Bitcoin Forum
January 17, 2020, 04:15:16 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 ... 872 »
5601  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: if Bitcoin HF, it will become "uninteresting" to Greg Maxwell on: March 19, 2017, 11:55:01 PM
gmaxwell loves zcash and monero
gmaxwells investor DCG loves zcash.

those fans of gmaxwell love monero and zcash

its obvious once gmaxwell screws with bitcoin to centralise bitcoin and hand it to the DCG corporation, they will move onto monero and zcash and rinse and repeat by calling them the next best dcentralised coin while slowly get those alts to fame and then centralise them too.

gmaxwell is dep in the bankers pockets and doesnt care about bitcoins decentralised ethos remaining. once centralised in 100% control of the blockstream/dcg corporation, he will pretend to do a walk away, pretending it is an act of protest., when in reality his job is complete and he is just moving onto the next phase
5602  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: You all can thank Roger Ver and Jihan Wu for crashing the market on: March 19, 2017, 11:28:54 PM
- Segwit turns BTC into an alt, a complex workaround for something that should be easy, but i agree with andreas that, it is ready now, and does not pose a risk of hard forking the network

the whole reason segwit is a soft fork and not a hard fork is to stop it from becoming an alt. it's bitcoin just as it is now but with extra fixes and the potential for masses of new applications.

they went soft to AVOID node voting.
they went soft and have bip9 that includes actively and intentionally banning pools/blocks if their activation happens to turn their 95% into 100%
they went soft and now super slitting hard with UASF that includes actively and intentionally banning pools/blocks and nodes to get their 100%

other implementations, xt, classic, bu, and others dont have active/intentional banning mechanisms.. they only activate with consensus of majority. the non-core implementations have set no deadlines, no intent to have sole control. only core want sole control

the problem that the unlimited miners seem to have is that it'll be just as it is now with that extra innovation that might cost them, even though it probably won't. still cheaper than a PoW change firing all of them.

there's uncertainty too of course. it's new code. as is the other one with alot less testing.

SW is a total re-write. new block formations, new rules new tx styles
other implementations are just tweaks. and easy to implement by anyone. but core refuse to give p their cntral control.

if you think bitcoin cannot survive without core, you are just admitting to yourself:
1. bitcoin is controlled by a group
2. bitcoins decentralised ethos has already been lost
3. bitcoin cant survive without the cartel paid for by DGC
4. that core are not independent because they refuse to walk away from their cabin fever filled corner office to independently help out anyone in bitcoin
5603  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Consequences of the hardfork? on: March 19, 2017, 10:57:50 PM
2) The most positive for BTU: BTU achieves an extremely high hashrate advantage (>90%) and is put in a position to attack the "minority chain" of Core (see the BTC.TOP statements from February), so BTU becomes the new BTC and BTC is abandoned. But I think this scenario would already do harm to Bitcoin, because it would show that an alternative implementation could "take over" the coin aggressively only with miner support. Price estimation: $400-500.

A. thinking bitcoin belongs only to core is not a bitcoin ethos of decentralisation. its a mindset of centralists. there are over a dozen different implementations that keep bitcoin diverse and open. wanting only core to run the show is already a mindset of harming bitcoin, by thinking core have control and bitcoin would fail without core...

B. pools wont just produce different blocks only once a hashrate is met. the pools actually look at the node count and ensure the blocks they produce will be acceptable to the nodes(whoever has consensus). this is what true consensus is about NODES + pools.. thus if there is a majority to trigger a consensus activation the community (nodes and pools) will be BTC. and the minority become the altcoin.
hence why even with core trying to bypass consensus and intentionally give only pools voting power. the pools are smart enough to wait it out until unofficially they see good node count..

C. if core want to pretend they are independent then why are they avoiding independence. and instead clinging hard onto one implementation of bip9 pool ban hammer code and UASF node and pool ban hammer code. yep thats right. other implementations are not setup to ban off other implementations they want to remain open and decentralised. if an activation is triggered it will be core that then press the red button of splitting the chains to keep core alive as a minority altcoin, should core not be the majority.. not the other way round.

D. the whole DCG commercial announcement of their investors calling bu BTU also state that it would do so IF core split off in a "controversial fork( split)" which knowing logic of bitcoin consensus is that if bu or any non-core imp' activates due to consensus. there is no "controversial" thing about it thus no BTU... just BTC and some other alt(logically core) which will get the rename(probably SWCoin)

E. if you look at the whole investment. EG core->blockstream -> DCG... coinbase->DCG .. and then check out all the other DCG investments
you will see that core, by putting themselves into the centralist control. they are literally spelling it out to everyone that they are the take over attempt. after all bitcoin 2009-2013 was not even called "core".

