Bitcoin Forum
June 28, 2017, 02:22:28 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 ... 169 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development  (Read 331923 times)
sairon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


One does not simply mine Bitcoins


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 01:59:56 PM
 #1581

I've got a "workaround" for this issue. Still, it requires a hard-fork.
It's quite simple, just disallow two consecutive PoS blocks and lower PoS trust to match PoW (1).
There's no way PoS-only miner can orphan a single block.

PoW miner forking/orphaning still requires a substantial percentage of network hashing power.

However, this way we're essentially removing the intended purpose of PoS (checkpointing). I was unable to come up with any suitable solution that also preserved PoS checkpointing functionality - IMO it just can't be done (the right way) with current hybrid PoW/PoS design. In PoS-only system - no problem. But with hybrid chain it's just one hell of a mess.

I think I'll have the implementation ready soon (in 1 day methinks).

The only issue is deciding on the blockchain fork date. It should be fairly soon, but not too soon as we should give a majority of the network time to upgrade. How about 1 month?

GPG key ID: 5E4F108A || BTC: 1hoardyponb9AMWhyA28DZb5n5g2bRY8v
1498616548
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498616548

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498616548
Reply with quote  #2

1498616548
Report to moderator
1498616548
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498616548

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498616548
Reply with quote  #2

1498616548
Report to moderator
1498616548
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498616548

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498616548
Reply with quote  #2

1498616548
Report to moderator
Join the Crowdfunding Revolution ►► FundYourselfNow.com ◄◄ Crowdsale with
attractive rewards
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
bitdwarf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


The cryptocoin watcher


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 02:40:09 PM
 #1582

I was unable to come up with any suitable solution that also preserved PoS checkpointing functionality - IMO it just can't be done (the right way) with current hybrid PoW/PoS design. In PoS-only system - no problem. But with hybrid chain it's just one hell of a mess.

This should be weighed carefully. PoW is a bit hard to rely on long term due to not knowing how technology is going to affect it, not knowing if someone will plug in massive hashpower out of the blue someday, not knowing how future energy costs will factor in, etc.

𝖄𝖆𝖈: YF3feU4PNLHrjwa1zV63BcCdWVk5z6DAh5 · 𝕭𝖙𝖈: 12F78M4oaNmyGE5C25ZixarG2Nk6UBEqme
Ɏ: "the altcoin for the everyman, where the sweat on one's brow can be used to cool one's overheating CPU" -- theprofileth
sairon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


One does not simply mine Bitcoins


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 02:57:08 PM
 #1583

I was unable to come up with any suitable solution that also preserved PoS checkpointing functionality - IMO it just can't be done (the right way) with current hybrid PoW/PoS design. In PoS-only system - no problem. But with hybrid chain it's just one hell of a mess.

This should be weighed carefully. PoW is a bit hard to rely on long term due to not knowing how technology is going to affect it, not knowing if someone will plug in massive hashpower out of the blue someday, not knowing how future energy costs will factor in, etc.

It's not relying on PoW per se. In the future PoW can be disabled completely and the "no 2 consecutive PoS blocks" rule removed (block trust value would not matter then anyway, and the same goes for PoS checkpointing).
However, this is a no-go short term, as we're still pretty much in the initial coin distribution stage and there's too few PoS blocks to be able to rely on it (and remember we need a huge amount of different people participating in PoS, not just 2-3 big hoarders).

Also, remember the increasing computing and memory requirements of scrypt-chacha. If/when we see a massive break-through in hashing hardware, Bitcoin will be the first to go, not Yacoin. Wink
If we happen to see scrypt-chacha ASICs, the difficulty will adjust MUCH faster than in Bitcoin ('cause we do a retarget after each single block, compared to Bitcoin's 2016). In case of huge energy costs and the network hashrate experiencing a massive drop - YAC can also adjust fairly quickly (just look at the Nfactor change events).

As far as quantum computing goes - we'll have much greater problems than cryptocurrencies going bust then.

GPG key ID: 5E4F108A || BTC: 1hoardyponb9AMWhyA28DZb5n5g2bRY8v
Thirtybird
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 693



View Profile
January 02, 2014, 03:30:06 PM
 #1584

I've got a "workaround" for this issue. Still, it requires a hard-fork.
It's quite simple, just disallow two consecutive PoS blocks and lower PoS trust to match PoW (1).
There's no way PoS-only miner can orphan a single block.

PoW miner forking/orphaning still requires a substantial percentage of network hashing power.

