Bitcoin Forum
June 16, 2019, 03:54:44 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 ... 820 »
901  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: HOW CAN BITCOIN BE ACCEPTED TO BE USED AS A PAYMENT METHOD GLOBALLY? on: December 20, 2018, 04:29:01 PM
In as much as we all wish to help fulfill the dream of Satoshi Nakamoto in using BTC to make transactions in our daily lives we must look critically at the high volatility of BTC. Come to think of it people, how many of us in here would wish to purchase an item worth $500 US right now when this same amount of BTC was worth over $1000 US last year. If we are able to solve volatility issues with BTC then trust me the acceptance of BTC will go viral. I just wish there were some real holders in the cryptospace!

ive been around since 2012 and i got a nice hold of coins. i buy stuff all the time.
the way i see it is that say one coin in 2012 worth 6 loaves of bread. today can buy me 3500 loaves of bread so im happy to spend bitcoin buying bread with my bitcoin.

from a merchants perspective when they sell a loaf of bread for say $1. they in seconds display a btc price and in minutes that amount arrives. they can automate the sell of the btc to fiat in that time too.
if they know the cost of the dough, cooking and labour came to 30cents. tax 20cents. they can convert half of the sell back to fiat to cover costs. and keep half as bitcoin for the shop owners own retirement fund
knowing at some point that $0.50 of btc will probably be able to at a later date be able to create more than just another loaf, but the $0.50 of fiat will only make them one loaf.

its all about finding the needs of the merchant. displaying the benefits to the merchant and also showing how easy it is to accept bitcoin.
you will be surprised how many merchants take up and start accepting btc when they see how easy it can be, by actually doing a demo/dry run purchase with them when you mention bitcoin to them
902  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change? on: December 20, 2018, 02:44:32 PM
1.  i am not demanding anything. i am discussing. its a discussion board. dont like my opinion, there is a ignore button, its free
2. this topic is about discussing if we were to change things what would be changed. yes i get how you hate the idea that the community could discuss or even change the network to oppose "dev state" roadmap. but remember this is a discussion of opinions. so relax chill out, have a coffee

Discussions tend to be more productive if you don't keep repeating the same thing over and over again when it's abundantly clear that what you are discussing is not possible to implement.  Or do I take it that you will finally stop saying roadmaps can't have softforks or activation dates when they clearly can?  You get told quite plainly in one topic that you can't prevent softforks and activation dates without sacrificing permissionless freedom, but all you do is move onto the next topic to repeat the same dumb thing.  

You could post your usual lies about me only supporting the one dev team, or you could accept the simple fact that the way things are now provides a healthier environment to alternative clients than the restricted environment you propose.  And don't pretend you aren't proposing it.  You've been saying it for months.  But if you're done saying it, then hallelujah.
oh jeez, you poke, so ill bite..

the reason you hate me repeating myself is because you hate me raising an issue you wish lay hidden under a rug. and you hate me making people aware of the issue. which makes your job harder to hide it.
i have told you many many times that the MANDATED bull crap is the opposite of consensus. but then you act ignorant that i said it and act even more ignorant that i prefer consensus. all so you can pretend im the one advocating for splits and mandated.. but thats your flaw

restrictive environment??
seriously you need to do some research
devs can and should be able to write what they like. this includes taking onboard things the community want.. your mindset is the devs should ignore the community and the community should not have a say.(your no democracy no vote proposal)

my mindset is more teams where there is no REKT campaigns. your mindset is to have REKT campaigns and one team

my mindset is to use consensus to decide.. your mindset is that there should not be a vote and that a certain team should just demand something activates on a date and push opposition off the network contentiously at a lower threshold

now how about go take that coffee, sit back, relax de-stress and really review your own flip flops and just pick what one you really prefer
libertarian capitalist socialist(open to all) decentralised network of consensus to solve the byzantine generals problem
or
capitalist centralised network with just loyalist distribution that just follow by compatibility of the single general
so use this posts discussing to be productive and choose to flip or flop. and stick with one

then if you really want to discuss things about bitcoin. try to stick to content of the discussion and not the author of discussion. if your agenda the moment you wish to reply is to just attack the author of a discussion. try hitting the ignore button instead. and no point acting the bitten victim of a personal comment as reason to reply. as it was you that done the initial personal poke
903  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change? on: December 20, 2018, 10:04:33 AM
You want to undermine those decisions and make unilateral changes.

show me my undermining code that will make unilateral changes..