F. this should make (E) clearer
if you look at the announcement by the corporat cartel. and the guy who wrote up the announcement(coindesk editor)
https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am
then compare the names (yep blockstream is there and coindesk(the announcement publicist)
http://dcg.co/portfolio/
and then look at how much investment(now repayable debt)
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investments

things become much clearer yep blockstream and coindesk and all the big names BTCC, coinbase, bitpay, bitso, shapeshift are all in DCG pocket, owing DCG millions that need to be repaid soon..

G. DCG getting edgy to get returns flowing from LN fee's so is trying to rock the boat. however the non-core implementations have set no deadlines set no activation threshold and set no agenda to ban nodes, pools or blocks.. they will only activate if they get consensus.

H. once you read passed the reddit scripts. and look at the details. its CORE causing the drama and forcing the issue. core even removed fee lowering code to push the fee's up and then is offering the community a 'discount' bribe if people vote in cores favour.. thats how desperate they are getting.

i. the mempool spam if you check out the stats. one spam event last june/july and another beginning in october/november which has been continual. if you didnt realise these spam events occur when core need them most, to rattle the sheep into thinking core features(new bips) and (empty) promises are needed to (fail to) solve the spam they themselves create.
5604  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain Research Institute on: March 19, 2017, 04:49:40 PM
in short

group of guys doing work for the hyprledger project where members get info for a price of $200,000 entry fee.. hoping to get a total of $6m by next month to start them off..

not really about bitcoin as its just a years worth of reporting about whats the most efficient ways to use blockchain tech to make a lean hyperledger
5605  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is resistant to state control. on: March 19, 2017, 12:50:05 PM
What if some government or all the governments ban the mining hardware,not bitcoin.
Would bitcoin survive without miners?

though people think mining is all done in china.
even the "chinese" pools are spread across different countries.

so if one pool finds out it has a 'take down' order. they just load the ASICS up on a truck and move to a different factory.
only affecting a couple percent of network hash at a time. (even antpools 16% is actually spread over SEVERAL locations) and so the impact of moving asics is marginal and not going to affect block creation.

the 10min is an average so maybe it turns into 12minutes.. no one notices because its an average and not an actual real world fixed 10min anyway.

then within 48 hours those asics that are moved are then running in a new country
5606  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Antpool dedicates 75%Hashrate towards BU on: March 19, 2017, 12:21:49 PM
This has been discussed a lot in the past, and this has happened at the present time, BU has appeared and works, but it is still in development. However, it is not considered as a formal currency as BTC, it is only considered as an alt coin, and it is very hard to gain value as BTC. I have read a lot of news, there is information that the owners of BTC will be given BU with the same amount, I very much hope BU can achieve a good value so that we can invest and use.

BU and other NON-CORE nodes have no intent to bilateral split the network, they only activate with consensus of the node AND pool majority.
core however bypassed node majority and went straight for a pool majority vote,

but core DO have intent to bilateral split if core win or lose.
turning their winning 95% pools into 100% by orphaning off non segwit pool blocks using bip9.
turning their losing under 95% into 100% by orphaning off non segwit pools and non segwit nodes using UASF.

core are demanding anything not core to split off. out of fear that core do not get to be the bitcoin government.
they worry that having a diverse playground of decentralisation makes it harder for core to force LN down peoples throats to gather fee's to repay the $70m+ back.

LN can function without cores code. but core want LN to be the end solution forced onto people.. rather than just a niche side voluntary service only for those that need it.

if you look at the announcement by the exchanges. and the guy who wrote up the announcement(coindesk editor)
https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am
then compare the names
http://dcg.co/portfolio/
and then look at how much investment(now repayable debt)
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investments

things become much clearer

5607  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The man does have a point - Roger Ver on: March 19, 2017, 11:37:16 AM
Don't be fooled by this... Roger Ver is Anti-government and he will support anything that says "Fuck Government" ... They send him to jail, and I

would also be pissed off, if they have done that to me.


I'm Anti-government, there's a huge amount right with it, but Roger is a strange kind of anarchist.


Roger has been promoting all the blocksize hard fork Bitcoin coups, seemingly without realising that he's promoting the number 1 thing government and/or central banks would love: an idea to increase transaction rate that screws Bitcoin up in a way that's fairly subtle to understand. If there's one thing the soft-fascist establishment loves, it's cleverly subtle ways of tricking the public into doing something that's against the public's interests, and in the interests of the establishment.

