Bitcoin Forum
May 05, 2026, 06:10:03 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 31.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: How far will this leg take us?
$110K - 9 (8.3%)
$120K - 19 (17.6%)
$130K - 17 (15.7%)
$140K - 9 (8.3%)
$150K - 19 (17.6%)
$160K - 2 (1.9%)
$170K+ - 33 (30.6%)
Total Voters: 108

Pages: « 1 ... 14862 14863 14864 14865 14866 14867 14868 14869 14870 14871 14872 14873 14874 14875 14876 14877 14878 14879 14880 14881 14882 14883 14884 14885 14886 14887 14888 14889 14890 14891 14892 14893 14894 14895 14896 14897 14898 14899 14900 14901 14902 14903 14904 14905 14906 14907 14908 14909 14910 14911 [14912] 14913 14914 14915 14916 14917 14918 14919 14920 14921 14922 14923 14924 14925 14926 14927 14928 14929 14930 14931 14932 14933 14934 14935 14936 14937 14938 14939 14940 14941 14942 14943 14944 14945 14946 14947 14948 14949 14950 14951 14952 14953 14954 14955 14956 14957 14958 14959 14960 14961 14962 ... 35754 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 26967522 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. (174 posts by 1 users with 9 merit deleted.)
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1039


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 05:40:03 AM

anyone else completely bored and tired of hearing about block size, blockstream, and scalability? fuck no, we are obsessed with this

i wish this thread moderator would simply announce a ban on the topics.  I will not censor shit the fuck all

For the record though, corruption is everywhere Bitcoin is no different, regardless of which side you are on. i'd rather stream blocks then block streams.
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 05:40:44 AM


segwit +2MB agreement is OK by me. for now...


But we are not getting 2mb "for now".


we are only getting seg wit  "for now."


the 2mb is contingent on several factors and still to be determined.


It doesn't matter if a bunch of people are whining and throwing hissy fits and saying we have to get 2mb... we are not getting 2mb.. now and probably at the earliest a year from now... .. the powers that be are within the status quo, and none of them are going to agree that 2mb is needed now, and a large number are putting off any kind of exact commitment to 2mb... while agreeing that "some time in the future" 2mb will likely be needed (whether that is at the earliest a year from now or sometime other uncertain time down the road of a few years from now... gotta see how everything plays out).

So, why do people want to make losing propositions and to insist and to say I want to get 2mb "now," and it has already been decided that 2mb is NOT necessary at the moment because seg wit will take care of all of the essentials for at least several months into the future

and 2mb is not off of the table but it will be 1) "considered" 2) "researched" and 3) "to be determined" depending on how things go... blah blah blah.

To me, it makes little to no sense to set oneself up for nearly inevitable failure by insisting and insisting and insisting on something that just is not happening "now"...  When anybody insists on something that is not happening, they get their emotions worked up and just fail to see positives and continue to FOCUS on what they are NOT getting....   Seems a bit ridiculous to me... to think that way and to even to attempt to negotiate from such a position.... and in that regard, the status quo is not convinced that 2mb is needed now, and therefore, the burden has not been met.. and therefore.. 1mb until such time as conditions change...


The guy that bought at $1200... ladies and gentlemen.

 Smiley Smiley Smiley

 Cool Cool Cool
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1039


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 05:44:04 AM

Segwit is 1.7MB blocks (separated into two data structures that combine to 1.7 and thus create a "virtual" 1MB - which isn't 1 but 1.7 to 3mb - depending the use scenario ) and will be online pretty soon.

What's there to be grumpy about? A 300 kilobytes difference? Why are you acting like the 1.7mb is not even an increase at all and only a "traditional" block increase is? If I save 1.7mb of txs in my disk, it doesn't matter if it is saved on one or two files. The only thing that matters is that they are 1.7mb and that tx/s capacity rises by 60%+.

You get immediate increase AND tx malleability fix AND future increase AND the assurance that political fork attempts will be buried on the spot to prevent market clusterfucks like those induced by Gavin and Hearn.
agreed. this is acceptable.

You want Back to completely control every single core dev or speak for them? That can't happen but the likelihood of an agreement (not for the immediate increase - that's pretty much a given, we are talking about the future increase) is very high to ensure the stability of the system and the economy.

I'd be more worried about those who, under the pretext of urgency try to create the conditions for a political takeover. What urgency anyway? "blocks are full"? And blocks can't be full if they are 2 or 4 if they get spammed for near zero cost? Of course they can. If a store hangs a sign that says "Free shit every day", it will be full every day by those coming to take these free shit off the shelves - same for service oriented businesses.
the urgency is the fact that full blocks = higher fees = more post that say " why is my TX not confirming, i paid the fee Core0.9.1 said i should have " = less user adoption ( whos going to sink alot of money into a system thats giving them a hard time from the start??? ).

