Bitcoin Forum
January 27, 2020, 05:51:25 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 [271] 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 ... 874 »
5401  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What would be bitcoin's final obituary? on: March 30, 2017, 01:53:00 AM
final obituary will read:

bitcoin passed on its love and desire to its sidechain siblings, staying in their chained hearts forever.
though bitcoin locks are always there with us,
we must remember that life goes on and although node users will not feel or touch bitcoin ever again,
there will always have a memory of their bitcoin LTXO.
Jesus! do you seriously mean it? you sure a hard fork is imminent?

all the dynamic and diverse nodes want consensus of one single network of diverse peers.

core have the ban hammers. the plans to change the network into a tier network and cause the actual forks win or lose.
AND to make sidechains(altcoins) and LN(offchain networks)..

even if core become moral again by getting rid of blockstream puppet masters.. and just add a few lines of code to be on the same level playing field as the other peers. and (yep they get cake) they get to have segwit too(should they want that half gesture empty promise).. meaning a community win win..
but down the road there will be
Lightning NETWORKS
sidechain NETWORKS
emphasis on the word network.

so yes people will be spending funds on alternate networks.. but all triggered by cores intentions of what they think is best. and the fools who follow core all the way no matter what
5402  Other / Meta / Re: /r/btc / BUg propaganda spread by VIP user on: March 30, 2017, 01:41:37 AM
lol
you have no clue
seems you are scripted by billybobzorton and pereira4

1. dynamic implementations including BU. are not touching the 21mill cap.. secondly its segwit that need people to move funds to segwit keys after activation to achieve anything.

2. dynamics does not give control to miners. remember its segwit that bypassed node consensus going soft. its the blockstreamists that are shouting that nodes dont matter.. while the other dynamic groups know nodes do matter.
as proven by the 1.000250mb block that got rejected in 3 seconds without any technical drama(because NODES disagreed with a block pools made.. literally saying not yet no consensus reached)

3. having diverse nodes like bitcoinj, classic, xt, bitcoinruby, btcd and a dozen others means that if one codebase has a bug. the network continues as proven by when bu was hit the other diverse codebases continued. however if everyone was to centralise to blockstream(core). then big nasty events like the 2013 core leveldb event will happen again. which cant be mitigated or toned down due to the fact that everyone would be ALL using the same codebase
.. this is why decentralised diverse nodes are important

4. segwit have not got consensus. and its segwit with all the intolerance of decentralism code. treating anything not segwit as second tier.. they have high ban scores, bip9 uasf and Pow changes.. all to FORCE segwit into activation. blockstream dont care about consensus. going soft then going bilateral split but always skipping real consnsus in the middle.. very bad tactics.
5403  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 30, 2017, 01:08:25 AM
Frankie, aside from the current "we're not raising the 1mb" stuff, what is concerning me about LN is this:

-- Bitcoin already provides everything LN needs (correct me if i'm wrong)
-- In theory, the "everyone can connect to everyone else" would be possible, but...
-- [1]companies like Blockstream and others who are building implementations of Lightening will likely not build it that way as it would be much simpler
   for them to build a channel between themselves and each customer (hub and spoke model)
-- this creates centralization and a point of regulation

so that is concern #1.

Concern #2 is:  What happens when the next generation of coders comes along in 5 years and just builds an open source implementation of lightening
that actually DOES connect everyone to everyone else with smart lookups to find pathways to your friend and smart clients that can use permissioned
yet trustless cooperation as described in the LN paper... because you know that's coming next right?  ...so what are Blockstream and the pioneers
trying to sneak in now to make sure they stay in business in 5,10, 20 years?  I don't even know what I don't know... but I know if I was them I
would be thinking the same thing...and you've maybe hinted at some concerns.

concern#1 --[1].. hint: LN DNS seed.
located on a blockstream server containing IP's of hubs/spokes that blockstream can prioritise/handpick

concern #2
say we have
alice<>bob<>chuck<>dave
and say a 'ln payment' was just 1sat (lowest allowable amount)

for alice to pay dave. alice has to pay bob and chuck too. so it costs alice 3sats to pay dave
decentralised hop(spoke) models cost more than hub
making the whitepaper utopian dream of cheap hop(spoke) model costly because you got to pay each peer on the route.
many naive people think they will get a free sat per payment just by being on the route. and thats where all the excitement is coming from.. people thinking they finally get paid to be a node..

