Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2020, 03:59:10 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: 9/19 Closing Price:
0 - 1 (1.6%)
<$10,000 - 3 (4.8%)
$10,000-$10,500 - 2 (3.2%)
$10,501-$11,000 - 13 (20.6%)
$11,001-$11,500 - 19 (30.2%)
$11,501-$12,000 - 8 (12.7%)
$12,001-$12,500 - 7 (11.1%)
$12,501-$13,000 - 2 (3.2%)
>$13,000 - 3 (4.8%)
>$20,000 - 5 (7.9%)
Total Voters: 63

Pages: « 1 ... 20587 20588 20589 20590 20591 20592 20593 20594 20595 20596 20597 20598 20599 20600 20601 20602 20603 20604 20605 20606 20607 20608 20609 20610 20611 20612 20613 20614 20615 20616 20617 20618 20619 20620 20621 20622 20623 20624 20625 20626 20627 20628 20629 20630 20631 20632 20633 20634 20635 20636 [20637] 20638 20639 20640 20641 20642 20643 20644 20645 20646 20647 20648 20649 20650 20651 20652 20653 20654 20655 20656 20657 20658 20659 20660 20661 20662 20663 20664 20665 20666 20667 20668 20669 20670 20671 20672 20673 20674 20675 20676 20677 20678 20679 20680 20681 20682 20683 20684 20685 20686 20687 ... 27291 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 22518067 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. (148 posts by 37 users deleted.)
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 2119


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 04:28:17 PM
Merited by Karartma1 (1), Last of the V8s (1)

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.
1600963150
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600963150

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600963150
Reply with quote  #2

1600963150
Report to moderator
1600963150
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600963150

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600963150
Reply with quote  #2

1600963150
Report to moderator
1600963150
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600963150

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600963150
Reply with quote  #2

1600963150
Report to moderator
LEADING CRYPTO SPORTSBOOK & CASINO F U N . F A S T . F A I R . PROUD
PARTNER
OF
CRYPTO
EXCLUSIVE
CLUBHOUSE
FAST &
SECURE PAYMENTS
20+ DAILY
PRICE
BOOSTS
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1600963150
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600963150

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600963150
Reply with quote  #2

1600963150
Report to moderator
1600963150
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600963150

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600963150
Reply with quote  #2

1600963150
Report to moderator
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 04:41:16 PM

Even if so: LN is by design centralized.

This is the big fallacy. Bro, Lightning Network does't make bBitcoin centralized because Lightning Network ISN'T BITCOIN.
So it's not bitcoin being moved around?

Sorry you are right. FTFY
Is that a yes or no?
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 04:42:53 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.
They will.
Gab0
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 283
Merit: 127



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:04:46 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Could you provide me with a link where I can read about that? I remember anonymint's post, but I did not pay enough attention and now I can not find it.
Karartma1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1166


Be Revolutionary Or Die Trying


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2018, 05:06:26 PM
Merited by infofront (1)

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.
On the same page here man.
What shocked me is that the more the SegWit/LN bounty grows in value the more likely an anyonecanspend attack becomes likely.
Yes, sure as hell you (me) are not a bcash proponent.
But we have to question everything and never take anything for granted, especially when some of the clues are there.
 Roll Eyes

fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 747
Merit: 560



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:12:20 PM

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.


cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 1795


Holding my Breath


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:13:00 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

I have been following his arguments for years.  He tends to predict doom a lot.  
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:16:38 PM

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 747
Merit: 560



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:26:44 PM

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

The millions claim is based on L2 & L3 technologies that can now be developed because of Segwit, I can't convince you of it, beyond pointing to lightning as the first L2 tech, and my belief that developers will create better and more sophisticated L2 & L3 that will eventually scale up to that figure. There is no obvious ceiling, the limit is in the creativity of the solutions.

I don't advocate a block size reduction at the moment, the best trade-off in block size is yet to be determined.





JimboToronto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 1842


You're never too old to be young.


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:27:47 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)

Hey Jimbo.... when is your cashflow getting lined up in order that you will be able to add to your BTC stash at these "bargain" prices?

within the next month or two?

Waiting for repayment of a $20kCAD family loan. Last week I was told days or a few weeks.

This would be my first multi-coin purchase in many months and would replace the several small sales I was forced to make this year.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 1795


Holding my Breath


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:27:51 PM
Merited by d_eddie (1)

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity.  But I would want to be conservative.  Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.  
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:35:51 PM

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity.  But I would want to be conservative.  Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.  
People keep saying that and I call bullshit on it. Why would people start making more transactions just because the network has more capacity? It makes no sense at all.
gentlemand
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 2902


Welt Am Draht


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:47:45 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 1795


Holding my Breath


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:55:52 PM

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity.  But I would want to be conservative.  Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.  
People keep saying that and I call bullshit on it. Why would people start making more transactions just because the network has more capacity? It makes no sense at all.

If you don't see it, you don't see it.  But it is the tragedy of the commons.  Since BTC is permissionless ANYONE can write data to the blockchain.  Therefore they will use the resources available for profit to the extent they can.  The more is given the more will be used.  Some will have commercial (selfish) incentive to do so.

