Bitcoin Forum
February 24, 2020, 01:09:44 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 ... 879 »
6781  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will segwit be activated? on: January 20, 2017, 03:45:15 PM
just a thought:
someone who calls a non-consensus, centralized fork which was more like a dictatorship from the devs "a good thing" is obviously benefiting from it
Wink

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
6782  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Have we reached peak tribalism? on: January 20, 2017, 03:40:58 PM
I've seen people throw the quote around: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" when someone else starts using their chosen boogeymen as a punching bag in an attempt to make their point.  So I suppose one possible solution to the issue is to create a hostile environment for the tribalist mindset to operate in.  

Others have opted to take a more moderate stance and point out that "it's not about the people and what they might do, but about the code and what it does".  You don't need to trust people, just trust consensus to enforce the code that provides the greatest benefit to the network as a whole.  Vested minority interests can't prevail, because Bitcoin was specifically designed to prevent hostile takeovers.  

Would these two approaches be things we can try?  They should both keep the focus on ideas and not on the possible motives or agendas of certain individuals or groups.

the only issue is that the code does not create itself. devs create the code. so understanding the code they create is a priority. but understanding the motives of why they code that code instead of another code also has consequences.

EG dont just sit on your hand accepting whatever code is put infront of you. find out why. and choose the code that doesnt end in everyone forced to use commercial hubs of permissioned contracts. or new features that bypass consensus. because thats just letting dominance occur by "trusting" code.

thinking code is better than man, is blindly trusting the person that wrote it.. code is only as good as the person that wrote it
6783  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will segwit be activated? on: January 20, 2017, 03:20:32 PM
It will, if people don't activate segwit, hard fork will be done, so soft fork like activating segwit is better than hard fork, hard fork will drive the price dump

People often worry about a dump in price before a hard fork, but if anything, people should be looking to secure as much coin as possible before a hard fork so that your coins are safely secured on both chains.  Then, whichever chain is successful, you can't lose.  Conversely, if you choose to buy coins immediately after a fork, you'll find many sellers would be looking to dump the coins on the chain they don't approve of, so it's unlikely they'll offer to sell you the coins on both chains.  You'd have to carefully consider which chain to buy on.  

So people panic buying before the fork could offset anyone who doesn't understand this who might be panic selling out of fear.  

try not to use the umbrella term "hardfork" when you actually mean the subcategory of forks which is an intentional split.. because it confuses the sheep into thinking all hardforks=intentional splits

even a soft fork can become an intentional split as gmaxwell himself explained with
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.
6784  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: unbearable blockchain size on: January 20, 2017, 03:17:18 PM
i personnally am not bothered by the wait, i was just stating that, as of this moment, the only issue created by block chain size is the initial setup of full wallet, by this i am implying that there is no problem, as not many people need that full node on their pc.  those that want to run the node should expect some time to be used.  you want to start a new domain, you expect a possible 24 wait for DNS propagation.  technical aspects to all project take longer than the standard use version

and my reply was that you can have the cake and eat it.

rather than having the implementation useless until syncing. thus holding people up and the sync becomes not discrete and noticable enough to frustrate

you can be a full node and not have to wait. simply by devs releasing a implementation that emulates a litenode instantly while it discretely syncs in the background, unnoticed because its no longer a hindrance to utility.
6785  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will segwit be activated? on: January 20, 2017, 02:46:16 PM
It will, if people don't activate segwit, hard fork will be done, so soft fork like activating segwit is better than hard fork, hard fork will drive the price dump

consensus hardfork does not mean splitting the network.
intentional split is not the default end result of a hardfork

hardforks just leave the minority unsynced and stuck.. where by the sensible thing is to join the majority by upgrading with the majority and continue with the majority.. rather than be stuck in limbo..


however, opposers completely adamant to not join the majority.. can add additional code intentionally.
additional code is then needed for the unsynced minority to ignore consensus, ignore the majority, ignore the orphans and start their own network.
meaning they intentionally start their own chain and reboot their own syncing of new blocks from a different source than the majority.


6786  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will segwit be activated? on: January 20, 2017, 02:32:01 PM
Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium

that tweet was a question, not a statement.

and it is actually gmaxwell that wants to split the network

here i will spell it out for you.
here is blockstream gmaxwell trying to get anyone not blockstream to fork away..  and they replied they wont be that dumb to intentionally split the network... and before you reply BullSh*t.. its from the horses mouth himself.

