Bitcoin Forum
August 23, 2019, 05:40:19 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Ban evasion: Banned #1423316 “Anti-Cen” = #1801074 “RNC” ≟ #376659 “dinofelis”  (Read 139 times)
nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 780


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2018, 07:42:41 PM
 #1

I hereby request that admins investigate and permaban this person:


The foregoing list may be edited by me if/as new evidence and potential new connections are discovered.

I have previously reported #1423316 “Anti-Cen” to admins for the following threat PM which “Anti-Cen” sent to me.  Alhough I have reason to believe that the user was banned shortly thereafter, I do not know the formal reasons for the ban.

Subject: YOU BIT OF SHIT
You will be trolled by me across the internet and I will show you for the lying bit of scum you are

Archived image:

Loading image of threat PM...

On 2018-02-26, “RNC” resurrected a thread from December 2017 with immediate attacks on achow101 and me, in that order.  I immediately recognized an “Anti-Cen”/“dinofelis” attempt to bait me into a flamewar (which I avoid in Dev & Tech); I thus promptly made it clear that I wasn’t biting.

Code:
        +-------------------+             .:\:\:/:/:.            
         |   PLEASE DO NOT   |            :.:\:\:/:/:.:          
         |  FEED THE TROLLS  |           :=.' -   - '.=:          
         |                   |           '=(\ 9   9 /)='          
         |   Thank you,      |              (  (_)  )            
         |       Management  |              /`-vvv-'\            
         +-------------------+             /         \            
                 |  |        @@@          / /|,,,,,|\ \          
                 |  |        @@@         /_//  /^\  \\_\          
   @x@@x@        |  |         |/         WW(  (   )  )WW          
   \||||/        |  |        \|           __\,,\ /,,/__          
    \||/         |  |         |          (______Y______)          
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==================================================================

Other users attempted to reason with “RNC”, until an argument escalated to the point wherein “RNC” defiantly admitted to being banned user “Anti-Cen” (archive as linked above; all formatting as in the original):


@DooMAD: This whole gibberish is exactly the tone and voice of Anti-Cen and dinofelis. Even the low level newbies here in the forum can make a text comparison on the posts, and understand that there is the same incentive, just under different names.

You are right, 100% right and indeed I am anti-cen which is short for anti censorship but here i met a nazi in the form of a moderator
who dare not allow open debate which I have reported and advise him to return back to 1930's Germany so that he can burn a few more books.

Yes please laugh by exposing a banned account but really the joke is on you if you need the service of a bias PR officer to protect you from a
few home truths around here.

The "newbies" here would be the ones your trying to convert into harden gambling addicts with the loaded propaganda that is being pumped out
here and this is why you fear me and ban number two is coming up so credit for spotting the obvious but i did not try to hide it anyway but your not that
smart because no one writes like me and you now need to apologize to dinofelis because your witch hunt lead you to an innocent man.

Would you like me to PM you a list of the bottom sniffers I have compiled here, paid thugs they send in since we are exchanging names not that your on the list and
I don't even hold it against you for exposing my real name that I would like back anyway.

Holly shit batman, RNC is Anti-Cen in disguise so I wonder why he's is having to do that Batman


Snapshot of the whole thread wherein “RNC” admitted to ban evasion:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180302174206/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2617240.0;all

Snapshot of profile for #1801074 “RNC”:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180302175807/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074

I know of no means to obtain an atomic snapshot of all a user’s posts; this is the closest I can get for #1801074 “RNC”:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180302174609/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074;sa=showPosts

https://web.archive.org/web/20180302175055/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074;sa=showPosts;start=20

https://web.archive.org/web/20180302175108/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074;sa=showPosts;start=40

https://web.archive.org/web/20180302175130/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074;sa=showPosts;start=60

https://web.archive.org/web/20180302175146/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074;sa=showPosts;start=80

https://web.archive.org/web/20180302175150/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1801074;sa=showPosts;start=100

I believe the case is clear for an immediate permaban of the individual behind the “Anti-Cen” and “RNC” accounts, on the basis of ban evasion.




