Bitcoin Forum
May 18, 2022, 02:45:26 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?  (Read 79881 times)
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 24, 2017, 02:38:41 AM
Last edit: March 24, 2017, 04:41:49 AM by iamnotback
 #541

Minted rewards from voting is not in my plans. There is nothing stopping apps from having voting if they want (such as upvoting comments a la Reddit). But it will not be tied to any token rewarded by the blockchain protocol. There will however be an advantage for voting as compared to Reddit and StackExchange voting.

Why do we need a Steem clone?

The original is always best.

Steem made several major errors in design, marketing, and launch/distribution. The original will not be the best.

@iamnotback I didnt know Ark.io was similar to steem? I read all their website recently (ARK's) and it just sounded like they where making another Etherum to me, but maybe I got it all wrong.

I think it is based on Graphene, so the same DPoS consensus for the blockchain. I haven't looked in much more detail beyond that. I read they were offer rewards via voting, which IMO was one of the major blunders of Steem.

I heard Dan Larimer is working on improving Graphene and launching a new thing. So Ark and Steem will be using an inferior technology.




Re: Why Bitcoin won’t hardfork like Ethereum

Some people spread rumors around, saying that the mining industry will control Bitcoin if BU wins. This is obviously a fallacy, no one can fight against the market unless he possess more money than the market.

As if the market will have any other choice. That was a nice lie.

Now that Bitcoin is at least 51% mined from China, prepare for future regulations to be enforced on all transactions. The reference to Taiwan a subliminal warning to Westerners of their future ass kicking humiliation.

The BU mining cartel admitted it can and will 51% attack when required to.

I warned you all last year. And you all said I was spreading FUD.

When you guys are serious about decapitating the centralized power of the miners, come talk to me.
Bitcoin Layer Two Wallet with CoinSwaps Privacy
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1652841926
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1652841926

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1652841926
Reply with quote  #2

1652841926
Report to moderator
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 24, 2017, 05:26:39 AM
 #542

Curious what readers think of this?

http://trilema.com/2012/lets-have-fun-with-paul-graham/

http://trilema.com/2014/the-mobile-revolution-or-what-consumers-have-come-to-expect/
IadixDev
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 143


They're tactical


View Profile WWW
March 24, 2017, 07:22:07 AM
Last edit: March 24, 2017, 10:04:25 AM by IadixDev
 #543



Any way, that is why a strongly typed language that transpiles to JavaScript is something I am considering. C can also be compiled to JavaScript with Emscripten (as I think you've alluded to above).

Server-side we probably want C/C++ code, but perhaps Node.js is okay for the proof-of-concept stage. Remember we are trying to get to market asap. Then there will be funds to throw into development to refine everything.

Let's talk this out on a slack soon.

I already can develop app quickly with the C framework Smiley Already have html5 player & ogg p2p streamer, it can get to the market quickly, quicker than starting from scratch with node.js

I can have a prototype running in the week, no shit. And it works on android browser. The 3d, crypto, and audio stream.


And the idea is there is almost zero double code between the "server"/node  side in C, and the app side in html5/js. Because each part have different purpose.

And the goal of using C is having binary machine code, with sse, system calls, opengl/opencl, and direct full kernel api for sockets and i/o, transpiling this to js is not very useful. And I already have working system of cross platform binary module, with the http/json/rpc server, that bind module export as http/json/rpc interface, with the source and binaries on the git. It already works, it's already developped, and can already be used to make html5 application with html5/js with rpc calls to the node modules.

It just miss some kind of high level définition for interfaces and modules and application code to have something really clean that can generate html5 UI and define applications components , with Event handling the json like data type, inter modules interface etc

Maybe sometime it can make sense to have double code as fall back for when javascript engine in the browser is not enough.

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 24, 2017, 12:59:32 PM
Last edit: March 24, 2017, 01:27:49 PM by iamnotback
 #544

Will destroying Bitcoin by fixing it make us insanely wealthy?


@IadixDev, I appreciate very much your and other app devs' interest. App devs should be able to use which ever programming languages and frameworks they prefer. If you have some preexisting code which can be readily integrated, there is a golden rule of software development to never entirely rewrite existing source code from a blank slate. Perhaps a music app can be popular and earn money in OpenShare's funding model, even without requiring the content providers to signup. Need to be clever as I pointed out upthread. Personally I love music so I would use it if it is done well. No need to repeat here the debate about some of the tradeoffs of C. In addition to all that recent discussion at the Zenscript Github issues tracker, @keean and I had been discussing Rust in 2016. W.r.t. to those technical insights/choices/preferences, I think over time programmers migrate to what is proven to work best. So we'll find that out as we iterate.

