Bitcoin Forum
January 26, 2020, 05:42:44 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 ... 873 »
5501  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lets make Bitcoin with SegWit on: March 24, 2017, 01:51:12 PM
we are not the one that decide(unless oyu are a miners), segwit or BU is only in the hand of miners and exchange that can force miners to choose path instead of another, especially investors who in the end are the one that buy bitcoin

consensus mechaninc is there for a reason, but it would have been better if it was extended to nodes too, i don't like how full node are almost pointless as they ar enow...

for core nodes are useless to veto segwit.
but other proposals and other implementations. nodes do have consensus power. this is why dynamics and other base block proposals have not set deadlines, but waited for node consensus.. 2 years on and no deadlines/threats.


dont be sold into the "nodes are not important ever"..
take for instance if a pool did try to make a block over 1mb..
Quote
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)
3 seconds and its in the trash, no harm, no foul, no network drama due to no consensus by nodes (only social drama by trolls)

nodes are important.. just core nodes cant vote or decline on segwit
5502  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Let's assume I'm a moron...explain Bitcoin unlimited. on: March 24, 2017, 01:47:09 PM
Frankie,

you do realize we're mostly talking to shills and zombies right?

yea but they have be corrected or they will continue their cabin fever rhetorical scripts until they get their blockstream corporate closed network of only blockstream kings on the top TIER
5503  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Let's assume I'm a moron...explain Bitcoin unlimited. on: March 24, 2017, 01:45:39 PM
The Tale Of Bitcoin
CORE : Well.. every time we introduce SPV, prunned, no witness nodes. and introduce a TIER filtered network. we have PROOF that the number of FULL nodes decreases.

And this is how Bitcoin died sweetie.  Lol... This was good
summarised and FTFY
5504  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Let's assume I'm a moron...explain Bitcoin unlimited. on: March 24, 2017, 01:38:45 PM
its not an alt coin.  BU is an implemtnation of bitcoin.  it allows emergent consensus on blocksize. If a majority of hashpower forms consensus and some miners try to make a minority fork, the majority fork will be BU but its not seperat right now. you cannot buy "BTU" except as bogus futures contracts.

I remember people saying the exact same things about Bitcoin XT two years ago, and if I remember correctly, you were one of them. Folks on this board were incredibly adamant about making the point that their fork wasn't just another altcoin, but in reality that's exactly what it became.

This is just another such project hoping to capitalize off the success of bitcoin. It even borrowed its name.

I'm not saying BTC will be the digital currency that most people settle on in the future. Perhaps increasing block size isn't such a bad idea. But this is clearly just another attempt to hijack bitcoin's fame. One of many past and many to come.

*I also forgot about Bitcoin Classic...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Classic

bitcoin is a decentralised and open network of MANY implementations.

bitcoin implementations can be wrote in many languages too
but they all have to run on the bitcoin network to be part of bitcoin.

core did not invent bitcoin
no one owns bitcoin.

core came around in 2013 and then the main devs of the core implementation incorporated in 2014.

do not assume core owns bitcoin or you are already calling bitcoins open decentralised ethos non-existent anymore.

as for those saying xt, classic and bu, bitcoinj and others are altcoins or desiring to cause drama/split the network.. funny part is they are all still running on bitcoin now, made no threats made no demands to change the mining algo..

but core have. core have bypassed community node votes by intentionally going soft and giving pools the only vote and now core is shifting the blame of no community vote to somehow be pools fault.
cores proposal have not let nature take its course of acceptance or not... core have included network splitting code and even worse , they have made threats for pools to accept core as centralised leader or get attacked..
but then tried pointing the finger like its the diverse networks fault for core to need to nuke the network.

meanwhile bitcoinj, bu, xt, classic btcd, bitcoin ruby and several other implementations just keep running and being a voluntary no deadline option to keep the network decentralised.

in short. its core that has the big red nuclear button should core not get their centralised TIER network they are begging to get. but they really want to blame someone else for having to press the button, to play the victim card
5505  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lets make Bitcoin with SegWit on: March 24, 2017, 01:16:11 PM
all coblee needs to do is get a merchants API and litecoin acceptance on coinbase. and then bitpay.

then blockstream can go play with their segwit and have their change of mining algo(litecoinscrypt) desires of their separation alt creation thoughts met. without needing any ban hammers or threats.... by blockstream jumping to litecoin and leaving bitcoin alone

oh look 1 day ago litecoin on GDAX...
.. it has begun


and bitcoin can go back to being diverse open and independent consensus of multiple implementations and that includes core devs that dont kiss blockstream/DCG ass who may actually want to be part of bitcoins diverse PEER ethos

