Bitcoin Forum
May 28, 2020, 02:11:11 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 [176] 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Vanitygen: Vanity bitcoin address generator/miner [v0.22]  (Read 1143644 times)
starmyc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 197
Merit: 91

Some random software engineer


View Profile
March 20, 2018, 05:50:20 AM
 #3501

Does the vanitygen searches for each prefix digit 1 by 1 or the entire prefix, I'm trying to see how does the vanitygen does its searches.

vanitygen has its source code available to understand how it works: https://github.com/samr7/vanitygen
In short, it generate a random private key, from which it will generate a batch of parameters to get a list of public keys that it will hash using sha256 & ripemd160 according to the Bitcoin protocol, and if address matches pattern, it stops. If not, it continues, regenerating a new private key once a while.
It can not search 1 by 1 because of the nature of the hashing algorithm.

Hi, I'm just some random software engineer.
You can check my projects: Bitcoin & altcoin balances dumps: https://balances.syndevio.com/
1590631871
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1590631871

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1590631871
Reply with quote  #2

1590631871
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1590631871
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1590631871

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1590631871
Reply with quote  #2

1590631871
Report to moderator
1590631871
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1590631871

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1590631871
Reply with quote  #2

1590631871
Report to moderator
ken3go
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 24, 2018, 04:38:14 AM
 #3502

My searches usually error out after 7 days or so of running at 16Mkeys/sec (~12 quadrillion tries).   Are there settings that reduce the amount of GPU that is being used -- maybe it is busting the buffer ("out of resources")?  What does the "grid" attribute do?  I've tried without it, at 1024x1024, and 2048x2048.  Doesn't appear to make a difference.  Any ideas? Thanks.

clWaitForEvents(NDRange,1): CL_OUT_OF_RESOURCES
clEnqueueMapBuffer(4): CL_INVALID_COMMAND_QUEUE
ERROR: Could not map row buffer for slot 1
ERROR: allocation failure?


---------------------
c:\xxx>oclvanitygen.exe -D 0:0,grid=2048x2048 -v -k -f 2patterns.txt -o 2matches.txt
Loading Pattern #3: 1ZZZZZZZ
Prefix difficulty:       51529903411245 1XXXXXXX
Prefix difficulty:       51529903411245 1YYYYYYY
Prefix difficulty:       51529903411245 1ZZZZZZZ
Next match difficulty: 17176634470415 (3 prefixes)
Device: GeForce GTX 680M
Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation (10de)
Driver: 369.09
Profile: FULL_PROFILE
Version: OpenCL 1.2 CUDA
Max compute units: 7
Max workgroup size: 1024
Global memory: -2147483648
Max allocation: 536870912
OpenCL compiler flags: -DPRAGMA_UNROLL -cl-nv-verbose
Loading kernel binary 04c59513592276694f1b58b9124bba9c.oclbin
Grid size: 2048x2048
Modular inverse: 4096 threads, 1024 ops each
Using OpenCL prefix matcher
GPU idle: 2.75%
[16.00 Mkey/s][total 11653961744384][Prob 49.3%][50% in 4.4h]                  clWaitForEvents(NDRange,1): CL_OUT_OF_RESOURCES
clEnqueueMapBuffer(4): CL_INVALID_COMMAND_QUEUE
ERROR: Could not map row buffer for slot 1
ERROR: allocation failure?
c:\xxx>
---------------------
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 6342


Thick-Skinned Gang Leader


View Profile WWW
March 24, 2018, 07:58:21 AM
 #3503

My searches usually error out after 7 days or so of running at 16Mkeys/sec (~12 quadrillion tries).
If you just restart it, nothing is lost. It just makes a clean random start at another point than where you started before.

Quote
Are there settings that reduce the amount of GPU that is being used
You can reduce the number of threads it uses:
Code:
./oclvanitygen -t 10 1testt
Difficulty: 15318045009
[868.99 Kkey/s][total 34037760][Prob 0.2%][50% in 3.4h]
I highly doubt this will help though: it slows down my system just as much as when I run oclvanitygen at full speed. Unless your "out of resources" means out of memory, in that case less threads could help.

