Bitcoin Forum
August 18, 2018, 03:14:27 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 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 ... 166 »
  Print  
Author Topic: MasterCoin: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address”  (Read 447297 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.
zathras
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250



View Profile
September 22, 2013, 09:20:12 AM
 #1001

I'd like to seek further validation of my transaction engine so I've opened up the block explorer component of Masterchest @ https://masterchest.info.

This is very alpha so there may be bugs, errors, mistakes and so on present - feedback is most welcome so please post about any errors or unexpected behaviour.

Smiley

Smart Property & Distributed Exchange: Master Protocol for Bitcoin
1534605267
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534605267

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534605267
Reply with quote  #2

1534605267
Report to moderator
1534605267
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534605267

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534605267
Reply with quote  #2

1534605267
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1534605267
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534605267

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534605267
Reply with quote  #2

1534605267
Report to moderator
Tachikoma
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
September 22, 2013, 07:02:51 PM
 #1002

I'm back in action after being tied to the bed for the last week.

I've released 'Masteroin-ruby' which is the library behind mastercoin-explorer.com. I am trying to keep the readme up-to-date whenever I update it.

The latest version supports sending multisig Mastercoin-transaction via Bitcoin-Qt (or Bitcoind). However as always please be very careful what you do. It's very basic but the same logic could be used by any full-fledged Mastercoin client. Mastercoin-explorer will also recognise multsig transactions now.

I've send three (invalid, because the sending address did not buy from Exodus, did not want to send real coins until spec is finalised) multisig transactions, one, two and three.

As always I hope all you other developers working around can also try my implementation so we can finalise the spec. A few things I came across.

  • Sequences for multisig public keys need to start with 01 instead of 00. If you don't do this more often then not the public key won't be a valid ECDSA point.
  • My transactions were being flagged as non-valid whenever I used 0.00006 for the multisig output, changing this to 0.00006 * 2 fixed this for some reason.
  • Bitcoin-qt doesn't recognise multsig-transactions as outputs ready for spending. You will have to manually redeem those outputs.

Tachikoma, while I was doing some comparisons between my work and your (great btw) block explorer - I noticed a minor bug in your block reporting - eg transaction http://mastercoin-explorer.com/transactions/3dcdf1a51ad844ef305a95a08d57e8f2027125bcf982cc0ae6767d0d629b5648 is reported as being included in block 260564 but as of now the network is only up to block 259203.

Thanks! This should now be fixed.

I'd like to seek further validation of my transaction engine so I've opened up the block explorer component of Masterchest @ https://masterchest.info.

This is very alpha so there may be bugs, errors, mistakes and so on present - feedback is most welcome so please post about any errors or unexpected behaviour.

Smiley


Woops; grats! Diversity is a good thing Smiley

Electrum: the convenience of a web wallet, without the risks | Bytesized Seedboxes BTC/LTC supported
Peter Todd
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 22, 2013, 07:53:12 PM
 #1003

Posted my "Offer: Mastercoin analysis and transaction specification design" here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=299679.0

zathras
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250



View Profile
September 23, 2013, 05:47:43 AM
 #1004

I'm back in action after being tied to the bed for the last week.

I've released 'Masteroin-ruby' which is the library behind mastercoin-explorer.com. I am trying to keep the readme up-to-date whenever I update it.

The latest version supports sending multisig Mastercoin-transaction via Bitcoin-Qt (or Bitcoind). However as always please be very careful what you do. It's very basic but the same logic could be used by any full-fledged Mastercoin client. Mastercoin-explorer will also recognise multsig transactions now.

I've send three (invalid, because the sending address did not buy from Exodus, did not want to send real coins until spec is finalised) multisig transactions, one, two and three.

As always I hope all you other developers working around can also try my implementation so we can finalise the spec. A few things I came across.

  • Sequences for multisig public keys need to start with 01 instead of 00. If you don't do this more often then not the public key won't be a valid ECDSA point.
  • My transactions were being flagged as non-valid whenever I used 0.00006 for the multisig output, changing this to 0.00006 * 2 fixed this for some reason.
  • Bitcoin-qt doesn't recognise multsig-transactions as outputs ready for spending. You will have to manually redeem those outputs.

Tachikoma, while I was doing some comparisons between my work and your (great btw) block explorer - I noticed a minor bug in your block reporting - eg transaction http://mastercoin-explorer.com/transactions/3dcdf1a51ad844ef305a95a08d57e8f2027125bcf982cc0ae6767d0d629b5648 is reported as being included in block 260564 but as of now the network is only up to block 259203.