There's nothing wrong with anarchism, unless you believe all that nonsense you see on the TV where anarchists are just angry, hateful people that secretly want to be in power themselves. It's the best check on power there could be; taking away the power of the most powerful.

lol pot calling kettle black?
blockstream  are the ones with the biased ban-score listings. the 'we will split using bip9 and UASF' on activation day or even if we dont get our way..
blockstreams investor partners DCG have even had meetings about it and announced treating anything not core an altcoin.

for an anti-government anarchist you certainly do love being governed carlton. rather than just letting bitcoins CODE consensus find its way

while all the other implementations have just been happily running for 2years+ not setting deadlines or demanding splits. and just waiting for natural and true bitcoin consensus to move things along.
5608  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The man does have a point - Roger Ver on: March 19, 2017, 11:22:07 AM
full node are meaninglesshere, why we should care if they need more money to run one? they are useless for the consensus,

they are not meaningless.. they are integral to consensus.
but core BYPASSED consensus to try sliding their half gesture under the rug. which backfired because pools wont produce anything different unless there is a majority of nodes ready to accept and not orphan what pools produce.

yep blockstream also have their fibre network pre-set up as the upstream filters as their fake gesture of confidence that pools shouldnt care about nodes because everything is routed through the FIBRE upstream filters first. but on a decentralised network, pools would rather connect to diverse nodes that accept what pools produce,(offset risk of bugs/issues of fibre/core) not be forced into routing data through a centralised gatekeeper 'filter' first. as going with FIBRE and blockstreams efforts is just setting up a TIER network not a PEER network.
5609  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The man does have a point - Roger Ver on: March 19, 2017, 10:59:13 AM
But lets not forget that another curcial difference that increasing the blocksize will make is it will increase the IBD (initial blockchain download)

But it takes the average computer DAYS to do that now, it's a non-starter until days turns into hours.


lets not forget a crucial thing. the blockchain never syncs.... every ~10minutes its always adding more data. it never stops..

secondly.
the thing that actually pee's people off is not the IBD itself but the side-effect that when they import keys they cannot see an uptodate balance for days to be able to spend their coins straight away.

a fix would be for nodes to grab an existent UTXO set from a peer(or 2 for comparison) FIRST and let the GUI run as a litenode while then making the IBD more of a background activity that doesnt delay utility.
(come on carlton you are an armory fanboy afterall, i would have thought even you would have conceived an idea that a node 'could' initially function as a litenode during the IBD time)

as for hardware
on average people upgrade their hardware every 2-5 years anyway, and telecommunications companies have a 5 year plan (fibre & 5G).
knowing that
bitcoin (pre libsecp256k1) was able to run on a raspberryPi1 ... and knowing (post  libsecp256k1 efficiency) along with a raspberryPi3 allows for alot more 'capability' (20x-60x) means that minimum hardware compared to 5 years ago has much more allowances.. so stagnating bitcoin based on tech/stats that are 5-8 years outdated becomes foolish.

do you think activation halts its Call of Duty game production based on having to get it to be compatible with 8 year old tech.. nope.
5610  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The man does have a point - Roger Ver on: March 19, 2017, 01:39:53 AM
He's risking bitcoin's stability & credibility without quantifying what type of real world gains a 2MB block size could yield.

That's like buying a refrigerator without measuring to see if it fits in your kitchen 1st.

This guy is supposed to be smart?   Undecided

no....that's like saying "don't give this guy who's choking on a piece of bread the heimlich maneuver...we really don't know what kind of 'real world gain's it might have to make sure he's able to keep breathing.

much like in 1996
"everyone dont let skype, activision, twitch, make their online platforms because dialup and 4gb hard drive limits of 1996"
much like in 2006
"everyone dont let skype, activision, twitch, make their online platforms because 1996 said it would be bad"
much like in 2016
"everyone dont let skype, activision, twitch, make their online platforms because 1996 and 2006 said it would be bad"
5611  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: You all can thank Roger Ver and Jihan Wu for crashing the market on: March 19, 2017, 01:30:23 AM
it solves quadratic problem needed to raise the blocksize properly later on and allows for cool features.

reality check...
NO it does not..

to have people only doing linear transactions. they have to move funds over to segwit keys which then disarms from those funds from quadratics.
it does not disarm the network. it just disarms the people that voluntarily move funds to segwit tx keys.

sigop spammers will not move funds to segwit keys. and segwit cannot lock out native tx's from being used, thus the sigop problem is not fixed.
native users gonna continue spamming.
5612  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: You all can thank Roger Ver and Jihan Wu for crashing the market on: March 19, 2017, 12:11:44 AM
Bitcoin doing great?  You mean only being in the hands of rich, greedy, mining farms?  how is that doing ok?  Tell me what do THEY do for bitcoin except for lining their own pockets.  Bitcoin wasn't created just so the rich could own most of it.  Control how it moves.   But go ahead and keep shoveling them money.

