Bitcoin Forum
January 23, 2019, 06:37:09 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 [594] 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 ... 1038 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] [MINT] Mintcoin (POS / 5%) [NO ICO] [Fair distro, community maintained]  (Read 1343459 times)
mr_random
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000


Deex.exchange


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:04:22 PM
 #11861

Stop with the FUD it's already been shown that the attack was foiled by the proper functioning of the coin and no doublespend is achievable by that vector

1 hour worth of blocks in the block chain were reduced to proof of work only. And the proof of work difficulty is ridiculously low due to the 1 block reward being no incentive to proof of work miners.

A double spend attack in that 1 hour block would be a piece of cake. You're lucky the blackcoin developer isn't malicious or your MINT would have lost 500% of it's value right now... but that could still happen anyway the way the market is reacting to this news

MAIN  DECENTRALIZED ECOSYSTE ▌   D E E X   E X C H A N G E   ▐     ▌BOUNTY PROGRAM 2.0   ▌   FROM THE 12th OF OCTOBER
▬   ▬▬   ▬▬▬   ▬▬▬▬   ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬   ▬▬▬▬   ▬▬▬   ▬▬   ▬
|      [ WHITEPAPER ]  [ BOUNTY ]  [ ANN THREAD ]       |         Facebook        Telegram        Twitter        Instagram          |
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1548225429
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548225429

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1548225429
Reply with quote  #2

1548225429
Report to moderator
stormia
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:07:45 PM
 #11862


I recommend you go with black coin

Why is blackcoin's price falling, too? I see big dumps. I would have thought bad news for Mint == good news for BC.
Soepkip
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:09:26 PM
 #11863

Stop with the FUD it's already been shown that the attack was foiled by the proper functioning of the coin and no doublespend is achievable by that vector

Actually, the only reason PoS kicked back in is because we stopped the attack. One could easily stop the PoS chain for 24 hours+ if he'd wanted to. Hell, even a year is possible.

Also, this is a 2 part attack:

1) Make the coin PoW only
2) 51% attack.

The second part we did not perform, but we could've done a double spend then.

Anyhow, good that the dev finally reacted, hope to see a fix soon!

████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████

->  BLOCKTIX  ->  Ticketing platform with a dual blockchain on Ethereum for event hosting
-> WEBSITE - SLACK - TWITTER - FORUM
-> Join our community to learn about our upcoming ICO
drent301
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 129
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:13:01 PM
 #11864

Thanks for the panic!

Just bought some very cheap Mint! Wink
mgburks77
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:14:52 PM
 #11865

Stop with the FUD it's already been shown that the attack was foiled by the proper functioning of the coin and no doublespend is achievable by that vector

Actually, the only reason PoS kicked back in is because we stopped the attack. One could easily stop the PoS chain for 24 hours+ if he'd wanted to. Hell, even a year is possible.

Also, this is a 2 part attack:

1) Make the coin PoW only
2) 51% attack.

The second part we did not perform, but we could've done a double spend then.

Anyhow, good that the dev finally reacted, hope to see a fix soon!

they said they would release a fix if one becomes necessary because theoretical possibilities are not much to worry about

dille71
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:15:51 PM
 #11866

What is the nature of the attack and what are the risks to people currently holding Mint?

Was a 51 attack over POW part, cant go further since POS kick back in

If you are paranoid use more than 120 confirmations, this will exclude this attack since POS will always kick back in less than an hour

No double spend can be made with this attack.
How to configure how many confirmations to use?

Mintcoin: MsFGc9atNN6DddEsQHiq7MgDieoSLwtmg5
InformationCoin: Je4ZhmQBSd68oZ7CeXWMrWEsyprTXAVFuX
pym002
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 65
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:16:59 PM
 #11867

Thanks for the panic!

Just bought some very cheap Mint! Wink

like people who do not know how to wait and give time for a currency will have remorse later

M.Jcoin :MCyadDsyoNTk6xwxQZ7ro8Nj5wSR9uzojC
XbladeX
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1001



View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:18:14 PM
 #11868

What is the nature of the attack and what are the risks to people currently holding Mint?

Was a 51 attack over POW part, cant go further since POS kick back in

If you are paranoid use more than 120 confirmations, this will exclude this attack since POS will always kick back in less than an hour

No double spend can be made with this attack.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake
then
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Double-spending
and finaly:

>50% attack

If the attacker controls more than half of the network hashrate, the previous attack has a probability of 100% to succeed. Since the attacker can generate blocks faster than the rest of the network, he can simply persevere with his private fork until it becomes longer than the branch built by the honest network, from whatever disadvantage.