I think this OpenShare project should have its own slack or forum. Slack is better for interactive discussions, but I don't want to be on interactive discussions all day else I won't get much coding done. Forums are better for permanent records of information. So I suppose what we need is a forum and a slack which I visit on a schedule, perhaps 2 - 3X a week. I think that would be sufficient for now and we don't need an official discussion thread on BCT yet because we have still too much coding work to do.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 24, 2017, 01:48:46 PM
Last edit: March 29, 2017, 05:47:32 PM by iamnotback
 #545

Byteball has a design feature we should copy:

If you invest 10 GBytes (~0.45 BTC) you have after 19 rounds 10GB*(1+10/100)^19 = 61.15 GBytes.

Oh I didn't know that the interest rate was going to remain 10% increase to existing hodlers for each round. I thought the terms became less favorable on each future round, because it isn't summarized on the homepage and that is the pattern I observed thus far on quick perusal.

So in that case you claim, then yes 1.119 = 6X growth.

So then in that case it is true that ultimately Tony will only have 1% of the issued supply at that future time (although it is not clear about the other 1% and how it can be given away to wallet signups without it being gamed). However that presumes this his 10,000 GB do not receive the 10% interest compounding. Can you confirm if that is the case or not?

If rounds are being done every 3 - 4 months as appears to be the case so far, then it will be roughly 4 - 6 years until Tony's stake has decreased from 7% to 1%.

A stock split doesn't increase the value of investors' holdings.

The major real economic effect of the compounding stock split is to incentivize investors to buy & hold earlier so they can maximize their stake relative to those who buy later, due to the power of compounding.

That is actually quite a powerful effect. That is a clever feature to add to a coin. I think I will copy it.  Tongue

P.S. this is why I get involved asking about things that seem abnormal or exceptional. Because sometimes it means it is something important that I need to know for my own work.

Edit: also I need to do what I promised. Tony my apology is extended to you. May I suggest you make the specifics of everything more clear on your homepage.


"Few minutes" won't work as you require few hours for BTC transfer to be confirmed within block chain.
You could buy and transfer one day before the snapshot and sell one day later after the distribution ends.
This will work.

Ah that defeats the compelling advantage of having such an interest incentive.

Does this explain why the chart is dumping like the Chocolate Hills of Bohol on a monthly period?

They should have designed it such that if the coins trade in that month, then they don't participate in the interest rewards that month. To discourage short-term trading which would decrease the monthly volatility and to reduce selling pressure and increase buying pressure.

...
IadixDev
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 143


They're tactical


View Profile WWW
March 24, 2017, 03:03:18 PM
Last edit: March 25, 2017, 04:49:57 AM by IadixDev
 #546

Will destroying Bitcoin by fixing it make us insanely wealthy?


@IadixDev, I appreciate very much your and other app devs' interest. App devs should be able to use which ever programming languages and frameworks they prefer. If you have some preexisting code which can be readily integrated, there is a golden rule of software development to never entirely rewrite existing source code from a blank slate. Perhaps a music app can be popular and earn money in OpenShare's funding model, even without requiring the content providers to signup. Need to be clever as I pointed out upthread. Personally I love music so I would use it if it is done well. No need to repeat here the debate about some of the tradeoffs of C. In addition to all that recent discussion at the Zenscript Github issues tracker, @keean and I had been discussing Rust in 2016. W.r.t. to those technical insights/choices/preferences, I think over time programmers migrate to what is proven to work best. So we'll find that out as we iterate.

I think this OpenShare project should have its own slack or forum. Slack is better for interactive discussions, but I don't want to be on interactive discussions all day else I won't get much coding done. Forums are better for permanent records of information. So I suppose what we need is a forum and a slack which I visit on a schedule, perhaps 2 - 3X a week. I think that would be sufficient for now and we don't need an official discussion thread on BCT yet because we have still too much coding work to do.

Did you check a bit the code on the git ?

https://github.com/iadix/purenode

Wrote a few article on the website too on those topics of memory management in C , and binary compatibility, but it's not complete yet.

http://iadix.com/ico/blogs/en


I think i found a good way to deal with the C downside with internal allocator with reference counting, and dynamic tree graph, I think most issue of C with memory & stdio glitches are in check.

Normally there is not a single call to malloc or the stdlib at all, it use only kernel level functions , and internal allocator with free zone stack, and reference count, supposed to be quite fast.

