Bitcoin Forum
October 25, 2020, 08:02:35 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 97 98 99 ... 106 »
  Print  
Author Topic: AURORACOIN - Empowering Financial Freedom  (Read 137910 times)
BioMike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1658
Merit: 1001


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 08:26:56 AM
 #961

The first halving of Bitcoin had no measurable effect on the price (the price increase before and after that time could have more be attributed to more people discovering Bitcoin and the fraudulent actions by MtGox at that time. At the block where the halving happened, the price hardly reacted, the largest changes happened with weeks of interval.

If the economy and money supply is healthy enough (the latter is already the case for AUR, the first not so yet), there should be no shock in price. Also, I've had already discussions with the ISX people on measures to stabilize the price on their Icelandic exchange. The price calculations/speculations from Guðmundur (new Icelandic MBA that the foundation had a 5 hour talk with last week) are part of determining strategies for this.

But if people want this discussion (IMHO it is a solution for a problem that does not exist), the official Auroracoin forums is the place to do that.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1603656155
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603656155

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603656155
Reply with quote  #2

1603656155
Report to moderator
1603656155
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603656155

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603656155
Reply with quote  #2

1603656155
Report to moderator
1603656155
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603656155

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603656155
Reply with quote  #2

1603656155
Report to moderator
BioMike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1658
Merit: 1001


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 08:35:21 AM
 #962

I'm sorry I came across a bit harsh before. I was getting a little alarmed when hearing you were going to fiddle with the supply Wink

In principle the supply will remain untouched. The only exception that I see is implementing Proof of Transaction if the total amount of coins is insufficient for a proper AUR-based economy (undefined yet what that would be).
Auroracoin
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 60
Merit: 5


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2016, 10:04:50 AM
 #963

We will be reworking the block reduction schedule in a future wallet update. 

Uhrm. What?

If you have a plan to change this you should let the "economic majority" know about it, just in case we need to fork Wink.

Seriously, though, I hope I'm somehow misreading this and you're not planning changes to such fundamental parameters.


This was briefly discussed on a developers meeting yesterday. Like many things this is also a topic that we look into at those meetings.

Rest assured though, no fundamental changes will be made without wide consent of the "economic majority".
rocanonz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 131
Merit: 100


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 10:07:29 AM
 #964

Why Market Prices Do Not Double With a Block Reward Halving

http://www.ofnumbers.com/2014/10/15/why-market-prices-do-not-double-with-a-block-reward-halving/
and
http://www.ofnumbers.com/2014/07/02/ray-dillinger-discusses-block-reward-halving/
ny2cafuse
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001


HODL for life.


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 04:01:36 PM
 #965

With Bitcoin, market prices will need to increase after the halving to keep mining ROI intact.  The big mining farms won't sit around and mine at half the profitability.  The correlation between halving and price might not be 100% connected, but there is a strong influence on price when the market is as big as BTC.  I've also seen coins try to manipulate halving schedules to increase price, only to see huge decreases in price because it was a stupid idea(never try to manipulate coin price through blockchain mechanics).  In 2012/2013 also had the momentum of BLF ASICs coming onboard too.  Between the halving and the rush for ASICs, it was a crazy time for BTC price.  They even made commemorative coins for "halving day".

I'm not going to say that AUR will double(or more) in price when a halving occurs, but when we're trying to create a stable blockchain and market price, we're not doing ourselves any favors with a hard halving.  In a few months, we'll be able to witness it again with BTC.  It's not going to happen overnight, but I'm extremely confident in the fact that with S7s still selling, miners won't take a 50% on mining rewards for very long.  They'll drive the price up to match original ROI.

AUR doesn't need big swings like that when it's trying to be a stable, everyday use coin.  Just my $0.02.

-Fuse

Community > Devs
rocanonz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 131
Merit: 100


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 06:06:07 PM
 #966

"In economics we have a concept called rational expectations where agents use all the available information to decide their actions in equilibrium. In this framework the halving in the block rewards would have been anticipated and factored into the price. You are right to emphasize that when doing a demand and supply analysis, it is not the coins produced on a daily basis that matter but rather the entire stock of bitcoins in circulation. In that way the price of bitcoin should not double for a halve in the hashrate, in fact the effect should be negligible. This is considering just transactional demand and total supply. With goods/commodities this is likely to hold true but in currencies or cryptocurrencies this may be different. There are issues of security and speculation.
...
In my mind, economics would predict the hashrate to halve as the reward halves. Essentially the argument would go if the price has not doubled the hashrate must fall."
Tim Swanson - Director of Market Research at R3CEV
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2744
Merit: 1016



View Profile
February 08, 2016, 06:39:15 PM
 #967

In my mind, economics would predict the hashrate to halve as the reward halves. Essentially the argument would go if the price has not doubled the hashrate must fall."

