Bitcoin Forum
December 13, 2019, 08:35:32 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Blockchain Based Electronic Voting System  (Read 241 times)
Hydrogen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 750



View Profile
November 27, 2019, 02:49:31 AM
Merited by LoyceV (2), ETFbitcoin (1), nutildah (1), o_e_l_e_o (1), Heisenberg_Hunter (1)
 #1

In this era where questions are being raised about the viability of electronic voting. Questions on elections being allegedly rigged by russian collusion. With investigations into thousands of deceased voters casting votes years after their death certificates were issued. There are definitely many issues and problems we face. Which paves the way to opportunities to address these issues and give society in general a better model to work with.

This being a bitcoin forum, I think it represents a natural progression for a few simple questions to be asked.   Smiley

Question #1: Is blockchain a good data structure candidate to utilize as a foundation for building an enterprise level, electronic voting system?

Question #2: If you designed and implemented a blockchain based voting system, what features would you select?

....

Here's a basic design off the top of my head.

#1  A compiled list of deceased voters would be stored inside a blockchain and compared to the list of voter sign ups to prevent voter fraud where deceased identities are utilized to cast votes.

#2  A compressed snapshot of what the screen displays as a vote is cast is recorded inside a blockchain along with the vote to ensure that votes are being cast for the candidate the GUI displays and not someone else. As something like a checksum to prove integrity.

#3  Metrics are recorded with every vote to create something similar to a papertrail and reduce chances of voter fraud. This could be data such as timestamp, biometrics like a snapshot of the voters hand, fingerprint or palmprint. This can be adjusted towards maintaining voter anonymity or transparency as needed. It could be worthwhile to collect data that appears unique with every vote to cut down on incidences of fraud and make it easier to identify incidence of fraud as well.

Thoughts, comments, etc?

I know that the media says there are "no other" applications where blockchain can be effectively utilized.

They say blockchain is overrated and has reached its full potential. I feel inclinced to disagree a little.

1576269332
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1576269332

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1576269332
Reply with quote  #2

1576269332
Report to moderator
1576269332
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1576269332

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1576269332
Reply with quote  #2

1576269332
Report to moderator
1576269332
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1576269332

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1576269332
Reply with quote  #2

1576269332
Report to moderator
"I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Deathwing
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1196


Lambo


View Profile WWW
November 27, 2019, 03:06:46 AM
 #2

The idea sounds good at the beginning but starts to cause issues in the long term. How would you handle the interactions from outside sources exactly? Having a blockchain running the database and infrastructure seems okay but does not 100% prevent external factors. Do mind that by external factors I do not mean other countries from abroad, there are/might be people inside the election system, rooted deep into it being able to manipulate it. On top of that, if you "centralise" and give all power to a certain entity (which you would for a situation like this) it's no different than what they have.
jackg
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1359


https://bit.ly/2FR9nyn - free python tutorials


View Profile
November 27, 2019, 03:07:29 AM
Merited by ETFbitcoin (1), o_e_l_e_o (1)
 #3

Blockchain has its limits certainly but it hasn't yet reached its full potential.

I'm just going to put it out there, putting a small piece of paper in a box that you marked just before putting it in with a pencil is the most secure and private way to vote currently.

The issue with blockchain voting would be that the decentralised ledger (otherwise its just a linked list) is avaliable to people in polling stations. Working with the government in the past, I can say their security is very lacking especially in the cyber realm... There may be little stopping other companies from hacking the ledger just to view what voters picked. Also there's probably a huge surge at about 5pm-7pm and early in the morning, if 1 million people all vote within an hour can the system handle that?

You'd also be forcing a lot of people to use technology who aren't acquainted with how it works... Based on the number of people I've seen that just hit the one button once, what if they don't understand and just hit enter anyway?

If a blockchain based system is used, does it have to be online for people to vote? What happens if its ddosed? Universities can get 10gbps and up in connection speeds and they can still be dos attacked, now what if its sustained for the full 48 hours which wouldn't be too expensive (as I'm told by loycev a while ago).

And this isn't even looking at physical attacks to the system that could change whether your vote is registered or who its registered for.

LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 5327


ArtIst > AI rtst


View Profile WWW
November 27, 2019, 08:59:01 AM
 #4

I think this is a very complicated solution for a very simple problem. I like the KISS principle for this: with paper, it's very easy to verify who votes, and after that their vote is anonymous because it's mixed with other votes. This is a system that almost anybody can understand and verify, which means you don't have to trust the system or the people running it.
Fraud can of course still happen in several ways, but it's usually limited to a small scale.

With any automated system you need to be an expert to verify the system is working correctly, or you need to trust experts who tell you it's working correctly and doesn't keep records. Or, even worse, you might need to trust the manufacturer. And considering elections are now a billion dollar "business", some parties might be willing to spend a lot of money to manipulate the results.

If a blockchain based system is used, does it have to be online for people to vote? What happens if its ddosed? Universities can get 10gbps and up in connection speeds and they can still be dos attacked, now what if its sustained for the full 48 hours which wouldn't be too expensive (as I'm told by loycev a while ago).
A quick search quotes $50 per day. It's so cheap because they use a botnet of hacked computers for it.

Pmalek
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1186



View Profile
November 27, 2019, 09:59:07 AM
 #5

I'm just going to put it out there, putting a small piece of paper in a box that you marked just before putting it in with a pencil is the most secure and private way to vote currently.
It depends who is counting the votes and checking those marks. In a relatively fraud free country that works just fine. In my country they found 1000s of votes buried in a ditch close to a voting station a few years ago. it is also easy for those checking the votes to make a valid vote invalid by adding another tick somewhere on the list. Also common here based on the percentage of invalid votes we have during elections. 

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 2124

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
November 27, 2019, 07:19:06 PM
 #6

Voting system is "dead" if no one could have privacy. Additionally, centralized system already prove many people aren't ready to secure their own account. I already can imagine people's vote are stolen due to ignorance, neglectness or technology illiterate.

To be frank, i don't see how blockchain would solve current voting system problem without big trade-off. But it would be different case if there's way to remain anonymous while using public blockchain and able to prevent fraud.
The basic idea #3 isn't bad, but with additional data, the voters would be de anonymized easily.

DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1386


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
November 27, 2019, 10:35:58 PM
 #7

My take on the idea is probably a little too radical, but I think the way forward is to stop pretending that voting for corrupt stooges is somehow the pinnacle of all governance models and just ditch the elected representatives altogether.  We're literally sitting here right now using a consensus mechanism to determine the rules of a network.  Is it really that big a conceptual leap to do the same with laws? 

Don't get me wrong, attempting to make voting more secure and private is admirable.  I'll continue to vote while it's the only option available to me, which is probably going to be the rest of my life, if I'm honest.  But let's be under no illusion of the myriad flaws in this so-called "Democracy" we like to flaunt as being so great.  Nothing is ever going to truly fix a system where influence is ultimately bought and sold.  The problem is, whoever you vote in, the money starts flowing and suddenly things are very easy to manipulate.  Centralised systems are weak and you can't get much more centralised than letting someone speak on your behalf.  We can do so much better.

Consensus > Democracy

gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 2862



View Profile
November 28, 2019, 02:03:09 AM
Merited by LoyceV (4), ETFbitcoin (1), Wind_FURY (1)
 #8

Blockchains do not solve *any* interesting problem in voting.

In fact, they undermine central principles of most voting systems like you should not be able to sell your vote and it should not be possible to coerce you into voting a particular way (which implies that it should be impossible for you to prove to a third party how you voted).  The promotion of "blockchain" in places where it adds no or negative value contributes to cryptocurrency advocates looking like scammers.

Voting needs a blockchain like a fish needs a bicycle.

There are plenty of auditable cryptographic voting schemes proposed by subject matter experts that actually address the actual needs of voting, none of them have a need for any blockchain like facility.

Q1: No a blockchain is an utterly toxic data structure for voting. And people promoting blockchains in the context of voting don't know anything about voting, know anything about blockchains, or both.