It's completely GC like, except memory is made available once reference count reach zero, with intel lock atomic instructions for reference inc/dec, instead of being garbage collected periodically. All variable that have no reference are freed once the ref count reach zero.

https://github.com/iadix/purenode/blob/master/libcon/base/mem_base.c#L1138

It dereference  recursively all children , and free them when ref count is decreased to zero , but otherwise it's the same than than GC with manual handling of local variable scope.

The only Goody of cpp would be custom operators and automatic destructor/reference dec for stack variables when they get out of scope. With C the scope of stack/local variable need to be managed manually with manual ref dec when the reference get out of scope.

The system with the tree layer source is not on the public git, there is only the binary module and the import defïnition, but I can give access to the git with the full source, or publish them, but id rather avoid prematurely

And it already get rid of native C runtime, to have compiler/system independant binary modules. With dynamic tree graph with runtime data type definition,  secure log system, and handling of http/json/rpc based on module export.

And normally it completely cop with C downside with pointer ownership, with no memory leak, dynamic list of dynamic type with reference counting etc. All like GC languages. And with the system , even list/array can be typed, eg to differentiate between a list of block hash and a list of tx hashes, based on json interpreter with optional explicit typing.

miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005


View Profile
March 24, 2017, 04:27:12 PM
 #547


Airbnb is simply a market maker. It provided a common layer for the supply to provide service, and a focal point for demand to discover the supply. The main keys were marketing and simplicity.

Good ol' Mircea, the rude jerk who happens to be correct. Convenience is now valued above all else until safety becomes a concern, and that's only a temporary interruption. Airbnb exemplifies the type of convenience in demand. Anything requiring more than one layer of abstraction incurs more cognitive load than most are capable of or willing to put forth, mostly due to financial and time constraints.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 24, 2017, 05:27:57 PM
Last edit: March 24, 2017, 06:29:07 PM by iamnotback
 #548

Open sourcing analysis is always a superior result, when the participants are smart.


Airbnb is simply a market maker. It provided a common layer for the supply to provide service, and a focal point for demand to discover the supply. The main keys were marketing and simplicity.

Good ol' Mircea, the rude jerk who happens to be correct.

Is MP correct?

For me Airbnb was a way for me to see what sort of pad I might find in different areas of the world without traveling. So although I wasn't a buyer (yet), I was a site visitor. Perhaps Airbnb could have extracted some economic value from my travel lust in other ways.

MP sees only the reservation business (which he claims Airbnb makes worse), and I see the travel lust business. Airbnb is selling not only reservations, but more pictorial and personalized/diversified travel lust experience. MP says he had more personalized travel experiences before Airbnb existed, but most people didn't.

Why do we pay more for Hersey's milk chocolate bar (than a cloned-quality generic one)? Its the wrapper and the slightly curved shape (mmm I can taste that in my mind). Selling a meme is not just selling the service that is physically settled.

He may be correct that the actual service sucks and is not viable long-term due to unprofessionalism of the rental providers. But what I might do (if it is economic) is rather turn Airbnb into a travel lust business for getting access to localized information. So I would sell information and not just reservations. Once we convert it to a blockchain app, we don't need to charge commissions (not with the funding model I have in mind) and we don't need exclusivity that is one of complaints against the Airbnb service (i.e. you can only contact through the service).

Convenience is now valued above all else until safety becomes a concern, and that's only a temporary interruption. Airbnb exemplifies the type of convenience in demand.

MP's point was that the actual service ends up being not as reliable as one might hope, because providers are flaky. China's Airbnb clone employs professionals who go on location to counsel the providers on how to not be flaky.

My thought would be to have a reputation model so that flakiness is weeded out via competition.

Perhaps we can improve Airbnb. And many, many, many other big things perhaps we can disrupt with OpenShare.

Anything requiring more than one layer of abstraction incurs more cognitive load than most are capable of or willing to put forth, mostly due to financial and time constraints.

Good point. Thanks. Yeah there is a competition for our available cognition. It isn't that we are dumb, but nobody has infinite cognitive bandwidth and physical time. We are literally forced to use our mobile phones to type/swipe because we need to get things done while on the move. Thus mobile apps have to be designed to be ergonomic in a mobile setting with the smaller UI. My mobile phone goes 0% batt lately because I never leave my desk (i.e. I forget my phone exists).
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005


View Profile
March 24, 2017, 06:03:00 PM
 #549

MP's point was that the actual service ends up being not as reliable as one might hope, because providers are flaky. China's Airbnb clone employs professionals who go counsel the providers on how to not be flaky.

My thought would be to have a reputation model so that flakiness is weeded out via competition.