Bla Bla Bla, here we have super troll Franky1 with his daily FUD again. How much do you get paid from Roger? He pays you with his Dash stack, right?


i dont get paid by roger or anyone related to any bitcoin implementation.
my opinions and thoughts are my own.

kind of funny how i said core (minus blockstream) can happily stay with bitcoin, but blockstream should go jump off to litecoin.. because it reveals your defending blockstream, not bitcoin, not independent devs by you getting emotional about my opinion

P.S i dont get paid to troll. my income has nothing to do with my opinion or comments here. i dont even have a sig campaign.
but to wear your shoes i could say about you and others getting gmaxwells zcash and monero and part of his $70m debt notes
5506  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lets make Bitcoin with SegWit on: March 24, 2017, 12:46:36 PM
all coblee needs to do is get a merchants API and litecoin acceptance on coinbase. and then bitpay.

then blockstream can go play with their segwit and have their change of mining algo(litecoinscrypt) desires of their separation alt creation thoughts met. without needing any ban hammers or threats.... by blockstream jumping to litecoin and leaving bitcoin alone

oh look 1 day ago litecoin on GDAX...
.. it has begun
edit: http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-receives-approval-trade-ether-litecoin-new-york/
added link because some will think its fud


and bitcoin can go back to being diverse open and independent consensus of multiple implementations and that includes core devs that dont kiss blockstream/DCG ass who may actually want to be part of bitcoins diverse PEER ethos
5507  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Peter R's talk at Coinbase -- yes they will 51% attack the minority chain! on: March 24, 2017, 12:20:08 PM
Yes,either the miners would leave BU due to low profitability or they would try to attack original chain to make them switch to BU.I hope probably the second condition would occur and if it happens,it would be the time to change the hashing algorithms and it would be interesting to see the selfish miners suffer.

sorry to burst your bubble but its core doing all the threats and blackmails, and subverting nodes
5508  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Peter R's talk at Coinbase -- yes they will 51% attack the minority chain! on: March 24, 2017, 11:32:24 AM
LOL.. it must be tiring fighting ALL the time Franky.

Anyway, if you don't think that BITCOIN, as a 'thing' is worth 20BILLION in jobs, business's, R+D, speculation etc etc.. let alone the simple total coins*price metric.. we're using different versions of Bitcoin.. oh.. wait a sec..

well when the dozen main core devs are being paid in fiat. and their 100 spell checkers are volunteers. you cant try twisting that into how your  kingdom, thats only a corner of bitcoin is worth billions.. their debt shows its only worth $70m for their corner.

then the exchanges, their financial reports of actual holdings is not that much.

yea alot of VC money may add up. but you have to realise thats all FIAT DEBT
and a secondary market/value/thing that is not linked to the "market cap" calculation in any way

i lov bitcoin and i understand it much better than most. but i am a realist. there is no point exaggerating the numbers, over promising and using twist sales pitches followed by algo changing threats..

bitcoin is much better than fiat in many ways. but there is no need to centralise it into a Core Tier network to kiss fiat VC ass. using scripts, hidden agenda's and half promise empty gestures

bitcoin should remain decentralised and that means let the nodes vote. not the devs.
devs can move onto other projects, get old and retire, companies can change policies, and stop accepting a coin (circle for instance) so we need to think about what the community want.. not the corporate army of devs that are only temporary
5509  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are blocks really full? (let's have a serious discussion) on: March 24, 2017, 11:00:53 AM
No, they are being spammed by miners in the antpool who support Bitcoin Unlimited and they are being paid by Roger Ver (owner of bitcoin.com/bitcoin's angel of death) and Jihan Wu. (bitmain ceo) Those 2 are the ISIS of the bitcoin world. They are malicious to bitcoin.

so says the core script writers pointing the fingers in the other direction..

but remember core gave pools the vote for segwit.. but pools are not ass kissers.

secondly BU and other dynamic implementation has been around for 2 years, has no deadlines, made no threats. and has no active ban hammer/change algo blackmailing code. they are just waiting for consensus

if the intent of dynamics was to split. they would have already. Gmaxwell even offered the option.. everyone laughed at gmaxwell
5510  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are blocks really full? (let's have a serious discussion) on: March 24, 2017, 10:34:51 AM
even if you take away the obvious 'respend every block' tx's

there is still an underlying demand of mempool that has for the majority been over the 1mb capacity.