however knowing hop(spoke) model costs fee*hops-1. can end up being alot compared to hubs. so naturally. spenders would find the cheapest method.. leading to hubs

now imagine the hub model
               bob
                ^
                v
alice <> blockstream <> dave
                ^
                v
              chuck

now alice can pay anyone for 1 sat and blockstream are the only ones that get the fee.
blockstream can go one step further by 'pretending' to be more decentralised by making it 'appear' like a hop/spoke model

alice <> BSemployee <>blockstream <> BSemployee <> dave

now alice is back to paying 3sat and being told her payment needed to loop through 3 nodes.. but guess who owns the nodes..
this is a hub emulating a hop/spoke model.. similar to running a sybil / pool of nodes to take advantage of getting more fee's.

all because of the LN DNS seed being in the hands of blockstream

..
as for concern 2 about someone else coming in in 5..10 years with a better plan with a proper open LN DNS seed. forget it
blockstream will REKT campaign it and suggest that the DNS seed of anything not blockstream invented is prioritised in favour of the opposition (turning their own trick to sound like only the opposition are doing it even if the opposition are not. as seen already with current blockstream plans)
5404  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 30, 2017, 12:21:17 AM
I don't know how you could get "There is not really a technical issue" from what I wrote.  I think you just made that up in your head.

For the sake of clarity, I think you and many others like you chose to jump for the low-hanging fruit (bigger blocks) that pretends to be a scaling solution for Bitcoin, just because it is quick and dirty, and stands to potentially net a quick return as (stupid) people are fooled into believing the scaling issue is solved.

There is another solution (for those who believe there is a problem) that is clearly technically superior, and which is a lot more likely to allow Bitcoin to remain decentralized and retain its core value proposition.  The only way anyone can ignore that is if they just don't care.

I am sure you will disagree with the points I make above, but the technical discussion of this stuff has been beat to death here, and if you don't agree with me by now, I'm sure you never will.  I don't expect that you will stop your constant harangue against Blockstream and Core and all the evil you perceive in them.  But I hope you will at least take a second to consider what your motivations really are.

calling segwit a scaling solution.. lol
1. its a single step .. not a scale. you cant resegwit a segwit
2. its not a fix/solution. even if activated it then requires people to be in a tier network and then move funds to new keypairs..
3. the moving of funds is a half promise gesture which wont meet the promises/expectations because not everyone will move funds to disarm themselves.
4. segwit is just about letting in more "soft" changes without consensus.. in technical terms this is called opening a backdoor into bitcoin

if you think LN is a scaling solution then get your calculator out.
1. it take 3tx to open/close a channel so not everyone will see the benefits of it.
2. not everyone uses bitcoin daily. LN has a niche for things like faucets. but most are already using xapo offchain already. so not much change
3. neither LN or segwit stops spamming. by keeping the 1mb base limit nothing has made it harder for spammers.
4. if spammers stick with native keys, it limits how many segwit tx's can get in and how many LN channels are used.

read the code next time not the reddit utopian 30 second elevator sales pitch thats full of holes.
oh. i havnt even told you all the new attack vectors segwit and LN open. but ill leave that for a different topic
5405  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi talks about BU on: March 29, 2017, 11:24:10 PM
I'm pretty sure Satoshi would be against any hostile takeover of Bitcoin.

blockstreams segwit is the hostile take over.

all other implementations just plod along waiting for consensus.

blockstreams segwit has all the ban hammering bips, deadlines, mandatory activations and PoW changing algos..
wake up

blockstream did not exist prior to 2014
segwit was an altcoin and part of an elements project not bitcoin

and even the core brand didnt exist prior to 2012
wake up. core did not invent bitcoin. core are just one of many implementations.

oh and dont me me the crap that a group of devs who refuse to independently review other implementations.. are 'independent'
they jumped into their cabin in the corner so they made themselves dependant on the blockstream team leaders to lock and watch the doorways

and any time any dev tries to go independent. they are threatened with REKT campaigns
wake up
5406  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: even r/bitcoin admits, LN still requires huge blocks to scale on: March 29, 2017, 11:03:14 PM
There is so much wrong in your post.