Bitcoin (as a protocol, whether it is about BTC, LTC, Dash implementations) creates, by necessity, an expensive network to operate which is highly inefficient as a tradeoff for its decentralized nature. Free shit policy is incompatible with it because near zero cost txs = near zero cost abuse. Even near zero cost sybil attack / near zero cost unmasking of mixing parties for mixing purposes.
fine but a 1cent fee is just fine to limit spam. why would we need 10cent fees to prevent spam?

When you read the latest classic roadmap where they say "oh we will FIX the full blocks", you are like W T F are they talking about? You have the store, hanging a "free shit everyday" sign and people are crowding it. What difference does it make if you make the store twice bigger and you give twice the stuff? It'll still be crowded.
lets not make the store bigger because we'll get more clients? i'm not sure i follow...

The only realistic approach to fixing full blocks is to increase fees to something that is not free or practically free/near zero cost. Either in the protocol or if miners start discarding txs that don't pay very well.

if it was up to me, I'd probably make a proposal like

"we can go to 2MB total capacity (including segwit) if protocol-enforced fees are set to X
"we can go to 3MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Y (which is >X)
"we can go to 4MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Z (which is >Y)
the goal SHOULD BE to get enough tx pre block so that a 1cent fee will be enough to pay the miners ~8BTC ( yes i pulled this number out of my ass )


In addition to the above I'd issue a miners recommendation to avoid mining very low cost txs / this could also be done through a default setting. I'd issue a new recommendation if price, say, went 5-10x.
miners should set the min fee themselves.

This can provide both expansion space and relative protection from near-zero-cost abuse, plus align with the future requirement where it is a necessity to have tx fee generation in order for the network to be sustainable. No fees = you are fucked, or you have "free-shit-for-everyone" populists promoting the idea that "we were better off in the subsidy era, and we must continue coin generation forevah instead of increasing tx fees, and, you know, fuck this 21mn coin limit, that's only for the few wealthy hoarders, and the small fish should not have to see btc as store of value but rather as economic freedom to transact cheaply, so yeah, screw the investors, viva la revolution and infinite coins for the lolz to have our cheap / near free bloat spam txs".
miners will simply not include fees less than what they feel is necessary, and blocks could be allowed to be 1GB big on the protocol level, but miners will have a soft limit, because no miner would risk trying to broadcast a 1GB block, no amount of fee is worth risking getting orphaned. ( a fee market exists without a blocksize limit )


all in all we disagree about fees.
you want to centrally plan the fee market,( and the force the Stream of fee to LN ??) i don't.
thats pretty much it.


segwit +2MB agreement is OK by me. for now...

this is gold i feel i should frame it
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 4438
Merit: 14403


Self-Custody is a right. Say no to "non-custodial"


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 05:46:30 AM


segwit +2MB agreement is OK by me. for now...


But we are not getting 2mb "for now".


we are only getting seg wit  "for now."


the 2mb is contingent on several factors and still to be determined.


It doesn't matter if a bunch of people are whining and throwing hissy fits and saying we have to get 2mb... we are not getting 2mb.. now and probably at the earliest a year from now... .. the powers that be are within the status quo, and none of them are going to agree that 2mb is needed now, and a large number are putting off any kind of exact commitment to 2mb... while agreeing that "some time in the future" 2mb will likely be needed (whether that is at the earliest a year from now or sometime other uncertain time down the road of a few years from now... gotta see how everything plays out).

So, why do people want to make losing propositions and to insist and to say I want to get 2mb "now," and it has already been decided that 2mb is NOT necessary at the moment because seg wit will take care of all of the essentials for at least several months into the future

and 2mb is not off of the table but it will be 1) "considered" 2) "researched" and 3) "to be determined" depending on how things go... blah blah blah.

To me, it makes little to no sense to set oneself up for nearly inevitable failure by insisting and insisting and insisting on something that just is not happening "now"...  When anybody insists on something that is not happening, they get their emotions worked up and just fail to see positives and continue to FOCUS on what they are NOT getting....   Seems a bit ridiculous to me... to think that way and to even to attempt to negotiate from such a position.... and in that regard, the status quo is not convinced that 2mb is needed now, and therefore, the burden has not been met.. and therefore.. 1mb until such time as conditions change...


The guy that bought at $1200... ladies and gentlemen.

