Bitcoin Forum
January 21, 2020, 03:26:23 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 ... 873 »
5941  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 05, 2017, 02:41:19 PM
What i could condense from the arguments of core/blockstream is that they are afraid of the dynamic blocksize, because it would give miners to much power. So what do they want now? Set them themselves instead of meetings or a dynamic?
What is the reason for BU to hang on to the dynamic? Is it only because they don't want these meetings too? To avoid to hard fork to often?

dynamic blocks DO NOT give pools the power.
node consensus is the power. and pools know that.
pools could produce any blocksize they want but if nodes orphan a block... that block is metaphorically in the trashcan. thus pools wont do things that waste their electric and time.

dynamic scaling works in a 1,2,3 step bases.. the blockstream 'dynamic is doomsday'ers however twist the logic of reality and talk about the 3,1 fake methodology(backwards and skipping a step) which is not how it will play out, but helps them scare the community into thinking that without the blockstream devs spoonfeeding and without king maxwell standing on his mount preaching the rules, bitcoin would break

blockstreams soft fork gave pools the vote so that if it succeeds in activating. blockstream take the glory. if it fails they have the bait and switch to blame it on the pools.
(typical banker economic illogic: if economy rises bankers celebrate their greed saved the economy. if it fails, blame the poor)
5942  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 05, 2017, 02:35:20 PM
So if the 2015 consensus event was adhered too, we would have the best of both worlds. A hard fork with dynamic block solution, and a simplified and more effective implementation of segwit allowing for full steam ahead for those wanting to develop lightning networks.
Instead we have sectarianism and deadlock, one which the miners can quite happily sit out.
And in the meantime, bitcoin adoption suffers.

Is this a good summarization of the situation?


your forgetting that all the complaints to blame miners is also due to blockstream

if it was a full hard consensus (nodes first then pools second) the nodes would upgrade and given confidence to pools to then vote second because the pools would know that node could cope with it.

but blockstream devs envisioned going soft and gave only the pools the vote.. emphasis blockstream devs gave pools the vote.

but the pools are smart to not change anything without nodes being there to accept the change, so the pools are waiting undecided. the only pools voting for segwit are BTCC and slush which are if you research their VC funding BTCC are funded by the same guys as blockstream. so its obvious why BTCC jumped right onboard the segwit train before thinking about the pro's and cons to the network effect or if segwit would actually solve issues for the whole network.
http://dcg.co/network/#b  <- blockstream, BTCC
5943  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 05, 2017, 01:54:33 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if some of franky1's concerns are true, but cannot confirm this as it is way beyond my technical knowledge and expertise in this area.

FYI, franky has been having his "concerns" for 3 years and counting.


Do you know what happened to the issues that Franky used to complain about? He no longer complains. Because they were demonstrated to be unproductive trolling. When he finds they don't work, he simply switches to newer trolling strategies instead.

If you'd believed anything Franky had stated or predicted, Bitcoin would be hugely unsuccessful cryptocurrency with all the users abandoning it in fear and frustration. But it keeps becoming more popular, and more successful.

concerns years ago. blockstream take over.
community wanted onchain scaling with dynamic blocks and compromised down to initially 2mb dynamic in late 2015..

yes carlton too wanted dynamic blocks aswell, funnily enough
Quote from: VeritasSapere
Quote from: Carlton Banks
no-one credible is saying that, how many times...
Before you say that I was using a straw man argument, I was not. I did not say that you think we should not increase the block size. I know that you support a dynamic limit, and as soon as it is implemented and a mechanism for a fork has been put in place I would most likely support that as well instead of BIP101. At that point we will most likely be on the same side of the fork again.
I would welcome that outcome.
^ one of many examples


blockstream devs LukeJr and Adam back said they will do their part....
spring 2016.. they backtracked and now we are left with their empty gesture that is not even a guaranteed or real expected fixed 2mb. let alone dynamic
and instead an attempt to get their nodes at the top of the network topology (upstream filters)

their 2mb boost wont occur, the other fixes wont occur* and we are still left on the reliance of them spoon feeding out code rather than let the nodes independantly set the limits and use consensus to set the overall rule.
*(needs users to move funds to segwit keys and only use segwit keys to achieve anything, but doesnt fix/prevent the native key users = problems not solved, solutions not achieved)

I don't see however the reasons for BU to not compromising. Many of them seem to care about Bitcoin and want a good solution.
The emergent consensus seems to be their biggest hold up. Why are they still pushing for it. Why not just go for a quick increase of blocksize to 2MB? What are there reasons to push fore there solution without compromise?

