Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 10:01:32 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807056 times)
STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile WWW
September 16, 2014, 07:00:03 PM
 #12181

Quote
the worse case scenario is for the US to block the internet here to stop Bitcoin to defend the USD's world reserve status.

I dont think most citizens would allow them to screw over the internet that badly.    It would cause alot of trouble to stop btc, it was hard also to stop peer to peer file sharing and I believe that is still going.  It was only the centralised parts of programs like napster which were targeted, clones and various infrastructure carried on anyway.
   There was a clone coin this year based on the image of a rap star, he brought in lawyers and sure he won, caused trouble but all the same that network is still going I think though its not popular to use

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481277692
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277692

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277692
Reply with quote  #2

1481277692
Report to moderator
1481277692
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277692

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277692
Reply with quote  #2

1481277692
Report to moderator
megadeth
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 155

bagholder since 2013


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 07:04:27 PM
 #12182

Well at least there is an actual explanation as to why this is not possible with java: https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=5388.msg102789#msg102789

Try this:

Download and unzip nxt-client-1.2.8.zip.

cd nxt
jar xvf nxt.jar
mv nxt nxt-orig
rm -f nxt.jar
./compile.sh
jar xvf nxt.jar
diff -r nxt nxt-orig

If you don't see a difference, this means the class files contained in the nxt.jar file included in the nxt-client-1.2.8.zip package (now under nxt-orig) are exactly the same as those produced when compiling the jar file yourself, under nxt.

The reason for non-reproducible builds is that the jar packaging tool includes time dependent information in the jar archive, which depends not only on the timestamps of the class files being packaged but the time the package is built too.

Different javac compilers and on different platforms may also result in different class files.
I am using the 64-bit Oracle JDK for Linux, my current javac version is:

$ javac -version
javac 1.7.0_67

Deterministic builds in java are possible by modifying the build script: http://gary-rowe.com/agilestack/2013/08/08/how-to-create-a-deterministic-jar/

bagholder since 2013
My sig space is not for sale.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 07:16:59 PM
 #12183

I personally think bitshares x has a better product than nxt with a truly decentralized AND collateralized market.  I believe this achievement is being overlooked because this is the first time in human history that any asset on earth can be traded with actual collateral backing up the trade (btsx) and enforced automatically by an algorithm instead of people.  This is NOT an IOU for an asset, which has been the only option in markets until now.  Also, the DPOS model will be great if it stands the test of time because of the 10s confirmation times. 

Bitcoin and nxt have both been tested with bailouts/qe/inflation with Mt gox and bter repectively and both have passed the test.  The question remains; is work truly required to give a money it's value?  This is more of a socionomic question and a bit harder to predict but I don't think so.  I believe we will see 3 to 5 dominant chains emerge with Bitcoin being the primary POW, or digital gold.  Other chains will provide other uses but their associated currencies will act as money in many cases.  The alternative is for Bitcoin to survive as the sole form of money with open transactions, side chains, or some type of m of n oracle system to provide collateralized markets with Bitcoin being collateral. 

Is not the alternative (bolded) more likely?  Is this a true statement?:

   The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.  

If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens.  Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.  

The appcoins appear to be further along in development.  As a test on the btsx platform, I successfully sold 124 btsx for $5(bitusd) on Sept 11 and then sold that $5 for 134 btsx on sept 15, keeping in line with overall market prices.  This was all done completely in a decentralized system with btsx as the underlying collateral and enforced automatically by a smart contract, keeping the entire trade in a trustless, yet collateralized environment.  Once I can do this with bitcoin I will definitely take notice.  Perhaps I already can and just don't know about it?  Gold (bitgld) can also be traded.

Obviously this is in the early stages (alpha) of development and this design has never been tried before so plenty can go wrong.  The client is also buggy at this version.  I am all for a working solution and if devs can make this happen with bitcoin then that would be great.  I own both.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 815



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 07:19:49 PM
 #12184


Is not the alternative (bolded) more likely?  Is this a true statement?:

   The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.  