In re #376659 “dinofelis”

“RNC’s” 12th post, made less than 8 hours after creating the account, was a reply to a subtopic titled “Re: DINOFELIS is the actual troll”—in reply to a user who had been addressing “dinofelis”.  Observe that “RNC’s” use of language, punctuation, and even odd line breaks are a perfect match for “dinofelis”:

That isn't what he said, and you know it.

dinofelis, your only discernible input on this forum is misrepresenting facts in a (kind of) subtle way. Well, you're also good at avoiding direct debunking of the things you say which aren't true.

You ought really to be banned, as it's too obvious that you're not interested in any kind of constructive debate, and never have been (unfortunately, dinofelis is likely the owner of many accounts that have been created with a suspiciously similar style of debate, only adding to the perception that the owner is very intent on wasting everyone's time on Bitcointalk.org)

Are you the one they send in to abuse people and if they answer back they get banned because many of you're posts seem to be picking a fight with people not
quite seeing things your way.

Quote
That isn't going to be happening, the best strategy with your posts is to skim-read them until one finds the deliberate errors you try to promote as facts

I wonder why you have not been banned or are you in with the owners ?

Archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180302175658/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2786690.msg29667749#msg29667749

This occurred in a flame thread, soon thereafter locked by the moderator.

I noticed the “RNC”/“dinofelis” connection immediately, on 2018-02-05; but I did not say anything to anybody about it, until after I saw the same connection independently observed by another well-respected regular in Dev & Tech.  In addressing DooMAD’s attempt to reason with “RNC”, pebwindkraft said (boldface added):

@DooMAD: This whole gibberish is exactly the tone and voice of Anti-Cen and dinofelis. Even the low level newbies here in the forum can make a text comparison on the posts, and understand that there is the same incentive, just under different names.

I had noticed the “dinofelis”/“Anti-Cen” similarity before the “RNC” account was even created, although I kept such suspicions to myself.  Both accounts post long screeds attacking Bitcoin, Core developers, Segwit, the Lightning Network, etc., etc.  Both accounts make the same claim of superior knowledge; both accounts not only commit serious technical errors in their claims, but make the same technical errors.  Both accounts have similar style of writing, argumentation, punctuation, and formatting.

Although I kept earlier suspicions of alt accounts to myself, I had it on my mind when I previously mentioned the banned “Anti-Cen” in the same breath as “dinofelis” in a Meta discussion of Dev & Tech trolls:

A few recent examples of “misinformation” trolls:

  • In the thread I started on Bitcoin’s Public-Key Security Level (OP currently +18), Anti-Cen #1423316 posted so much gibberish about using Microsoft Windows RSACryptoServiceProvider(512) for Bitcoin keys (!) that I myself had difficulty wading through it to pick out the real replies so I could respond to them.  That has a real impact on readers.  Anti-Cen’s post history includes claims of his own extraordinary expertise to support grossly wrong technical statements about Bitcoin, extreme hostility toward Core, a persistent suggestion that fees be capped at 1.5 (without specifying a unit), etc., etc....  At some point, I gathered a representative selection of quotes from Anti-Cen’s posts.  As I have not hereto revealed publicly, Anti-Cen has also tried to bait me by PM.  I think that Anti-Cen is probably the most odious troll in Dev & Tech right now.
  • In a thread ChiBitCTy started on Important Lighting Network reading- for everyone! (OP currently +9, including +1 from me), dinofelis #376659 derailed the thread into discussion of his attack on nodes:  “Nodes are ‘vote by IP number’, which is what Satoshi wanted to nullify by vote by PoW”, “The only reason why they talk Joes into running nodes in their basement, is because bitcoin needs a story, and decentralization sounds like a good selling argument”, “nobody will give a shit that 10 000 Joes find their nodes switching off because they don't find the ‘right’ block chain any more”, etc., etc., plus a sprinkle of crazy:  “People very knowledgeable of that system cannot ignore the basic design principles of that system, can they ?  So there must be a deceptive reason for telling this [that the system is decentralized —Ed.], given that it is objectively wrong.”  I tried to cut the discussion offI mean it—so as to set the thread back on track.  Any thread which catches dinofelis’ attention is liable to go in a similar direction.  I see that Wind_FURY seems to be trying to draw fire, I presume to unclog other threads.  I’d expect that all the technically competent regulars must be sick of dinofelis.