The greedy rich own fiat.  Now the greedy rich own Bitcoin.  is wasn't supposed to be like this.

CORE gave the pools the vote by going soft.
dont blame the pools

infact thank the pools, the majority is undecided either way and no side is winning.. because the node count is not even adequate/ready for any side.

if core went node first (to ensure users would be ready to accept what pools would produce without orphans).
then pool vote second (when they are confident that their blocks wont get orphaned.. to flag more easily for a popular proposal..)
thy would have had a better chance

its logic.

if you know ur wife is gonna kick you out if you come home with another girl on your arm.. do you still go ahead and do it.... no.
you either find out if your wife will accept an open relationship first. or you just dont bring the new girlfriend home.

you dont be foolish and show the intention to cheat and then bring the girl home hoping the wife responds positively..

core went wrong by telling the pools its ok to play around, without addressing what the wife at home may think first



secondly jihan only represents LESS THAN 16% of hashrate (not al of the 16% is his)


thirdly blaming the 45% undecided and the 15% non jihan group against segwit.. on jihan. is a laugh


sgwit only has 26%.. not 84%..
5613  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: You all can thank Roger Ver and Jihan Wu for crashing the market on: March 18, 2017, 11:48:28 PM
gets 2mb+ LOL
native key users will still bloat the bas block so that not many real users can move funds to segwit keys. then they wont be able to use those segwit keys because native base blockers are still ntive base block spamming. meaning hops of 2mb+ are low.. much like 7 years of 7txps...

ya mathematically possible to have both expectations of 2mb data and 7txps.. but reality will show that it wont get that far.
5614  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (26.8%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (32.2%) on: March 18, 2017, 11:07:45 PM
all these chats about the contingency plan. are not highlighting the main words enough

contentious hard fork

Quote
Poloniex agrees that any contentious hard fork must include replay attack protection. Without this, exchanges cannot continuously and properly operate.

knowing that dynamics wont go contentious and is and always has for the last 2 years just patiently wanted consensus. never pushing for splitting, never setting deadlines. thus showing no intent to rock the boat.

meaning if dynamics activates. they will have majority and it would be consensus not contentious. thus dynamic block prosals community will be the bitcoin. and the contentious minority that orchestrate a bilateral split to keep thir minority alive will be the altcoin. namely SWCoin
5615  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segregated Witlessness on: March 18, 2017, 10:38:01 PM
you do know even when activated core wont have a walet enabled release for people straight away...
The wallet in Bitcoin Core supports segwit (it's what most people use for testing!), it just doesn't use it by default.
USED on TESTNET, not mainnet

even the segwit guide says the wallet is not and will not be publicly available to be USED on mainnet until after activation
https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/
Quote
Upgrade Safety

End users MUST NOT be allowed to generate any P2SH-P2WPKH or other segwit addresses before segwit is fully activated on the network. Before activation, using P2SH-P2WPKH or other segwit addresses may lead to permanent fund loss
Similarly, change MUST NOT be sent to a segwit output before activation

you do know why segwit needs to be upstream filters and actively ban other non-segwit nodes from being upstream. this includes banning pools and their non segwit blocks from being added on after.

Lie. They do not ban non-segwit nodes.

stop trying to be clever with language.
It's not acceptable for the network topology to suddenly change when segwit activates--  can you imagine that? drop all your current connections and then form new ones hoping that the network can make a non-partitioned graph?-- that would be irresponsible.  Instead, it changes its connection preference at install time, so if there were any issues they could be addressed while the user is paying attention.

let me guess instead of the word "ban".. if i said at setup the segwit node has already chosen to not prefer to let a non-segwit node be the upstream, this its not a ban. its just an avoidance from even making the connection in the first place to not require banning later.

you do know why segwit will not relay segwit unconfirmed tx's to non-segwit nodes.
Lie.

let me guess due to the 'preferencial' connection at set up, the segwit node is already not connected to non-sgwit nodes to not need to worry about sending unconfirmed segwit tx's to native nodes.