You know full well that all of your unilateral changes have nothing to do with code and everything to do with telling people what they supposedly can or can't do.  Users ran code you don't like that utilised a softfork, so you say we shouldn't have softforks anymore.  A very small number of users ran code you don't like that had an activation date, so you say we can't use activation dates anymore.  You keep saying "show me the code", but nothing you're advocating can be achieved with code.  You're advocating a social contract.  Something vaguely akin to an honour system.  It's not viable.  You can't prevent people from coding something you don't like.  Accept it.  What you want is impossible.

//EDIT:  and if the community ever did find a way to stop people coding things they didn't like, it would be the client you are running that would be the first victim.  Be careful what you wish for and understand how much more you'd be complaining if we actually had the kind of Bitcoin you mistakenly believe you want.

mr meander AKA doomad pokes again
1.  i am not demanding anything. i am discussing. its a discussion board. dont like my opinion, there is a ignore button, its free
2. this topic is about discussing if we were to change things what would be changed. yes i get how you hate the idea that the community could discuss or even change the network to oppose "dev state" roadmap. but remember this is a discussion of opinions. so relax chill out, have a coffee
3. i am not advocating anything. i am saying bitcoin was designed 2009 to solve the issue of avoiding the need of a "dev state"(general(singular)) and instead where the bitcoin system works via community consensus of generals(plural). because thats the unique thing satoshi solved.
4. i know you want "dev state" to decide changes and have the community as just loyal soldiers just archiving data under the rules defined by dev state. you have been very clear on that. even to such an extent that before even writing public available code you have made it your mission to REKT anyone that opposes "dev state"

all you have done over the last few months is admit your a capitalist centralist where "dev state" are the kings and above the law and they deserve to be free. and everyone else should just be loyalists with no say. because you dont want community votes.. you just keep flip flopping to try hiding your desire. and you pretend you want freedom as long as it only applies to freely letting "dev state" to rule
904  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain size on: December 20, 2018, 09:51:14 AM

we still have not surpassed satoshi's 7tx/s calculation (600k tx a day) and he calculated that 8 years ago

I disagree since even developer/technical  page mention this fact. Additionally we've surpassed 7tx/s,

come on.. think realistically.. not optimistically
where has there ever been a case where 600,000 people were able to get their transaction confirmed all in one day

show me a day that the transaction count surpassed 600k, to show that bitcoin has grown to surpass the capacity to allow 600,000 people to use bitcoin a day peer-to-peer

not group-to-peer
not custodian-to-peers
but per-to-peer
905  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: You know the famous quote about religion on: December 19, 2018, 09:13:11 PM
You know, the one that atheists use:

?
in every belief is a lie?
906  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bull Run or Dead Cat Bouncing ? on: December 19, 2018, 09:00:23 PM
the final difficulty adjustment of 2018 just happened. and so now we are in the realm of mining pools knowing the next difficulty jump WILL be affected by the delivery of next gen asics getting delivered in a week to thousands of people.
pushing up hashrate. pushing up costs. and therefore making many prefer to buy coin as a cheaper option, sparking a price rise

Interesting. However, many have claimed that 6000$ was the bottom because it was close to the mining costs. (I didn't agree back then, I claimed the mining costs are not so well known.)
We are still under 4000$, so either miners are mining at a loss and still don't care, either the mining cost was close to 3000$-3500$.
Only in this case your theory could be correct, although historically (eg when Bitcoin has fallen under 250$ in 2015 and stayed low for almost a year) the price has its periods when it was clearly under the mining costs.