I'm pretty sure that with auroracoin (or any other coin mainly mined by pools that mine altcoins in order of profitability) that this effect would happen really quickly, within a couple of blocks, too.

It's very different for Bitcoin, of course (there is no other coin to hop to). I don't share the belief expressed above that the halving had (will have) no effect on Bitcoin price. En contraire. But this is not the place to argue that.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
ny2cafuse
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001


HODL for life.


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 07:03:29 PM
 #968

In my mind, economics would predict the hashrate to halve as the reward halves. Essentially the argument would go if the price has not doubled the hashrate must fall."
Tim Swanson - Director of Market Research at R3CEV


Correct.  If the price doesn't go up, the miners would jump ship, and the difficulty would fall, essentially creating price/reward equilibrium.  The first halving of BTC was an interesting time, because you saw a shift in mining technology.  I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that everyone who was mining BTC with GPUs(myself included) before the halving pretty much stopped in the following months when the price was stable.  But the price jumped like 15x shortly after that, and then ASICs hit chain.  So it was a really interesting time for BTC market dynamics.  However, this summer should be a true indication of the effect the halving schedule has on market dynamics.  Even if the increase is gradual, it will be very sharp when looked at from a longer timeline.  Yes, month to month it's not going to look crazy, but over a 3-6 month span I'm almost guaranteeing that you will see a considerable increase in price following the halving.  I don't think you'll see enough of a decrease in mining to equalize the price/reward ratio.  Time will tell though which way it will go.

But either way it goes, it's still disruptive.  Sharp increases or decreases in price or hashrate aren't ideal, especially when we're talking about a daily use coin.  I personally want to see things run as smoothly as possible for the foreseeable future.

I'm not an economist like some of the folks in the team or in this thread. I would think though that a gradual decrease in the inflationary rate would be better than hard halvings.  I'd love to know why it wouldn't.  The only reason I could see BTC using a hard halving is because it was easy to code and it was simple.  That can't be the only reason why coins continue to follow the halving model started by BTC.  If AUR is going to be the model for how a country coin replaces the fiat currency, lets get really serious about how the currency is modeled, and not just because BTC did it that way.

-Fuse

Community > Devs
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2744
Merit: 1016



View Profile
February 08, 2016, 07:13:36 PM
 #969

Correct.  If the price doesn't go up, the miners would jump ship, and the difficulty would fall, essentially creating price/reward equilibrium.  The first halving of BTC was an interesting time, because you saw a shift in mining technology.  I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that everyone who was mining BTC with GPUs(myself included) before the halving pretty much stopped in the following months when the price was stable.  But the price jumped like 15x shortly after that, and then ASICs hit chain.  So it was a really interesting time for BTC market dynamics.  However, this summer should be a true indication of the effect the halving schedule has on market dynamics.  Even if the increase is gradual, it will be very sharp when looked at from a longer timeline.  Yes, month to month it's not going to look crazy, but over a 3-6 month span I'm almost guaranteeing that you will see a considerable increase in price following the halving. I don't think you'll see enough of a decrease in mining to equalize the price/reward ratio.  Time will tell though which way it will go.

Finally someone who gets it ;-)

Do you really think the effect of the halving will show itself 'exactly on' of 'right after' the reward halfing?

Of course the effect will be spread out to a period starting well before the halving itself end ending well after it.

Let's look at last time:



I say it was halving-induced. Price went from $5 to ~$125, a 25x increase. So I think my earlier estimation of a 10x increase is conservative under these assumptions.

Again: not sure above does work like that for AUR.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
Bimmerhead
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1278
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 09, 2016, 03:26:44 PM
 #970

While price stability might be a nice thing in theory, if it comes at a cost of confidence in the coin then it is not worth it.

If Auroracoin becomes widely accepted, its price will jump many-fold from here, irregardless of whether the block reward halves or not. In fact the halving will have a minor impact compared to acceptance. We could easily see a 100x jump from here based on acceptance.

However if users don't have confidence that there will not be fundamental changes to the rules of the coin, Auroracoin will go no where but down.