...

oh and gmaxwell if all things are fine and dandy and everything is fully compatible. how about you send a segwit tx to BTCC to force into a block.. knowing that old nodes will be fine receiving the block.. Cheesy Cheesy
show the network that evrything is backward compatible.

at worse BTCC block gets rejected and you/dcg can easily repay them $13k out of the millions of investment..for a test to thank them for wasting their time if it rejects.
atleast it will show confidence in the "backward compatibility" claims and the "nothing needs to change" claims

5616  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Is mining on a gtx 1080 profitable on: March 18, 2017, 08:35:41 PM
Basically, is cost of bitcoins generated > cost of power consumption

at the moment for BITCOIN generation:  (which is what OP asked about)
antpool has 630peta hash = 48462 ASICS
and they make 30 blocks a day=375btc a day

1x 13thash asic = 0.00773802btc a day
1thash= 0.00059523btc a day
1ghash= 0.00000059btc a day

based on a few factors a gtx1080 can handle between 800mhash and 1ghash (47sat-59sat a day)
which then deminishes as time goes on due to competition from everyone else and difficulty changes every two weeks

over 2 weeks you may only get about 800sat. which over a fortnight is not even one cent for 2 weeks





5617  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Even now in 2017, why is bitcoin *still* not accepted as a major currency? on: March 18, 2017, 07:57:29 PM
Surely plenty of people did this in the last 5 years?

in my area, i can buy food pay bills and live happily on bitcoin..
.. oh wait. now i remember i been in bitcoin since 2012 and over the time I spoke to my local stores and hlped them out.

there are a few towns around the world that do have many bitcoin accepting retailers. everything from clothes, electronics, meals and snacks. etc
.. but these are because people helped the retailers set it up. either by a bitcoin being a employee of the retailer or a regular customer in most cases


unless you have many people in your town that are talking to merchants for you.. if you want something. you are going to have to ask for it yourself.
again bitcoin is just code. no legs, no arms.

it cannot get on a plane and come to your town. its something you have to do.

too many people sit their waiting for magic.
and they wait
and they wait
and they ask
"Even now in 2017, why is bitcoin *still* not accepted as a major currency?Doesn't make any sense TBH. We should've seen it starting to replace conventional currencies by now."

and they dont seem to understand that their local shop doesnt know that you want bitcoin accepted in their store because you never helped them to be able to accept it.

my advice:
do not sit there waiting for magic.

instead find out if there are other bitcoiners in your area and arrange a meetup at a bar/cafe to discus bitcoin. find out the main retailers in your area that all of you use (most popular retailers to actually benefit from accepting bitcoin due to regular customers) and then out of your group find out the most confident person who can help set things up and go to the retailer and help them.

the best successes are not to speak to managers of branches of national/international retailers as they are just glorified supervisors with no actual local power to make changes.. instead look for the non franchised independant stores where the manager does have decision power over payment methods
5618  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 18, 2017, 07:49:04 PM
waffle

your still not understanding bitcoin.
your looking at things too two-dimensionally.

users are not slaves to pools. just taking what pools hand out. users want to have a say in what is created. and thus they become nodes.
they then via majority consensus and rejecting blocks they dont like, cause pools to form a single chain (stack of bank notes) that the majority accept and are happy to use as currency.

those that object to the majority. can either stay with the network. objecting (orphaning what they get) and being left unsynced because they choose not to keep any blocks.
or
give in to majority and decide to match the majority of nodes choice and use the currency.
or
ban all communications with the ugly nodes and pools to avoid the orphan drama. and find a pool that will make the blocks they prefer and start their own altcoin.

yea there are some users that set themselves up as wallet services for random users that dont care much about the big decisions, and those uncaring users can just use the popular currency via third parties because they trust the third party shares their same basic desire to not need to run a node themselves.
but others want a more active role so become nodes to be part of consensus. knowing the more people voting for a certain thing the less chance some strange lobbied group cant just come in and vote to create something different and force a change.

and thats where majority consensus comes in..
securing bitcoin from random changes and only changing if there is majority consent of the community.
5619  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Even now in 2017, why is bitcoin *still* not accepted as a major currency? on: March 18, 2017, 07:04:04 PM
bitcoin has no arms. no legs and no voice.

bitcoin will not be accpted in your local town store if you simply sit on yor hands and hop bitcoin somehow drops in and talks to your local stores manager.

bitcoin only grows as a real world currency if those that want it in their local stores, actually themselves go into their local stores and help the local stores be bitcoin acceptable.

this means YOU (anyone reading this that wants their local store to accept bitcoin)
5620  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 18, 2017, 06:50:24 PM
more waffle

your not seeing the bigger picture..

you think because pools can make their blocks that they dont need nodes.. well lets word it this way

you design a new bank note. you include all the security features.. but then you find that although you have a huge stack of bank notes.. no one likes them. they would prefer purple bank notes.. not green.

you could keep making green bank notes and thinking your making money..  but if no one is accepting them... your wasting your time. you cant spend them anywhere

now you start to realise about community consensus. if they dont like your blocks. your wasting your time making them.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 ... 872 »
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!