thre was a compromise.. the consensus roundtable of late 2015.. the community settled on a 2mb starting point but wanting it dynamic so that we didnt need these "human" meetings and instead could let the nodes decide what node can cope with and then the pools produce blocks within what nodes can tolerate.

but guess what blockstream backtracked and pretended they are not involved that much in core and cant code a solution.
strange thing is that thee late 2015 consensus event should have just invited the blockstreams office janitor instead and that probably would have been more productive
5944  Economy / Speculation / Re: What was the main reason for Bitcoin to rise at 100$ year 2013? on: March 05, 2017, 01:38:29 PM
delayed reaction to the reward halving + ASIC's hitting the market.. (mainly it was the ASICS event)
5945  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 05, 2017, 02:42:27 AM
id like to see a technical writeup of your claims because they undermine the whole experiment and im skeptical unless you have some math or code to show
what if i told you CLTV if you read what it does is AFTER the close channel transaction confirms. funds are unavailable to spend and in a maturity bubble like blockreward 100confirm (real world feel of the 3-5day bank delay spending of funds)

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0065.mediawiki#freezing-funds
note the blue below FROZEN IN UTXO DIRECTLY ON THE BLOCKCHAIN = confirmed TX froze out from being spent(meaning its not about holding unconfirmed in mempool for X.. but getting confirmed but THEN unspendable for X
Quote
In addition to using cold storage, hardware wallets, and P2SH multisig outputs to control funds, now funds can be frozen in UTXOs directly on the blockchain. With the following scriptPubKey, nobody will be able to spend the encumbered output until the provided expiry time. This ability to freeze funds reliably may be useful in scenarios where reducing duress or confiscation risk is desired.

    <expiry time> CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY DROP DUP HASH160 <pubKeyHash> EQUALVERIFY CHECKSIG



what if i told you CSV if you read what it does is AFTER the close channel transaction confirms. while maturing. the other party(cosigner) can revoke the payment to themselves(real world feel of paypal/credit card chargebacks)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0112.mediawiki#retroactive-invalidation
note the purple "delayed" below is referring to CLTV

Quote
Retroactive Invalidation

In many instances, we would like to create contracts that can be revoked in case of some future event. However, given the immutable nature of the blockchain, it is practically impossible to retroactively invalidate a previous commitment that has already confirmed. The only mechanism we really have for retroactive invalidation is blockchain reorganization which, for fundamental security reasons, is designed to be very hard and very expensive to do.

Despite this limitation, we do have a way to provide something functionally similar to retroactive invalidation while preserving irreversibility of past commitments using CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY. By constructing scripts with multiple branches of execution where one or more of the branches are delayed we provide a time window in which someone can supply an invalidation condition that allows the output to be spent, effectively invalidating the would-be delayed branch and potentially discouraging another party from broadcasting the transaction in the first place. If the invalidation condition does not occur before the timeout, the delayed branch becomes spendable, honoring the original contract.


5946  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: TV Box and Bitcoin - Copyright infringement or going legal on: March 05, 2017, 01:13:51 AM


Agreed, but I am curious to see how this experiment will play out. I have seen some experiments were people were given FREE food and drink

and a "voluntary donation" option were given. {unsupervised} .... about 8 out of 10 people in this experiment gave some sort of donation. So

there are some people out there that understand that you have to give something to get something. If "piracy" goes on like this, the movie

industry will stop producing and content will not be available to be distributed.  Sad

though unsupervised by the food giver. most people in a public place close together around a table feel extra guilt if they just took food and walked away. so they pay due to 'peer pressure' of not looking like a cheap-ass.

but in the bedroom of your own house where no one is there to judge you. less chance of peer pressure persuading you to pay something.

this is why people rattling donation tins for red cross or other organisations, get better success not standing in the street because people walk on by.. but if they go into a bar and find a group of say 5-10 people who know each other.. that peer pressure sinks in. if one person pays. suddenly everyone checks their pocket just because they dont like to look like a cheapskate infront of their social group. usually  6/10 put something into a tin. compared to 1/100 on the street

studies have been done on this. social/peer pressure outweighs individual moral decision
5947  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 05, 2017, 12:59:45 AM
check out the unconfirmed
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?daysAverageString=7&timespan=1year

apart from a blip in june/july (ill get to this later)
mempool size was 2mb-3mb..

then in october. (around the 10th october) it started to get into 4mb.. and started rising...and rising. and rising.. hmmm i wonder what new feature was introduced in october that needed the community to get frustrated and delayed to "sell" the community into thinking this feature being the promise to fix the issue..

hmm.. oh yea.. segwit.

as for june july. (CLTV+CSV)

what a coincidence.. spam attacks right around the times blockstream devs want pools to think certain features need to be added to be stepping stones to something that (may) eventually fix spam attacks..
5948  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 05, 2017, 12:35:38 AM
Not sure what pitches those are.   I honestly have no idea why people worship blockstream, other than that people like Greg and Adam used to
do good things for Bitcoin in the past.