PRICE is not the underlying value
first 3 quarters of 2018 $5800 was a good measure.. then in october hashrate curved down. and then price curved down in november.


in 2015
the hashrate was between 250peta-400petahash during the stagnant period which doing math of asics at the time... it was break even/profitable there was a bit in august 2015 which touched on the break-even testing the bottomline.. then by autumn the hashrate and the market price moved up
907  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bull Run or Dead Cat Bouncing ? on: December 19, 2018, 06:02:49 PM
bull run=
2016 $300^
2017 $900^
2018 $3200^

daily/weekly volatility=
cubs(small bears) v
calves(small bulls)^

personally i use the mining cost/market dynamic numbers to help find the bottomline support which has been a good guide for years of knowing the bottom.

the final difficulty adjustment of 2018 just happened. and so now we are in the realm of mining pools knowing the next difficulty jump WILL be affected by the delivery of next gen asics getting delivered in a week to thousands of people.
pushing up hashrate. pushing up costs. and therefore making many prefer to buy coin as a cheaper option, sparking a price rise
908  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: DIY Bitcoin ATM on: December 19, 2018, 05:51:01 PM
Eventually, the Bitcoin ATM would be moved from my place to a small business one of my friends own, to help Bitcoin reach mainstream adoption within my region.  Smiley

be careful here. because you will be handling fiat outside of your home..
inside of your home "hobby" (non public use) your fine with family and friends. doing small justifiable amounts privately in your own home.

but as soon as you put it out in public. KYC/AML.. and registering as a money business and security of the ATM become costly
EG MSB licences and insurances are not cheap
EG you need a safe/lockbox in the ATM thats going to keep the bank notes safe if someone put a hammer to it
EG you need to bolt it to the small business premises floor and make it not easy to pick up and leave your friends premises

this is why people ended up just working as an "agent" of a MSB and leasing a BTM. rather than having to become an MSB yourself
909  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: DIY Bitcoin ATM on: December 19, 2018, 05:35:17 PM
if for your own playing around you wont need it to have a secure 'safe' for the bank notes. i presume you would only store bank notes in it while you play. thus you can manually manage that risk of the ATM full of bank notes being taken out your house

you would need a bank note feeder/note counter(to make sure it doesnt spit out too many bank notes) and makes sure it doesnt accept crayon drawn(forged) bank notes Cheesy

big tip. dont let the computer/controller board. be an actual wallet containing keys.
instead let it just be a API sender/receiver to a remote system that does the actual coin handling
this will mean you can get away with using a raspberry pi because you wont be doing full blockchain checks in the ATM. you will just be API calling in and out data

as for making one. google has the answers.. and here is one
https://openbitcoinatm.wordpress.com/tutorial/
910  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain size on: December 19, 2018, 04:26:10 PM
if this (bb7f7a0988e96f9939d0a39effc969ff5c1c18be9fe667ddde65c290dd8ae2d0) is the transaction you have in mind (which has 200 inputs) then it is not single key SegWit which you are comparing with a single key legacy transaction! it is a multi signature SegWit with 2 signatures in it (2 of 3) so each output is increased by 2 additional pubkeys (2*32 byte + 1 byte size + 4 byte op codes) which has nothing to do with SegWit!

as for scriptsig in this type of transaction it is there because they are using a workaround for using SegWit instead of using SegWit itself (workaround being nested in p2sh). if you use direct SegWit instead scriptsig would be empty !
not specifically that one, but there a are a few of that exact format so


the whole hype of scaling using LN is "be like VISA"
visa dont have multisig.. they just do straight peer-visa-peer. so using the peer-to peer and not the group-to peer
.. you know.. making transactions lean and simple peer to peer.
... deactivating BLOATING contracts
... deactivating transactions  that use more bytes (even 'singlekey' segwit uses more hard drive bytes than legacy does by the way)
and going back to basics of lean peer-to-peer network

now imagine it was legacy, and no witness scale factor and the legacy cap was 2.3mb(to keep the block the same hard drive bytes used limit as the block exampled).. more than 230 tx's would have fit in