Thanks! This should now be fixed.

I'd like to seek further validation of my transaction engine so I've opened up the block explorer component of Masterchest @ https://masterchest.info.

This is very alpha so there may be bugs, errors, mistakes and so on present - feedback is most welcome so please post about any errors or unexpected behaviour.

Smiley


Woops; grats! Diversity is a good thing Smiley

Great work Tachikoma, busy getting the wallet ready but I'll take a look at expanding the Masterchest transaction engine to handle multisig too - thanks for all your work Smiley

Smart Property & Distributed Exchange: Master Protocol for Bitcoin
superfluouso
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 202
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 23, 2013, 07:06:03 AM
 #1005

Posted my "Offer: Mastercoin analysis and transaction specification design" here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=299679.0

Thanks for the offer, though as an "investor" this is slightly annoying.  Why do you feel you need to separate yourself from the rest of those who may be interested in pursuing the outstanding bounty?  As someone presumably qualified, why not jump in with your skills and either A) make bitcoin better by further developing this mastercoin protocol layer or B) make bitcoin better by illuminating the supposed folly of a mastercoin layer (or anything like it in the future) and thereby protect it? 

If JR and the board want to take you up on your offer, obviously some like myself won't/can't stand in the way, but it appears JR's feelings on this issue were made clear earlier in the thread.  I can appreciate your enterprising nature, however, I feel its distracting to the goal at hand.  Personally, I'd much rather see talented devs contribute to this project regardless if its favorable or not, just to provably show whether or not this can work and sustain itself.  It's not like 40 BTC is going to change your life today anyways...why not just jump in and contribute if you have something to offer?
Peter Todd
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 23, 2013, 07:27:39 AM
 #1006

It's not like 40 BTC is going to change your life today anyways...why not just jump in and contribute if you have something to offer?

I've got other paid and unpaid work competing for my time.

killerstorm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
September 23, 2013, 07:37:11 AM
 #1007

Posted my "Offer: Mastercoin analysis and transaction specification design" here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=299679.0

Thanks for the offer, though as an "investor" this is slightly annoying.  Why do you feel you need to separate yourself from the rest of those who may be interested in pursuing the outstanding bounty?  As someone presumably qualified, why not jump in with your skills and either A) make bitcoin better by further developing this mastercoin protocol layer or B) make bitcoin better by illuminating the supposed folly of a mastercoin layer (or anything like it in the future) and thereby protect it? 

If JR and the board want to take you up on your offer, obviously some like myself won't/can't stand in the way, but it appears JR's feelings on this issue were made clear earlier in the thread.  I can appreciate your enterprising nature, however, I feel its distracting to the goal at hand.  Personally, I'd much rather see talented devs contribute to this project regardless if its favorable or not, just to provably show whether or not this can work and sustain itself.  It's not like 40 BTC is going to change your life today anyways...why not just jump in and contribute if you have something to offer?

Your arrogance is sickening.

Mastercoin is a commercial endeavor, it got more than $500k in funding. But you're annoyed by the fact that people aren't willing to work for free. WTF is wrong with you?

BTW I think accepting retep's offer (or a similar offer) is the only way to save Mastercoin from failure. But you can keep thinking that trusting design to amateurs is a good idea.

People like J. R. Willet and ripper234 might be good software developers, but it's quite obvious they didn't have any experience in designing decentralized cryptographic systems and protocols for them.

On the other hand, retep is one one few people who know Bitcoin protocol inside-out (not just how to use it, but design considerations which go into it).

colored coins proof-of-concept: private currencies, stock/bond p2p exchange

Tips and donations: 16v13Fa9cPmfFzpm9mmbWwAkXY4gyY6uh4
superfluouso
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 202
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 23, 2013, 07:42:34 AM
 #1008

It's not like 40 BTC is going to change your life today anyways...why not just jump in and contribute if you have something to offer?

I've got other paid and unpaid work competing for my time.

Fair enough..I only hope at some point the potential of MasterCoin will be a bigger lure than a guaranteed 40 BTC to bring you into the mix. Smiley
superfluouso
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 202
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 23, 2013, 07:50:08 AM
 #1009

Posted my "Offer: Mastercoin analysis and transaction specification design" here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=299679.0

Thanks for the offer, though as an "investor" this is slightly annoying.  Why do you feel you need to separate yourself from the rest of those who may be interested in pursuing the outstanding bounty?  As someone presumably qualified, why not jump in with your skills and either A) make bitcoin better by further developing this mastercoin protocol layer or B) make bitcoin better by illuminating the supposed folly of a mastercoin layer (or anything like it in the future) and thereby protect it? 