 Smiley Smiley Smiley

 Cool Cool Cool


What the fuck are you talking about?

Is your point, anyhow related to the substance of anything I said in the post?

or are you just striving for some quasi-off-topic and irrelevant dig (which by the way would classify pretty strongly as an ad hominem attack, because there is no there, there in your assertion.?

Surely, BTC prices are relevant in this thread, but in that particular post that I just made, the topic was responding to adam's asserted agreement about segwit and 2mb blocksize limits "now".



AlexGR
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049



View Profile
February 26, 2016, 05:53:59 AM

the urgency is the fact that full blocks = higher fees

There is no such thing. The reason is that actual demand is lower than 1MB and the top is always filled with crap.

If, say, legit txs are like 400-500-600-700kbytes, the rest are spam. So that's why "blocks are full" yet a fee market is not developing and fees don't actually rise to any significant degree. It's because the rest of txs till the 1mb cutoff are bogus / dust / spam / micro-gambling etc. So all legit txs get in, and then all the spammy ones that pay very little or nothing, also get it.

Quote
= more post that say " why is my TX not confirming, i paid the fee Core0.9.1 said i should have " = less user adoption ( whos going to sink alot of money into a system thats giving them a hard time from the start??? ) it.

My postal service has an extensive price catalog of what I get depending what I pay. I can send a second or first priority letter, I can send it express, etc. I get what I pay for.

People bitching that their tx is slow, while you saw yourself that at 2 cents you got confirmed in 8 blocks, is insanity. This is more of a user interface (wallet issue) or user expectation issue rather than a protocol issue. User gets a popup that by paying X he gets confirmed in Y (worst case scenario) and problem is solved.

Quote
fine but a 1cent fee is just fine to limit spam. why would we need 10cent fees to prevent spam?

Because 1 cent doesn't work, plus it's not futureproof.

lets not make the store bigger because we'll get more clients? i'm not sure i follow...

Proper clients are those who you get revenue from. If you are giving shit for free, you are not getting revenue / not making profit. Having clients is not a bigger target than having an operation that is economically viable.

If fees cannot pay for the security of the network, we will be led to infinite inflation instead (=bitcoin fails as a store of value / alternative to central bank design)

Quote
The only realistic approach to fixing full blocks is to increase fees to something that is not free or practically free/near zero cost. Either in the protocol or if miners start discarding txs that don't pay very well.

if it was up to me, I'd probably make a proposal like

"we can go to 2MB total capacity (including segwit) if protocol-enforced fees are set to X
"we can go to 3MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Y (which is >X)
"we can go to 4MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Z (which is >Y)
the goal SHOULD BE to get enough tx pre block so that a 1cent fee will be enough to pay the miners ~8BTC ( yes i pulled this number out of my ass )

Just do the math.

Right now you have 25 BTC subsidy at 430$ = 10.750$ per block.

In order to have enough txs to replace the subsidy, with 1 cent fees, you need 1.075.000 TXs per block or 1792 tx/sec instead of 2.7 tx/sec, which means 663.7MB blocks.

That, plainly, doesn't work.

In 5-10-20 years it might work. Right now it doesn't. It's not viable.

In a few months 12.5 BTC of subsidy will be cut. Can we have 330mb of extra block space to compensate with 1 cent fee txs? The answer is no. Even if price goes 10x, we still need 33mb blocks - which is also a no-go.
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 05:55:11 AM

What the fuck are you talking about?

Is your point, anyhow related to the substance of anything I said in the post?

or are you just striving for some quasi-off-topic and irrelevant dig (which by the way would classify pretty strongly as an ad hominem attack, because there is no there, there in your assertion.?

Surely, BTC prices are relevant in this thread, but in that particular post that I just made, the topic was responding to adam's asserted agreement about segwit and 2mb blocksize limits "now".

Yes, this is one instance where you can correctly hoist the ad hom flag.

Same reason I view a blind man as incapable of performing a delicate surgery on my heart.

You've made it clear you're the agreeable type, fine. You have an innate deference to authority figures, swell. Others see the incentives laid out clearly before them, and will call a spade a spade. Miners may be just as agreeable as you are, I guess we'll find out.
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1039


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 05:55:57 AM

responding to adam's asserted agreement about segwit and 2mb blocksize limits "now".

what i meant is:
for now,i am happy with segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year.
only because segwit is apparently the fastest way for a block increase and thats all i really want. i want more blockspace asap and i don't care how it gets done, and then i want the blocks to get bigger and bigger and bigger, until it breaks the internet.
Gyrsur
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 2856
Merit: 1520


Bitcoin Legal Tender Countries: 2 of 206


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 05:59:58 AM

responding to adam's asserted agreement about segwit and 2mb blocksize limits "now".

what i meant is:
for now,i am happy with segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year.
only because segwit is apparently the fastest way for a block increase and thats all i really want. i want more blockspace asap and i don't care how it gets done, and then i want the blocks to get bigger and bigger and bigger, until it breaks the internet.

yes, bro! I still download the Internet right now. It's huge!  Shocked
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2898
Merit: 2496


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 06:00:46 AM

Coin



Explanation
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 06:01:26 AM

...