Q2: I would select the feature of it not existing.
Hydrogen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 750



View Profile
November 28, 2019, 03:36:41 AM
Last edit: November 28, 2019, 03:53:02 AM by Hydrogen
 #9

Blockchains do not solve *any* interesting problem in voting.

In fact, they undermine central principles of most voting systems like you should not be able to sell your vote and it should not be possible to coerce you into voting a particular way (which implies that it should be impossible for you to prove to a third party how you voted).  The promotion of "blockchain" in places where it adds no or negative value contributes to cryptocurrency advocates looking like scammers.

Voting needs a blockchain like a fish needs a bicycle.


Consider basic & fundamental issues with existing voting systems.

-Votes can be destroyed or dumped in landfills as an earlier poster mentioned and concealed.
-Voting machines can often be hacked / gamed to produce illegitimate results.
-Votes can be falsified in terms of deceased registered voters casting votes from the grave.
-With electronic voting machines, there is an intrinsic lack of paper trail which can make them less reliable in some instances.

A major segment of issues relating to electronic voting machines is a lack of reliable data integrity and a lack of a data trail(paper trail) for verification and or checksum purposes.

One area blockchains excel at is maintaining the integrity of data.

Therefore if the fundamentals problems are being defined properly and lack of data integrity is an issue as we've witnessed with votes being destroyed or buried, machines being hacked or votes falsified. Then to some degree it represents a natural progression to incorporate a blockchain as a data structure in an effort to maintain data integrity, prevent forgeries, destruction of votes and whatever errata exists.

I did mention biometrics as an option. Off the top of my head. Probably should not have done that. The idea isn't necessarily to reduce anonymity but rather to generate and store unique meta data which would increase the difficulty of forgeries and create a data trail which would help to authenticate the legitimacy of things.

From my perspective we're so far past people buying votes that anonymity is no longer as important. At the highest level of voter fraud they don't bother buying votes they'll simply bus in 20,000 illegal immigrants in an area that doesn't do ID checks for voting. Circumstances have regressed so far beyond concerns related to vote purchasing.

Long story short. Lack of reliable data integrity is an issue with electronic voting. Blockchain is known as a good data structure for ensuring the integrity of data. At a basic and fundamental level, the pieces seem to fit and so I wonder why anyone would object so strongly to the idea.

gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 2862



View Profile
November 28, 2019, 04:04:00 AM
Merited by ETFbitcoin (1)
 #10

-Votes can be destroyed or dumped in landfills as an earlier poster mentioned and concealed.
Solved in cryptographic voting system by simply giving you a digitally signed, non-reputiable, receipt from the election authority (or from each of the candidates' agents).

Quote
-Voting machines can often be hacked / gamed to produce illegitimate results.
Not changed by blockchains.

Quote
-Votes can be falsified in terms of deceased registered voters casting votes from the grave.
Solved as much as it can be by public voting rolls, which are used everywhere in the US at least.

Quote
-With electronic voting machines, there is an intrinsic lack of paper trail which can make them less reliable in some instances.
Blockchains are not made of paper.

Quote
One area blockchains excel at is maintaining the integrity of data.
In fact, blockchains are terrible for this in general, -- they're just the minimum amount usable for decentralized currency and that only under certain economic assumptions that wouldn't apply to voting.  Miners can liberally rewrite history or censor participation if they conspire. ... and many smaller altcoins have been brutally attacked.

ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 2124

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
November 28, 2019, 10:54:45 AM
 #11


Voting needs a blockchain like a fish needs a bicycle.


In the immortal words of the satoshi, "one cpu, one vote"

So maxwell, blockchain needs voting.

Bitcoin already prove one-cpu-one-vote is impossible, there are many ways to abuse such system

Hydrogen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 750



View Profile
November 28, 2019, 02:02:03 PM
 #12

Solved in cryptographic voting system by simply giving you a digitally signed, non-reputiable, receipt from the election authority (or from each of the candidates' agents).

Just a receipt?

Blockchains digitally sign data in a similar manner, so what you're proposing here is basically a blockchain anyways.

Quote
-Voting machines can often be hacked / gamed to produce illegitimate results.
Not changed by blockchains.

