Bitcoin Forum
April 16, 2024, 05:43:45 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] (QTUM) - A Scalable Smart Contract Platform w/ Proof of Stake  (Read 525247 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (36 posts by 25+ users deleted.)
cybterpunk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 414
Merit: 101


View Profile
January 19, 2019, 10:40:55 AM
 #6101

https://www.ccn.com/how-400-billion-tencent-might-soon-acquire-two-major-bitcoin-exchanges/


Qtum on Korbit
1713289425
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713289425

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713289425
Reply with quote  #2

1713289425
Report to moderator
1713289425
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713289425

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713289425
Reply with quote  #2

1713289425
Report to moderator
1713289425
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713289425

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713289425
Reply with quote  #2

1713289425
Report to moderator
It is a common myth that Bitcoin is ruled by a majority of miners. This is not true. Bitcoin miners "vote" on the ordering of transactions, but that's all they do. They can't vote to change the network rules.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
muleroaa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 526


GIF by SOCIFI


View Profile
January 21, 2019, 12:46:42 PM
 #6102


How is this exactly relevant for Qtum being on Korbit? Do you think that all the assets on Korbit will go up in value just because Tencent would become the owner of the exchange?

                ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄                          ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
             █████████████████                   █████████████████
         █████████████████████████           █████████████████████████
       █████████████████████████████       █████████████████████████████
     █████████████████████████████████   █████████████████████████████████
   ████████████▀           ▀██████████████████████████████████████████████
  ████████████▄▄███████████▄▄█████████▓▓▓███████████████████████████████████
 ▐██████████████▀         ▀██████████▓▓▓▓████████████████████████████████████
 ██████████████▄▄█████████▄▄█████████▓▓▓▓▓████████████████████████████████████
▐█████████████████▀      ▀██████████▓▓▓▓▓▓████████████████████████████████████▌
▐████████████████▄▄██████▄▄█████████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓███████████████████████████████████▌
▐██████████████████      ███████████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓███████████████████████████████████▌
▐██████████████████ ████ ████████████▓▓▓▓▓████████████████████████████████████
 ██████████████████ ████ ████████████▓▓▓▓▓███████████████    ████████████████
  █████████████████ ████ █████████████▓▓▓████████████████   █████████████   █
   ████████████████      ███████████████████████████████    ███████████
    ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████     ████████
      ███████████████████████████████     █████████████████
        ███████████████████████████         █████████████████▓
           ████████████████████                ███████████████████▓
               ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀                       ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄▄██████████████████▄▄
▄████████████████████████▄
▄████████████████████████████▄
████████████████████████████████
▓████████████████████████████████▓
███████████████████████▒░███████████
▄█████████████████▒░      ███████████▄
█████████████░░          ░████████████
█████████░              ░█████████████
██████████▓░░          ░██████████████
██████████████▓░       ███████████████
▀███████████████▒     ░██████████████▀
████████████████▒   ░███████████████
████████████████░ ░███████████████
████████████████████████████████
▀████████████████████████████▀
▀████████████████████████▀
▀▀██████████████████▀▀
 ▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
.
JOIN OUR
TELEGRAM
cybterpunk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 414
Merit: 101


View Profile
January 22, 2019, 12:22:21 PM
 #6103

is qtum more scalable then EOS or ETH?   or what benefits QTUM network have?

it's more scalable than ETH, while EOS is not really a Blockchain since they only have 21 nodes.....
TomThumb
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 12


View Profile
January 22, 2019, 10:40:06 PM
Last edit: January 22, 2019, 10:53:54 PM by TomThumb
 #6104

is qtum more scalable then EOS or ETH?   or what benefits QTUM network have?

it's more scalable than ETH, while EOS is not really a Blockchain since they only have 21 nodes.....

Qtum does slightly more transactions per second right now - approx. 60-70 tps vs 7-15 tps for ETH - but Vitalik is bragging that Ethereum will eventually do millions of tps:

https://www.ccn.com/vitalik-buterin-ethereum-will-eventually-achieve-1-million-transactions-per-second/

Qtum is aiming for 50,000 in the short-term, but I haven't read anything about long-term possibilities:

https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/qtum-aims-for-50000-transactions-per-second-and-launches-0-16-update-during-first-anniversary/

If we could burp both babies, the sky's the limit! Cheesy
revelacaogr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1021

2009 Alea iacta est


View Profile
January 23, 2019, 12:16:03 PM
 #6105

“Fake Stake” attacks on chain-based Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies

https://medium.com/@dsl_uiuc/fake-stake-attacks-on-chain-based-proof-of-stake-cryptocurrencies-b8b05723f806


This article is the public disclosure of a series of resource exhaustion vulnerabilities investigated by a team of students consisting of Sanket Kanjalkar (sanket1729, smk7@illinois.edu), Yunqi Li, Yuguang Chen, Joseph Kuo, and our adviser Andrew Miller(socrates1024) in the Decentralized Systems Lab @ UIUC. These vulnerabilities have affected 26+ Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies in total and would allow a network attacker with a very small amount of stake to crash any of the network nodes running the corresponding software. We began a coordinated disclosure in October 2018 to notify development teams of affected cryptocurrencies ahead of this public release. The majority of them (weighted by marketcap) have already deployed mitigations.........