If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens.  Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.  

The interesting thing here is that Nxt is the only implementation of an m-of-n oracle I have seen in the wild yet. see multigateway.org. Please, point me to a bitcoin implementation.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 815



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 07:25:14 PM
 #12185

So basically

NXT = POS (PIECE OF SHIT)

Hahahaha, oh man, I've never heard that one before.
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 07:26:23 PM
 #12186

So basically

NXT = POS (PIECE OF SHIT)

Today is the day of revelations Wink
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
 #12187

What is necessary, for NXT or any other crypto-finance software, is to prove independent reproducibility.

The next step is to proactively have developers and community members cross-check each other, to make sure the build produced is the same for all.

This helps ensure that the release manager is not under duress, unknowingly infected with malware, or corrupt.  No security solution is perfect, but it raises the bar significantly when multiple parties verify the build.

You should never trust just one person to produce release binaries, in any crypto-finance project.  That's called a Single Point of Failure, and it is easy to attack such a narrow victim vector.




Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 815



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 07:47:36 PM
 #12188


What is necessary, for NXT or any other crypto-finance software, is to prove independent reproducibility.

The next step is to proactively have developers and community members cross-check each other, to make sure the build produced is the same for all.

This helps ensure that the release manager is not under duress, unknowingly infected with malware, or corrupt.  No security solution is perfect, but it raises the bar significantly.

You should never trust just one person to produce release binaries, in any crypto-finance project.  That's called a Single Point of Failure, and it is easy to attack such a narrow victim vector.


I hate that you're going about this as a public attack, but I 100% agree. I will continue pushing for this.

Calling the whole system a scam instead of just trying to help is incredibly childish.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 08:20:13 PM
 #12189



I agree but bitcoin software is about to hit the hardware limit regarding mining devices. Best Chips are 28nm so far and there is room for 22nm but it wont be as profitable beyond those nodes (intel just released their 14nm chips). My guess is that quantity should take on from there, tappering the network's overall power (hashrate). What will be the effect on btc price is puzzeling.

Umm...KNC already has 20nm miners.



good, we should hit that wall any day now then ... and materials, labour and energy costs kick in the hardest
I wish... the truth is the 20nm circuit size is not a reflection of efficient dissipation of thermal energy so the race will go on for years until someone has the best thermal efficiency and circuit density.

Then it all changes and decentralization takes hold and the internet of things earn money heating out hot water.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
User705
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 08:22:36 PM
 #12190

What is necessary, for NXT or any other crypto-finance software, is to prove independent reproducibility.

The next step is to proactively have developers and community members cross-check each other, to make sure the build produced is the same for all.

This helps ensure that the release manager is not under duress, unknowingly infected with malware, or corrupt.  No security solution is perfect, but it raises the bar significantly when multiple parties verify the build.

You should never trust just one person to produce release binaries, in any crypto-finance project.  That's called a Single Point of Failure, and it is easy to attack such a narrow victim vector.




why care?  The faster it fails the faster people realize bitcoin is the one.
nexern
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 597



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 08:24:40 PM
 #12191

What is necessary, for NXT or any other crypto-finance software, is to prove independent reproducibility.

The next step is to proactively have developers and community members cross-check each other, to make sure the build produced is the same for all.

This helps ensure that the release manager is not under duress, unknowingly infected with malware, or corrupt.  No security solution is perfect, but it raises the bar significantly when multiple parties verify the build.

You should never trust just one person to produce release binaries, in any crypto-finance project.  That's called a Single Point of Failure, and it is easy to attack such a narrow victim vector.


well, btc source has orders of magnitude more attack vectors than nxt with all those megatons of dependencies, just ask your friendly package manager.

and yes, we are talking about two different mechanism here but i am much more worried by post source/dependencies/package modifications on btc than nxt,
no matter if gitian is used or not, this is for sure.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 08:30:00 PM
 #12192

I personally think bitshares x has a better product than nxt with a truly decentralized AND collateralized market.  I believe this achievement is being overlooked because this is the first time in human history that any asset on earth can be traded with actual collateral backing up the trade (btsx) and enforced automatically by an algorithm instead of people.  This is NOT an IOU for an asset, which has been the only option in markets until now.  Also, the DPOS model will be great if it stands the test of time because of the 10s confirmation times. 