All of this presumes that Bitcoin has a monopoly.

Hint: It doesn't, and the market will punish you until you figure that out.
AlexGR
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049



View Profile
February 26, 2016, 06:05:11 AM

...

All of this presumes that Bitcoin has a monopoly.

Hint: It doesn't, and the market will punish you until you figure that out.

There is no altcoin that has efficiently solved the issue of scaling, near zero cost txs and and near zero cost abuse. If anything, they have worse of a problem due to being forced to go low-fee mode (to increase their adoption) at the expense of getting abused.
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1039


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 06:10:15 AM

In a few months 12.5 BTC of subsidy will be cut. Can we have 330mb of extra block space to compensate with 1 cent fee txs? The answer is no. Even if price goes 10x, we still need 33mb blocks - which is also a no-go.

did you segwit that 330mb block ?

maybe miners will make fees min 5cents, and maybe they can survive on 8BTC

what block size do i need now, does it break the internets?

who cares? this is a problem for tomorrow...

baby steps, lets get segwit + 2MB blocks and then we can go ape shit again in a few years
Gyrsur
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 2856
Merit: 1520


Bitcoin Legal Tender Countries: 2 of 206


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 06:12:26 AM


The only good news you need is right here:



If there are people who genuinely believe that THIS guy (Adam Back) is some kind of evil corporate lying back-stabbing individual, who runs an evil blockstream company that wants the bad of bitcoin, then they seriously need to readjust their evil-detecting radar.

ohh boy! and what if he signs with S.N. - Inventor of HashCash and BitCoin??

Huuhh

 Roll Eyes
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 06:17:37 AM
Last edit: February 26, 2016, 06:29:01 AM by Cconvert2G36

...

All of this presumes that Bitcoin has a monopoly.

Hint: It doesn't, and the market will punish you until you figure that out.

There is no altcoin that has efficiently solved the issue of scaling, near zero cost txs and and near zero cost abuse. If anything, they have worse of a problem due to being forced to go low-fee mode (to increase their adoption) at the expense of getting abused.

Dear guy who uses a fake satoshi email from 2015 as a signature,

Satoshi thought it was a no-brainer that we'd gracefully scale up after 5 years of tech improvement...

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.


Not quotable for "reasons"... but here's what he thought of your raspberry pi middle men:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 4438
Merit: 14403


Self-Custody is a right. Say no to "non-custodial"


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 06:26:03 AM

What the fuck are you talking about?

Is your point, anyhow related to the substance of anything I said in the post?

or are you just striving for some quasi-off-topic and irrelevant dig (which by the way would classify pretty strongly as an ad hominem attack, because there is no there, there in your assertion.?

Surely, BTC prices are relevant in this thread, but in that particular post that I just made, the topic was responding to adam's asserted agreement about segwit and 2mb blocksize limits "now".

Yes, this is one instance where you can correctly hoist the ad hom flag.

Ok.  so you admit it.

There's no real need, here, or really any time for an ad hominem attack, except if you are being disingenuous or trolling or you are getting emotional, and accordingly, you are resorting to weak (and irrelevant) arguments.

Don't you even know what an ad hominem attack is..?  it tends to shed more negative light on the person who is making it, rather than it does on the target... 




Same reason I view a blind man as incapable of performing a delicate surgery on my heart.

You are continuing to make little to no sense.  I mean I agree about you regarding the hiring of skills necessary to competently carry out a job, but how that would justify your ad hominem attack, makes little to no sense.

But, I will roll with this suggestion a little bit, just for shits and giggles.

O.k. I've probably explained my $1,200 BTC purchase a large number of times, and went into fairly detailed explanation in this thread and likely other parts of this forum.  I am not ashamed of the context of such purchase, and I don't think that it says much about me except for that was the time when I first got into bitcoin. 

I don't invest balls to the walls, and I did not invest balls to the walls at the time.  When I bought the 1.24 bitcoins at $1,200, I had about $30k that I had allocated to investing into bitcoin over 6 months, and my very first purchase used $1,500 of my 6 month allocation. 