If you had bothered to acknowledge the point made in the first post, you might have noticed concern has been expressed about the rate at which the total size of the blockchain is growing.  Obviously you don't care, but others do.  Understand your audience.  Try just for a moment to appreciate that you are not the only user on this chain.  If users want to run code that utilises scale witness factor, they can.

witness scalefactor does not stop spammers spamming should they wish. witness scale factor does not stop block sizes increasing. but the whole segwit+witnes scale factor does limit tx count growth and does mess with the bloat vs hard drive utility per tx count

my answer of
if this (bb7f7a0988e96f9939d0a39effc969ff5c1c18be9fe667ddde65c290dd8ae2d0) is the transaction you have in mind (which has 200 inputs) then it is not single key SegWit which you are comparing with a single key legacy transaction! it is a multi signature SegWit with 2 signatures in it (2 of 3) so each output is increased by 2 additional pubkeys (2*32 byte + 1 byte size + 4 byte op codes) which has nothing to do with SegWit!

as for scriptsig in this type of transaction it is there because they are using a workaround for using SegWit instead of using SegWit itself (workaround being nested in p2sh). if you use direct SegWit instead scriptsig would be empty !

the whole hyp of scaling is "be like VISA"
visa dont have multisig.. they just do straight peer via peer. so using the peer-to peer and not the group-to peer
.. you know.. making transactions lean and simple peer to peer.
... deactivating BLOATING contracts
... deactivating transactions  that use more bytes (even 'singlekey' segwit uses more hard drive bytes than legacy does by the way)
and going back to basics of lean peer-to-peer network

now imagine it was legacy, and no witness scale factor and the legacy cap was 2.3mb(to keep the block the same hard drive bytes used limit as the block exampled).. more than 230 tx's would have fit in

would still apply
as going back to simple peer-to-peer.. AND being leaner them 230 transactions would fit in LESS than 2.3mb... so that 2.3mb would fit more than 230tx

i know you dont like me discussing things. but this is a discussion board. the ignore button is free
911  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: when you say whales, who on: December 19, 2018, 03:57:05 PM
naming them is pointless. but knowing values that move through exchanges is the important part.

after all if a big name was to be named they would never admit the exact minute they would buy/sell as that would hurt their own profitability.
but just think about how much needs to be invested to be a whale
to have 1% of the circulation as a elit group and in that group be someone that has atleast 1% of that
you need atleast 2100btc

so think about how much you have invested and you will be roughly in that ball park

$100 algae
$1000 tadpole
$10,000 goldfish
$100,000 salmon
$1m shark
$10m whale
912  Other / Off-topic / Re: Decentralized Platform For E-commerce Payments on: December 19, 2018, 12:13:37 PM
as soon as i read its a cell phone app i instantly knew its not blockchain/decentralised.

913  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain size on: December 19, 2018, 09:19:13 AM
Most of you are wrong, since SegWit activation, maximum block size weight limit is 4 million weight unit (not 4MB).

Actual maximum block size depends on the transaction (SegWit or non-SegWit) and how big (in byte) is the signature or/and P2SH size (if transaction use SegWit).
4MB block size is possible, but only under very specific transaction format.
thats the wishy washy code, where devs pretend they have given the community 4mb space. but the reality is expectant to be around 1.2mb-2.1mb average while witness scale factor is limiting utility below 4mb

we still have not surpassed satoshi's 7tx/s calculation (600k tx a day) and he calculated that 8 years ago
914  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit not Bitcoin? on: December 19, 2018, 09:12:38 AM
We have Segwit because of Nakamoto consensus. This is how Bitcoin update works but Frank and bigblockers does not respecting it.