However, this way we're essentially removing the intended purpose of PoS (checkpointing). I was unable to come up with any suitable solution that also preserved PoS checkpointing functionality - IMO it just can't be done (the right way) with current hybrid PoW/PoS design. In PoS-only system - no problem. But with hybrid chain it's just one hell of a mess.

I think I'll have the implementation ready soon (in 1 day methinks).

The only issue is deciding on the blockchain fork date. It should be fairly soon, but not too soon as we should give a majority of the network time to upgrade. How about 1 month?

Seeing the reversals we've had lately, I don't want to wait too long, but I also don't want to see a knee-jerk reaction.  February 1 would be my vote.  I think once it's done, we'll simply need to make sure we contact the pool operators and verify they've updated the pool wallets well in advance.  This means reaching out to feeleep, obermench, and digger (the biggest pools I know of), and the exchanges (cryptsy and bter.com - are there any others?).

I'm glad you've got something in mind, I've spent a couple hours trying to find out what the fix novacoin implemented was, even digging through the code, but I can't isolate a single POS fix - there have been quite a few tweaks to POS in Novacoin.  I can see that  they currently have adjacent POS blocks, so what did they do to address this issue?

YACMiner: https://github.com/Thirtybird/YACMiner  N-Factor information : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aj3vcsuY-JFNdC1ITWJrSG9VeWp6QXppbVgxcm0tbGc&usp=drive_web#gid=0
BTC: 183eSsaxG9y6m2ZhrDhHueoKnZWmbm6jfC  YAC: Y4FKiwKKYGQzcqn3M3u6mJoded6ri1UWHa
senj
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 116


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 03:54:11 PM
 #1585

I can not imagine YAC having any distinct advantage over other prominent coins without POW far in the future (at least a couple of years).
And if Yac is to succeed N factor will be the key driving force for superior POW block distribution.
Remove that and you are left with just a bunch of coins in a few hands and have initiated euthanization of a plain clone.

I am ok with Feb 1st or even sooner since I believe Yac has a lot of attention right now due to exchange problems.

YAC: YGZRDNuey8MnN6GHVR1x7D3UY5TjDz2HCL
sairon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


One does not simply mine Bitcoins


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 04:09:40 PM
 #1586

I'm glad you've got something in mind, I've spent a couple hours trying to find out what the fix novacoin implemented was, even digging through the code, but I can't isolate a single POS fix - there have been quite a few tweaks to POS in Novacoin.  I can see that  they currently have adjacent POS blocks, so what did they do to address this issue?
AFAIK Novacoin "fixed" this by having a centralized checkpointing system in-place. Essentially one person controlling the whole network (deciding on the valid chain), which defeats the decentralized nature of cryptocoins.

GPG key ID: 5E4F108A || BTC: 1hoardyponb9AMWhyA28DZb5n5g2bRY8v
St.Bit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 04:11:59 PM
 #1587

I've got a "workaround" for this issue. Still, it requires a hard-fork.
It's quite simple, just disallow two consecutive PoS blocks and lower PoS trust to match PoW (1).
There's no way PoS-only miner can orphan a single block.
Matching PoS and POW trust has enourmous consequences so we have to be very carefull here.

The biggest problem is that it'd be possible for PoW-miners to turn YAC into PoW-only!
Once we are there we couldn't get back without a hardfork and it's unlikely we could possibly agree on such by then. PoW is far more important than just distributing initial coins.
and unable to secure the network later on since f.e. it can be centralized.
(I've written someting about that on yacointalk, that's also why YAC is special)

I belive the current problem of one PoS-block overwriting more than 6blocks is far less than the problems we would get when we have no more or just a bit PoS. PoS as whole has to be much stronger than PoW so that all miners couldn't agree on "just ophraning all PoS" to make more profit. A PoW-block will always have more new coins than the average PoS block so most PoS would disapear and the rest 'd be centralized.

PoS mining is truly decentralized so we should try to keep it as important as possible.
I can't think of a technical way to prevent doublespends AND miners from fighting PoS.
What we could do is increase PoW-rewards for miners that mine on top of a PoS block.

It must be either chaintrust PoS>>>PoW or new coins generated in ...-PoW-PoW-PoS-PoW >...-PoW-PoW-PoW-PoW. We all know that PoS>PoW is problematic so we should go with the 2nd.