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

even funnier.. gmaxwell also says he willing to intentionally split the chain just to implement the soft fork

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.
6787  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: unbearable blockchain size on: January 20, 2017, 02:23:47 PM
as for the exponential vs linear.. its neither.

its not linear (straight diagonal line)

its not exponential (horizontal that curves vertically)

it IS an S-curve..


the issue is that we are still in the early days of bitcoin so we are still at the bottom section of the S-curve, so it appears like its exponential

only problem is that growth has been halted to not see the bigger picture
6788  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: unbearable blockchain size on: January 20, 2017, 02:11:51 PM
UPDATE ON YOUR REPLIES

1- BTC blockchain is not growing exponentially but linearly (but is still growing) This still can be discussed as blocksize increases by time.
2- BTC blockchain size shouldn't be an issue as storage capacity are high and will become even higher in future
3- The main issue is block size which if it become bigger and bigger, will not be able to be downloaded quickly enough by all nodes if the connection speed of those nodes is not high enough

referring to 3

the last time i installed a full wallet the download of the zipped block chain archive was a short download, but the amount of time it took the wallet to import the archive was nearly as long as it would have been to just let the wallet sync via linear download

this is the only time is using bitcoin when there is a huge issue because the the size.  i think it is just going to get to the point when fewer and fewer people choose that type of wallet.  someone intentionally setting up a full node will have to deal with it

referring to your frustration of setting up a full node.

the reason your frustrated and many people are. is that while its setting up its not really 'usable' straight away, you cant see current balance and cant really spend anything until its synced..

right, thats the main frustration.

this can be solved so easily.

if the devs just got their implementation to not sync first then check unspents(utxo) second.. but instead grabbed some litewallet code that grabs unspent's data from other nodes first. and then done syncing second. the syncing then becomes just a background/unnoticeable thing. while the node is actually functional straight away.

bam!. easy to code, lets users just get on with using bitcoin straight away. problem solved

EG emulate electrum or other litewallets as soon as you open the node. then syncing is not a critical, thumb twiddling wait. its just a background function users dont realise is happening, because they are no longer forced to wait until synced before properly using it
6789  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 95% lol. No chance. SegWit is now dead. on: January 20, 2017, 03:53:41 AM
But he put himself in that position where he can be an easy target.

how?

was it him saying he is happy to let blockstream do their LN(paypal2.0) if they let bitcoins mainnet dynamically grow.
which then got lost in translating and fed to the wolves to vomit out as the opposite?
6790  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: unbearable blockchain size on: January 20, 2017, 03:47:32 AM
update of my previous post which had graphical description of growth..

here is blockstreams Sheep (in red) impression of what they want to tell the world will happen if blockstream doesnt start its commercial service
"1gb blocks by midnight"

vs

my opinion (in blue) of onchain natural dynamic scaling over the next 33 years

6791  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: unbearable blockchain size on: January 20, 2017, 03:23:52 AM
Perhaps because none of those things come even remotely close to 1 terabyte a month worth of uploading (which a stock Bitcoin node will happily do)?

If you are going to make comparisons to justify your position, at least make decent ones.

1tb a month lol

ok.. uploading. 8gb/month to send live relay of tx's and new blocks. per connection

for instance.
100 connections to fully synced node requires 800gb
10 connections to fully synced node requires 80gb

as for helping other nodes sync. that is the killer data wise.

100 connections to 0 synced node(where your its only seed) requires 9.88tb  (yea doom)
10 connections to 0 synced node(where your its only seed) requires 988gb  (yea doom)
1 connections to 0 synced node(where your its only seed) requires 98.8gb  (manageable)

the solution.
dont have 100connections..
reduce the connections= reduce the data needed to upload.
especially dont connect to nodes that are not near/already synced.. thats the main trick.


to emphasise this point..
if 75 nodes had 75 connections 5625nodes would get the data in 1 relay.
so anything over 80 is overkill/not required.

i can safely assume atleast 75 people have good internet. so not all 5600 nodes need to upload to that many. as the recipient probably already got the data via someone elses node. so if bandwidth is an issue.. bring your connections down. dont act like a 'supernode' if you are only an average node.

this is also why blockstream are doing their 'fibre' (supernodes) so that they get the data out in one relay so that other nodes dont have to do all the work.. which means you can happily play '6 degrees of separation' with 6connections(48gb) just to relay tx data and blocks so the nod can get second opinions from other sources.
6792  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will segwit be activated? on: January 20, 2017, 03:01:39 AM
But on the bitcoin side. I would support a hardfork now.

And a BTC hardfork would not split the network in 2 because BTC has a 2 week retarget, and no miner would mine on the minority chain for 2 weeks.