[...]

I argue that the foregoing establishes a prima facie case for linking “dinofelis” as the primary alt of confirmed ban-evader “Anti-Cen”/“dinofelis”.  Whereupon, I request that admins investigate and take appropriate action.

I will also be investigating further, and dropping quotes/archive links into this thread.  I encourage other users to do their own investigations, and post their evidence.

Here’s to a troll-free Development & Technology Discussion forum.

1566538819
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566538819

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566538819
Reply with quote  #2

1566538819
Report to moderator
1566538819
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566538819

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566538819
Reply with quote  #2

1566538819
Report to moderator
1566538819
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566538819

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566538819
Reply with quote  #2

1566538819
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1566538819
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566538819

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566538819
Reply with quote  #2

1566538819
Report to moderator
1566538819
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566538819

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566538819
Reply with quote  #2

1566538819
Report to moderator
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1331


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2018, 08:44:35 PM
 #2

Having tangled with all of these aliases at some point or another, I'm definitely left with the impression that dinofelis was the more capable debater compared to Anti-Cen/RNC. 

While dinofelis' arguments weren't entirely without fault, there was at least coherent reasoning demonstrated and it felt like I had a challenging opponent when seemingly valid counterpoints were raised to my arguments.  I feel like I can actually respect the stance of dinofelis, even when I disagree with it. 

Whereas Anti-Cen/RNC, on the other hand, generally just comes across as having a genuine cognitive dysfunction.  It was like shooting fish in a barrel because they seemed so utterly dense.  The experience just wasn't the same.  Personally, I find it unlikely they're the same person. 

It also looks like they've conversed with each other in the past.

nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 780


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2018, 09:14:40 PM
 #3

Note:  Admins have access to far more evidence than I do.  My goal here is to build a case to the level of probable cause or higher, such as I believe warrants administrative investigation.  I believe I have done that; and I continue to investigate.

Splitting quote of DooMAD out of order, to facilitate a more organized reply:

It also looks like they've conversed with each other in the past.

This means nothing.  Troll sockpuppets oftentimes do talk to each other.  Indeed, that is why they are called “sockpuppets”:  The origin of that term on the Internet is an observation of how trolls make multiple alt accounts for their own puppet shows involving multiple characters.  Usually, the socks support each other—but with more sophisticated trolls, sometimes their socks even argue with each other.

I also emphasize:  As noted in my OP, the very first Dev & Tech post by “RNC” replied as if on behalf of “dinofelis”; whereafter “dinofelis” seems to have melted away.  The moment I saw that, I questioned whether “RNC” was a new “dinofelis” alt—it was my first impression of “RNC”!  Although not conclusive evidence in itself, that is suggestive; and it adds to all the other paralles between the accounts in terms of expressed opinions, writing style, punctuation, etc.

Having tangled with all of these aliases at some point or another, I'm definitely left with the impression that dinofelis was the more capable debater compared to Anti-Cen/RNC. 

While dinofelis' arguments weren't entirely without fault, there was at least coherent reasoning demonstrated and it felt like I had a challenging opponent when seemingly valid counterpoints were raised to my arguments.  I feel like I can actually respect the stance of dinofelis, even when I disagree with it. 