If JR and the board want to take you up on your offer, obviously some like myself won't/can't stand in the way, but it appears JR's feelings on this issue were made clear earlier in the thread.  I can appreciate your enterprising nature, however, I feel its distracting to the goal at hand.  Personally, I'd much rather see talented devs contribute to this project regardless if its favorable or not, just to provably show whether or not this can work and sustain itself.  It's not like 40 BTC is going to change your life today anyways...why not just jump in and contribute if you have something to offer?

Your arrogance is sickening.

Mastercoin is a commercial endeavor, it got more than $500k in funding. But you're annoyed by the fact that people aren't willing to work for free. WTF is wrong with you?

BTW I think accepting retep's offer (or a similar offer) is the only way to save Mastercoin from failure. But you can keep thinking that trusting design to amateurs is a good idea.

People like J. R. Willet and ripper234 might be good software developers, but it's quite obvious they didn't have any experience in designing decentralized cryptographic systems and protocols for them.

On the other hand, retep is one one few people who know Bitcoin protocol inside-out (not just how to use it, but design considerations which go into it).

I'm afraid you misunderstood - at no point did I imply he should work for free.  I am simply questioning why he felt a need to work outside of the already established framework to utilize the 500k in funding.  I'm pretty certain if he just did what he proposed, he'd avail himself to a large portion of the current and future amounts made available anyways.

Or maybe I just had too many beers. I'll stay quiet..carry on.
killerstorm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
September 23, 2013, 07:52:56 AM
 #1010

Fair enough..I only hope at some point the potential of MasterCoin will be a bigger lure than a guaranteed 40 BTC to bring you into the mix. Smiley

People who see the potential in ideas behind Mastercoin are working on similar systems: BitShares, Freimarkets, etc.

Why would they want to make a system based on J. R. Willet's inept design if they can design a better system on their own?

Really, the only potential advantage of Mastercoin is funding it got. There are people who would like to work in the field of cryptocurrencies, but have to work elsewhere to feed themselves and their family. So actually paying for work can help Mastercoin to attract qualified people... At least in theory.

colored coins proof-of-concept: private currencies, stock/bond p2p exchange

Tips and donations: 16v13Fa9cPmfFzpm9mmbWwAkXY4gyY6uh4
killerstorm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
September 23, 2013, 08:23:00 AM
 #1011

I'm afraid you misunderstood - at no point did I imply he should work for free.  I am simply questioning why he felt a need to work outside of the already established framework to utilize the 500k in funding.  I'm pretty certain if he just did what he proposed, he'd avail himself to a large portion of the current and future amounts made available anyways.

Or maybe I just had too many beers. I'll stay quiet..carry on.

Do you mean that $25k competition?

Well, retep's report will likely recommend something "controversial", like a more complex design, keeping data in a separate chain etc. Because it just makes sense, I think all Bitcoin core devs will agree with this.

J. R. would not like this, so he will award him no points, and will instead reward people who work on Mastercoin implementation which goes along the lines of Mastercoin spec written by J. R. himself.

The thing is, this spec is a bit too half-assed, so while in short term it will give some tools which kinda sorta work, in the long run adherence to overly simple design will cripple Mastercoin.

I really don't see why spending ~1% of funding received on a professional analysis is a bad idea, while relying only on people who join the competition is a good idea.

I mean, it is theoretically possible that something good will come out of this competition, but why not increase chances of getting something good out of it by spending a bit extra? After all, time is crucial here.

I understand that if retep's offers is accepted, that will piss off developers who are already working on Mastercoin (Tachikoma et al.). But they are just not offering same kind of thing as retep can do, so it's fair: different kind of reward for a different kind of work.

colored coins proof-of-concept: private currencies, stock/bond p2p exchange

Tips and donations: 16v13Fa9cPmfFzpm9mmbWwAkXY4gyY6uh4
Peter Todd
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 23, 2013, 10:32:31 AM
 #1012

Well, retep's report will likely recommend something "controversial", like a more complex design, keeping data in a separate chain etc. Because it just makes sense, I think all Bitcoin core devs will agree with this.