Will they shitting on Schnorr signatures when ready?

what you and your chums need to understand is. having hope, faith and loyalty of a king and promoting a utopian dream and hoping everyone will be loyalist to a king is not what bitcoin was dsigned for.

schnorr has negatives. and trying to do personal attacks to hide the negatives is not helping anyone.
yes schnorr has negatives.

1. it hides how many parties are involved in a multiparty smart contract
2. when signing. even those involved wont know who signed it.
3. imagine some users are prompted with a smart contract under the belief thats its a 2-of-2 co-sign address.. but the reality is its actually a 2-of-3 smart contract and the other person has 2 keys and you only have 1.. guess what, chances are the other person will sign off funds to themselves when the 'pot' gets big enough that greed takes over morals
915  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit not Bitcoin? on: December 19, 2018, 09:01:53 AM
LN is a separate network for utility of multiple coins such as litecoin, vertcoin and bitcoin.
The "Lightning Network" is an off-chain layer, which you can use to make transactions in multiple coins. Plus no, Lightning is not a network of "multiple coins". That is misinformation.
your so stuck in a propaganda myth
try researching the truth.. heres a keyword
chainhash
Where's the propaganda? Where is the "myth".
FTFY

myth= look at the purple

it allows the LN network to know what chain (network/coin) the payment/channel is involved in. its what allows litecoin, vertcoin and others to use LN.
its why LN lets litecoin use it and also allows atomic swaps to occur
LN is not a bitcoin layer. its a separate network for multiple coins to use.
the "off-chain" is the mis information.. its a way to be subtle that LN is a non blockchain network

Yes I have already heard of that, but it is a long way from where Lightning is today.
But wouldn't you say that that is good for trading between coins in a trust-minimized way, decentrally? Wouldn't that reduce our need for centralized exchanges that require KYC/AML? Wouldn't the be better for our freedom?
I do not see how it is bad.

LN allows other coins that same utility right now.

right now nothing is stopping people in
litecoin from locking up LTC and then using LN with LN's 12 decimal unblockchained 'payments'
bitcoin from locking up BTC and then using LN with LN's 12 decimal unblockchained 'payments'
vertcoin from locking up VTC and then using LN with LN's 12 decimal unblockchained 'payments'

as for the atomic swap. yes that part is along way away as thats the part where factory/watchtower(masternodes) really will be needed.
funny part though. to have masternodes monitoring multipl chains. is like saying users cant handle one chain so a no-chain network is needed.. but inevitably full LN nodes will be multiple chain handling...
see the hypocrisy
EG man cant handle 1 wife, so lets develop a network with no wife so he can play with prostitutes(channels)... years later.. man need to monitor 4 wives to then play with prostitutes
or just risk a prostitiute(cellphone lite wallet) app and trust the prostitutes pimp whos got 4 wives to watch over the payments
916  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change? on: December 19, 2018, 08:36:26 AM
Byzantine generals? How did we get there? Hahaha.

if you dont understand then you have no clue about what blockchains solved in regards to decentralised money.


Roll Eyes

This is what you quoted from my post when you were barking about your so-called "dev-state", and the Byzantine generals, which I do not get the connection,


Then how should the Core developers organize themselves to develop the protocol? No public repositories?
.....
Are they really the king? I believe they are in charge of development because they are competent.


How did you arrive from the "dev-state" to the Byzantine generals? Is it because there was a word "king"? Haha.

bitcoin 2009-2013 was designed so that there was no "general"(singular)
cypherpunks for decades were having issues of making digital money in a way that did not require a general(singular) and instead where generals(plural) had an equal playing field where consensus would form majority agreement

meaning different brands of nodes that can all HAPPILY(without rekt, without 'dont like it F**k off').. offr proposals which would only activate when TRUE majority consensus was reached(without rekt, without 'dont like it f**k off') and satoshi invented bitcoin because it solved all that..