I don't know if halving is the ultimate mechanism in this case, but it was good enough for Satoshi. I'm pretty sure he would have had the capability of programming a gradually-scaling reward system if he had thought that was best. The beauty of the present method is it is easily understandable. As is PoW. That means players can make decisions and act accordingly. As more complexity is introduced, it gets harder for average participants to act rationally, so they drop out of the system.

The genius of bitcoin is that it removes currency from the control of a group of elites who manipulate it for their own advantage, OR who manipulate it for what they think is 'the greater good' or 'a better way'. We should inoculate ourselves against the idea that we can somehow out-smart the market, and we should be very careful to make changes to what Satoshi has designed in terms of the economics of the coin. Adding features is one thing, playing Paul Krugman is completely another.
dinobotta
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 248
Merit: 100


View Profile
February 09, 2016, 05:18:08 PM
 #971

No point in fixing stuff that isn't borken.

"Lost coins only make everyone else’s coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone". Satoshi Nakamoto
rocanonz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 131
Merit: 100


View Profile
February 09, 2016, 06:13:35 PM
 #972

I just wanna say that change is the only constant, but the blockchain.
I enjoyed this discussion  Wink
adamastor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 403
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 09, 2016, 06:15:19 PM
 #973

the fehu symbol means mobile wealth.

What is happening with auroracoins mobility?

Has anyone been able to use an android wallet yet?
Bimmerhead
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1278
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 09, 2016, 06:24:47 PM
 #974

the fehu symbol means mobile wealth.

What is happening with auroracoins mobility?

Has anyone been able to use an android wallet yet?

I used the Android wallet earlier this week. It is the old one from 2014.
dinobotta
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 248
Merit: 100


View Profile
February 09, 2016, 06:55:01 PM
 #975

the fehu symbol means mobile wealth.


It means sheep and wealth. But then again the vikings used sheep as food and as commodity money.

"Lost coins only make everyone else’s coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone". Satoshi Nakamoto
ny2cafuse
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001


HODL for life.


View Profile
February 09, 2016, 07:23:33 PM
Last edit: February 09, 2016, 07:34:06 PM by ny2cafuse
 #976

While price stability might be a nice thing in theory, if it comes at a cost of confidence in the coin then it is not worth it.

If Auroracoin becomes widely accepted, its price will jump many-fold from here, irregardless of whether the block reward halves or not. In fact the halving will have a minor impact compared to acceptance. We could easily see a 100x jump from here based on acceptance.

However if users don't have confidence that there will not be fundamental changes to the rules of the coin, Auroracoin will go no where but down.

I don't know if halving is the ultimate mechanism in this case, but it was good enough for Satoshi. I'm pretty sure he would have had the capability of programming a gradually-scaling reward system if he had thought that was best. The beauty of the present method is it is easily understandable. As is PoW. That means players can make decisions and act accordingly. As more complexity is introduced, it gets harder for average participants to act rationally, so they drop out of the system.

The genius of bitcoin is that it removes currency from the control of a group of elites who manipulate it for their own advantage, OR who manipulate it for what they think is 'the greater good' or 'a better way'. We should inoculate ourselves against the idea that we can somehow out-smart the market, and we should be very careful to make changes to what Satoshi has designed in terms of the economics of the coin. Adding features is one thing, playing Paul Krugman is completely another.

Changing the halving doesn't give anyone more of an advantage with mining than anyone else.  It actually creates a fairer distribution of coins over time.  Additionally, if we aren't talking about "a better way" or "a greater good", then why are we working on AUR, and not just pumping up BTC?  If BTC is does things right, then why try to compete with that?

Evening out the halving schedule doesn't change the supply, nor does it centralize the power of control to the deciding few.  If anything, it broadens the base of wealth and creates a fairer distribution.  It also eases the fluctuations in price caused by halving over the next *nth degree of years.  Sure... acceptance is going to create a skyrocket price increase... but what about 2 years from now when we hit the next halving?  Are we saying that in 2 years, we won't want the price and chain to be as smooth as possible, or are we hoping for a rollercoaster coin that we make day trades on?

The only argument I've heard so far for leaving it as-is is because BTC did it that way, and Satoshi knows best.  The only other reason I could think of is because it's more complicated code.  This can't be an issue with the fact that we're pushing a pretty large update to the wallets soon that will have a change far greater than changing the halving schedule.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell my why it is financially or technically more beneficial to have hard halving schedules rather than gradual block reductions that match the mining timeline.  Sell me on why it's better to leave it as is.