I'm glad you've got something in mind, I've spent a couple hours trying to find out what the fix novacoin implemented was, even digging through the code, but I can't isolate a single POS fix - there have been quite a few tweaks to POS in Novacoin.  I can see that  they currently have adjacent POS blocks, so what did they do to address this issue?
AFAIK Novacoin "fixed" this by having a centralized checkpointing system in-place. Essentially one person controlling the whole network (deciding on the valid chain), which defeats the decentralized nature of cryptocoins.
A centralized checkpoint for the next few months would be far better than loosing or having less PoS in the future than we have now.

The only issue is deciding on the blockchain fork date. It should be fairly soon, but not too soon as we should give a majority of the network time to upgrade. How about 1 month?
I think that's reasonable.

EDIT: Sorry smtg wrong
EDIT2: Added stuff in RED.

Sign a message and get some YAC: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=300152.0
sairon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


One does not simply mine Bitcoins


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 04:15:49 PM
 #1588

I've got a "workaround" for this issue. Still, it requires a hard-fork.
It's quite simple, just disallow two consecutive PoS blocks and lower PoS trust to match PoW (1).
There's no way PoS-only miner can orphan a single block.
Matching PoS and POW trust has enourmous consequences so we have to be very carefull here.

The biggest problem is that it'd be possible for PoW-miners to turn YAC into PoW-only!
Once we are there we couldn't get back without a hardfork and it's unlikely we could possibly agree on such by then. PoW is far more important than just distributing initial coins.(I've written someting about that on yacointalk, that's also why YAC is special)

I belive the current problem of one PoS-block overwriting more than 6blocks is far less than the problems we would get when we have no more or just a bit PoS. PoS as whole has to be much stronger than PoW so that all miners couldn't agree on "just ophraning all PoS" to make more profit. A PoW-block will always have more new coins than the average PoS block so most PoS would disapear and the rest 'd be centralized.

PoS mining is truly decentralized so we should try to keep it as important as possible.
I can't think of a technical way to prevent doublespends AND miners from fighting PoS.
What we could do is increase PoW-rewards for miners that mine on top of a PoS block.

It must be either chaintrust PoS>>>PoW or new coins generated in ...-PoW-PoW-PoS-PoW >...-PoW-PoW-PoW-PoW. We all know that PoS>PoW is problematic so we should go with the 2nd.

I'm glad you've got something in mind, I've spent a couple hours trying to find out what the fix novacoin implemented was, even digging through the code, but I can't isolate a single POS fix - there have been quite a few tweaks to POS in Novacoin.  I can see that  they currently have adjacent POS blocks, so what did they do to address this issue?
AFAIK Novacoin "fixed" this by having a centralized checkpointing system in-place. Essentially one person controlling the whole network (deciding on the valid chain), which defeats the decentralized nature of cryptocoins.
A centralized checkpoint for the next few months would be far better than loosing or having less PoS in the future than we have now.

The only issue is deciding on the blockchain fork date. It should be fairly soon, but not too soon as we should give a majority of the network time to upgrade. How about 1 month?
I think that's reasonable.

Yeah, but orphaning a single PoS block with 2 PoW blocks actually costs you something (you have to be lucky or have majority of the network's hashrate). OTOH you can generate PoS blocks essentially for free.

Also, the gain from orphaning PoS is ZERO.

GPG key ID: 5E4F108A || BTC: 1hoardyponb9AMWhyA28DZb5n5g2bRY8v
bitdwarf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


The cryptocoin watcher


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 05:09:36 PM
 #1589

Can't we just slow down PoW block target rate, so only a couple are mined between PoS blocks.

𝖄𝖆𝖈: YF3feU4PNLHrjwa1zV63BcCdWVk5z6DAh5 · 𝕭𝖙𝖈: 12F78M4oaNmyGE5C25ZixarG2Nk6UBEqme
Ɏ: "the altcoin for the everyman, where the sweat on one's brow can be used to cool one's overheating CPU" -- theprofileth
WindMaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 347


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 05:11:09 PM
 #1590

Yeah, but orphaning a single PoS block with 2 PoW blocks actually costs you something (you have to be lucky or have majority of the network's hashrate).

It seems that there's currently a pool in a position to make it happen on a frequent ongoing basis.  Orphaning a PoS block with 2 PoW blocks doesn't really cost you anything extra if you're already PoW mining anyway and happen to hit 2 consecutive PoW blocks.


OTOH you can generate PoS blocks essentially for free.

Well, you do have to hold YAC, and hold it long enough, so I'm not sure it's correct to say minting PoS blocks is free.


Also, the gain from orphaning PoS is ZERO.