Whereas Anti-Cen/RNC, on the other hand, generally just comes across as having a genuine cognitive dysfunction.  It was like shooting fish in a barrel because they seemed so utterly dense.  The experience just wasn't the same.  Personally, I find it unlikely they're the same person. 

If you want to see “cognitive dysfunction”, observe the following cringe-worthy posts in which “dinofelis” says, in essence, that he’s too smart to write concise, readable posts instead of long “wall of text” rambles filled with disorganized thinking.

“dinofelis” claims that everybody who has trouble reading his walls of text is simply too stupid, and compares the reading difficulty of his posts to “an exposition of general relativity” (!).  N.b. one example of a space before concluding punctuation; all three accounts inconsistently do this:

“Have you ever read, say, an exposition of general relativity ?”

I already told people: the long version is free, for the short version, you'll have to pay.  I didn't have time to be short.

Your inability to concisely convey anything severely reduces the number of people reading it. I usually get halfway through the first paragraph of your posts before coming to the conclusion that my time would be better spent elsewhere. Forums are a place for discussions not monologues. Have you considered blogging? It seems more suited to your style.

It is not my "inability".  It is my lack of desire to waste time on being succinct.  I can be, but it takes time and effort I don't want to spend on a forum.  I already spend too much time on it, I cannot spend 2 or 3 times more.  I don't want to be "read".  I don't want to tell the world.  I want to find out if my thinking is correct, if there are intelligent counter arguments to my thinking.  For that, I want to give all elements that led to my argument.  That takes room.  It would take less room if I reworked it, but that's too much of an effort.  If someone doesn't have the attention span to read me, he probably won't be able to give me a counter argument either that is valuable to me.  I may of course push off the true expert that could point out an error by the walls of text I produce.  But a true expert may not be put off to read a page of text.  But the casual reader that is put off by long arguments, won't be useful to me, so I don't care he doesn't read. 

I certainly don't want to blog, because I have nothing to "tell the world", and certainly not for free.  I want to learn from the world.  My walls of text, spread all over the place in a disorganized fashion will also make it essentially impossible to steal anything useful from it, if ever I decided to sell something of it.





On the contrary to the rest of your statement, I think many of the most knowledgeable people here have got far more important things to do with there time than trying to decipher your "text walls" to see if there is anything vaguely resembling coherent thinking hidden in there somewhere.

Have you ever read, say, an exposition of general relativity ?  How many pages do you have to acquire, follow explanations, fill in gaps the author left, think through what the author is saying, not being quite sure that you're with him, before you actually start understanding the argument ?  Compared to that level of difficulty, "working through my walls of text" is leisure in a blink of an eye.  People not capable of doing this, can probably not reason on a sophisticated enough level to even start being useful.  Usually, in texts like that, the problem is rather that the text is too concise, and that one has to fill in too many gaps.  I err probably on the other side, I'm too verbose, too explicit, too much in simple details that could be filled in, in what I say.

I'll ask you: how many lines of explanation would you need to understand, from scratch, say, Pollard's rho attack on a Diffie-Hellman key exchange ?  Suppose that this was an unknown thing, and that someone posted this here for the first time, somewhat hesitant maybe in the fluidity of his wordings.  Would you also complain that there are "walls of text" if someone would try to give an argument explaining how it could be done in a page or two ?  Do you think that your comments would be of any use ?

If you tell me that the few people capable of seeing that, are elsewhere, then one must conclude that the amount of brain power here is too low to be of any sensible use in the development of any form of advanced argument.  That's also a possibility of course.


Now, really:  If I were to remove the name, could you distinguish the following from any of the longer “Anti-Cen” posts?  I pick this example only because it was just upthread from the above two, and in the same context.  It’s far from his worst.

The only argument was that someone said that I didn't understand the principles.  "you're wrong because he said you're wrong".

You really should go back and read the answers you've been given in this thread again. You seem to have missed all the times you have been corrected.