So the majority always wins. It could technically happen with 51%, but just for safety and less drama, let's say 70%.

So if 70% agrees to hardfork now, of a 2mb, then the other 30% will be outnumbered, and then they will later see that it was not a big deal.


It' will not split in 2 like Ethereum vs Eth classic.

to add to this point, (to help explain it)

ethereum was NOT a consensus hard fork... it was a intentional split

some call Ethereums split a controversial split hard fork
some call Ethereums split an altcoin maker
some call Ethereums split a bilateral fork..

but not a consensus hard fork.. because thats a different thing altogether

(note: there's many forms of hard forks that have differing end results/goals/intentions. dont think harkfork=split. its an umbrella term for different possible results)

but ethereum nodes intentionally avoided consensus by actually ignoring each others chain data (google: --oppose-dao-fork) thus causing an altcoin, by disconnecting opposing nodes.

a consensus fork is ONE chain. where the minority dont create new blocks automatically. they are left orphaning what they dont like and never syncing.

in the case of a 95% agreement. of say 5600 nodes... 5300 agree 300 dont... what then happens is pools then do a consensus vote of their own. which gives time for the 300 to upgrade...
when pools get to their 95%. a grace period happens.. whereby both the 300nodes and 1pools not voting still have time to get onboard before being left unsynced and 'stuck'.

ok.. you might be about to rebuttle that losing 1 pools and UNDER 300full nodes is bad,, but..

blockstreams soft fork can lose 1 pool too.. and, would currently have over 2000 nodes no longer at 'full validation status' and demoted to half validation status.
6793  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 95% lol. No chance. SegWit is now dead. on: January 20, 2017, 02:33:11 AM
When a miner is working on a block, it is trying to earn the block subsidy + transaction fees for its proposed block. It will abandon its attempt to find the hash for its proposed block if and only if it is provided with proof that another block spending some of the same transactions has been found. So when a potentially solved block is presented, it needs to validate that block. In the case of a block with excessive sig in a single transaction, this validation process will take an excessive amount of time (indeed, this is the supposed 'nightmare scenario' that makes quadratic hashing such a scary issue). So what is a miner to do? Stop everything, and devote all processing to validating the incoming potentially-solved block? Hell no. A rational miner will spawn off a single thread to validate the potentially-solved block, and devote the rest of its resources to trying to find the solution hash to its proposed block. Anything else would be self-defeating.

As all rational miners would engage in this process, it is likely that some miner will find an alternate block solution while is is still trying to validate the incoming possibly-good but large-sig-containing block solved by the first solving miner. It is free to propagate its solved block to the network at large.

Upon receiving such a block, rational miners will devote (e.g.) one thread to validating the new block - even as they are still trying to validate the first possibly-good but large-sig-containing block. Whichever is the first to be validated is the block which they will propagate and the block that they will build atop. This would be the second-arriving block that does not engender the quadratic hashing issue.  The first solution block - containing the large sig transaction - gets orphaned. Problem goes away.

What, me worry?

i get what your thinking. and this has already been solved.. its the empty block concept, people still dont get.

firstly. pool A solves a block hands it out.. lets say pool B receives it.
immediately.
pool B tells the asics. to start working on an empty block. (no tx apart from blockreward claim(coinbase tx))
because poolB does not know what tx's to add into blockB because its yet to validate blockA

what happens is a pool can take upto 2 minutes to validate a block. (as long as its not got a super bloater 1mb tx)

and so before validating a blockA to know what unconfirmed tx's remain in mempool to start adding to pool B's empty block, if blockB 'luckily' gets a solution then Block B looks 'empty'.

obviously if BlockB is not solved after 2 minutes and if all is good with BlockA... poolB starts adding tx's from unconfirmed mempool to blockB and resending a hash to the ASICS to hash away at.

this is why most 'empty' blocks are found within a couple minutes of the previous timestamp. because they are only mpty because they were luckily solved so quick

..

now thats dealt with.
instead of letting 1tx have 20,000sigops, letting it have say 500sigops max. means that we will never ever ever have a risk of it taking 10minutes to solve a block by someone having a 1mb tx.

secondly pools can right now. in their own settings. without needing to get a consensus or an vote or permission. set their pool node to only allow tx's with < xxx sigops. and then those trying to send such clunky tx's will soon realise their tx's are not getting accepted. and will react accordingly (being more leaner with their tx's)

thirdly making leaner tx's also helps more peoples tx get accepted.
EG 2500tx's of 400bytes. instead of 1tx of 1mb

leaving the sigops soo high, even when (lets say segwit activated)  quadratics is not an issue. may save processing time.. but still allows a bloater to send a tx of 1mb. so reducing the sigop count of tx's should still be done anyway.