Bitcoin and nxt have both been tested with bailouts/qe/inflation with Mt gox and bter repectively and both have passed the test.  The question remains; is work truly required to give a money it's value?  This is more of a socionomic question and a bit harder to predict but I don't think so.  I believe we will see 3 to 5 dominant chains emerge with Bitcoin being the primary POW, or digital gold.  Other chains will provide other uses but their associated currencies will act as money in many cases.  The alternative is for Bitcoin to survive as the sole form of money with open transactions, side chains, or some type of m of n oracle system to provide collateralized markets with Bitcoin being collateral. 

Is not the alternative (bolded) more likely?  Is this a true statement?:

   The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.  

If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens.  Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.  

The appcoins appear to be further along in development.  As a test on the btsx platform, I successfully sold 124 btsx for $5(bitusd) on Sept 11 and then sold that $5 for 134 btsx on sept 15, keeping in line with overall market prices.  This was all done completely in a decentralized system with btsx as the underlying collateral and enforced automatically by a smart contract, keeping the entire trade in a trustless, yet collateralized environment.  Once I can do this with bitcoin I will definitely take notice.  Perhaps I already can and just don't know about it?  Gold (bitgld) can also be traded.

Obviously this is in the early stages (alpha) of development and this design has never been tried before so plenty can go wrong.  The client is also buggy at this version.  I am all for a working solution and if devs can make this happen with bitcoin then that would be great.  I own both.

The appcoins are further along because that's their angle--that's the value proposition they use to monetize their proprietary tokens.  What I'm arguing is that if any of these apps prove useful, then if it is possible to create the same app but using bitcoin as fuel, then someone will create that app, and it will tend to outcompete the proprietary token.  The example you gave about the decentralized BITUSD assets is interesting and a potentially useful product.  But I don't see what's special about BitShares other than it was the first to do this.  This functionality could be built on top of bitcoin (no protocol changes), and, by learning from the BitShares experience, probably executed better. 

I don't think the bitcoin core devs should do anything in the way of "more features."  Bitcoin is just better money.  Any truly useful apps can be implemented on top using oracles, sidechains or open transactions like you said. 

I see this as a vastly more robust solution than some hodgepodge cryptocurrency with a feature set that changes from week to week.   

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Eadeqa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 08:32:37 PM
 #12193

What is necessary, for NXT or any other crypto-finance software, is to prove independent reproducibility.

Compile it and your class files  should be identical to released version, at least if using the same version of the compiler. This is  independent reproducibility.

NXT-GZYP-FMRT-FQ9K-3YQGS
https://nxtforum.org
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 815



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 08:35:45 PM
 #12194

I personally think bitshares x has a better product than nxt with a truly decentralized AND collateralized market.  I believe this achievement is being overlooked because this is the first time in human history that any asset on earth can be traded with actual collateral backing up the trade (btsx) and enforced automatically by an algorithm instead of people.  This is NOT an IOU for an asset, which has been the only option in markets until now.  Also, the DPOS model will be great if it stands the test of time because of the 10s confirmation times.  

Bitcoin and nxt have both been tested with bailouts/qe/inflation with Mt gox and bter repectively and both have passed the test.  The question remains; is work truly required to give a money it's value?  This is more of a socionomic question and a bit harder to predict but I don't think so.  I believe we will see 3 to 5 dominant chains emerge with Bitcoin being the primary POW, or digital gold.  Other chains will provide other uses but their associated currencies will act as money in many cases.  The alternative is for Bitcoin to survive as the sole form of money with open transactions, side chains, or some type of m of n oracle system to provide collateralized markets with Bitcoin being collateral.  