Alternative: set it to save results to a file, and set it to restart after it crashes.

renggileh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 24, 2018, 11:57:33 PM
 #3504

I got everything running. I must have installed SDK v2.4 incorrectly, maybe skipped a step. Re-installation fixed the issue.
./oclvanitygen produced 25 Mkeys/s on the GPU. Thats like 200x more key searches than on my CPU.   Shocked
It took about 8 hours to find 1+6 '1abcdef'. How much longer would it take to find 1+7 or 1+8?
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 6342


Thick-Skinned Gang Leader


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2018, 07:51:47 AM
 #3505

It took about 8 hours to find 1+6 '1abcdef'. How much longer would it take to find 1+7 or 1+8?
Each extra character makes it 58 times more difficult to find.
Note that starting with a Capital can be 58 times faster (depending on which character you use): 1Abcdef or 1ABCDEF are much faster than 1abcdef.
For general use: try to search for a long line of prefixes at once, that increases your odds of finding one.

Blue Tyrant
Copper Member
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 62

IOS - The secure, scalable blockchain


View Profile
March 25, 2018, 10:01:24 AM
 #3506

Each extra character makes it 58 times more difficult to find.
Note that starting with a Capital can be 58 times faster (depending on which character you use): 1Abcdef or 1ABCDEF are much faster than 1abcdef.

Just two questions about the two points:

  • Why is it 58 exactly? My guess would be: is it something like 26 +26+ 10 = 62 (alphabet sets in caps and regular making the 26 each and the 10 being the number of numbers zero to nice) minus four illegal characters?
  • Why are capital letters easier to find as compared to regular numbers and what's like the "math" behind it?

LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 6342


Thick-Skinned Gang Leader


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2018, 10:27:01 AM
Last edit: March 25, 2018, 10:51:02 AM by LoyceV
 #3507

  • Why is it 58 exactly? My guess would be: is it something like 26 +26+ 10 = 62 (alphabet sets in caps and regular making the 26 each and the 10 being the number of numbers zero to nice) minus four illegal characters?
Correct: 123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz makes 58 characters.

Quote
Why are capital letters easier to find as compared to regular numbers and what's like the "math" behind it?
Unfortunately, I don't know exactly. For whatever reason, some prefixes are more likely than others.

Not all Capitals are faster than their lower case equivalent. For instance, 1Zebra isn't faster than 1zebra.
It becomes more interesting when searching for "1":
11ebra takes the same amount of time, 111bra too, but 1111ra takes 58 times longer (but just as long as 11111a and 111111).[/list]

Blue Tyrant
Copper Member
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 62

IOS - The secure, scalable blockchain


View Profile
March 25, 2018, 10:38:56 AM
 #3508

    Is Vanitygen used by bitcoin-payment-processors (like Coinpayments, Bitpay or custom) in backend of websites?
    I mean is it used for generating addresses?

    For the first question, no it's not used by them. Most payment processors don't use any vanity addresses. The answer to your second question would be yes, it is used to generate addresses but a special type vanity addresses. Well not exactly "special" per se but they are addresses which have your (where you stands for the person generating the addresses) choice of word, text, characters used. Say I want my address to start with 1tyrant so it "looks" better.

    Basically it's used to make aesthetically better "looking" addresses. There's no other difference apart from that. You can use it for branding for example or so people recognise it. For example Atriz uses a 1atriz address, Darkstar has if I'm not wrong 1darkstr or something similar. People recongise those addresses quickly as compared to random ones which are hard to remember

    Unfortunately, I don't know exactly. For whatever reason, some prefixes are more likely than others.

    Not all Capitals are faster than their lower case equivalent. For instance, 1Zebra isn't faster than 1zebra.
    It becomes more interesting when searching for "1":
    11ebra takes the same amount of time, 111bra too, but 1111ra takes 58 times longer (but just as long as 11111a and 111111).[/list]

    Hmm, I'm guessing this more of a practical real life data rather than actual theoretical analysis?