so knowing it should be done anyway. we might aswell just do it. and solve the problem sooner. rather than waiting for segwit to not do a full job
6794  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will segwit be activated? on: January 20, 2017, 02:05:39 AM
Ver is a huge investor in Bitcoin. Bitcoin failing is probably the last thing he wants to see.
He WAS an investor in Bitcoin. He made his fortune on it, that's true.
But now he's fond of alts he says bitcoin is dead pushes some alts e.g. monero. That's why he wants bitcoin to die so his forks prevail... which never happens.
So If you fond of monero too not bitcoin I understand why you take hardfork side  Sad


why is it that blockstream sheep use all of blockstream failures to sound like someone else is doing it.

Gmaxwell loves monero.. he is the lead dev.. he even has a monero address in his profile!! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11425
gmaxwell actually wanted the other implementations to fork off, the other implementations laughed and aggressively said no
gmaxwell has helped add tx maturity(CLTV: bank 3-7day funds not available)
gmaxwell has helped add tx revocation(CSV: bank paypal chargebacks)
gmaxwell has pushed the fee war (advocated not to increase blocksize.. added 'average' fee estimator that actually increases fee even with no demand)
gmaxwell /rusty russell wants commercial permissioned services (LN Hubs)
gmaxwell/adamback organised many all expense weekends for miners to bribe miners
gmaxwell/adamback are members of the bankers hyper ledger (bankers blockchain)
gmaxwell/adamback are paid by bankers
6795  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will segwit be activated? on: January 20, 2017, 01:59:20 AM
as best as unbiased as i can be..
here are some options.

1. if segwit truly was 'backward compatible'. core could make some segwit transactions now and relay them directly to BTCC or Slush..(the two pools in support) get the Tx's added to the block and see if any orphans occur when that block is relayed to the network.
if no orphan occurs, then its backward compatible and that raises the confidence level.

core cough blockstream cough have $90m so they can happily pay BTCC $15k (price exceeding more than a blockreward) as a safeguard to btcc if the block orphans.
cheap 'test' in reality.

however it does not solve the second bit of confidence/risk that the majority of pools are not happy jumping forward at.. (lack of node full validation count)

2. doing it as a full community consensus. getting the community to have a consensus, rather than just the pools.
this is a consensus (hard)fork.. not an intentional split. .. consensus. there is a difference.

and if pools see a high majority of nodes able to fully validate these new blocks, then pools will gain confidence to vote for it and make them.

however it then means the community gain power to veto aswell as show devotion for (yep core dont want decentralised free choice).

3. so knowing they would need 95% community acceptance they would need to give the community something the community really want.
real true onchain transaction scaling thats not just a one time boost and also not having to let the devs decide what nodes should or shouldnt do.

so by also including dynamic blocks as a core release. nodes regain the independant diverse decentralised power. and it grows only when nodes show they can cope with.

then its just a 2 birds 1 stone election event where everyone gets what they want. and all different (10 different implementations) can be diversely accepting and consenting to the same things on an even playing field, rather than a one brand dominance/control event
6796  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 4.50$ Fee for 0.09$ Transaction..?! on: January 20, 2017, 12:00:38 AM
DrSeuss

if you have the answers to the topic it may be worth you locking the topic, otherwise you will get people with colourful signatures making random comments to spam the topic forever.
6797  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Fucking Chinese on: January 19, 2017, 11:18:14 PM
The Chinese miners only dominate because they get free electricity through deals with their govt. That isn't about the west "sitting on their ass", but about an uneven playing field due to hidden subsidies.

the chinese actually pay for electric.
what the chinese get is free ASICS.

for $2100 they get from retail customers, asic manufacturers can make upto 5 ASICS..
thus give 1 asic to a poor schuck that pays the retail $2100 for one rig.
keep 4 for themselves..

well the smart option they choose
for $2100 they make 3 rigs .. give one to the retail customer that handed them $2100,,
keep $840.. and run the 2 spare rigs themselves
and spend the $840 on electric and wages.

that $840 works out as electric for the 2 rigs for 11 months netting them a further 3btc in pure profit for running the 2 miners for those 11 months



as for the powerplants electric.
the world is trying to develop area's like mongolia.
so they set up a power plant. ready to cope with future housing, retail and industry..
but while there are no houses, shops and industry. the electric that leaves the power plant is not being used (pure waste)
but the power plant is still producing a minimum electric output as thats just how plants work.

so while the power plant is producing and wasting XXXmegawats. and the energy is wasted going down cables that dont plug into anything..
they might aswell let anyone that wants to use it,  use it. the power plant atleast gets paid for it then and its not a complete waste while they develop new towns and cities
6798  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The greatest innovation? on: January 19, 2017, 10:55:10 PM

Bitcoin will stop all wars.