even funnier and most revealing.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count?timespan=1year

look at the spikes in june/july of 2016
then how more frequent escalated of spikes from october/november 2016 onwards.

then wonder what 2 events would warrant making the community think something needs to be RUSHED due to spam.

oh yea the core updates.. (june/july CSV)  (october/november segwit)
5511  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Peter R's talk at Coinbase -- yes they will 51% attack the minority chain! on: March 24, 2017, 10:16:21 AM
(If nothing else we'll learn a lot from the experience, a $20Billion lesson.. better be good)

there is no $16B-$20B dollars!

thats the speculative bubble number based on a few thousand coins being stired around in exchanges to have a $1000 'price' and the multiplying it by 16m

there are not 16-20 billion actual dollars sitting in bank accounts.
i can make an altcoin tomorrow with 5,000,000,000,000 premined coins. get just 1 coin onto an exchange and sell it to myself for $1.. and instantly have a $5trillion market cap.

so stop talking about the speculative bubble number.. its meaningless. all the holders of the 16m coins of bitcoin are not promised or guaranteed $1000 if they all cashed out today. its not a 'valuation' .. its a bubble number of multiplication
5512  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin’s Final Obituary? on: March 24, 2017, 09:50:02 AM
guys.
you have been fed a script of hidden meaning. where by soft vs hard has been pushed out as softs best case scenario and hard's worse case scenario. and treated as if thats the only 2 options.

what you dont realise is soft can also cause splits. and hard can also keep the chain united.

for clarity

soft and hard is simply:
soft: pool only vote
hard: nodes and pools vote

below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains



core do have network splitting code in thir bip9 soft activation
here is their lord speak of such
BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% [A] under the old approach.  basically when it activates, the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

[A] basically leading to core centralism of 100% control by core


P.S
those thinking "china control bitcoin".
1. it was cor that gave pools the vote. bypassing user voting privilege. so dont blame the pools.
2. also not as many pools as you may think or as much hashpower as you may think is in control of china
3. if your still wanting to blame china. please stop watching fox news to lower your racial tendencies hypnotised into you. and stop reading reddit to not be fooled into the misdirects of core blaming everyone else, bar themselves
5513  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: When will SegWit activated, considering BU nodes is a very small number now? on: March 24, 2017, 09:28:51 AM
dynamic implementations know 51% is the out right minimum hashrate. but they know the node count more is crucial. thats why they are waiting for consensus and not rocking the boat with deadlines/threats. only core have mentioned the ban hammer tools of blackmail. (lowered bip9 bans threashold, UASF and mining algo changes) no one else.

dynamic implementations have just plodded along waiting to let the community naturally decide. no harm no foul no desire to split away from the peer network, or they would have done so over the last 2 years.

segwit bypassed the peer node count (for many centralist TIER reasons) intentionally giving the pools the only vote, st deadlines, made threats.

segwit should be asking the 74% no/abstainers why they are saying no/abstaining and tweak segwit to accommodate the wishes of the majority. not get all emotional with blaming pools for not kissing ass or segwit threaten the pools.


it is funny how segwit said they went soft to avoid a 5% node splitting risk as their excuse for not giving nodes a vote in their TIER network concept.

but now willing to throw the blackmailing ban hammers and mining change algos guaranteeing a worse split if the pools dont kiss segwit ass..

for entertainment purposes only: (enjoy the chuckle)
with all the ban hammer talk, the lightning and thunder talk, the wanting to be bitcoin gods. they should rename themselves THOR and call their sidechains, the 'byfrost' because they seem to be playing by some script.. so they might aswell use a script that already exists
5514  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi Economic Missteps? on: March 23, 2017, 10:21:30 PM
within the first few paragraphs... the author lost the plot

"Bitcoin is the top cryptocurrency valued at $16 Billion"
 i laughed
a. there are no $16billion sitting in bank accounts backing up bitcoin
b. bitcoins individual price is not based on 16 mill coins being sold either.
c. the exchange rate is based on only a few thousands coins loaded on an exchange and re-circulated by day traders

in short the author thinking bitcoin is valued at $16B.. is an economics failure.. thats a speculative bubble valuation based on multiplying an average of a small subset of the market..

so i didnt bother reading after that.

edit: screw it i thought id read a little more.. dang the very next line.. and he lost the plot again