The gain in the miner's held YAC from orphaning PoS blocks is zero, but there may be other motivations other than an immediate gain in YAC to orphan PoS blocks.
sairon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


One does not simply mine Bitcoins


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 05:16:24 PM
 #1591

Can't we just slow down PoW block target rate, so only a couple are mined between PoS blocks.
That wouldn't stop anyone from orphaning all the PoW blocks at the tip of the chain.

Yeah, but orphaning a single PoS block with 2 PoW blocks actually costs you something (you have to be lucky or have majority of the network's hashrate).

It seems that there's currently a pool in a position to make it happen on a frequent ongoing basis.  Orphaning a PoS block with 2 PoW blocks doesn't really cost you anything extra if you're already PoW mining anyway and happen to hit 2 consecutive PoW blocks.

Nope, the rogue PoW miner has to decide in advance to invest his work in what will most probably be an invalid chain. So when he fails to execute his attack, he effectively lost his potential profit from playing nice.
OTOH, with PoS you can safely and with absolutely no additional cost mine on all the forks.

OTOH you can generate PoS blocks essentially for free.

Well, you do have to hold YAC, and hold it long enough, so I'm not sure it's correct to say minting PoS blocks is free.
And what's gonna stop me from purchasing the minimum amount of YAC needed for some type of attack, assign them into multiple "packets" of coins that have different PoS maturity time so I get 1 PoS block every X hours/days/whatever? Wink
(and trust me, the amount of YAC is small enough for anyone to buy)

Also, the gain from orphaning PoS is ZERO.

The gain in the miner's held YAC from orphaning PoS blocks is zero, but there may be other motivations other than an immediate gain in YAC to orphan PoS blocks.
I fail to see any possible motivation to do so whatsoever.

GPG key ID: 5E4F108A || BTC: 1hoardyponb9AMWhyA28DZb5n5g2bRY8v
WindMaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 347


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 05:37:21 PM
 #1592

Yeah, but orphaning a single PoS block with 2 PoW blocks actually costs you something (you have to be lucky or have majority of the network's hashrate).

It seems that there's currently a pool in a position to make it happen on a frequent ongoing basis.  Orphaning a PoS block with 2 PoW blocks doesn't really cost you anything extra if you're already PoW mining anyway and happen to hit 2 consecutive PoW blocks.

Nope, the rogue PoW miner has to decide in advance to invest his work in what will most probably be an invalid chain. So when he fails to execute his attack, he effectively lost his potential profit from playing nice.
OTOH, with PoS you can safely and with absolutely no additional cost mine on all the forks.

In the current scenario where one pool actually does have majority hashpower, this isn't quite true.  Of course, the bigger problem isn't that issue, it's that there's one pool with majority hashpower at all..  Perhaps this should be a larger item of concern for the YACoin community at the moment.


The gain in the miner's held YAC from orphaning PoS blocks is zero, but there may be other motivations other than an immediate gain in YAC to orphan PoS blocks.

I fail to see any possible motivation to do so whatsoever.

The cryptocurrency community contains a certain number of people who like to be a dick, and will do things solely for the purpose of being as much of a dick as possible.  I think Luke-Jr possibly sets a good example of how best to be a dick to many altcoins.
bitdwarf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


The cryptocoin watcher


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 05:37:40 PM
 #1593

Is it possible to identify new PoW minted coins so exchanges/businesses/wallets reject them until they have definitely cooled down?

I understand if they don't move after minting until it's confirmed PoS won't orphan them, getting orphaned would be just an issue of PoW mining efficiency. Is that correct?

𝖄𝖆𝖈: YF3feU4PNLHrjwa1zV63BcCdWVk5z6DAh5 · 𝕭𝖙𝖈: 12F78M4oaNmyGE5C25ZixarG2Nk6UBEqme
Ɏ: "the altcoin for the everyman, where the sweat on one's brow can be used to cool one's overheating CPU" -- theprofileth
sairon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


One does not simply mine Bitcoins


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 05:39:50 PM
 #1594

Is it possible to identify new PoW minted coins so exchanges/businesses/wallets reject them until they have definitely cooled down?
That's already done at the protocol level. Smiley

I understand if they don't move after minting until it's confirmed PoS won't orphan them, getting orphaned would be just an issue of PoW mining efficiency. Is that correct?
The problem is not block orphaning, but reversing of transactions (double-spending).

GPG key ID: 5E4F108A || BTC: 1hoardyponb9AMWhyA28DZb5n5g2bRY8v
sairon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


One does not simply mine Bitcoins


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 05:43:39 PM
 #1595

In the current scenario where one pool actually does have majority hashpower, this isn't quite true.  Of course, the bigger problem isn't that issue, it's that there's one pool with majority hashpower at all..  Perhaps this should be a larger item of concern for the YACoin community at the moment.
The same goes for Bitcoin - just look at btcguild's recent luck.