No one here is saying blockchains are 100% hack proof.

I think you have to admit that public blockchains like bitcoin have been far more effective at deterring attacks than everything associated with millions of consumer and private records being stolen and posted on the internet by hackers weekly. Its obvious that a 1:1 conversion of blockchain to voting system wouldn't be effective but the general outline of digitally signing data, decentralization, keeping multiple copies of records and so on could be applied to a voting system to create a design which would be superior in maintaining data integrity in comparison to what is currently being utilized.

Quote
-Votes can be falsified in terms of deceased registered voters casting votes from the grave.
Solved as much as it can be by public voting rolls, which are used everywhere in the US at least.

Voting rolls do not solve the problem in and of themselves as they do not provide adequate protection of data integrity against attacks, deletion, edting of data, etc.

Quote
-With electronic voting machines, there is an intrinsic lack of paper trail which can make them less reliable in some instances.
Blockchains are not made of paper.

Paper trail was meant metaphorically there btw, not literally.

Quote
One area blockchains excel at is maintaining the integrity of data.
In fact, blockchains are terrible for this in general, -- they're just the minimum amount usable for decentralized currency and that only under certain economic assumptions that wouldn't apply to voting.  Miners can liberally rewrite history or censor participation if they conspire. ... and many smaller altcoins have been brutally attacked.

The blockchain in a voting system would ideally be private rather than public, which would reduce risks public blockchains of altcoins are exposed to.

LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 5327


ArtIst > AI rtst


View Profile WWW
November 28, 2019, 05:54:17 PM
 #13

My take on the idea is probably a little too radical, but I think the way forward is to stop pretending that voting for corrupt stooges is somehow the pinnacle of all governance models and just ditch the elected representatives altogether.  We're literally sitting here right now using a consensus mechanism to determine the rules of a network. Is it really that big a conceptual leap to do the same with laws?
Help me out here: how would this work? In Bitcoin, the consensus mechanism basically boils down to: "Do I install this update or not". If votes are going both ways, there's a hard fork.
So at the first election the US will fork into 2 parts: one with Republicans, and one with Democrats. Apart from how unpractical it is to move half the population to their new territory, it probably has some benefits of having all like-thinking people together.
But then the next election comes up, and suddenly there are much more agenda points that won't lead to censensus. The country would just keep forking fragmenting into more and smaller parts.
In short: I don't think there's ever going to be consensus on anything within a country.

DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1386


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
November 28, 2019, 06:35:55 PM
 #14

My take on the idea is probably a little too radical, but I think the way forward is to stop pretending that voting for corrupt stooges is somehow the pinnacle of all governance models and just ditch the elected representatives altogether.  We're literally sitting here right now using a consensus mechanism to determine the rules of a network. Is it really that big a conceptual leap to do the same with laws?
Help me out here: how would this work? In Bitcoin, the consensus mechanism basically boils down to: "Do I install this update or not". If votes are going both ways, there's a hard fork.
So at the first election the US will fork into 2 parts: one with Republicans, and one with Democrats. Apart from how unpractical it is to move half the population to their new territory, it probably has some benefits of having all like-thinking people together.
But then the next election comes up, and suddenly there are much more agenda points that won't lead to censensus. The country would just keep forking fragmenting into more and smaller parts.
In short: I don't think there's ever going to be consensus on anything within a country.

People keep forking Bitcoin, but we can still tell what rules we're following.  It's certainly not a unanimous consensus, but it's clearly enough for us to function.  The minority forks would be disregarded and any rules they propose would not be enshrined in law.  Also, the greater concept involves there being no republicans or democrats, as again, they're just easy targets for "lobbying" (read: corruption).  

There's probably a bunch of nuances to figure out, but it's clearly not going to happen for another 50 years at least, so it's not like there's any rush.  I'm sure I'm ahead of my time on this and will probably be dead before I get the chance to see it in action, heh.

DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1386


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
November 30, 2019, 01:20:48 PM
Merited by ETFbitcoin (1)
 #15

In the immortal words of the satoshi, "one cpu, one vote"

So maxwell, blockchain needs voting.