"Bitcoin’s percentage value relative to other cryptocurrencies is gradually falling over time"

a. i can make an altcoin right now that has 5,000,000,000,000 coins.. and i can sell just 1 coin for $1. and instantly have it valued at $5 TRILLION, due to how the author believes bitcoin is "valued".. thus i could tank the markets just spending $1 on my alt... lol
5515  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why not treat Core/Blockstream Lightning/Segwit like an Alt? on: March 23, 2017, 09:37:04 PM
already have. Those lines of codes are to fix Transaction malleability. Do you agree that needs to fixed? IF so, what is BU doing about it?

segwit fixes tx malleability..?..?.  im laughing

p.s.
people need to voluntarily move funds to new keypairs to disarm their own funds and own signatures from being used in a malleated tx.

malicious users will stick to native tx's and continue doing malleated tx's = problem not solved or fixed

even funnier.. LN doesnt need it..
the simple fact that in a LN. its a 2 co-signer multisig.

each co signer sees the stripped tx and signs it. they can check and double check the tx and see if its malleated.
and if it happens to slip through..

the innocent party is not then going to agree to sign a second non malleated tx just so the malicious person can double spend.
thus LN, just by being a co-signer, double check concept.. mitigates malleability.
5516  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why not treat Core/Blockstream Lightning/Segwit like an Alt? on: March 23, 2017, 09:30:27 PM
But it DOES mean to expect 1109 blocks for A and 907 block for B, it is just that
since luck is involved it will be close to those numbers. Could be 1078/938, or 1176/840
or whatever, but it will always tend down to "1109/907" though.
nope its not that predictable

ok


antpool has 565peta 20
slushpool 207peta 12
bitfury has 350peta 12
btc.top has 232peta11
f2pool has 428peta 11

as you can see based on hash power you would expect f2pool to be nearer to 17 not 11
and slush should be nearer 10 not 12

I think the issue is that on the AVERAGE it IS linear. But in real time at any given moment,
it could be anything, even 2015/1. Your comments ignore mining through time, right?
And that is why we have a misunderstanding?

But, the addition of B,C,D will effect Pool A's work after the next difficultly adjustment.
The newly adjustment difficultly will make Pool A's 500petas weaker than the prior difficulty.
difficulty is not adjust by hashrate... just time it took for 2016 blocks..
EG i could make 1 million pools all with say 20peta each... knowing over 2 weeks they have not solved a block.

and have no actual bearing on the speed the other pools make blocks
the difficult wont change differently if im just running them pools or not.. they have no impact on other pools. even if there is now an extra 20mill pta "network hash"

.
how the difficulty is measured,
imagine its measured over 4 blocks(simple maths)
if block A was made in 9:30
if block B was made in 9:30
if block C was made in 9:30
if block D was made in 9:30

then the difficulty would say that they were made ~5% too fast. so adjust 5% more harder difficulty is implied (technically 10% to counter the 5% gain already made vs the 4 blocks yet to come that need to be 10:30.. to hopefully average the 8 blocks 10:00

remember block A solution was from ONE pools work using only that pools hash, no other pool helped.
remember block B solution was from ONE pools work using only that pools hash, no other pool helped.
remember block C solution was from ONE pools work using only that pools hash, no other pool helped.
remember block D solution was from ONE pools work using only that pools hash, no other pool helped.

I understand that. I just don't undesatnd why you would say that Pool A could still get
2016 when more pools enter that are close to their hash power. In thoery, over time
and averaged Pool A should not be able to get close to 2016 blocks, and should lose
more so tend down to an average around 504 block. It might be 623/539/445/409.
But, 623/539/445/409 should average to 504 for Pool A. Anything over 504 is luck
(ignoring that Pool A has a few petas more than B,C,D, I state this in general).
So am I correct here or am I still misunderstanding what you are intending to mean?

in theory maybe. but other things are in play too.
more blocks could have been solved by antpool more often or even by any pool more often but it gets orphaned off and seconds later something else is there taking the glory.
pools cold take advantage of spv/empty block mining to get a few seconds advantage (this actually helps more than pure hashrate)
also by rlaying the block out faster can shave off time compared to trying to hash a few seconds to take the glory

oh and umm.. right now there are way MORE than 20 pools.. but you dont see them as they dont get to be seconds faster then some pools.
thus the actual "network hashrate" is bigger then you think
5517  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why not treat Core/Blockstream Lightning/Segwit like an Alt? on: March 23, 2017, 08:30:49 PM
Oh!. Thank you Mr. Jonald for clearing that out. My friends are also getting worried when we are talking about this.
 I think there will be a big dump if this questions like this will not be answered correctly or simply to where some investors could understand it. Even small holders should know this.