For example anyone building sidechains (think Counterparty) that anchor to the main chain will have to pay fees for everything they write.  These type of projects will chew through resources as fast as they are added.  It's the way of the world.  We don't see it yet because BTC is still in Pre-k.

The base layer has to stay VERY comfortably within Moore's law.

In my opinion we want to be able to run full nodes on cellphones (eventually) and raspberry pi type hardware.  

This means we will just need to be uncomfortably conservative at least at the start.

Block size increases are not the answer to the TSUNAMI of traffic that is on the way.

Like I said... If you don't see it, you don't see it.
mymenace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061


Smile


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:56:12 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin.  The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously.

The networks wouldn't need any coordination.  Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel.  They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once.  A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.

I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work.  Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.

Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power.  This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one.  Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength.  It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.



This is satoshis "Last Vision"


He worked really hard on this before fleeing

sidechain

sidechain

sidechain
Raja_MBZ
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1384


Any questions related to my signature site? PM me!


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:57:23 PM

Binance Set to Launch Its First Crypto-Fiat Exchange in Uganda

https://cointelegraph.com/news/exclusive-binance-set-to-launch-its-first-crypto-fiat-exchange-in-uganda

An interesting statement by CZ:

“Uganda [is a] really interesting situation, only 11 percent of the population has bank accounts. It’s both a challenge and an opportunity. So it may be easier to adopt cryptocurrency as a form of currency instead of trying to push for bank adoption. It’s an interesting experiment - Africa’s a big market, that’s why we’re there.”
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:03:22 PM

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity.  But I would want to be conservative.  Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.  
People keep saying that and I call bullshit on it. Why would people start making more transactions just because the network has more capacity? It makes no sense at all.

If you don't see it, you don't see it.  But it is the tragedy of the commons.  Since BTC is permissionless ANYONE can write data to the blockchain.  Therefore they will use the resources available for profit to the extent they can.  The more is given the more will be used.  Some will have commercial (selfish) incentive to do so.

For example anyone building sidechains (think Counterparty) that anchor to the main chain will have to pay fees for everything they write.  These type of projects will chew through resources as fast as they are added.  It's the way of the world.  We don't see it yet because BTC is still in Pre-k.

The base layer has to stay VERY comfortably within Moore's law.

In my opinion we want to be able to run full nodes on cellphones (eventually) and raspberry pi type hardware.  

This means we will just need to be uncomfortably conservative at least at the start.

Block size increases are not the answer to the TSUNAMI of traffic that is on the way.

Like I said... If you don't see it, you don't see it.
No, it is not the tragedy of the commons. That is about eating your seed crop. It's not even an analogy to what we are talking about here.

Explain it. With numbers if you can, that would be best given what we are dealing with. Nobody cares about fifteen cent fees so it's not that, people are doing the transactions they want to be doing for their own purposes. What else is there? What makes you believe this is a real thing? And if it is why aren't we still sitting at $20 fees? What is missing from your story?
bitserve
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1199


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:06:16 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Could you be more verbose about that? What are those dangers?

P.S.: But not as much verbose as a thousands words dissertation. Just a simple explanation of your own thinking about the subject.
mymenace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061


Smile


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:13:27 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Could you be more verbose about that? What are those dangers?

P.S.: But not as much verbose as a thousands words dissertation. Just a simple explanation of your own thinking about the subject.



it goes against the very idea, that is all

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.

The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate.  When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first.  If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.

A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
1         0
4         1
16        4
64        16
80%      20%

So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.

The payment processor has connections with many nodes.  When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends.  If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad.  A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it.  The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.



cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 1795


Holding my Breath


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:15:33 PM


No, it is not the tragedy of the commons. That is about eating your seed crop.

Your seed crop (corn, you mean really) is a centralized private resource.  It is guarded by the farmer.  There is no common use outside of his *centralized* family.  The blockchain is more like the office refrigerator.  It is a public shared resource.  Tragedy of the commons is an absolutely applicable concept.

As to doing a bunch of math for you, sorry no.  I don't need to prove it to you.  And at that I assume we are at an impasse.

Time will tell which of us is right.

I'd say we should have a decent idea by 6/28/2028

Pages: « 1 ... 20587 20588 20589 20590 20591 20592 20593 20594 20595 20596 20597 20598 20599 20600 20601 20602 20603 20604 20605 20606 20607 20608 20609 20610 20611 20612 20613 20614 20615 20616 20617 20618 20619 20620 20621 20622 20623 20624 20625 20626 20627 20628 20629 20630 20631 20632 20633 20634 20635 20636 [20637] 20638 20639 20640 20641 20642 20643 20644 20645 20646 20647 20648 20649 20650 20651 20652 20653 20654 20655 20656 20657 20658 20659 20660 20661 20662 20663 20664 20665 20666 20667 20668 20669 20670 20671 20672 20673 20674 20675 20676 20677 20678 20679 20680 20681 20682 20683 20684 20685 20686 20687 ... 27291 »
  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!