Vulnerability #1: “I Can’t Believe it’s not Stake”

When we first investigated this problem, we found that five cryptocurrencies, Qtum, Particl, Navcoin, HTMLcoin, and Emercoin, exhibited a fairly trivial form of this vulnerability: namely, they fail to check any coinstake transaction at all before committing a block to RAM or disk. What these five cryptocurrencies have in common is that they have adopted Bitcoin’s “headers first” feature, in which block propagation was split into two separate messages, Block and Header. Nodes only ask for Block after Header passes the PoW checks AND it is a longest (or longer) chain. Since the coinstake transaction is present only in Block but not the Header, a node cannot validate the Header on its own. Instead, it directly stores the header to an in-memory data structure (mapBlockIndex). As a result, any network attacker, even with no stake whatsoever, can fill up a victim node’s RAM..........







TomThumb
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 12


View Profile
January 23, 2019, 09:42:26 PM
 #6106

“Fake Stake” attacks on chain-based Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies

Vulnerability #1: “I Can’t Believe it’s not Stake”

The chart says it's been fixed on Qtum. Only the first vulnerability was exploitable. But, as someone said, it's a bit worrying that Qtum kept quiet about this - but, then again, maybe it's best to keep quiet about something like this until everyone has it sorted.

"All these mitigations make the attack difficult to carry out but are still no substitute for full validation. Some cryptocurrencies, such as Qtum, plan to move to full validation of off-main-chain-blocks in future releases."
TomThumb
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 12


View Profile
January 23, 2019, 10:15:31 PM
 #6107

In other news, QtumX hits 10,000 tps, although that's by using Proof of Authority, not Proof of Stake:

https://dailyhodl.com/2019/01/23/crypto-game-changer-qtum-blockchain-system-breaks-10000-transactions-per-second/

Grin
Victorycoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 517



View Profile
January 27, 2019, 11:48:53 PM
 #6108

Hopefully there will be lots of DAPPS on QTUM this year, otherwise all this great work on developing a killer platform will be for nothing. Getting a gold label from binance is big news so hopefully it will attract more investors and developers
Hopefully think so that it will go to a good price as soon as possible for the listing of binance. We have to wait more to see the success of the projects nothing else.
cybterpunk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 414
Merit: 101


View Profile
February 05, 2019, 02:18:11 PM
 #6109

“Fake Stake” attacks on chain-based Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies

Vulnerability #1: “I Can’t Believe it’s not Stake”

The chart says it's been fixed on Qtum. Only the first vulnerability was exploitable. But, as someone said, it's a bit worrying that Qtum kept quiet about this - but, then again, maybe it's best to keep quiet about something like this until everyone has it sorted.

"All these mitigations make the attack difficult to carry out but are still no substitute for full validation. Some cryptocurrencies, such as Qtum, plan to move to full validation of off-main-chain-blocks in future releases."


Qtum is the only one fixed the Problem.  no worry.
cybterpunk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 414
Merit: 101


View Profile
February 05, 2019, 02:18:56 PM
 #6110

“Fake Stake” attacks on chain-based Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies

https://medium.com/@dsl_uiuc/fake-stake-attacks-on-chain-based-proof-of-stake-cryptocurrencies-b8b05723f806


This article is the public disclosure of a series of resource exhaustion vulnerabilities investigated by a team of students consisting of Sanket Kanjalkar (sanket1729, smk7@illinois.edu), Yunqi Li, Yuguang Chen, Joseph Kuo, and our adviser Andrew Miller(socrates1024) in the Decentralized Systems Lab @ UIUC. These vulnerabilities have affected 26+ Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies in total and would allow a network attacker with a very small amount of stake to crash any of the network nodes running the corresponding software. We began a coordinated disclosure in October 2018 to notify development teams of affected cryptocurrencies ahead of this public release. The majority of them (weighted by marketcap) have already deployed mitigations.........