Instead of agreeing to a 1 line of code (lets say 2mb) that everyone could have supported,
A 2 MB increase is not a single line of code; HF's are dangerous and the implications that they have on incentives such as centralization need to be factored in. Do I have to remind you about the DOS attack vector?

blockstreams idea is thousands of lines of code.. and if people dont sheep follow and pass the network to blockstream as the upper tier.. then.. guess what something worse than hard consensus..
blockstream want to pull the mining nuclear bomb and make it mandatory to use segwit..
thus still avoiding hard consensus and moving straight to a hard split.

come on lauda.. even you should be able to see the truth that blockstream are pulling the strings

going soft to avoid community node (hard) consensus, then going PoW heavy again to avoid node consensus.

yes by even trying to then go super over the top PoW change and mandatory activation is still avoiding community consensus.

wake up. get that blockstream defender hat off your head and burn it.. put a logical hat on and think about decentralised bitcoin.
stop thinking of things through the butcheeks of blockstream

please for once in a year be unbiased and logical about bitcoins ethos of diverse decentralised open network

wake the hell up
5407  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: even r/bitcoin admits, LN still requires huge blocks to scale on: March 29, 2017, 02:32:08 PM
Poor Franky1, another day spewing out his daily FUD. How much are you going to earn today with all that trolling? Dont you got nothing better to do than sitting behind youre pc with youre fat ass making troll post after troll post? Youre noob ass will be raped at Github when they see all this bullshit.

all i hear is whistles in the wind
5408  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: even r/bitcoin admits, LN still requires huge blocks to scale on: March 29, 2017, 01:34:34 PM
If ver bu corruption was gone, we could have nice things

if you stop reading reddit for bitcoin information
if you stop watching FOX for world information.

and instead only look for the source information, you will have nice facts
5409  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: even r/bitcoin admits, LN still requires huge blocks to scale on: March 29, 2017, 01:32:11 PM
LN isn't permissioned in the sense you need a third party -- you just need a second party (the one you are transacting with).
LN pretends to be permissionless by saying about no third party(word play).. but LN hides the requirement of 2nd party(again word play).

funny part is. LN is permissioned.. even without a 3rd party 'bank'.. they try to trivialise 2nd party
try to put $100 into your spouses handbag. and then knowing you need her agreement to move it. is needing her permission.
if you ever had a dual bank account with a partner you know arguments erupt when you want to buy another woman some jewellery but need your wifes signature.

But Frankie, do you know of any good articles that explain how the 'i won't have to open a channel with everyone else' problem
is actually solved (presumably with decrementing timelocks?)   The white paper is fairly vague.

there are many LN concepts.
several called lightning, and others called things like thunder, flare etc. all with different mechanisms.

at the moment the concepts are changing and finding new ways of working due to many attack/blackmail/internal contract squabbling that can occur to break contracts

id say there isnt really an upto date paper thats articulate and finalised. even now the LN devs are hating HTLC and preferring to go the route of schnorr+other mechanism
5410  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What would be bitcoin's final obituary? on: March 29, 2017, 12:57:19 PM
final obituary will read:

bitcoin passed on its love and desire to its sidechain siblings, staying in their chained hearts forever.
though bitcoin locks are always there with us,
we must remember that life goes on and although node users will not feel or touch bitcoin ever again,
there will always have a memory of their bitcoin LTXO.
5411  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 29, 2017, 12:46:10 PM
to add to Alex.btc point.

does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to disarm themselves by using segwit keypairs.. nope they wont
does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to lock into a channel just to spam offchain.. nope they wont.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block.. then forget segwit tx's mitigating that because if a segwit cant get its tx data into the baseblock it cant get its signature sat outside the baseblock.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block..then a LN channel cant gt its deposit/close channel tx into the baseblock.

segwit and LN do not kill spammers. they only move innocent volunteers data away from the baseblock partially or fully.

Most of the FukWit shills don't even know how FukWit works themselves, because that piece of shit is 50000 lines long, changes everything and haven't even been fucking tested in the real world yet.

yep.
analogy:
much like them saying ethereum has been "tested thoroughly" for  years on its own networks
but try dropping ethereum keypairs and ethereum block formations and new scripts into bitcoin by november.
along with the TIER network of upstream filter node..goodluck

oh and trying to get 46mill UTXO's to spend and move funds to segwit keys just to try getting the "fixes".. but as i said malicious spammers wont us segwit keys = quadratics/malleation not solved on the network. only solved by the volunteers that choose to use disarmed keypairs. who still have to fight for room amungst the armed native spammers
5412  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: luke jr's solution: make the blocks smaller on: March 29, 2017, 12:21:19 PM
Change the Block speed to 5 minutes instead of 10 , you double the transaction capacity without touching the blocksize.

to change the 'blockspeed'. is not just a few lines of code..it requires:
changing the reward per block
difficulty formulae
retarget period
block halving schedule
etc.

it effects many other things, like:
propagations times
tweaking reward unsettles peoples minds of the rarity/fixed release of new coins. not being as fixed as first thought.
and of course 5minutes is no better than 10minutes in reality of the "waiting at a grocery checkout aisle"

and still requires a full NODE and pool consensus. so its not going to be any less hassle of a consensus achieving event, it will actually be more hassle

however just moving the blocksize alone is less issues.
5413  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 29, 2017, 12:10:44 PM
to add to Alex.btc point.