No amount of confirmations can prevent this attack; however, waiting for confirmations does increase the aggregate resource cost of performing the attack, which could make it unprofitable or delay it long enough for the circumstances to change or slower-acting synchronization methods to kick in.
_______________________________________________________________________________ ____________
Mint attack 51% of POW part was successful no POS block was generated during test attack.
Just becouse test attack wasn't created to enebled double spend that doesn't meant it is impossible.
Do you realy want attack to create panic ?

"Successfully tested on Mintcoin: no PoS blocks from 203231 up to 203441, more than 1 hour of real time."
just check blocks in explorer to see it was for real...
Mint just need fast fix that is all

     ███▄▄  ▄▄███
██▄▄   ▀▀████▀▀   ▄▄██
 ▀▀███▄▄      ▄▄███▀▀
█▄▄  ▀▀███▄▄███▀▀
█████▄▄  ▀▀▀▀  ▄▄
██  ▀▀███▄▄▄▄███▀
██      ▀▀██▀▀     ▄▄▄
██   ▄▄        ▄▄███▀▀
██   ▀███▄▄▄▄███▀▀
██▄     ▀▀██▀▀     ▄▄▄
▀▀███▄▄        ▄▄███▀▀
    ▀▀███▄▄▄▄███▀▀
        ▀▀██▀▀
graIn..
.
The Backbone of
Modern Work Agreements.
███████████████
████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
████ ██████████████████
████ ██
████ ██
████ ██
████ ██
████
████
████
████


█████████████   █████

.Whitepaper.
█████   █████████████


████
████
████
████
██ ████
██ ████
██ ████
██ ████
██████████████████ ████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████
███████████████
dille71
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:18:18 PM
 #11869

Stop with the FUD it's already been shown that the attack was foiled by the proper functioning of the coin and no doublespend is achievable by that vector

Actually, the only reason PoS kicked back in is because we stopped the attack. One could easily stop the PoS chain for 24 hours+ if he'd wanted to. Hell, even a year is possible.

Also, this is a 2 part attack:

1) Make the coin PoW only
2) 51% attack.

The second part we did not perform, but we could've done a double spend then.

Anyhow, good that the dev finally reacted, hope to see a fix soon!

they said they would release a fix if one becomes necessary because theoretical possibilities are not much to worry about


The dev should try to reproduce this and see if it is a problem. For all we know rat4 and his team could have tried this over and over and when they finally manage to get 100 blocks in a row they posted that result as if it is an easy task...

Mintcoin: MsFGc9atNN6DddEsQHiq7MgDieoSLwtmg5
InformationCoin: Je4ZhmQBSd68oZ7CeXWMrWEsyprTXAVFuX
mgburks77
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:22:16 PM
 #11870

Stop with the FUD it's already been shown that the attack was foiled by the proper functioning of the coin and no doublespend is achievable by that vector

Actually, the only reason PoS kicked back in is because we stopped the attack. One could easily stop the PoS chain for 24 hours+ if he'd wanted to. Hell, even a year is possible.

Also, this is a 2 part attack:

1) Make the coin PoW only
2) 51% attack.

The second part we did not perform, but we could've done a double spend then.

Anyhow, good that the dev finally reacted, hope to see a fix soon!

they said they would release a fix if one becomes necessary because theoretical possibilities are not much to worry about


The dev should try to reproduce this and see if it is a problem. For all we know rat4 and his team could have tried this over and over and when they finally manage to get 100 blocks in a row they posted that result as if it is an easy task...

they know what they are doing, these guys are just trying to scare you
mr_random
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000


Deex.exchange


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:22:35 PM
 #11871

Stop with the FUD it's already been shown that the attack was foiled by the proper functioning of the coin and no doublespend is achievable by that vector

Actually, the only reason PoS kicked back in is because we stopped the attack. One could easily stop the PoS chain for 24 hours+ if he'd wanted to. Hell, even a year is possible.

Also, this is a 2 part attack:

1) Make the coin PoW only
2) 51% attack.

The second part we did not perform, but we could've done a double spend then.

Anyhow, good that the dev finally reacted, hope to see a fix soon!

they said they would release a fix if one becomes necessary because theoretical possibilities are not much to worry about



You would rather it's not theoretical and he actually 51% attacks your mint blockchain??  Cheesy

You should be careful what you wish for. He reduced the network to relying on almost zero difficulty proof of work mining, a 51% attack at that point is trivial.

MAIN  DECENTRALIZED ECOSYSTE ▌   D E E X   E X C H A N G E   ▐     ▌BOUNTY PROGRAM 2.0   ▌   FROM THE 12th OF OCTOBER
▬   ▬▬   ▬▬▬   ▬▬▬▬   ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬   ▬▬▬▬   ▬▬▬   ▬▬   ▬
|      [ WHITEPAPER ]  [ BOUNTY ]  [ ANN THREAD ]       |         Facebook        Telegram        Twitter        Instagram          |
stormia
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:28:19 PM
 #11872

I've just noticed something while going over the block chain.