    LoyceV
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1862
    Merit: 6342


    Thick-Skinned Gang Leader


    View Profile WWW
    March 25, 2018, 10:51:46 AM
     #3509

    Hmm, I'm guessing this more of a practical real life data rather than actual theoretical analysis?
    Yes. The theoretical answer must be somewhere within the hashing algorithm, but that's beyond my understanding.

    ken3go
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 6
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    March 25, 2018, 11:51:58 AM
     #3510

    My searches usually error out after 7 days or so of running at 16Mkeys/sec (~12 quadrillion tries).
    If you just restart it, nothing is lost. It just makes a clean random start at another point than where you started before.

    What does "nothing is lost" mean?  It went through 12 quadrillion tries before crashing.  Is every try completely random (it doesn't "save" a list of previous attempts or go in some methodical order)? 

    The probability of repeating one of those 12q tries is the same as trying an untried one? 

    If so, then it wouldn't make any difference if I ran the program for 200 hours straight or for 10 hours on each of 20 days or for 2 mins on each of 6000 days.  Right?

    Sorry, I'm sure that question has been asked 12q times.


    LoyceV
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1862
    Merit: 6342


    Thick-Skinned Gang Leader


    View Profile WWW
    March 25, 2018, 12:09:12 PM
     #3511

    Is every try completely random (it doesn't "save" a list of previous attempts or go in some methodical order)? 
    Yes.

    Quote
    The probability of repeating one of those 12q tries is the same as trying an untried one?
    Yes.

    Quote
    If so, then it wouldn't make any difference if I ran the program for 200 hours straight or for 10 hours on each of 20 days or for 2 mins on each of 6000 days.  Right?
    Correct.

    Quote
    Sorry, I'm sure that question has been asked 12q times.
    More or less, yes Tongue
    Think of it this way: you have 3 dice, and you're trying to throw them all at 6 in one throw. The odds of doing this are 1 in 216.
    After trying 10, 100 or 1000 times, the odds of throwing it at your next try are still exactly the same.
    Vanitygen works the same: say the odds of finding it are 50% in 20 minutes. It doesn't matter if it been running for 1 minute or 1 hour, the odds are still exactly the same: 50% for the next 20 minutes.

    Blue Tyrant
    Copper Member
    Member
    **
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 70
    Merit: 62

    IOS - The secure, scalable blockchain


    View Profile
    March 25, 2018, 12:47:03 PM
     #3512

    Think of it this way: you have 3 dice, and you're trying to throw them all at 6 in one throw. The odds of doing this are 1 in 216.
    After trying 10, 100 or 1000 times, the odds of throwing it at your next try are still exactly the same.

    I can see where the confusion can stem from, people seem to forget that individual rolls have no effect on future rolls as they are mutually exclusive. To calculate the true probability you can't add the probability. A common logical fallacy is people believe if the chance of getting a 6 when rolling a single dice is 1/6 then the probability of getting a 6 in six rolls is = 1/6 +1/6 +1/6 +1/6 +1/6 +1/6 = 1.

    You need keep in mind the probability is always fixed to exactly 1/6 every single roll. Doesn't matter you roll non stop or if you roll once a year.

    nullius
    Copper Member
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 336
    Merit: 1620


    There is only one Bitcoin.


    View Profile WWW
    March 25, 2018, 12:54:51 PM
    Merited by ranochigo (1)
     #3513

    Each extra character makes it 58 times more difficult to find.
    Note that starting with a Capital can be 58 times faster (depending on which character you use): 1Abcdef or 1ABCDEF are much faster than 1abcdef.

    Just two questions about the two points:

    • Why is it 58 exactly? My guess would be: is it something like 26 +26+ 10 = 62 (alphabet sets in caps and regular making the 26 each and the 10 being the number of numbers zero to nice) minus four illegal characters?

    Yes, 62 minus four illegal characters.  That equals “58 exactly”.