does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to disarm themselves by using segwit keypairs.. nope they wont
does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to lock into a channel just to spam offchain.. nope they wont.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block.. then forget segwit tx's mitigating that because if a segwit cant get its tx data into the baseblock it cant get its signature sat outside the baseblock.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block..then a LN channel cant gt its deposit/close channel tx into the baseblock.

segwit and LN do not kill spammers. they only move innocent volunteers data away from the baseblock partially or fully.
5414  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: even r/bitcoin admits, LN still requires huge blocks to scale on: March 29, 2017, 11:31:37 AM
2mb blocks = 4000tx~  yep i agree with that..(if it was 2mb baseblock or 2mb of users using segwit keys with a 1mb baseblock ((2mb weight)))
but then the maths gets funky

over a year. (144blocks * 365=52560blocks)
4000tx * 52560 blocks = 210,240,000tx a year

knowing that a channel is 2 party (2 people deposit their funds to co-sign) means to have a channel, 2 deposit tx's and one combined withdrawal tx. thats 3 onchain tx's for 2 people

knowing most users will have ~2 channels+ to be part of the routing system
it is not just 3 onchain tx's for 2 people.. but average 6 onchain tx's used to set up the LN routing

so lets just round it to 3tx's per person just to keep the variables simple

so at 2mb blocks with a 1 year locktime thats=70,080,000 users
20mb blocks with a 1 year locktime thats=700,800,000 users
200mb blocks with a 1 year locktime thats=7,008,000,000 users

the funky things to think about.
who would be able to survive a year by instead going with just rusty russels LN's pre-set ~$60 allowable suggested deposit.
-end result people close and open more channels per year to refresh their deposits.
or
who would willingly lock in their whole hoard for a year just to avoid the fortnightly utility of ~$60
-end result people close and open more channels per year to refresh their deposits.

its suggested a 2 week lock for $60 average safe spend. thus countering debates of
whole hoards for a year locked into permissioned 'accounts'
or
whole year with only $60 locked into permissioned 'accounts'
(remember you need other party to co-sign, so dont pretend its permissionless)

meaning 200mb blocks(year) *26(fortnight) = 5.2gb blocks for 2week locktimes for 7bill people
or at this years ~2mb per fortnight = 2,695,384 users



this is why even LN is not the "visa by midnight" solution.
because 2week locks=2.6m users at 2mb blocks or 7bill users at 5.2gb blocks
because 1year locks=70m users at 2mb blocks or 7bill users at 200mb blocks


this is where once segwit is activated and people see not everyone is using segwit keys to achieve the 4000-4500tx estimate
(which actually makes the LN numbers worse than the numbers i emboldened)
where LN wont achieve more than 2.6mill users for 2mb blocks with a 2week locktime..

those cough decision makers cough
next will be promoting sidechains(altcoins) as the real "visa" by midnight.
where peoples hoards are permanently moved and locked into a sidechain of 1:1 value so they never need to open close on bitcoins mainnet.
because they will be opening and closing on other altcoins (sidechains)

P.S people wont lock funds into LN because it is (sorry to burst bubble) permissioned (required counter party online/active to co-sign)

thus leading to... yep hyper ledger..of multiple chains, making bitcoin useless by being blocked by all the locking tx's moving funds to other altcoins.
and the excessive weight of UTXO of 7billion people making it undesirable to be a node for bitcoin. especially if your not using bitcoin because your on a altcoin(sidechain)





5415  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 02:42:28 AM
How can you sue if the people making the changes have 0 control over what the users choose to use going forward?

Sounds like someone is worried about their business model going forward. Who can blame them...but threatening to sue on those grounds is going to be one of a kind.

if luke just made a gun.. fine.. random people buy and gun and do what they want with it. or just dont use a gun.. luke cant be held responsible.

but if luke made a gun
whereby luke made it target only .. lets say children.
and luke publicly announced he wanted kids to die
and luke publicly announced a deadline of when the gun should be used by...

then luke becomes accountable
5416  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 02:32:36 AM
I am surprised at the guys commenting on this asinine thread.  You all know that the PoW will never be changed.  So why argue such a stupid hypothetical?  You guys bored with the BU segwit debate?
...
so bored of trying to argue with the redditors who make 20 bitcointalk user names to hide behind just to repeat the same scripts that an implementation that has been plodding away without threats for 2 years is suddenly the threat.. ...