First of all, the attack was really just from 203231 to 203405 before it started to be interrupted by even more PoS blocks:
http://mintcoin-explorer.info/chain/MintCoin?hi=203233&count=50
http://mintcoin-explorer.info/chain/MintCoin?hi=203433&count=50


Secondly, even within this period, there are still some PoS blocks that occur:
http://i.imgur.com/LydCerH.png

Most importantly of all. Through the ENTIRE attack period, not a single transaction was confirmed by one of the PoW blocks (aside from the PoW blocks producing their 1 MINT). The only transaction confirmations were done by the few PoS blocks which interrupted. How is this possible? There are way, way more PoW blocks, but none of them confirmed transactions over an entire hour? Is that because PoW blocks cannot confirm transaction during this "attack"? If so, then this "attack" cannot be used to double spend or do any real damage. Right?
mgburks77
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:32:58 PM
 #11873

So stormia,

are you saying that this statement:
Quote
Mint attack 51% of POW part was successful no POS block was generated during test attack.

is demonstrably untrue?  Cheesy
gonzoucab
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:35:08 PM
 #11874

I've just noticed something while going over the block chain.

First of all, the attack was really just from 203231 to 203405 before it started to be interrupted by even more PoS blocks:
http://mintcoin-explorer.info/chain/MintCoin?hi=203233&count=50
http://mintcoin-explorer.info/chain/MintCoin?hi=203433&count=50


Secondly, even within this period, there are still some PoS blocks that occur:
http://i.imgur.com/LydCerH.png

Most importantly of all. Through the ENTIRE attack period, not a single transaction was confirmed by one of the PoW blocks (aside from the PoW blocks producing their 1 MINT). The only transaction confirmations were done by the few PoS blocks which interrupted. How is this possible? There are way, way more PoW blocks, but none of them confirmed transactions over an entire hour? Is that because PoW blocks cannot confirm transaction during this "attack"? If so, then this "attack" cannot be used to double spend or do any real damage. Right?

Yes. exactly
stormia
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:35:21 PM
 #11875

So stormia,

are you saying that this statement:
Quote
Mint attack 51% of POW part was successful no POS block was generated during test attack.

is demonstrably untrue?  Cheesy

Yes, but I urge people to have a look themselves. Even more importantly it doesn't seem to matter that they were in control of PoW because PoW was not allowed to do any transaction confirmations. The PoS blocks had to interrupt in order to confirm a transaction.
mr_random
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000


Deex.exchange


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:38:20 PM
 #11876

I've just noticed something while going over the block chain.

First of all, the attack was really just from 203231 to 203405 before it started to be interrupted by even more PoS blocks:
http://mintcoin-explorer.info/chain/MintCoin?hi=203233&count=50
http://mintcoin-explorer.info/chain/MintCoin?hi=203433&count=50


Secondly, even within this period, there are still some PoS blocks that occur:
http://i.imgur.com/LydCerH.png

Most importantly of all. Through the ENTIRE attack period, not a single transaction was confirmed by one of the PoW blocks (aside from the PoW blocks producing their 1 MINT). The only transaction confirmations were done by the few PoS blocks which interrupted. How is this possible? There are way, way more PoW blocks, but none of them confirmed transactions over an entire hour? Is that because PoW blocks cannot confirm transaction during this "attack"? If so, then this "attack" cannot be used to double spend or do any real damage. Right?

So it's even worse than we thought. The entire network was frozen with no confirmations, and that was only carried out by the first stage of the attack.

Game over.

MAIN  DECENTRALIZED ECOSYSTE ▌   D E E X   E X C H A N G E   ▐     ▌BOUNTY PROGRAM 2.0   ▌   FROM THE 12th OF OCTOBER
▬   ▬▬   ▬▬▬   ▬▬▬▬   ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬   ▬▬▬▬   ▬▬▬   ▬▬   ▬
|      [ WHITEPAPER ]  [ BOUNTY ]  [ ANN THREAD ]       |         Facebook        Telegram        Twitter        Instagram          |
WALKEN-COIN
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 269
Merit: 250


Parsec Frontiers Pre-Sale 24.01.2018


View Profile WWW
April 02, 2014, 06:38:31 PM
 #11877

Any news on MINT being added to https://www.vaultofsatoshi.com/?

That should put some wind in the sails.