    Old-style (pre-Bech32) Bitcoin addresses use base58, not base-62.  Each character is a radix-58 digit, in the range of [0, 57].  Following are the “digits” used by Bitcoin, from an old code snippet of mine.  Observe that “I” (uppercase i), “O” (uppercase o), “0” (numeral zero), and “l” (lowercase L) are excluded.

    Code:
    const char base58[59] =
    "123456789" /* 9, [0..8] */
    "ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ" /* 24, [9..32] */
    "abcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz"; /* 25, [33..57] */

    • Why are capital letters easier to find as compared to regular numbers and what's like the "math" behind it?

    Capital letters are not generally easier to find.  However, at the beginning, they represent a lower number.  Since the large integer being represented is in a range which is not a power of 58, higher digits at the beginning may be rare, or even impossible.

    For an analogy:

    Imagine that you are searching for a pattern of base-10 digits in a 30-bit base-2 (binary) number.  The number you seek has a range of [0, 1073741823].  Digits [2-9] are impossible in the first position; and digit 1 is only in the first position for 73741824/1073741823 ≈ 6.9% of randomly selected 30-bit numbers.

    Here, you are searching for a 192-bit base-2 (binary) number, where the upper 160 bits are uniformly distributed and the lower 32 bits are also uniformly distributed (but dependent on the upper 160 bits).  You are representing that number as a base58 number.  Probability of hitting various base58 digits in the first position is left as an exercise to the reader. <g>





    Hmm, I'm guessing this more of a practical real life data rather than actual theoretical analysis?
    Yes. The theoretical answer must be somewhere within the hashing algorithm, but that's beyond my understanding.

    The theoretical answer is actually not in the hashing algorithm at all, but rather, in how a pseudorandom number uniformly distributed across a binary search space is represented in radix-58 (base58).





    If you just restart it, nothing is lost. It just makes a clean random start at another point than where you started before.

    What does "nothing is lost" mean?  It went through 12 quadrillion tries before crashing.  Is every try completely random (it doesn't "save" a list of previous attempts or go in some methodical order)? 

    LoyceV provided a good explanation by analogy to dice throws.  I have only to add:  This is a probabilistic search.  You could hit your lucky address on the very first try (like winning a lottery).  Considering your previous 12 quadrillion “losses” is actually an instance of classic Gambler’s Fallacy.

    The probability of repeating one of those 12q tries is the same as trying an untried one? 

    In both cases, the probability is negligible = practically impossible.  12 quadrillion (1.2 x 1016) is a drop in the ocean of a 2160 search space (>1048, more than a thousand quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion).

    (N.b. that the search space is of size 2160 although its input is 33 octets for compressed keys and 65 octets for uncompressed keys, and the output is a 192-bit number due to the 32-bit checksum.)

    ken3go
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 6
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    March 25, 2018, 01:47:42 PM
     #3514

    Think of it this way: you have 3 dice, and you're trying to throw them all at 6 in one throw. The odds of doing this are 1 in 216.
    After trying 10, 100 or 1000 times, the odds of throwing it at your next try are still exactly the same.

    I can see where the confusion can stem from, people seem to forget that individual rolls have no effect on future rolls as they are mutually exclusive. To calculate the true probability you can't add the probability. A common logical fallacy is people believe if the chance of getting a 6 when rolling a single dice is 1/6 then the probability of getting a 6 in six rolls is = 1/6 +1/6 +1/6 +1/6 +1/6 +1/6 = 1.

    You need keep in mind the probability is always fixed to exactly 1/6 every single roll. Doesn't matter you roll non stop or if you roll once a year.

    Yup, I got it now. 

    What I was imagining was that there could be a simple loop in the program.  Start with the "first" private key (...001), go through the various hashing steps and see if you get a public address with the desired pattern.  If not, then increment the private key by 1 (...002) and do the hashes again. That way, the attempted private keys would effectively get "burned" and not be reused.