I'm not too worried about downstream nodes.

My big beef with Blockstream's approach is simply forcing people off the main chain, and pushing for
layers, which opens up pandora's box.  For example, let's say they came out with LN 1.0 which was
somehow proven to be ideal: permissionless, anonymous, shenanigan-free, etc.  What stops them from forcing
(or deceiving) the network to upgrade to LN 2.0 which is not,  especially since they remain entrenched
as the controllers of the code?

what if i told you LN is buggy  (remember the one-use address issues where signing a tx using the same key multiple times could reveal said privkey)
what if i told you CLTV if you read what it does is AFTER the close channel transaction confirms. funds are unavailable to spend and in a maturity bubble like blockreward 100confirm (real world feel of the 3-5day bank delay spending of funds)
what if i told you CSV if you read what it does is AFTER the close channel transaction confirms. while maturing. the other party(cosigner) can revoke the payment to themselves(real world feel of paypal/credit card chargebacks)

LN is not intended for everyone. LN is intented for people that spend micro amounts multiple times a day. (faucet raiders) and thats its niche.
LN wont see satisfaction from regular users that just want to spend once or twice a month to pay rent or take a salary



what if i told you its not permissionless.. because you cant simply send funds to a person. you need the person your in contract with to authorise (remember its a multisig)
and if using hops. you need each hop to AGREE(permission) to use them as a hop.
and if its a hub you need the hub to agree(permission)

its then no longer just peer to peer permissionless, but needing other people to sign off on YOUR funds
5949  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 05, 2017, 12:13:22 AM
Well, all that is basically saying is after segwit would be activated, nodes need to play ball with segwit...
but what i'm asking is how is blockstream itself being a filter (as opposed to segwit nodes)

FIBRE

sounds like its just a relay network that is optional.   Doesn't appear to be part of the data chain you are talking about.

please forget the 20 second elevator sales pitches that have lead many to kiss blockstream ass, and go look at the fine details.
think about the net work topology. how blockstreams creations are at the UPSTREAM (closest to pools) and how the data filters down to the hodge podge of nodes that are down stream that are not
full archival 100% validation 100% relay nodes.
5950  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 04, 2017, 11:55:31 PM
Well, all that is basically saying is after segwit would be activated, nodes need to play ball with segwit...
but what i'm asking is how is blockstream itself being a filter (as opposed to segwit nodes)

FIBRE



Fibre coded by Matt corallo and released with bitcoin(segwit) core.
matt was an employee of blockstream at the time f helping them make FIBRE (secretly still is but as a 'technical advisor')

segwit coded mainly by sipa and released with bitcoin core.
sipa is an employee of blockstream

LN coded by rusty russell and released under blockstreams github https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning
rusty russell is an employee of blockstream
5951  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 04, 2017, 11:37:02 PM

this segwit soft gesture is not a stepping stone. its just an empty promise to hide the ability blockstream want to be upstream centralised filters for the network.
 
I fully believe this, but could you please explain in more detail about this?  

for an old node to get blockdata aftr activation it needs to connct to a segwit node because the segwit node needs to filter it to the native node.
gmaxwell calls it a upstream filter.

thats where FIBRE was invented to ring fense the pools with segwit nodes.
here it is explained in segwits own user guide
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/
Quote
The easiest way to prevent this problem is to upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or another full node release that is compatible with the segwit soft fork. If you still don’t wish to upgrade, it is possible to use a newer Bitcoin Core release as a filter for older Bitcoin Core releases.