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

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

    ███
    ███
███ ███ ███
██  ▀▀▀
███████████
    ▄▄▄  ██
███ ███ ███
██  ▀▀▀
███████████
    ▄▄▄  ██
███ ███ ███
    ███
    ███
[]
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
Discord
Facebook
Twitter
stormia
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:39:24 PM
 #11878

I've just noticed something while going over the block chain.

First of all, the attack was really just from 203231 to 203405 before it started to be interrupted by even more PoS blocks:
http://mintcoin-explorer.info/chain/MintCoin?hi=203233&count=50
http://mintcoin-explorer.info/chain/MintCoin?hi=203433&count=50


Secondly, even within this period, there are still some PoS blocks that occur:
http://i.imgur.com/LydCerH.png

Most importantly of all. Through the ENTIRE attack period, not a single transaction was confirmed by one of the PoW blocks (aside from the PoW blocks producing their 1 MINT). The only transaction confirmations were done by the few PoS blocks which interrupted. How is this possible? There are way, way more PoW blocks, but none of them confirmed transactions over an entire hour? Is that because PoW blocks cannot confirm transaction during this "attack"? If so, then this "attack" cannot be used to double spend or do any real damage. Right?

So it's even worse than we thought. The entire network was frozen with no confirmations, and that was only carried out by the first stage of the attack.

Game over.

Nice try, but no that is not what that means. As you can see, PoS blocks interrupted the attack to perform transactions. You should stop saying things about this mr_random, even if what you said holds any truth everybody knows you have and always will be a troll on this thread. Leave the discussion to the reputable and respectable blackcoin representatives.
maarx
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 517


cloverdex.io


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:39:58 PM
 #11879

I've just noticed something while going over the block chain.

First of all, the attack was really just from 203231 to 203405 before it started to be interrupted by even more PoS blocks:
http://mintcoin-explorer.info/chain/MintCoin?hi=203233&count=50
http://mintcoin-explorer.info/chain/MintCoin?hi=203433&count=50


Secondly, even within this period, there are still some PoS blocks that occur:
http://i.imgur.com/LydCerH.png

Most importantly of all. Through the ENTIRE attack period, not a single transaction was confirmed by one of the PoW blocks (aside from the PoW blocks producing their 1 MINT). The only transaction confirmations were done by the few PoS blocks which interrupted. How is this possible? There are way, way more PoW blocks, but none of them confirmed transactions over an entire hour? Is that because PoW blocks cannot confirm transaction during this "attack"? If so, then this "attack" cannot be used to double spend or do any real damage. Right?

Yes. exactly

Really.. REALLY?

You highlighted two blocks.

http://mint.blockx.info/get/block/000006947fae36e3330c38ecfe55097c1da496f0c8f3e4a4f08543aed1227253
http://mint.blockx.info/get/block/000001cf24011a61e757be862418390dc7a6c1d20d3cf3798ffb5ae15f9c9ba5

Those two blocks. They are Proof of Work blocks. And both look like they processed transactions FROM <address> TO <another address>.

You're not technical at all, right?

Nice investigation.



























.What is Cloverdex platform?.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
ANN Thread | Website
Telegram | Twitter
Whitepaper | Reddit
stormia
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 02, 2014, 06:40:47 PM
 #11880

I've just noticed something while going over the block chain.

First of all, the attack was really just from 203231 to 203405 before it started to be interrupted by even more PoS blocks:
http://mintcoin-explorer.info/chain/MintCoin?hi=203233&count=50
http://mintcoin-explorer.info/chain/MintCoin?hi=203433&count=50


Secondly, even within this period, there are still some PoS blocks that occur:
http://i.imgur.com/LydCerH.png

Most importantly of all. Through the ENTIRE attack period, not a single transaction was confirmed by one of the PoW blocks (aside from the PoW blocks producing their 1 MINT). The only transaction confirmations were done by the few PoS blocks which interrupted. How is this possible? There are way, way more PoW blocks, but none of them confirmed transactions over an entire hour? Is that because PoW blocks cannot confirm transaction during this "attack"? If so, then this "attack" cannot be used to double spend or do any real damage. Right?

Yes. exactly

Really.. REALLY?

You highlighted two blocks.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=post;quote=6038733;topic=450381.12160;num_replies=12167;sesc=89773dc9628728cdc1757a687dcc555f
http://mint.blockx.info/get/block/000001cf24011a61e757be862418390dc7a6c1d20d3cf3798ffb5ae15f9c9ba5

Those two blocks. They are Proof of Work blocks. And both look like they processed transactions FROM <address> TO <another address>.

You're not techincal at all, right?

Nice investigation.

Thanks for catching my mistake, just trying to figure this out
Pages: « 1 ... 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 [594] 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 ... 1038 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
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!