FWIW if I think the best design for MasterCoin is to make use of the Bitcoin blockchain that's exactly what I'll recommend MasterCoin do, and I'll explain how to do it in a way that is as difficult as possible for Bitcoin to block. While I am known in the community for my hard-line stance on scalability and decentralization, I don't think we want to kid ourselves - if there are technical means and economic motivations to stuff data into the blockchain we should face that fact and understand the threat now in detail. Fortunately I think those incentives aren't there, or required, but I'd be fooling the Bitcoin community if I didn't consider all the possibilities carefully and in the interests of the MasterCoin community.

Tachikoma
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
September 23, 2013, 12:50:49 PM
 #1013

I've added a quick JSON-API on top of mastercoin-explorer. You can find the documentation here.

Electrum: the convenience of a web wallet, without the risks | Bytesized Seedboxes BTC/LTC supported
maraoz
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 55
Merit: 0



View Profile
September 23, 2013, 04:21:34 PM
 #1014

I understand that if retep's offers is accepted, that will piss off developers who are already working on Mastercoin (Tachikoma et al.). But they are just not offering same kind of thing as retep can do, so it's fair: different kind of reward for a different kind of work.

I wouldn't be pissed off at all. I know some people are WAY more qualified than me and won't work in the coding contest format.

http://www.proofofexistence.com
mindtomatter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


Editor-in-Chief of Let's Talk Bitcoin!


View Profile WWW
September 23, 2013, 04:23:35 PM
 #1015

Is JR the one assigning the winner of the contest, or is it the board?   Seems like it should be the board.

Let's Talk Bitcoin! Interviews, News & Analysis released Tuesdays and Saturdays
http://www.LetsTalkBitcoin.com - Listener Mail -> adam@letstalkbitcoin.com
dacoinminster
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1022


Rational Exuberance


View Profile WWW
September 23, 2013, 04:28:01 PM
 #1016

I respect retep's knowledge of bitcoin very much, but as killerstorm suggested, I expect he would recommend a course of action we are unlikely to follow. For instance, his proposal suggests that he may conclude that MasterCoins as a currency may not be needed at all.

I personally believe that MasterCoin's biggest competitive advantage is not the funds we have raised, but the simplicity of our protocol. Because of that simplicity we'll have distributed exchange, smart property, and distributed betting far sooner than any of our competitors. If stabilized currencies are possible (I believe they are) we'll do that first too.

First means a lot in this game, but in addition to being first, we'll also have tremendous flexibility. Each additional feature we add will take less work than our competitors have to expend with their more complicated solutions. It may be that my naive design has missed something important that will bite us later, but I expect someone would have exposed a problem like that by now. If something does come up, I'll be very surprised if it can't be fixed.

I expect that we will be spending a lot of money over the next few months to make sure that progress on this project remains blisteringly fast. Smiley

dacoinminster
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1022


Rational Exuberance


View Profile WWW
September 23, 2013, 04:52:16 PM
 #1017

JR, the spec doesn't mention anything about confirmations - have you put much thought into when we would consider a mastercoin transaction confirmed?  3 blocks? 6 blocks?  Thanks

I expect the number of confirmations should be the same as bitcoin - no more, no less. This is because we are relying on bitcoin to solve the double-spending problem for us, and the purpose of waiting for confirmations is to avoid double-spending.

I'd like to seek further validation of my transaction engine so I've opened up the block explorer component of Masterchest @ https://masterchest.info.

This is very alpha so there may be bugs, errors, mistakes and so on present - feedback is most welcome so please post about any errors or unexpected behaviour.

Smiley

I am VERY pleased to see this. Note that Tachikoma hasn't decided to release the source code to MasterCoin explorer yet (just the library that runs behind it), and the contest only pays for projects that have source code released. Obviously Tachikoma will have a big payday for releasing that library, but an open-source MasterCoin explorer would win some money too. If he does release source code, you'll have to share.

I'm really excited that you are working on making this into a web wallet. That will be a huge boon to our project (and obviously will be worth some money too).

I'm back in action after being tied to the bed for the last week.

I've released 'Masteroin-ruby' which is the library behind mastercoin-explorer.com. I am trying to keep the readme up-to-date whenever I update it.

The latest version supports sending multisig Mastercoin-transaction via Bitcoin-Qt (or Bitcoind). However as always please be very careful what you do. It's very basic but the same logic could be used by any full-fledged Mastercoin client. Mastercoin-explorer will also recognise multsig transactions now.

I've send three (invalid, because the sending address did not buy from Exodus, did not want to send real coins until spec is finalised) multisig transactions, one, two and three.