I haven't been.  There has not been a single technical argument here, where mine is taken step by step and shown how things work differently than what I say.  In fact, the onus of proof is on the claim that, contrary to what Satoshi said, contrary to what Gavin said, contrary to what I'm saying, non-mining nodes "do keep miners in check". 

In as far as an argument has been presented, it goes even against itself: the so-called UASF threat. 

What needs to be demonstrated, in order to deny my claim "non-mining nodes don't influence the functioning of the system" ?  One needs to consider two different cases, one where non-mining nodes WANT something, and act, and one, all else equal, they DON'T act, and show that it makes a difference.

First example: "non mining nodes keep miners in check".   Note that we are NOT arguing how "exchanges keep miners in check"  or how "other miners keep miners in check". 

So we agree that all miners, and all exchanges, act together, and that it is the sole presence of a lot of non-mining nodes, that keeps them in check.  If this can be argued, you won.  Non-mining nodes keep miners in check in that case.

A: there are not many non-mining nodes.  All miners, and all exchanges, have decided upon a protocol change.  They do so.  The protocol change happens.

B: a lot of non-mining full nodes don't want this protocol change.  Tell me how they prevent it ?  Suppose that out of the 10 000 non-mining nodes, 9000 of them are opposed to this protocol change.  What happens ?  Miners apply the protocol change.  9000 nodes do not agree, and don't accept the N+1 block.  They wait for ever.  The "good" N+1 block never arrives.   They don't transmit the "bad" N+x blocks.
Users, initially connecting to these nodes, don't see their transactions.  They look for other nodes, until they stumble on one of the 1000 agreeing nodes, on an exchange node, or on a miner node.  They see that the chain is way further now, and they can see that the other nodes fell behind and stopped at N.  They disconnect from them, and connect to the updating minority of nodes (from miners, exchanges, and a few enthusiasts).

==> the large majority of non mining nodes, not agreeing with the protocol change, didn't keep the miners in check, did they ?

B-bis: suppose that 9990 nodes are opposed, but suppose that miners and exchanges, agreeing on the protocol change, "sybil" and install 200000 new nodes.  Now, the "node count" in favour of the protocol change is huge.  What is that small minority complaining ?  They are disconnected from the network, because they fall behind.

==> the large initial majority of non mining nodes can be sybiled away.  They didn't, after all, keep the miners in check, did they ?

Conclusion case 1: whatever the non-mining nodes do, if miners and exchanges have agreed upon a protocol change, that protocol change happens, all else equal.


Second example: nodes want a protocol change, miners and exchanges want to keep the old protocol

This is the UASF.

A) only a small minority of non-mining nodes wants the protocol change.  No miner makes their blocks, so they stop. 

B) 9000 out of 10 000 non mining nodes want the protocol change.  They stop their old client (so they remove themselves from the network) and they install the new client, that doesn't find new blocks according to their desires.  They fall behind while the miners continue to make the old chain.   ==> same scenario as 1 B.

But suppose that somehow, I'm wrong here.  Suppose that a large majority of non-mining nodes COULD impose a protocol change.

C) now, imagine that none of the honest non-mining nodes wants a protocol change, but evil Joe does.  He makes a UASF node, and launches 200000 of them.  He has now clear UASF majority on the node network.  In as much as UASF could work (it doesn't, see 2.B, but suppose), then just any evil Joe can impose a protocol change with a sybil attack with UASF nodes.

QED.


digaran
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 613

111113DUwES2ZNWSJztA3oBuhzfcdmiaG


View Profile
March 03, 2018, 06:17:33 AM
 #4

Bcash shills. banning the opposition is not right. we should hear everybody and respond with reason and logic, why I'd picked some of their posts when I was applying for becoming a merit source, if a real conversation has to be silenced because we don't agree with them, we deserve to have street beggars and unemployed illiterates turning this forum into what it has become.