Vulnerability #1: “I Can’t Believe it’s not Stake”

When we first investigated this problem, we found that five cryptocurrencies, Qtum, Particl, Navcoin, HTMLcoin, and Emercoin, exhibited a fairly trivial form of this vulnerability: namely, they fail to check any coinstake transaction at all before committing a block to RAM or disk. What these five cryptocurrencies have in common is that they have adopted Bitcoin’s “headers first” feature, in which block propagation was split into two separate messages, Block and Header. Nodes only ask for Block after Header passes the PoW checks AND it is a longest (or longer) chain. Since the coinstake transaction is present only in Block but not the Header, a node cannot validate the Header on its own. Instead, it directly stores the header to an in-memory data structure (mapBlockIndex). As a result, any network attacker, even with no stake whatsoever, can fill up a victim node’s RAM..........









fixed, check qtum github
cybterpunk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 414
Merit: 101


View Profile
February 08, 2019, 03:56:37 PM
 #6111

Re: “Fake Stake” attacks on chain-based Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies


A group of researchers in the Decentralized Systems Lab at UIUC discovered “a series of resource exhaustion vulnerabilities” that affect numerous proof-of-stake networks, including Qtum.

To be clear, no funds were ever at risk. The attack illustrated by the team is a type of denial-of-service (DoS) attack that can only be run against a single node at a time.

Nonetheless, we have been in touch with these researchers for several months through the team’s responsible disclosure of the bug. We appreciate the Decentralized System Lab’s research and the way they went about making us aware so we could fix the issue before it was made public over the past week.

The researchers presented two types of attacks:

“No Stake” — header spam attack
“Spent stake” — full blocks spam (not possible on Qtum)
As stated in the original article, only the “No Stake” vulnerability affected Qtum; however, we have already mitigated the risks of an attack from this vector in our 0.16.2 release.

The “No Stake” attack consisted of two similar but distinct attack vectors that could enable an attacker to cause a peer to run out of memory in the case of the first attack vector or disk space in the case of the second attack vector.

The first of these attack vectors was caused by insufficient validation before storing headers in memory. A potential attacker could, therefore, cause peers to run out of memory by flooding them with invalid headers. The reason why this was possible was that Qtum inherits Bitcoin’s headers-first feature that was introduced in version 0.10.0 of Bitcoin. In Bitcoin, the header’s proof-of-work (PoW) is validated before the header is stored in memory. However, there does not exist any PoW in Qtum’s proof-of-stake (PoS) protocol and the PoS in Qtum can only be fully validated once the full block is received since the coinstake transaction is located in the block. Therefore a potential attack could have been able to create a large number of invalid headers and send them to peers to cause them to run out of memory.

The second of these attack vectors was related to how/when Qtum does full-block validation. In Qtum, full block validation and coinstake validation is performed when a new block is received that has more total chainwork than the previous tip’s chainwork. In effect, this means that full checking of the PoS is done only when a new block is appended to the current tip or when a fork’s tip is received that has more total chainwork than the current tip and therefore triggers a block reorganization. However, In previous versions of Qtum, new blocks were committed to disk if a node received a block with chainwork equal to or greater than the current tip’s chainwork. An attacker could, therefore, make peers commit blocks to disk without the peers fully validating the PoS and cause them to run out of disk space.


Qtum’s v0.16.2, which was a recommended update included improved network security and bug fixes in the form of:

Implement network spam protection
Only request blocks from peers when their chainwork is strictly more significant than the current tip
Add extra header checks for PoS timestamp, block indexes, signature type (LowS), synchronized and rolling checkpoints.
Add recent checkpoints
Update nMinimumChainWork, defaultAssumeValid and chainTxData
Update BLOCK_CHAIN_SIZE
Fix failing Qt tests in make check on OSX Mojave
Fix getblocktemplate RPC for PoS blocks
Fix help messages for walletpassphrase and getnetworkhashps RPC’s
The block/disk attack required only a slight adjustment to when Qtum commits blocks to disk. Blocks are now committed to disk only if the block is part of a chain whose tip’s chainwork is greater than the active tip’s chainwork.

The header/memory attack was mitigated by implementing detection of potential header spam and disconnecting and banning any offending peer. Several checks that were previously only done when the full blocks were received were added to standalone header checking as well. Such as making sure that the signature contained in the header was in the correct format before committing the header to memory as large invalid signatures could be used to amplify header spam.

The network spam protection implemented in v0.16.2 detects peers who are trying to run such “No Stake” attacks and bans them. Now, nodes only request blocks from peers when their chainwork is strictly greater than the current tip. In addition to these countermeasures, we added extra header checks for PoS timestamps, block indexes, signature type (LowS), and synchronized and rolling checkpoints.