Yes, bitcoin is the greatest invention in the history of mankind!
You are exaggerating, bitcoin could hinder the ability of politicians to wage war for as long as they want but only if government accepted bitcoin as their official currency, and that is not going to happen besides even if they did they could always crate a new currency and then print it to pay for their wars.

bitcoin is just code.
but its how PEOPLE treat it and use it that changes things.

bitcoin does not have a voice to tell someone to not pull the trigger.
bitcoin does not have a hand to take a gun from someones grasp

its PEOPLE that can stop wars. but right now PEOPLE like blockstream are trying to start another economic civil war, by commercialising bitcoin.

bitcoin was suppose to be the financial system with no barriers of entry. but blockstreams motives have caused things like fee wars. and now atleast a dozen developing countries that would benefit most from bitcoin cant/wont use bitcoin due to fee's being more than an hours wage.

and dont blame it on data issues.. blockstream are happy with 4mb of data per block. but dont want it to be 4x transaction capacity to equal 4mb of data. they are pretending to give a one time gesture of 2x capacity. but as fast as people adopt the new keys when it activates. they will take away this boost by adding in extra bytes of data which bloat the data but decrease the tx count back to what we get now.

EG a 360byte 2in 2out tx,  will become 1.370kb tx for the same 2in 2out. once you add the bloat of confidential payments, csv cltv and other features blockstream want.

so while they bloat up the data onchain without offering much in the way of real transaction scaling they will push people into LN commercial service hubs to rule bitcoin users lives.
only ever increasing the onchain block capacity as a gesture to allow the commercial LN settlements to settle without a bottleneck..
yes its already been thought about talked about and conceived as their ideal plan for the future. keep bitcoin held back until the commercial services needs the utility of onchain scaling..

bitcoins ethos is being eroded by PEOPLE who want control and to be at the "core" of bitcoin they even said so by naming their brand as such.

so while ethical people sit on their hands and trust bitcoin (voiceless handless code) will save the planet.. corporations with banker investment are corrupting the people that have their hands and voices of bitcoin
6799  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How is BTC being developed? on: January 19, 2017, 10:19:24 PM
When blockstream becomes a non-profit and gives back the almost $100 million dollars of VC money I'll take back what I said about them.  Other than performing the above, their ideals are pretty self evident.

even as a non profit, they can be corrupt.

non profit means at the end of the financial year they cant have made any profit.
this is simply.. 'its month 11, lets go on a spending spree to get rid of the funds in the account'

oxfam have retail shops. but are a non profit because they make sure its always spend by year end.
oxfam CEO get a big fat salary that could have been used to make 1000 water wells. but he buys a house, a boat and a shiny car instead.
oxfam only put 10% of fund towards "worthy projects" once you take away all the money syphoning tricks.

same for red cross. ceo on over $1m a year. giving a low % of income to actual front end services.

thus being a non profit is not as 'ethical/moral' as any other corporation. it just simply means dont make a profit to not have to pay tax on.

even if set as a non profit.. blockstream can still have 'sponsor' contracts to halt bitcoin expansion and instead develop commercial services. as long as they dont make profit and spend every penny by year end

take linux foundation.. hyperldger foundation.. they are at foundation status which meant to be reserved for charitable causes.. but its just used as a tax free scheme.. and yea hyperledger is the bankers blockchain that blockstream is helping to make
6800  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How is BTC being developed? on: January 19, 2017, 09:35:23 PM
Chinese miners are controlling development (like block size), getting consensus has proven to be all but impossible,

here is the issue.

instead of making it a 2 part consensus
nodes first
pools second

blockstream decided to skip the hard consensus and went soft requiring just pools to form consensus.

the problem.. smart and risk averting pools wont flag desire for something if the nodes they send this new data to are not full validating nodes to double check the new data.

so while the node count is low. pools are not in a rush to change.. as there are risks of letting unupdated nodes just pass data on blindly.

it should have always been a real consensus vote. and core(blockstream) just thought they could slip it under the rug before christmas by bypassing real consensus by making it soft.. but pools wont risk it

dont blame pools when it was blockstream paid devs that decided to make the pools the decision makers. rather than a full community vote
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 ... 879 »
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!