but now we are in a one general barking out the new orders to their loyal soldiers. and if soldiers were not loyal. they were shot onsite

which is the opposite of the whole reason of bitcoin unique invention, which was to finally have a currency which solved the byzantine generals issue to allow more than one brand to actually be on a level playing field.

yet you and your chums do not like the idea of having generals(plural) that use consensus. you lot prefer a general(singular) with mandated upgrades and consensus bypassing upgrades that are done without soldier allegiance needed

as exampled
Everyone? Sure, the incompetent and non-coders can propose anything, and make a pull request, but they should not expect any of their suggestions to be merged in the main branch automatically.
where you think everyone should have to do it via "dev state" repo where its not expected people to even get to the point of having their proposal put into code to even allow anyone to download it, to even have a chance of a community consensus.
917  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain size on: December 19, 2018, 08:17:17 AM
so what are you trying to suggest here?

the number of transactions in that block is 230 because people (services) have been batching transactions and reusing addresses which has led to creating bigger transactions hence taking up bigger space in a block hence a block being able to contain lesser number of them.

this has been the case from day 1 and will be with or without SegWit or even with having a hard fork to a block size 2 MB.

what you notice is that the bloated "batch" tx's are using segwit smart contracts which batched up 200 inputs and 1 output
with a 65kb bloat per tx

if an exchange used 200 legacy addresses
in*180 + out*34 + 10
200*180 +1*34 +10=36044

so using segwit. actual hard drive bytes are 65kb.. vs legacy would have been 36kb per tx..
meaning less actual hard drive bytes would have been used by that block 230 txs.

now imagine it was legacy, and no witness scale factor and the legacy cap was 2.3mb(to keep the block the same hard drive bytes used limit as the block exampled).. more than 230 tx's would have fit in

now imagine 4mb legacy cap without the segwit witness scale factor to make the 4mb weight fully utilisable. even more transactions would have fit into a block..

it aint rocket science
918  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Can anyone make sure the ALS foundation gets their Bitcoins? on: December 19, 2018, 01:42:27 AM
I'm going to see if I can reach out to the Trustees individually, maybe that'll have better luck.

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/join-teamhal-give100-wbitcoin-to-the-hal-finney-bitcoin-fund-for-als-research/
Quote
In his memory and in support for finding a cure, Erik Voorhees Co-Founder of Coinapult, Jason King of Seanís Outpost, Roger Ver, BitPay and the Bitcoin Foundation have collaborated to provide a way to donate Bitcoin to ALS research.
919  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Chains on: December 19, 2018, 12:34:48 AM
I am talking about keeping the data on my harddrive. Instead of two copies before the fork, use only one.

you mean
one copy of the chain upto block 478558

then a btc chain of 478559->ongoing
and a bch chain of 478559-556767
then a bch chain of 556768->ongoing
then a bchsv chain of 556768->ongoing

like this:
2009----------------------------------o-----2018 btc
                                                   |
2009----------------------------------o---e-2018 bch
                                                         |                            
2009--------------------------------------e-2018 bchsv

instead of this:
2009----------------------------------------2018 btc
2009----------------------------------------2018 bch
2009----------------------------------------2018 bchsv
920  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain size on: December 19, 2018, 12:11:31 AM
as for that block


2.2mb ... but only 230 transactions included..
that there is known as a bloated block as its wasting alot of tx count on heavy transactions..

a very worse case scenario is where a block can be bloated with just 5tx... yep
if you cared about bitcoin utility on the bitcoin network. i/you should not be proud of a block using 2.2mb for just 230 or 5tx.. thats the opposite of scaling bitcoin for better utility.

what you should be seeking is a case where the old notion of bitcoin allowing upto 7tx/s (4200tx a block) having on average more than 4200tx.. that then would be a time to celebrate a step forward in bitcoin utility..
or more long term more than 600k tx a day threshold being passed.

no one should be proud of a 2.2mb block of only 230tx
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 ... 820 »
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!