We believe that these patches should render any attacks near impossible to execute because of the added complexity and security features implemented. Despite this, we are working on a more comprehensive fix that has passed our initial tests, but since it is a comparatively more substantial change to the protocol, we require more tests.
cybterpunk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 414
Merit: 101


View Profile
February 08, 2019, 04:00:17 PM
 #6112

Re: “Fake Stake” attacks on chain-based Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies



https://blog.qtum.org/re-fake-stake-attacks-on-chain-based-proof-of-stake-cryptocurrencies-f26d58dc8f46

A group of researchers in the Decentralized Systems Lab at UIUC discovered “a series of resource exhaustion vulnerabilities” that affect numerous proof-of-stake networks, including Qtum.

To be clear, no funds were ever at risk. The attack illustrated by the team is a type of denial-of-service (DoS) attack that can only be run against a single node at a time.

Nonetheless, we have been in touch with these researchers for several months through the team’s responsible disclosure of the bug. We appreciate the Decentralized System Lab’s research and the way they went about making us aware so we could fix the issue before it was made public over the past week.

The researchers presented two types of attacks:

“No Stake” — header spam attack
“Spent stake” — full blocks spam (not possible on Qtum)
As stated in the original article, only the “No Stake” vulnerability affected Qtum; however, we have already mitigated the risks of an attack from this vector in our 0.16.2 release.

The “No Stake” attack consisted of two similar but distinct attack vectors that could enable an attacker to cause a peer to run out of memory in the case of the first attack vector or disk space in the case of the second attack vector.

The first of these attack vectors was caused by insufficient validation before storing headers in memory. A potential attacker could, therefore, cause peers to run out of memory by flooding them with invalid headers. The reason why this was possible was that Qtum inherits Bitcoin’s headers-first feature that was introduced in version 0.10.0 of Bitcoin. In Bitcoin, the header’s proof-of-work (PoW) is validated before the header is stored in memory. However, there does not exist any PoW in Qtum’s proof-of-stake (PoS) protocol and the PoS in Qtum can only be fully validated once the full block is received since the coinstake transaction is located in the block. Therefore a potential attack could have been able to create a large number of invalid headers and send them to peers to cause them to run out of memory.

The second of these attack vectors was related to how/when Qtum does full-block validation. In Qtum, full block validation and coinstake validation is performed when a new block is received that has more total chainwork than the previous tip’s chainwork. In effect, this means that full checking of the PoS is done only when a new block is appended to the current tip or when a fork’s tip is received that has more total chainwork than the current tip and therefore triggers a block reorganization. However, In previous versions of Qtum, new blocks were committed to disk if a node received a block with chainwork equal to or greater than the current tip’s chainwork. An attacker could, therefore, make peers commit blocks to disk without the peers fully validating the PoS and cause them to run out of disk space.


Qtum’s v0.16.2, which was a recommended update included improved network security and bug fixes in the form of:

Implement network spam protection
Only request blocks from peers when their chainwork is strictly more significant than the current tip
Add extra header checks for PoS timestamp, block indexes, signature type (LowS), synchronized and rolling checkpoints.
Add recent checkpoints
Update nMinimumChainWork, defaultAssumeValid and chainTxData
Update BLOCK_CHAIN_SIZE
Fix failing Qt tests in make check on OSX Mojave
Fix getblocktemplate RPC for PoS blocks
Fix help messages for walletpassphrase and getnetworkhashps RPC’s
The block/disk attack required only a slight adjustment to when Qtum commits blocks to disk. Blocks are now committed to disk only if the block is part of a chain whose tip’s chainwork is greater than the active tip’s chainwork.

The header/memory attack was mitigated by implementing detection of potential header spam and disconnecting and banning any offending peer. Several checks that were previously only done when the full blocks were received were added to standalone header checking as well. Such as making sure that the signature contained in the header was in the correct format before committing the header to memory as large invalid signatures could be used to amplify header spam.

The network spam protection implemented in v0.16.2 detects peers who are trying to run such “No Stake” attacks and bans them. Now, nodes only request blocks from peers when their chainwork is strictly greater than the current tip. In addition to these countermeasures, we added extra header checks for PoS timestamps, block indexes, signature type (LowS), and synchronized and rolling checkpoints.

