you can try to deny the bilateral split. but thats just you. because the devs of both cash and core have publicly admitted a bilateral split occured
as of august both core and cash differ to the protocol rules, differ to the block structure, differ to the transaction types available, differ to the network typology of what was bitcoin 2009-2016
now try and answer with a post that does not contain any content that has been copy and pasted. go on try having an original thought and some research which you have then processed and can mention in your own words
|
|
|
|
can theymos say that bitcoin core protocol is "bitcoin" Apart from pro-Ver and pro-Bitcoin Cash propagators nobody calls "Bitcoin" by the name of "Bitcoin Core". There is no "Bitcoin Core", there is Bitcoin and then there are forks containing the name such as Bitcoin Atom, Bitcoin Gold, Bcash etc thats the hyposcrisy though.. ver says there is no bitcoin cash there is only bitcoin YOU say there is no bitcoin core there is only bitcoin and who maintains what you call "bitcoin".. hopefully you wont say that core maintains it hopefully you wont say that core is the reference client hopefully you wont say that core are literally the core/engine of the network but if you think that core are the maiintainers then you like theymos are declaring that core is bitcoin... which is the same hypocrisy describe what "bitcoin" is at a protocol level. EG what features and who coded those features. i bet you cant say its the random community of multiple different node client teams if you were brutally honest with yourself |
|
|
|
.....
maybe you should look into the handshaking preferences of Fibre and the DNS seeds. do you know why core demanded other nodes to change their versionbits and their id.. ill leave you to investigate also ask yourself with only 35% of the network running cores most up to dat version.. how did core start rejecting 65% of the rest ill leave you to investigate and yes trying to run a node by spoofing as a core client just to get acceptance, core treat as an attack. yet its core that have put up the barrier to stop other nodes just joining in The hole Roger dug himself into was thinking he can decide what bitcoin is. That's not how it works.
the thing is. reverse psychology your own statement can theymos say that bitcoin core protocol is "bitcoin" the truth is that theymos promoting core is the exact same argument as ver promoting cash. to me its jsut far easier to avoid any debate, argument, misinterpretation and issues by saying when someone asks for bitcoin. you reply cash or core much like when someone asks for dollar you ask US or canadian |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