Bitcoin already prove one-cpu-one-vote is impossible

it is indeed insulting you have 'bitcoin' in your nym

Perhaps it would be more conducive to healthy discussion to say why you believe that assertion to be incorrect?  I don't see any factual inaccuracy in saying that Bitcoin 'in the wild' does seem to prove that it doesn't work in that manner.  So, rather than making a mantra out of something that may have merely been an attempt to explain something simply, let's deal with the empirical and the measurable.  We've seen warehouses crammed with ASICs.  Those things clearly exist.  Meaning that, if Bitcoin was intended to literally be a one-cpu-one-vote system (and I'm not personally convinced that's what satoshi actually meant), that particular guideline clearly wasn't enforceable.  

odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1443



View Profile
November 30, 2019, 06:39:04 PM
 #16

Question #1: Is blockchain a good data structure candidate to utilize as a foundation for building an enterprise level, electronic voting system?

Simply putting the words "block chain" in front of "voting system" is not very convincing. Nowhere in your post do you explain how using a block chain (public or private) is better than another kind of database system.

Question #2: If you designed and implemented a blockchain based voting system, what features would you select?

Features? You haven't even made the case for it being a good idea!



I'll help you out. Here is a benefit of voting using a decentralized public block chain: assuming that the votes are valid, no organization (government or otherwise) can manipulate the results except by a 51% attack. However, the 51% attack caveat is very important because regardless of the votes to be recorded, the actual voting is done by the miners. Any group with more than 50% of the mining capacity can prevent votes made by the other side from being cast.

Buy stuff on Amazon at a discount with bitcoins or convert Amazon points to bitcoins: Purse.io
Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
Ursul0
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 752
Merit: 259


View Profile
November 30, 2019, 10:10:00 PM
 #17

My take on the idea is probably a little too radical, but I think the way forward is to stop pretending that voting for corrupt stooges is somehow the pinnacle of all governance models and just ditch the elected representatives altogether.  We're literally sitting here right now using a consensus mechanism to determine the rules of a network.  Is it really that big a conceptual leap to do the same with laws? 

Don't get me wrong, attempting to make voting more secure and private is admirable.  I'll continue to vote while it's the only option available to me, which is probably going to be the rest of my life, if I'm honest.  But let's be under no illusion of the myriad flaws in this so-called "Democracy" we like to flaunt as being so great.  Nothing is ever going to truly fix a system where influence is ultimately bought and sold.  The problem is, whoever you vote in, the money starts flowing and suddenly things are very easy to manipulate.  Centralised systems are weak and you can't get much more centralised than letting someone speak on your behalf.  We can do so much better.

Consensus > Democracy

Lol. Totally agree with you. Way better will be having a system that will allow to monitor(and redirect?!) where your taxes go, how its being spent and whats being done.


___████████___
_██████████████████_
_██████████████████████_
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
¯██████████████████████¯
¯██████████████████¯
¯¯¯████████¯¯¯
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     __██████████████__
  _██████████████████████_        █████
_██████████████████████████_      █████
████ _____ ______ _____ ████     _██¯
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    _██¯
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██¯
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯ ████ _██████_
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████¯            ¯███████ ¯██████¯
█████¯                ¯█████
¯██████████████████████████¯
  ¯¯████████████████████¯¯ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2282
Merit: 1585



View Profile
December 01, 2019, 06:37:06 AM
Merited by LoyceV (8), mprep (1)
 #18

Horrible idea.  No thank you.

I'll trust electronic voting systems (blockchain or otherwise) after they've had a few centuries to work out the issues.  Until then, I prefer the methods where most of the vulnerabilities are already well known and planned for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

hatshepsut93
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1007


Bitcoin realist


View Profile
December 09, 2019, 11:07:38 PM
 #19

Horrible idea.  No thank you.

I'll trust electronic voting systems (blockchain or otherwise) after they've had a few centuries to work out the issues.  Until then, I prefer the methods where most of the vulnerabilities are already well known and planned for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

Today Tom Scott made a new video on this topic where he still stands by his point that electronic voting is a bad idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs

He also mentions blockchain at 9:40

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!