just to add.
dont hold your coins in an exchange/third party service.

use a wallet where you own the private key.
coins are in laymans terms attached to the private key soif you import that key into whatever client there is. you have the coins.

if you just have them on an exchange. that exchange may decide not to give you the other split side because you only deposited on one side.(even before an activation)

so keep them off an exchange and you can then have freedom of choice no matter what happens
5518  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why not treat Core/Blockstream Lightning/Segwit like an Alt? on: March 23, 2017, 08:24:27 PM
So if BU wins will our bitcoin now will have no value anymore? So should we sell to buy BU?
Trying to understand from an average person's point of view and a level of mind. Please understand I am not into mining.

infact the exchange announcement of naming BU an alt if core pull a contentious trigger. is meaningless in regards to the naming...
by admitting they will accept the coin (no matter what exchanges name it) means the coins have utility.(they are spendable)

what would have been different is if the announcement would of said.. no matter what they would only accept core. then the dynamic implementations wont have much utility.



i know your looking for a economics answer of BUY X sell Y.. but no one can predict future speculation without a time machine
5519  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why not treat Core/Blockstream Lightning/Segwit like an Alt? on: March 23, 2017, 07:42:34 PM
I understand this, but did I contradict this in a prior statement?

But, you do agree that there are "different pools doing their OWN work. competing
against each other" but their independent correct answers is based on the prior 2016
block collective, that is used for difficultly to scale back to a 10 minute average, right?

So for example, if a pool 1 has 99% hash and pool 2 has 1% hash of the total network
hash, and Pool 1 (99%) "drops off" the network, Pool 2 (1%) is still trying to find the
10 minute average block based on a nonce/difficultly that accounts for the total
network hash prior to the Pool1 (99%) "drop off". So Pool 2 has no competition
and they will "always find the blocks first now", but it will take them much longer
on average to find the blocks in general.

In the above para, if Pool 1 (99%) dropped off, then it will take Pool 2 (1%) about
144 days in order to make 144 blocks (1 block per 24h). To get to the difficultly
adjustment, it would take at maximum 2016 days, which is 5.5 years.

Are we in agreement, or am I still missing your point?

the 2016 blocks has nothing much to do with hashrate.

for instance.
pool A could have 500petahash and pool B has 480peta - not that important to state this and you will see why

this would give A a few second advantage..
however. this does NOT mean expect 1109 blocks for A...... 907 for pool B
infact
pool A could be lucky enough that EVERY block which A makes is just 2 seconds faster than pool B
meaning

A gets ALL 2016 blocks.

then if there was a split.
they are both making blocks at nearly the same times on 2 chains. yet the activation 2016 blockcount says that A has 100% power..

it does not mean that because A has 100% block winning that B will take hours to make blocks.


as for the network hash rate

now imagine there was pool C with 480peta
and imagine there was pool D with 480peta

this changes nothing for pool A. pool A still does the same work at the same time with the same 500peta.

but B,C,D are all just unlucky.

the network hashrate going from 980peta to 1,940peta again does not affect pool A's work in the slightest.

all it means is now there are 3 competitors agains A so A may not always get so lucky.
but again this does not mean suddenly A is only making ~500 blocks.. A could still get all 2016.

this is what has been known since 2012 as the risks of a 51% attack. where one pool just has the little edge against the rest to be able to potentially control all the blocks produced.
5520  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 23, 2017, 07:30:48 PM
Could some joker jump the gun and start producing/mining SegWit blocks before Flag Day?  Would they be rejected?

Again, my apologies for asking dumb questions.

the funny thing is that segwit meant to be soooo backward compatible that it would be accepted.
yet they need deadlines.
makes me wonder why...

i also said to gmaxwell to instill some confidence by asking their partner BTCC to go make a segwit block and include a segwit tx within that block and see if it is acceptable.. worse case is its rejected and even worse case they could use part of thier $70m to pay BTCC $12.5k to say sorry for wasting their time for making a orphan

if it doesnt orphan. then it would give confidence.... strange thing is they are not explaining why such a backward compatible block actually needs a deadline before being made.

but very funny non the last seeing all the promise become empty
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 ... 873 »
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!