I hope you aren't referring to me Franky, that is pretty cheap and not very gentlemanly.
I do not post or go to reddit and any mod (go get theymos), to check how many accounts
I have that I post from. The answer is one, this one.

Since you are accusing me of such an action, I assume that is what you yourself is doing here.

lol actually agentofcoin in many ways i admire you for sticking to one name
i actually see that you are open minded to learn.

the bit about the "20 bitcointalk user names to hide behind" are the usual BTU is an alt trolls that pop up. that cannot actually rebuttle simple debates or lack desire to learn

though we disagree on things. i dont see you as the "usual BTU is an alt" trolls that make endless names
5417  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 02:26:19 AM
No.
If Luke has "intent to destroy bitfury" and a flashmob triggered it does it, that does not prove
in a Court of Law that Luke committed the act of "destroying bitfury". Claiming he is
an "accessory" does not work in Courts in these types of situations.
FTFY
by luke providing the reason, and the weapon.. the yes luke is involved..
much like hiring a hitman.. its not just the hitmans fault. its who orchestrated it

This isn't a bank robbery and Luke is driving the car with knowledge of the crime.

You are now arguing that Satoshi is a criminal for releasing Bitcoin, even though we
choose to use it and build a community around it. You would bring Satoshi to trial.

satoshi has nothing to do with the PoW change. thats like blaming the car..

If Luke decides to release a client version that hardforks the minority chain to a new
PoW, what is the damage?
if luke was the minority and wanted to take himself to the sidelines and make his own minority creation SHA3 then he can..

but nuking a majority simply because of spite.. that the difference.

If no one join him on this new fork, there is no damage.
The damage only occurs when individual users decided to use this new client. Luke
basically gave those users a choice to go to a new chain the same way that BU gives
users a choice at a new chain, they are equivalent under the law. if Luke's hardfork is
bad and there is liability, then the BU chain and devs is equally bad and liable under
the same legal interpretation.

you are kind of starting to grasp it.
all thats needed is to ban connecting/communicating to avoid the orphan/connection/consensus drama of 2 coins fighting..
.. but orchestrating bankrupting a business is a whole different thing
5418  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 02:04:26 AM
I am surprised at the guys commenting on this asinine thread.  You all know that the PoW will never be changed.  So why argue such a stupid hypothetical?  You guys bored with the BU segwit debate?

yep because BU has no deadlines, made no threats, so bored of trying to argue with the redditors who make 20 bitcointalk user names to hide behind just to repeat the same scripts that an implementation that has been plodding away without threats for 2 years is suddenly the threat.. and that segwit that has not even made a segwit block with a segwit tx yet, nor been running for even a year.. is the victim.. even when segwit has all the high ban scores, deadlines threats, blackmails and pointing fingers in every direction but their own.

i agree the PoW change SHOULDNT happen.
but looking at the mandatory activation code core want to put into segwit. FORCING it to activate even without consensus.. it actually shows that core devs like Luke, have the means, opportunity and motive.. and could actually trojan horse the code in softly. so it is possible
5419  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 01:59:05 AM
blah blah blah

.. my rebuttle
bot-net trojans.

hackers cant use the "well people downloaded it, blame them" defense

Listen Franky, this is one time I can ensure you that you are incorrect.
If I am wrong then all open-source software developers are liable.

You are arguing that if BU becomes the main Bitcoin protocol and it somehow fails big
time and people lose money, we will need to roll back the chain, which breaks the immunity,
or else the BU devs will be subject to the same form of liability as your are now describing.
I am telling you that whichever developer team takes over, both are protected from the
actions you are advocating.

nope
dynamics is not intending to destroy an economy. other implementations ar not intending to either.
but its public knowledge of Luk Jrs intent.

EG men have penises.. their is a chance that rapes can happen. STI's pregnancy.. etc,
but without intent to be malicious. nothing can be done.

this PoW has intent.. very clear and obvious intent/purpose

if you dont understand. some countries call it MOTIVE.

EG it makes the difference between self defence and murder.. even if the weapon or people involved dont change.
5420  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 01:46:33 AM
blah blah blah

.. my rebuttle
bot-net trojans.

hackers cant use the "well people downloaded it, blame them" defence

even if the bot-net trojan amassed a million users computers to ddos a company..
the writer and implementer of the code is responsible. not the million users that were not fully informed

anyone who was informed to allow a destructive code that had clear intents of the purpose and result of such code becomes responsible.

Pages: « 1 ... 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 [271] 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 ... 874 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!