-Fuse

Community > Devs
adamastor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 403
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 09, 2016, 07:32:16 PM
 #977

the fehu symbol means mobile wealth.

What is happening with auroracoins mobility?

Has anyone been able to use an android wallet yet?

I used the Android wallet earlier this week. It is the old one from 2014.

I feel like I'm doing something wrong with the github wallet.

could you give me instructions to download it?
Bimmerhead
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1278
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 09, 2016, 08:47:05 PM
 #978


Changing the halving doesn't give anyone more of an advantage with mining than anyone else.  It actually creates a fairer distribution of coins over time.
What do you mean by "fairer"?

Quote
Additionally, if we aren't talking about "a better way" or "a greater good", then why are we working on AUR, and not just pumping up BTC?  If BTC is does things right, then why try to compete with that?

Because airdrop was designed to get coins into many hands in small geographic area, creating a critical mass of users. With many thousands claiming their coins, this worked.

Quote
Evening out the halving schedule doesn't change the supply, nor does it centralize the power of control to the deciding few.
No, but every time we tinker with the system average users will feel the rules of the game are changing. This reduces confidence in the currency.

Quote
If anything, it broadens the base of wealth and creates a fairer distribution.  It also eases the fluctuations in price caused by halving over the next *nth degree of years.  Sure... acceptance is going to create a skyrocket price increase... but what about 2 years from now when we hit the next halving?  Are we saying that in 2 years, we won't want the price and chain to be as smooth as possible, or are we hoping for a rollercoaster coin that we make day trades on?

Halving does not cut the supply of AUR in half. It cuts the inflation rate of AUR in half. There will continue to be more coins than previously, which is downward-pressing on price.

But if change in payout causes price fluctuations, then what you're proposing merely changes it from a once-every-four-years known phenomenon that people can calculate for, to an ever-happening phenomenon that is hidden and difficult to account for. In fact, I don't really understand how it would work myself.

Quote
The only argument I've heard so far for leaving it as-is is because BTC did it that way, and Satoshi knows best.  The only other reason I could think of is because it's more complicated code.  This can't be an issue with the fact that we're pushing a pretty large update to the wallets soon that will have a change far greater than changing the halving schedule.

I do think that Satoshi has thought about this a lot more than most of us. But I'm also not convinced the current methodology accounts for anything more than minimal convulsions in the price since users know when it is happening and can act accordingly. If everyone knew the supply of copper was going to halve in 2 years, don't you think many people would stockpile now, thus driving up the price in the present?

I don't think anyone is making a 'complicated code' argument.

Quote
I'm still waiting for someone to tell my why it is financially or technically more beneficial to have hard halving schedules rather than gradual block reductions that match the mining timeline.  Sell me on why it's better to leave it as is.

I'm not convinced the hard halving schedule is broken. I'm not convinced it causes wild price fluctuation. I think we have enough work to do without introducing more unknowns and more complexity into the system. I am enjoying the discussion though. Smiley

BioMike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1658
Merit: 1001


View Profile
February 09, 2016, 09:46:01 PM
 #979

The only argument I've heard so far for leaving it as-is is because BTC did it that way, and Satoshi knows best.  The only other reason I could think of is because it's more complicated code.  This can't be an issue with the fact that we're pushing a pretty large update to the wallets soon that will have a change far greater than changing the halving schedule.

I've posted my ideas regarding this on the official forum. No need to repeat it.

The new change is needed for chain stability. It adds already complicated code, but that is needed. The problem you describe can be solved with solutions that don't add extra complexity to the code. Like posted on the other forum, your problem is part of a bigger economic problem that has to be tackled any way.

Look at our NLG friends. They dropped the reward 10x, because they expected that that would make the price going up. It didn't happen. What did happen was that the price dropped further.

To continue: the first drop would be from 12.5 to 6.25 (and according to you the price would almost double, so let's say 20000), then the next drop it goes to 3.125 (and according to you the price would almost double again, 40000), next drop 1.5625 (again almost double of price?, 80000)... now what's the economic logic behind every price increase if the drops become smaller and smaller? As the price increases more and more bag holders would start selling, pushing the price down. This is even without taking into consideration that there would be a healthy Auroracoin economy that would stabilize the price by itself (by providing sufficient liquidity). Finally, it easier to pump the price from 10000 to 20000 than from 40000 to 80000. So, if the first halving is a bit bumpy, the next halvings will have less and less effect as the price would go up.
ny2cafuse
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001


HODL for life.