We believe that these patches should render any attacks near impossible to execute because of the added complexity and security features implemented. Despite this, we are working on a more comprehensive fix that has passed our initial tests, but since it is a comparatively more substantial change to the protocol, we require more tests.
cybterpunk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 414
Merit: 101


View Profile
February 10, 2019, 05:10:22 AM
 #6113

Qtum new Version  V0.17.1  released!



https://github.com/qtumproject/qtum/releases/tag/mainnet-ignition-v0.17.1



Update History
v0.17.1 - Upgrade Qtum core to bitcoin core 0.17.1 plus other improvements and bug fixes
Upgrade Qtum core to bitcoin core 0.17.1 including partially signed transactions support, external wallet files and more. Check bitcoin 0.17.0 and 0.17.1 release notes for more details.
Fix a bug which allowed using P2SH addresses as transaction sender in RPC interface, which caused that transaction to be rejected.
Fix an issue which prevented the correct logs to be printed when a state divergence was detected.
Prioritize create contract transactions over send to contract ones when staking.
Fix a bug which allowed node's time manipulation in some cases.
Fix a bug which prevented some EVM globals to be returned correctly when using callcontract RPC call.
Fix a bug which caused fee estimation to be excessively high in some cases.
Fix Solidity compiler link in the GUI wallet.
Make getaccountinfo RPC call help message clearer.
Improve the way encrypted wallet related RPC calls help messages were displayed.
Fix a bug that caused build description to be inaccurate.
TomThumb
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 12


View Profile
February 10, 2019, 08:51:41 PM
 #6114

Shocking new bug found in Qtum - it's been dubbed "The Event Horizon", and it sucks in all currently existing coins and they disappear for good Angry But the "gravitational pull" is so weak, almost no coins will actually be sucked in. Just kidding - April Fools! Grin Cheesy Tongue Wink Smiley
provenceday
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 13, 2019, 12:42:20 PM
 #6115

Shocking new bug found in Qtum - it's been dubbed "The Event Horizon", and it sucks in all currently existing coins and they disappear for good Angry But the "gravitational pull" is so weak, almost no coins will actually be sucked in. Just kidding - April Fools! Grin Cheesy Tongue Wink Smiley

seems Qtum is the only coin fixed the bug immediately.

and still one of the biggest POS network.
BTCspace
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 501


View Profile
February 14, 2019, 07:36:15 AM
 #6116

Qtum best coin, thank you for your contribution to the development of decentralization.

it need just time, the whole market is bear market now.

running farm worldwide
DeViL303
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 103


SESAME


View Profile
February 18, 2019, 06:25:26 PM
 #6117

USDC AND QTUM LISTING ON INDODAX https://blog.indodax.com/usdc-and-qtum-listing-on-indodax/


BTCspace
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 501


View Profile
February 19, 2019, 09:33:26 AM
 #6118


qtum been listed on indodax!

one of the biggest Indonesia exchange.

running farm worldwide
Qtum (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 722
Merit: 259


View Profile WWW
February 19, 2019, 10:13:54 PM
 #6119

We deleted a post which linked to a non-official wallet. 

Please remember that our developers only publish updates to our official Github:

https://github.com/qtumproject


▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█ Qtum █▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
●▬●▬●▬● First UTXO Based PoS Smart Contract and DAPP Platform ●▬●▬●▬●
▃▃▃▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▃▃▃
tbct_mt2
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 2296
Merit: 835



View Profile WWW
February 20, 2019, 01:42:09 AM
Last edit: September 25, 2019, 09:39:16 AM by tbct_mt2
 #6120

Well done to keep the QTUM community safe from potential losses.
Moreover, you can also report those guys and their bad posts with potential phishing links to forum moderators.
We deleted a post which linked to a non-official wallet.

Always should use wallet versions published by the developer's account in the Ann topic or in the website of QTUM project.
Quote
Please remember that our developers only publish updates to our official Github:

https://github.com/qtumproject

.
.airbet.
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██

██

██

██

██
.

▄████▄▄▄██████▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████▀▀▀▀████
██████████████
▀███▀███████▄██
██████████▄███
██████████████
███████████████
███████████████
██████████████
█████▐████████
██████▀███████▀
▄███████████████▄
████████████████
█░██████████████
████████████████
████████████████
█████████████████
█████████████████
███████░█░███████
████████████████
█████████████████
██████████████░█
████████████████
▀███████████████▀
.
.
.
.
██▄▄▄
████████▄▄
██████▀▀████▄
██████▄░░████▄
██████████████
████████░░▀███▌
░████████▄▄████
██████████████▌
███░░░█████████
█████████░░░██▀
░░░███████████▀
██████░░░██▀
░░▀▀███▀

   
6,000+
GAMES
|
WEEKLY
PROMOS
.
....100%....
1ST DEPOSIT
BONUS
....
....125%.....
2ND DEPOSIT
BONUS
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██

██

██

██

██
.
.PLAY NOW.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  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!