In this configuration, you set your current Bitcoin Core node (which we’ll call the “older node”) to connect exclusively to a node running Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or later (which we’ll call the “newer node”). The newer node is connected to the Bitcoin P2P network as usual. Because the newer node knows about the segwit changes to the consensus rules, it won’t relay invalid blocks or transactions to the older node—but it will relay everything else.

the even have an image

link of image to show its not a reddit propaganda creation https://bitcoincore.org/assets/images/filtering-by-upgraded-node.svg



also old nodes cannot sync TO new nodes.
pruned nodes cannot sync to ANY nodes
no witness new nodes cannot sync to full archival new nodes

making the downstream nodes a mess/hodgpodge of nodes that are not fully part of the network and relient on the upstream nodes filtering them down the data
5952  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 04, 2017, 10:34:16 PM
It is an optin mechanism that with incentives lays out the foundation for further scaling

LN can work without segwit. segwit it doesnt lay out foundations for scaling.
(segwit is just 'sold' as a needed thing as a way to tempt people to push it, they are scrapping the bottom of the barrel for any small excuse they can to oversell its limitations and its half promises.. but people have run scenarios and seen it never meets expectations)

secondly you cannot segwit a segwit

thirdly it does not stop native key functionality. so it doesnt fix problems. infact it introduces new problems.

please spend  abit of time reading beyond the 'elevator speach' of segwit. and read the code or read the full documentation. and dont let ur eyes glaze over the issues. be concerned about the issues. in short. read the small print
If it can work without segwit they would have added it or someonr would have done it on an altcoin already but segwit was required. The whitepaper is lying then you saying and you know better than the rest of the world

segwits initial promise was to fix issues...... result it cant. it just disarms the voluntary (ur words 'opt-in') key users. not the entire network
they then said 'wait its a tx count boost' but thats only if significan use of the keys. not an instant boost at activation.. result not gonna reach expectation
next they saying look it can add schnorr. and other things.. but..
but schnorr and other things requires future soft fork events anyway.. so just wait for schnorr code to be ready and do the soft fork then.. or dare i say it hard consensus then..

this segwit soft gesture is not a stepping stone. its just an empty promise to hide the ability blockstream want to be upstream centralised filters for the network.

all other things like schnorr, and other things can be implemented without segwit in many different ways. soft or hard. (pool or node&pool)
5953  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs on: March 04, 2017, 10:24:22 PM
You don't fix it in bitcoin.   bitcoin is bitcoin.   just let it be bitcoin.   that's the point.

but when was bitcoin bitcoin

2009.
2013 pre sipa leveldb bug
2013 post sipa level db bug
2014 migration from satoshi-qt to core
2014 buyout of the main devs into blockstream and pushing other devs out of core

why is today out of 8 years.. the day that bitcoin is bitcoin and should remain in the exact form it is today without any other changes for the next couple centuries.

what is significant about this week that is getting the OP and others such as yourself so hopped up and endlessly ranting that bitcoin should stop all development right now
5954  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 04, 2017, 10:06:37 PM
It is an optin mechanism that with incentives lays out the foundation for further scaling

LN can work without segwit. segwit it doesnt lay out foundations for scaling.
(segwit is just 'sold' as a needed thing as a way to tempt people to push it, they are scrapping the bottom of the barrel for any small excuse they can to undersell its limitations and oversell its half promises. while pretending it also does things it cant do. but people have run scenarios and seen it never meets expectations)

secondly you cannot segwit a segwit

thirdly it does not stop native key functionality. so it doesnt fix problems. infact it introduces new problems.

please spend  abit of time reading beyond the 'elevator speach' of segwit. and read the code or read the full documentation. and dont let ur eyes glaze over the issues. be concerned about the issues. in short. read the small print
5955  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 04, 2017, 09:31:07 PM
The current proposal for Schnorr Signatures relies on script versioning, a feature which would be introduced by SegWit

and could be introduced as part of a proper hard consensus
That is irrelevant because thats not what this proposal is for. A hardfork is not on cards "yet". LN plus schnorr plus segwit will give us another year or 2 to figure out if we really need a hf

1. segwit DOES NOT FIX THE ISSUES
it only disarms people who voluntarily use segwit keys... its like having a gun problem and then only taking the guns away from those who voluntarily walk into a police station and hand their guns in..