View Profile
February 09, 2016, 10:42:26 PM
 #980

What do you mean by "fairer"?

Because airdrop was designed to get coins into many hands in small geographic area, creating a critical mass of users. With many thousands claiming their coins, this worked.

But are we airdropping coins to anyone else?  So the distribution is now primarily mining and buying through the ISK/AUR exchange.  If I'm mining, changing to a gradual decrease would mean that the "early adopter" period is diminished.  The closer we get to the legacy halvings, the smaller the rewards get.  So people won't hammer the chain in the months prior to try to "short" AUR in an attempt to dump months later when the price corrects to match halving.  Listen, I'm ok with that if that's what people want, but the price and hashrate fluctuations that would result from that would suck.  We'll see this with BTC this summer.  I guarantee it.


No, but every time we tinker with the system average users will feel the rules of the game are changing. This reduces confidence in the currency.

I'd say we've already tinkered with the system with the latest update.  Things are changing.  Big things.  The gradual reduction in block rewards, and one that matches the original reduction plan but in a smoother manner, is miniscule to what we're pushing out in the coming months.


Halving does not cut the supply of AUR in half. It cuts the inflation rate of AUR in half. There will continue to be more coins than previously, which is downward-pressing on price.

But if change in payout causes price fluctuations, then what you're proposing merely changes it from a once-every-four-years known phenomenon that people can calculate for, to an ever-happening phenomenon that is hidden and difficult to account for. In fact, I don't really understand how it would work myself.

Correct.  It cuts the inflation rate, not the supply.  Like I said, it does nothing to the supply.  But easing the reduction in inflation rate has got to be better than hard percentage decreases.  There were some decent proposals to the the way inflation rates could be shaped better.  One that outlined actual schedules and rates can be found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108964.0.  Again, I'm not a econ guru, but I would think a steady gradual decrease in the inflationary rate would be better than waiting years for a change.  The argument I see for keeping block rewards high in the beginning for BTC was that they wanted to see early adoption and distribution.  I think AUR addressed that with the airdrop.  So really, wouldn't we want the rate to really start tapering off?


I do think that Satoshi has thought about this a lot more than most of us. But I'm also not convinced the current methodology accounts for anything more than minimal convulsions in the price since users know when it is happening and can act accordingly. If everyone knew the supply of copper was going to halve in 2 years, don't you think many people would stockpile now, thus driving up the price in the present?

I don't think anyone is making a 'complicated code' argument.

Satoshi was a smart guy, but not a clairvoyant.  He had plans in place to address a lot of issue like this.  What he didn't have in place, the dev team addressed as well.  However, the overwhelming consensus from people discussing the halving schedule back in the day was that it was set the way it was for early adoption and simplicity of code.  And while I am a firm believer in the KISS method, sometimes the easiest thing isn't always the best.  The halving functions set by BTC were uniquely created for BTC.  The thing that keeps haunting me about this is that coins just continued to use the same principals because "it's what BTC did".  That seems to be the only explanation I'm seeing.  There are coins that have altered this function to include a gradual decrease.  However, they never really explain why either.  I just want to troof, troof.

I would hope we're not shooting for a hoarding situation like your copper example.  Again, this is the "shorting" scenario I mentioned about.  I'd love to eliminate that.  I think that's my biggest driving force for proposing this change- speculation mining/trading.

Regarding the code complexity, there was some mention in our slack meeting about the floating point errors.  There is a lot of discussion about this in the BTC halving threads in late 2012 / early 2013.  There is a concern about code issues, but at least we're aware of what could happen.  I just thought I'd throw out the concern that some might have because I want to make sure we address every aspect of this (non)issue.


I'm not convinced the hard halving schedule is broken. I'm not convinced it causes wild price fluctuation. I think we have enough work to do without introducing more unknowns and more complexity into the system. I am enjoying the discussion though. Smiley

I'm not convinced it's broken either.  But just because something works, doesn't mean it's the best way for it to work.  If we stuck with that mentality, we'd be watching cathode tube televisions still.  I want AUR to be one of those snazzy new 0.11" thick LG TV sets(http://www.ibtimes.com/ces-2016-lg-shows-ultra-thin-g6-tv-measures-same-4-stacked-credit-cards-2250067).

I love the discussion, mate.  Even if nothing changes, we can at least say we thought about it and addressed both sides of the discussion.

-Fuse

Community > Devs
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 97 98 99 ... 106 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!