Perhaps we can improve Airbnb. And many, many, many other big things perhaps we can disrupt with OpenShare.

I was under the impression Airbnb had been moving toward some form of quality control as well.

Although reputation can be gamed, it should still work well for smaller establishments. It would be interesting to find the threshold where a larger business could bury its negative reputation.

If it's easy enough to replicate Airbnb or Uber using OpenShare, the meta-app concept should arise naturally. What about for more specialized markets or something like medical information?
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 24, 2017, 06:27:32 PM
Last edit: March 24, 2017, 08:56:29 PM by iamnotback
 #550

Although reputation can be gamed

Not a WoT. I posit that we can build a (more automated form of a) WoT into OpenShare by default.

, it should still work well for smaller establishments. It would be interesting to find the threshold where a larger business could bury its negative reputation.

A WoT is not gameable by larger establishments either.

If it's easy enough to replicate Airbnb or Uber using OpenShare, the meta-app concept should arise naturally. What about for more specialized markets or something like medical information?

The list of ideas is endless. Blockchains are not just for payments.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 24, 2017, 08:56:00 PM
 #551

Deflationary crypto-currency will correspond with a change from debt-based, industrial age to investment-based, knowledge age.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 24, 2017, 11:47:00 PM
Last edit: March 25, 2017, 01:44:02 AM by iamnotback
 #552


Are there any speculators gullible enough to believe that I really have clones of myself?  Undecided (not accusing @HCLivess of such)

Satoshi designed the system to be immutable (or die, i.e. a poison pill protection).

...

Appears to me that Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to either be replaced by something better or die.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 25, 2017, 04:52:46 AM
 #553

Well my understanding of the Bitcoin situation has changed significantly in the past couple of hours.
IadixDev
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 143


They're tactical


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2017, 07:23:22 AM
Last edit: March 25, 2017, 09:32:23 AM by IadixDev
 #554

I have been reading lot of your post on rust forum & git, I will try to issues some of them, it's so funny how no one thought the same concept I use to have all this things of collections and traits  Grin

I can say in my whole framework there is almost zero compiler defined type. Only for very basics structure, but no high level object is ever defined in the compiler, and modules can still exchange with each other, and they dont share any kind of compile time type déclaration Smiley

Saying this to answer a post I saw you made on rust saying program need to share data type definition, with my system it works without,only members/key name need to be know, and the native type can be determined at run-time, and converted automtically to a requested type without having to declare anything at compile time or knowing the native type.

Can allow to detect directly if a member is even present or not at run-time. Instead of having non initialized/undetermined variable.

It's similar to js with this, when json data is received,  there is no type declaration anywhere, and the program can still access the data based on key name, and the order of the keys doesnt matter, or if there any other key in any order, without having to have shared declaration anywhere.

All this is made with still relatively simple C code Smiley

It's funny reading those post I remember the different thing I tried to get this behavior in C/C++, either with pure virtual variant class, with some c++ template, funktors, tried everything but the ultimate solution in fact is much simpler, just need to forget about compile time order and verification, which are still often not that useful, and focus only on the runtime and runtime checking, which is imo much simpler and safer, and can allow for plenty of runtime check on everything, and can cop with dynamic typing and run time type definition.

The more it goes, the more i think all this trend with programming paradigm based on strict compile time defined type create more problem than it solve all together, and compiler are never able to deal with the true complex cases anyway. If you sum up the kind of situation compiler can solve with compile time type checking, to me it's mostly simple mistake, and I do think there is a whole generation of programmers traumatised from assembly programming and cheap cast trick in C that they obnubilated to conforming to high level language synthaxe , having often not that much clue of the real problematic involved, and just stick to synthaxe definition and compile time check, which in fact only solve minor mistake or trouble coming from assembler programming.



I already solved the shape collection issue with the raytracer Smiley it doesnt even need any compiler defined type Smiley

Now I think either there is a massive pb I dont get with my system, either i feel people are really looking elat the problem coming from wrong paradigm Smiley

Looking back at those threads, im remembering all the nightmare in compiled languages with dynamic typing, I really wonder why no one seem to have followed the same road than me lol

It just works so well for everything from usb drivers to blockchain rpc server, with simple standalone C code, I really wonder why such system hasnt Been tried before.

All a function need is a pointer as arg, and it can check all the type, and members, members of members, and test the presence of any without any prior declaration of the type for the compiler. The data can come from anywhere from hell to heaven, the function will never crash and be able to get the data from the member it need, and check the presence of the member, and return failure if the data is not what the function expect, in any case, there is very little chance of crash of access to wrong memory address, even if the function has no idea where the data come from and there is zero tacit coupling at all between the caller and callee.