Whether you appreciate details or not, I will provide a few more, thereafter I invested the remaining $28,500 over the remainder of the 6 months, and I did end up going a bit over the $28,500, but my average price per BTC was around $630 at the end of the 6 months.

Yes, I am likely giving way more details than shit fucks like you who engage in ad hominem attacks, but likely does not share any personal details, except to spin bull shit made up stuff and to make up shit about how wonderful you are or on the other hand try to proclaim that you are smart and insightful because you invested in bitcoin or some other asset before some bubble... blah blah blah.


You've made it clear you're the agreeable type, fine.

bullshit.  I made no such thing clear.  You see when shit heads like you engage in ad hominem attacks, they also likely either have poor reading or comprehension skills in other regards and jump to faulty and inadequate conclusions. 

More or less, I said that the burden of persuasion and the burden of production is on the one attempting to make the change to the status quo, and in this instance 1mb is the status quo.... classic, XT and other FUDster attempts at changing have not met either the burden of production nor the burden of persuasion... and therefore, they are not going to get their proposed change.

Probably, you don't really understand what I mean, because you are too busy assuming and thinking about other irrelevant facts or faulty logic.


You have an innate deference to authority figures, swell. Others see the incentives laid out clearly before them, and will call a spade a spade. Miners may be just as agreeable as you are, I guess we'll find out.

You are repeating yourself.  You say that I am agreeable, and then you say it again and again in different ways, but you provide no facts or logic to support your conclusion that I am supposedly, "agreeable."

I already repeated my point in the above paragraph, so see above.







Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 06:27:51 AM

...

My hands just drop.
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 06:28:19 AM
Last edit: February 26, 2016, 06:40:16 AM by billyjoeallen

Loss of censorship resistance is a bigger problem than lack of scalability. Classic addresses that. Core doesn't.

A vote for Core is a vote for the Communist Party of China.  That's not sloganeering. That's a direct consequence of not fixing mining concentration.

People are sick of arguing over blocksize? Fine. Let's argue over this.  

People may want to invest in a crypto controlled by the biggest currency manipulators in the world, but if they do, they'll make me rich in the process. Somehow, judging by the slipping value of the yuan, I doubt that will happen.

Like I said, it's my chain. If you want it, you're going to have to pay for it.  Or you can get cheap coins by helping us with the Classic option and then taking advantage of the market turbulence as the tide shifts. If Classic wins, expect a good chunk of those millions pouring into Etherium and other blockchain solutions to find their way into Bitcoin instead. Those cheap coins may not stay cheap very long.

Your call, really. I can live with either outcome. That's the advantage of being hedged.

adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1039


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 06:29:06 AM

JayJuanGee, now you are the one that is going bonkers.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 4438
Merit: 14403


Self-Custody is a right. Say no to "non-custodial"


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 06:30:15 AM

responding to adam's asserted agreement about segwit and 2mb blocksize limits "now".

what i meant is:
for now,i am happy with segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year.
only because segwit is apparently the fastest way for a block increase and thats all i really want. i want more blockspace asap and i don't care how it gets done, and then i want the blocks to get bigger and bigger and bigger, until it breaks the internet.

That's fair enough.  


I did technically sparse your words a bit to emphasize the "now" portion of what you had said... hahahahahaha...

Seg wit is probably going to be amazing... but I doubt that it is going to get rid of the fud.. and probably, there are going to be a few unexpected implementation issues... I mean, this kind of thing is dealing with money and value and is not going to just come off seamless....
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 4438
Merit: 14403


Self-Custody is a right. Say no to "non-custodial"


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 06:34:57 AM


Why?   I am talking substance here responding to your various points (that you snipped out).
Pages: « 1 ... 14862 14863 14864 14865 14866 14867 14868 14869 14870 14871 14872 14873 14874 14875 14876 14877 14878 14879 14880 14881 14882 14883 14884 14885 14886 14887 14888 14889 14890 14891 14892 14893 14894 14895 14896 14897 14898 14899 14900 14901 14902 14903 14904 14905 14906 14907 14908 14909 14910 14911 [14912] 14913 14914 14915 14916 14917 14918 14919 14920 14921 14922 14923 14924 14925 14926 14927 14928 14929 14930 14931 14932 14933 14934 14935 14936 14937 14938 14939 14940 14941 14942 14943 14944 14945 14946 14947 14948 14949 14950 14951 14952 14953 14954 14955 14956 14957 14958 14959 14960 14961 14962 ... 35754 »
  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!