The cryptocurrency community contains a certain number of people who like to be a dick, and will do things solely for the purpose of being as much of a dick as possible.  I think Luke-Jr possibly sets a good example of how best to be a dick to many altcoins.
LOL, what has Luke-Jr done? Haven't heard anything.

GPG key ID: 5E4F108A || BTC: 1hoardyponb9AMWhyA28DZb5n5g2bRY8v
bitdwarf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


The cryptocoin watcher


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 05:51:06 PM
 #1596

Is it possible to identify new PoW minted coins so exchanges/businesses/wallets reject them until they have definitely cooled down?
That's already done at the protocol level. Smiley

I understand if they don't move after minting until it's confirmed PoS won't orphan them, getting orphaned would be just an issue of PoW mining efficiency. Is that correct?
The problem is not block orphaning, but reversing of transactions (double-spending).

We could then make the wallet hold longer on confirming transactions with new coins, unless the wallet owner likes to live dangerously and disables the safety delay.

𝖄𝖆𝖈: YF3feU4PNLHrjwa1zV63BcCdWVk5z6DAh5 · 𝕭𝖙𝖈: 12F78M4oaNmyGE5C25ZixarG2Nk6UBEqme
Ɏ: "the altcoin for the everyman, where the sweat on one's brow can be used to cool one's overheating CPU" -- theprofileth
sairon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


One does not simply mine Bitcoins


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 05:52:56 PM
 #1597

Is it possible to identify new PoW minted coins so exchanges/businesses/wallets reject them until they have definitely cooled down?
That's already done at the protocol level. Smiley

I understand if they don't move after minting until it's confirmed PoS won't orphan them, getting orphaned would be just an issue of PoW mining efficiency. Is that correct?
The problem is not block orphaning, but reversing of transactions (double-spending).

We could then make the wallet hold longer on confirming transactions with new coins, unless the wallet owner likes to live dangerously and disables the safety delay.

That's solution for the consequence, not the cause.
Also, how long is long enough? It wouldn't be bulletproof...

GPG key ID: 5E4F108A || BTC: 1hoardyponb9AMWhyA28DZb5n5g2bRY8v
Beave162
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 693



View Profile
January 02, 2014, 05:57:38 PM
 #1598

How come Peercoin doesn't have these problems? Or do they?
I have lost tons of YACoin from BTER-- they are scamming a lot of people. So I won't be in a position to offer bounties for a while. What would be the best type of bounty?  More pools with different features? A javascript mining program/pool like bitminter?  I cringe at the idea of centralized checkpointing or reduced POS awards.

YaCoin: YL5kf54wPPXKsXd5T18xCaNkyUsS1DgY7z 
BitCoin: 14PFbLyUdTyxZg3V8hnvj5VXkx3dhthmDj
bitdwarf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


The cryptocoin watcher


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 06:04:03 PM
 #1599

Also, how long is long enough? It wouldn't be bulletproof...

Long enough to detect the situation maybe. New coins could take a month or a quarter to mature and it would still not be too outrageous for a mint and sell business -- resource miners everywhere have to deal with futures for such timespans.

𝖄𝖆𝖈: YF3feU4PNLHrjwa1zV63BcCdWVk5z6DAh5 · 𝕭𝖙𝖈: 12F78M4oaNmyGE5C25ZixarG2Nk6UBEqme
Ɏ: "the altcoin for the everyman, where the sweat on one's brow can be used to cool one's overheating CPU" -- theprofileth
sairon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


One does not simply mine Bitcoins


View Profile
January 02, 2014, 06:13:47 PM
 #1600

Also, how long is long enough? It wouldn't be bulletproof...

Long enough to detect the situation maybe. New coins could take a month or a quarter to mature and it would still not be too outrageous for a mint and sell business -- resource miners everywhere have to deal with futures for such timespans.

New coins need 520 confirmations already - which is almost 9 hours.
But this is NOT the problem. The problem is that transactions from an orphaned block get REVERSED (eg. you deposit YAC to exchange, wait until the exchange credits you the deposited balance, block gets "magically" orphaned - and you now have both your YACs AND credit at an exchange - that's why Cryptsy has been disabling YAC trading lately).

GPG key ID: 5E4F108A || BTC: 1hoardyponb9AMWhyA28DZb5n5g2bRY8v
Pages: « 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 ... 169 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!