I guess it's not silver bullet for everything, but normally it take very dumb programming to make a crash or memory leak with it, and it's only pure C89 code. With a layer on top of it, it would probably be even better, but in the same time I think also most complex part of the app are going to js and html5, so not sure it's really worthy to have another high level scripting language, or for having 100% standalone app who doesnt require a js browser or node.js.




iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 25, 2017, 04:11:48 PM
 #555

Why the Bitcoin whales must have small blocks. This is very important. Note my solution mentioned at the very end, which is why it is relevant to this thread.
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005


View Profile
March 25, 2017, 05:33:20 PM
 #556

Although reputation can be gamed

Not a WoT. I posit that we can build a (more automated form of a) WoT into OpenShare by default.

, it should still work well for smaller establishments. It would be interesting to find the threshold where a larger business could bury its negative reputation.

A WoT is not gameable by larger establishments either.

What metric(s) would be used increase WoT automation?
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 03:41:37 AM
 #557

Meet the $billionaire who (together with his whale cohorts) controls Bitcoin.
alkan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 149
Merit: 103


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 09:42:55 AM
 #558

As far as I can see, no stable market equilibrium can be reached by all miners at the same time[/b]. For mining market has the peculiarity that whenever a miner increases its own supply, the supply of all the other will decrease. In contrast to regular markets where the players only compete to meet the demand, Bitcoin miners also compete to increase their own supply at the cost of their competitors since total block production remains capped even with unlimited block size.

I posted the problem of unlimited block sizes in another forum and got an interesting response from CubicEarth:

Quote
@alkan You make some good points about how a change in one miner's orphan rate necessarily changes the orphan rates of their competitors. I don't agree, however, with your conclusion that "It will all end up in a doom loop.".

First, regarding the lack of a static equilibrium, it's true that miners will need to continually optimize their blocks in response to ever changing real-world conditions if they are to maximize their profit. This is expected though, and as much is true of any entity involved in production of just about any product. Second, even as a theoretical exercise, if it is fact not a solvable equation, that still doesn't mean there will be a run-away effect. To my reasoning the optimal block size for any given miner may oscillate back and forth around some mean, or collectively it could look something like an n-body orbital simulation, which despite the appearance of some occasional chaos, as a system remains symmetrically anchored around a center of mass, and adheres to the conservation of energy.

In your examples, you make no mention of the mempool demand curve, which is how much each successive unconfirmed transaction is will to pay as a fee per byte. The fees are what the miners are after, and the orphan rate is a concession they make in pursuit of those fees, and is otherwise just something to be minimize. It's simple to think about: why wouldn't A, B and C all produce giant blocks? Well, potentially if there were enough transactions that paid high fees, the blocks could be large, but in the absence of that, any miner could stand to gain an advantage by making their blocks smaller, and having a lower orphan rate.

I really like the comparison with the n-body problem and now even think that the block size could in fact stabilize around an equilibrium point. It seems that there must be a block size (the central mass) where no individual miner has an incentive to deviate by building smaller or larger blocks. This equilibrium wouldn't lie at the intersection of the market demand and supply curves (which cannot be just summed up as in regular economics since they are mutually dependent). Thus the block size chosen by the miners wouldn't directly maximize their revenue as a group but minimize the risk that any individual miner could gain an additional profit by deviating from the block size. I may be wrong on this though.

What do you think?
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 03:05:35 PM
 #559

Quote from: anonymous

It doesn't really verify their technology in any way (but I listened to the audio with the core dev of Raiden and he sounded competent to me), yet it is the sort of demo that raise confidence of speculators.

It exemplifies why microtransactions are needed.

I would compare what they are doing in that video to the concept of paying for a VPS or Amazon EC instances on a hourly basis. Flexibility comes from being able to scale up supply of resources dynamically rather than paying for everything monthly.
IadixDev
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 143


They're tactical


View Profile WWW
March 26, 2017, 06:40:11 PM
Last edit: March 26, 2017, 06:50:29 PM by IadixDev
 #560

The solution to scaling & decentralisation to me would go with making independent subnetwork with good characteristic to assure fair topography on the network,it would probably result a loss of fongibility, but all big world wide network works like this. I dont have detailed design like this, but I think i have most brick for it. The adverse pb of total fongibility is that ironically it cant detect and deal with large number of colluding nodes, and enforce fair network.

Well I would more go that way but maybe it's not good solution.

Wild Block size increase is not viable solution to me, and it doesnt solve decentralisation and scalability.

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 »
  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!