As always I hope all you other developers working around can also try my implementation so we can finalise the spec. A few things I came across.

  • Sequences for multisig public keys need to start with 01 instead of 00. If you don't do this more often then not the public key won't be a valid ECDSA point.
  • My transactions were being flagged as non-valid whenever I used 0.00006 for the multisig output, changing this to 0.00006 * 2 fixed this for some reason.
  • Bitcoin-qt doesn't recognise multsig-transactions as outputs ready for spending. You will have to manually redeem those outputs.

Tachikoma, while I was doing some comparisons between my work and your (great btw) block explorer - I noticed a minor bug in your block reporting - eg transaction http://mastercoin-explorer.com/transactions/3dcdf1a51ad844ef305a95a08d57e8f2027125bcf982cc0ae6767d0d629b5648 is reported as being included in block 260564 but as of now the network is only up to block 259203.

Thanks! This should now be fixed.

I'd like to seek further validation of my transaction engine so I've opened up the block explorer component of Masterchest @ https://masterchest.info.

This is very alpha so there may be bugs, errors, mistakes and so on present - feedback is most welcome so please post about any errors or unexpected behaviour.

Smiley


Woops; grats! Diversity is a good thing Smiley

Everybody working on MasterCoin projects should either be looking closely at Tachikoma's source code for his library, or just using it Smiley

I've added a quick JSON-API on top of mastercoin-explorer. You can find the documentation here.

Nice! This will help a lot of other projects move forward faster.

Is JR the one assigning the winner of the contest, or is it the board?   Seems like it should be the board.

I'll be soliciting feedback from the contest participants about how they would distribute the funds to the other participants if they weren't in the contest. I'll combine that feedback with my own, and take those numbers to the board, who may have their own feedback. Once the board is happy, we'll pay out.

We'll probably start another contest of some sort immediately after the current one. Possibly instead of having an end date for the next contest, we'll have an end-feature. Once the feature is fully implemented (web wallet, PC wallet, and library), we'd pay out to everyone who helped us get there. What do you guys think of that idea?

dacoinminster
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1022


Rational Exuberance


View Profile WWW
September 23, 2013, 04:59:29 PM
 #1018


The latest version supports sending multisig Mastercoin-transaction via Bitcoin-Qt (or Bitcoind). However as always please be very careful what you do. It's very basic but the same logic could be used by any full-fledged Mastercoin client. Mastercoin-explorer will also recognise multsig transactions now.

This is HUGE! I tried to create a new transaction, but got an error. Should "New Transaction" be working right now?

Hopefully the rest of you are working on parsing these transactions too! All our new features beyond simple send will use this method (until we find a better way such as if we decide to switch to OP_RETURN once it is fully supported by the network).

Tachikoma
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
September 23, 2013, 05:09:31 PM
 #1019


The latest version supports sending multisig Mastercoin-transaction via Bitcoin-Qt (or Bitcoind). However as always please be very careful what you do. It's very basic but the same logic could be used by any full-fledged Mastercoin client. Mastercoin-explorer will also recognise multsig transactions now.

This is HUGE! I tried to create a new transaction, but got an error. Should "New Transaction" be working right now?

Hopefully the rest of you are working on parsing these transactions too! All our new features beyond simple send will use this method (until we find a better way such as if we decide to switch to OP_RETURN once it is fully supported by the network).

Yeah it should work but it's very fragile at the moment. You can paste the error here but I rather do it over pm or irc (#mastercoin) so we don't pollute the topic. I'm already working on turning this into a 'real' wallet that should be less fragile.

I wanted to say one thing about web-wallets. Please don't host other peoples money; if you really want to build a web-wallet please make it at least client-side encoded so that no important data can be leaked. It would be very easy to build-in a web-wallet to mastercoin-explorer but I'm not doing this for a reason, it will get hacked. If not sooner, then later.

Electrum: the convenience of a web wallet, without the risks | Bytesized Seedboxes BTC/LTC supported
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1001


View Profile
September 23, 2013, 05:16:41 PM
 #1020

I wanted to say one thing about web-wallets. Please don't host other peoples money; if you really want to build a web-wallet please make it at least client-side encoded so that no important data can be leaked. It would be very easy to build-in a web-wallet to mastercoin-explorer but I'm not doing this for a reason, it will get hacked. If not sooner, then later.

+1

Decentralized is better.  Our big central entities of money handling -- pools and web wallets -- all have a history of poor security.


Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.
Visit bloq.com / metronome.io
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 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 ... 166 »
  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!