    It's like buying millions of lottery tickets in the same draw to try to cover as many numbers as possible.  You might as well start with 1-2-3-4-5-6 and then 1-2-3-4-5-7 and so on methodically than to choose a bunch of random "pick 6" numbers.  The chance to win is the same for any set of numbers, but there is a slight chance that a "pick 6" could be generated twice, thereby wasting the ticket (i.e. if you win, you would be splitting the jackpot with yourself).  I suppose the "slight" chance is so slight that maybe it doesn't matter.
    LoyceV
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1862
    Merit: 6342


    Thick-Skinned Gang Leader


    View Profile WWW
    March 25, 2018, 02:10:42 PM
     #3515

    What I was imagining was that there could be a simple loop in the program.  Start with the "first" private key (...001), go through the various hashing steps and see if you get a public address with the desired pattern.  If not, then increment the private key by 1 (...002) and do the hashes again.
    A fixed instead of truely random starting point would mean your private key isn't secure. It would mean anyone could reproduce your search and steal your coins.

    nullius
    Copper Member
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 336
    Merit: 1620


    There is only one Bitcoin.


    View Profile WWW
    March 25, 2018, 03:07:35 PM
     #3516

    What I was imagining was that there could be a simple loop in the program.  Start with the "first" private key (...001), go through the various hashing steps and see if you get a public address with the desired pattern.  If not, then increment the private key by 1 (...002) and do the hashes again. That way, the attempted private keys would effectively get "burned" and not be reused.

    It's like buying millions of lottery tickets in the same draw to try to cover as many numbers as possible.  You might as well start with 1-2-3-4-5-6 and then 1-2-3-4-5-7 and so on methodically than to choose a bunch of random "pick 6" numbers.  The chance to win is the same for any set of numbers, but there is a slight chance that a "pick 6" could be generated twice, thereby wasting the ticket (i.e. if you win, you would be splitting the jackpot with yourself).  I suppose the "slight" chance is so slight that maybe it doesn't matter.

    The entire security of Bitcoin, PGP, TLS/SSL, Tor, disk encryption, and all other crypto using fixed-length keys rests on the premise that the “slight” chance of a collision is impossible as a practical matter.

    Think:  The probability of you picking the same key twice is equal to the probability of an attacker randomly picking your key in a bruteforce attack.

    Theoreticians use terms such as “negligible probability” because such a thing is possible in theory.  But it will never actually happen that you generate the same key twice, unless your random number generator is so badly broken as to be worse than useless.  Conceptually, think of randomly picking one drop of water from the ocean, then another, and getting the same drop; or randomly picking one grain of sand from anywhere on Earth, then another, and getting the same grain of sand.  2160 is much bigger than that.

    Whereas LoyceV speaks truly:

    What I was imagining was that there could be a simple loop in the program.  Start with the "first" private key (...001), go through the various hashing steps and see if you get a public address with the desired pattern.  If not, then increment the private key by 1 (...002) and do the hashes again.
    A fixed instead of truely random starting point would mean your private key isn't secure. It would mean anyone could reproduce your search and steal your coins.

    Note, however, that Vanitygen does try sequential points from a randomly chosen starting point.  (“Sequential” here does not mean linear “1, 2, 3”; rather, it uses elliptic curve point addition.)  It does this for reason of efficiency.  sipa’s keygrinder used in the current development branch of segvan uses similar methods to rapidly generate a great quantity of keys (or optionally, tweaks) from a single random seed.  This can be secure if and only if all seed and key material other than the “winning” key is destroyed and never reused.

    DarkStar_
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1708
    Merit: 2347


    https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


    View Profile WWW
    March 25, 2018, 05:32:24 PM
     #3517

    Darkstar has if I'm not wrong 1darkstr or something similar. People recongise those addresses quickly as compared to random ones which are hard to remember

     Cheesy

    1DarkStrRagcDjWtsPGxkav4WG3poLXzDS

    I'd get 1DarkStar, but that's too long for me to feasibly make or pay someone to get at a reasonable price.

    nullius
    Copper Member
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 336
    Merit: 1620


    There is only one Bitcoin.