I picked some of their posts because they were different. nothing like:
Quote
Join bounty campaigns where you can get BTCs
Quote
it is better if you will participate in bounty campaigns for you to earn bitcoins.
Quote
you can also do bounty campaign programs
Quote
There are actually bounty campaigns that offer bitcoin as payment for the participants services
Quote
The best and fast method to earn bitcoin is to buy. But if you don't have the resources or money to buy then We join signature campaigns and bounty campaigns to earn bitcoin, You should try it also and you will be surprise of how good the pay is.
Quote
The methods I used is by joining signature campaigns, Actually the best way is by joining a signature campaign.
Quote
I think there so many different kind of earning of bitcoin without any investment like joining of signature campaign or any bounties.
Quote
Or do some signature tasks to get the token!
Quote
There are many methods to earn bitcoin. First, join campaigns and reply to posts. Second, you can invest your money in bitcoin and make campaigns.
Quote
as long as you need to follow the rules and you need to follow them.
Quote
Maybe try joining Bounty campaigns.
Quote
Try to look for signature campaigns in which you pay in Bitcoins. Or do absolutely any work and arrange a payment in Bitcoins.
Quote
Or you can join to signature camping here and earn some extra btc.
Quote
remember that we have a daily needs in order to survive, For me the easy way is do airdrop and join campaign at they same time.
Quote
if you want to get bitcoin without having to spend big capital,
maybe the right answer is to try to follow the bounty program
Quote
This bitcoin forum can help you to earn bitcoins even you don't have investment. There are many jobs here in the bitcoin forum that are paying big amount of money. You will only use your skills for you to earn bitcoins.
Quote
For me, the best and the easiest way to earn Bitcoins is to join signature campaigns. "for some people, showing their pussies on camera is one method to fool others".

Do you find any comments like the quoted ones on the post history of these shills? they are discussing Bitcoin itself. if I could see them as what they really are, others would see them too. if they all are banned, nobody would discuss about Bitcoin.

HOWEYCOINS   ▮      Excitement and         ⭐  ● TWITTER  ● FACEBOOK   ⭐      
  ▮    guaranteed returns                 ●TELEGRAM                         
  ▮  of the travel industry
    ⭐  ●Ann Thread ●Instagram   ⭐ 
✅    U.S.Sec    ➡️
✅  approved!  ➡️
TheQuin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 700


Freebitco.in Support https://bit.ly/2I9BVS2


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2018, 08:33:24 AM
 #5

Bcash shills. banning the opposition is not right. we should hear everybody and respond with reason and logic, why I'd picked some of their posts when I was applying for becoming a merit source, if a real conversation has to be silenced because we don't agree with them, we deserve to have street beggars and unemployed illiterates turning this forum into what it has become.

~...trimmed...~

Do you find any comments like the quoted ones on the post history of these shills? they are discussing Bitcoin itself. if I could see them as what they really are, others would see them too. if they all are banned, nobody would discuss about Bitcoin.

I do agree with you that we shouldn't ban people because we disagree with them but they do have to stick to the forum rules like everyone else. The purpose of a forum is indeed to debate and you need opposing opinions to make that happen. But it comes down to how they go about it. If they go around necrobumping old threads,  trying to derail all discussion on to their topic of choice and, just generally trolling, then banning them is probably the only option.

I had a run in with RNC a couple of days ago when they tried to turn my thread about the inaccuracy of fee estimators into a debate about fees being too high.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2990283.msg31346481#msg31346481

freebitcoin.TO WIN A  LAMBORGHINI!..

.
                                ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄▄▄
                    ▄▄▄▄▄██████████████████████████████████▄▄▄▄
                    ▀██████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄▄
                    ▄▄████▄█████▄████████████████████████████▄█████▄████▄▄
                    ▀████████▀▀▀████████████████████████████████▀▀▀██████████▄
                      ▀▀▀████▄▄▄███████████████████████████████▄▄▄██████████
                           ▀█████▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀█████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
                   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Pages: [1]
  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!