2. a hard consensus was on the cards. mentioned in 2015 that by summer 2017 the hard consensus will be rolling.. but blockstream paid coders backtracked their commitment early 2016 breaking the roundtable commitment. plus segwit doesnt solve the issues it promises. segwit is an empty gesture. not a 100% promise

3. 2016 has been a waste of a year for a feature that wont meet expectations.
5956  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Didn't satoshi predict the chinese mining monopoly? on: March 04, 2017, 08:36:32 PM
So what we have now is a problem called Jihan Wu, taking everyone else hostage because he has a mining monopoly (I think this guy owns more than 50% of hashing power). We have literal idiots shaping the outcome of bitcoin, they can't think beyond how much money they will make. Of course this should have been expected too, what did you expect? mining is a business. So now we have a majority of people running nodes wanting segwit, and a single guy with 50%+ of mining power blocking it, and also of course, pushing for BU which would give miners even more power (also promoted by the useful idiot Roger Ver and the delusional morons that think BUcoin has no nasty tradeoffs and can't think beyond "cheap, fast, more transactions = we get rich = awesome"). They are simply incapable of considering the tradeoffs and understanding game theory, and I repeat: one of those guys owns 50%+ of mining power.

1. X pools vote for segwit X vote for BU........... but 60% are undecided either way

2. pools are not the boss. they are secretaries.. NODES are the boss.. and devs are just employees. if pools do something nodes dont like. into the orphan trashcan(metaphorically) goes the secretaries work

3. its blockstream that want to halt onchain natural growth with their empty gesture of broken promise. purely to get their nodes as upstream filters and centralise the network so they cn control what transactions get to and from the pools.

4. its blockstream that have done the fee war tweaks to the code to try to push it further and get people to cry out for the need of LN, purely so they can grab fee's to repay their VC. blockstream are in DEBT to a tune of $70-90mill.. they are getting desparate to make income to make investor returns.

Now this UASF thing pops up. In practice it sounds good, miners are our employees, and 1 cpu = 1 vote via nodes. But wouldn't it be a CPU race all over again? A bad actor with enough resources can buy an huge building and fill it with computers running whatever software node they want in order to shape the network in the way they want it to be. If they get a big %, it may trigger the rest of the network to follow due sheep mentality/fear.

Also, you are forgetting that nonetheless, this guy owns 50%+ of hashing power and it could result in a very tricky situation where you got a majority of nodes wanting X, and a majority of hashing rate wanting Y. In what direction will the balance gravitate towards? It's a gamble.

Maybe im missing something but I don't see how UASF can solve the problems described above. Again: Big pocket actors can start node farms if running nodes become the main thing to call the shots. And if we leave it as it is, this fucker Jihan got the mining monopoly.

yep its just relaunching the pool marathon again

I don't see a clear outcome. Maybe bitcoin will remain as it is forever? That would certainty be a better outcome than it getting ruined in the process. At least we got gold 2.0. I wish we could have a global, fast, cheap, fungible, decentralized currency with VISA-tier onchain transactions too, but I don't see how we can achieve this goal. BUcoin is a scam, and LN would still need segwit in order to function at 100% and even if it is the best option we can aim for, it still posses certain problems I don't see clear yet.

Anyway, discuss.

you mention the VISA-tier blah.... seriously. your talking as if its a visa by midnight doomsday.
be rational we wont get a billion users over night. think logically and rationally about NATURAL growth. and ofcourse dont use the growth as a foolish reason to be against growth. as thats illogical
(illogic: dont grow blockchain because blockchain needs to grow)
(illogic: lets go back to 1996 and tell activision to not work on project: call of duty, because COD:MW needs 60gb but 1996 hard drives are 4gb)
5957  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 04, 2017, 08:07:38 PM
The current proposal for Schnorr Signatures relies on script versioning, a feature which would be introduced by SegWit

and could be introduced as part of a proper hard consensus
5958  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How do we know that the CIA didn't get to Satoshi? on: March 04, 2017, 07:30:08 PM
If satoshi said "let's do X about the blocksize thing", im sure a lot of people would blindly follow. This is how humans work.

as shown by gmaxwell and his flock of merry men
5959  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How do we know that the CIA didn't get to Satoshi? on: March 04, 2017, 07:24:24 PM
what would they gain.

the code is public.

its like trying to stop a train by getting rid of a VIP passenger.. the train still continues

I am not sure if the CIA guys knew too much about the Bitcoin protocol at that time. They might have thought, if they get the main developers, they would be able to control/destroy Bitcoin.

but to get that. satoshi would need to be involved..
he left.

so taking someone out of the project doesnt magically make who they take out suddenly be brainwashed into changing anything.. coz they are out.
however those IN can be brainwashed

5960  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 04, 2017, 06:57:07 PM
Also things like schnorr signatures will be next after segwit goes live

schnorr is something else.
schnorr could be added as part of a proper organised hard CONSENSUS event. again schnorr isnt dependant on and only implementaable due to the soft segwit event.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 ... 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!