    View Profile WWW
    March 25, 2018, 05:44:50 PM
     #3518

    Darkstar has if I'm not wrong 1darkstr or something similar. People recongise those addresses quickly as compared to random ones which are hard to remember

     Cheesy

    1DarkStrRagcDjWtsPGxkav4WG3poLXzDS

    I'd get 1DarkStar, but that's too long for me to feasibly make or pay someone to get at a reasonable price.

    I just want to note, this is NOT a good means to recognize an address.  There are at least 2100254120907352485526230505830591911428096 (5824) addresses which match the pattern ^1DarkStr.+DS$.  Somebody else could easily find a different one to spoof DarkStar_’s address.

    I know that this is a real problem with Tor .onion vanity addresses; and I suspect it may be with Bitcoin vanity addresses, too.

    A vanity address is good for showing off, and/or making a statement such as with my 35segwitgLKnDi2kn7unNdETrZzHD2c5xh address.  But it is highly insecure as a user interface feature.

    LoyceV
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1862
    Merit: 6342


    Thick-Skinned Gang Leader


    View Profile WWW
    March 25, 2018, 05:52:05 PM
     #3519

    I'd get 1DarkStar, but that's too long for me to feasibly make or pay someone to get at a reasonable price.
    I've added these to my search:
    Code:
    1DarkStar
    1Darkstar
    1DARKSTAR
    1darkstar
    1darkStar
    I don't run it often anymore, but eventually I'll find one. Just to show off of course, as you shouldn't trust anyone else's keys.

    @Spammers here: please go back to the spamboards! I've reported one for removal, the other for a ban.
    Leave the serious boards alone!

    DaveF
    Legendary
    *
    Online Online

    Activity: 2030
    Merit: 1273



    View Profile WWW
    March 31, 2018, 03:27:22 PM
     #3520

    I know I asked a few pages back in the thread, but does anyone have and performance numbers for the GTX 1050 or 1050Ti?

    I can pick one up for a good price, but I can't return it if I do. They are mostly useless for mining now so I would dedicate it to this. But, if it does not have the speed I'll stick with the AMD that I have now.

    Thanks,
    Dave

    ███████████████████████████
    █████████▀▄▄▄▄▄██▀▀████████
    █████▀▄█▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▄▄▀█████
    ████ █▀▄███████████▄▀██████
    ███▄█ ███████▀ ██████ █ ███
    ██▀█ ███  ▀▀█  ▀██████ █ ██
    ██ █ ████▄▄      ▀▀▀██ █ ██
    ██ █ █████▌        ▄██ ████
    ███▄█ █████▄▄   ▄▄███ █▀███

    ████▀█▄▀█████▌  ▀██▀▄█ ████

    █████▄▀▀▄▄▀▀▀▀   ▄▄█▀▄█████
    ████████▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀██████████

    ███████████████████████████
    IIII★ ‎
    ‎ ★
    .
    █▀▀ █▀█ █▀█  ▄  ▄▀▀ █   ▄▀█ ▀█▀ ▄▀▀  ▄███▄
    ▀▀█ █ █ █ █ ▀█▀ ▀▀█ █   █ █  █  ▀▀█  ▀███▀
    ▄▄█ █▄█ █▄█     ▄▄▀ ▀▄▄ █▄▀  █  ▄▄▀   
                                           █

    ████████████████████████████████████
    ███▀▀▀▀▀▀██████▀▀▀▀▀▀██████▀▀▀▀▀▀███
    █▀▄██▀███▄▀██▀▄██▀███▄▀██▀▄██▀███▄▀████▄
    █ █ ▀ ▀███ ██ █ ▀ ▀███ ██ █ ▀ ▀███ █████
    █ ██    ▄█ ██ ██    ▄█ ██ ██    ▄█ █████
    █▄▀██  ▀█▀▄██▄▀██  ▀█▀▄██▄▀██  ▀█▀▄████▀
    ███▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▄▄▄▄▄▄███
    ████████████████████████████████████

    ‎ ★
    UP
    TO
    15%...CASH BACK
    EVERY SPIN
    IIII..PLAY NOW..
    Pages: « 1 ... 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 [176] 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 »
      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!