Is not the alternative (bolded) more likely?  Is this a true statement?:

   The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.  

If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens.  Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.  

The appcoins appear to be further along in development.  As a test on the btsx platform, I successfully sold 124 btsx for $5(bitusd) on Sept 11 and then sold that $5 for 134 btsx on sept 15, keeping in line with overall market prices.  This was all done completely in a decentralized system with btsx as the underlying collateral and enforced automatically by a smart contract, keeping the entire trade in a trustless, yet collateralized environment.  Once I can do this with bitcoin I will definitely take notice.  Perhaps I already can and just don't know about it?  Gold (bitgld) can also be traded.

Obviously this is in the early stages (alpha) of development and this design has never been tried before so plenty can go wrong.  The client is also buggy at this version.  I am all for a working solution and if devs can make this happen with bitcoin then that would be great.  I own both.

The appcoins are further along because that's their angle--that's the value proposition they use to monetize their proprietary tokens.  What I'm arguing is that if any of these apps prove useful, then if it is possible to create the same app but using bitcoin as fuel, then someone will create that app, and it will tend to outcompete the proprietary token.  The example you gave about the decentralized BITUSD assets is interesting and a potentially useful product.  But I don't see what's special about BitShares other than it was the first to do this.  This functionality could be built on top of bitcoin (no protocol changes), and, by learning from the BitShares experience, probably executed better.  

I don't think the bitcoin core devs should do anything in the way of "more features."  Bitcoin is just better money.  Any truly useful apps can be implemented on top using oracles, sidechains or open transactions like you said.  

I see this as a vastly more robust solution than some hodgepodge cryptocurrency with a feature set that changes from week to week.  

Well I for one am tired of hearing that x can be built on top of bitcoin using y, z etc etc etc yet constantly seeing nothing delivered. Counterparty was built on top and that is a pretty horrible experience. Open Transactions has been talked about as the answer for years yet still nothing working there either. And sidechains? That is so far from ever getting off the ground that it shouldn't even be mentioned. The reason I got interested in Nxt was because it has a lot of features already implemented and working now! By the time these other things come out it'll already be on to the next thing! Bitcoin doesn't want these things to be added on to it, it is allergic to change. Which is ok, because it does it's job as a layer 1 currency well and that's how it should be.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
September 16, 2014, 08:40:42 PM
 #12195

Open Transactions has been talked about as the answer for years yet still nothing working there either.
OT works at the library/core level.

Fewer people are interested in building applications on top of OT right now because the VCs are funding P&D app coins instead of anything useful or sustainable.

This means is that OT development is slower and less flashy than the scamcoin startups.


(Monetas hired three more developers this week, FYI)
ShroomsKit_Disgrace
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Yeah! I hate ShroomsKit!


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 08:52:52 PM
 #12196

What is necessary, for NXT or any other crypto-finance software, is to prove independent reproducibility.

The next step is to proactively have developers and community members cross-check each other, to make sure the build produced is the same for all.

This helps ensure that the release manager is not under duress, unknowingly infected with malware, or corrupt.  No security solution is perfect, but it raises the bar significantly when multiple parties verify the build.

You should never trust just one person to produce release binaries, in any crypto-finance project.  That's called a Single Point of Failure, and it is easy to attack such a narrow victim vector.




Jeff, let me ask you something:

On twitter you were emotionally "rude" and "harsh" with NXT. Now, here I see a perfectly balanced post with argumented reasons. Why? Why these "SCAMCOIN", "I am done with your SCAM", "Nice scam you are running here" etc on public (twitter), and this "polite" post in "private" (BTT)? Are you going to blame the 140characters limitation? Or are you hiding an agenda against NXT?
kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 09:00:15 PM
 #12197

What is necessary, for NXT or any other crypto-finance software, is to prove independent reproducibility.

The next step is to proactively have developers and community members cross-check each other, to make sure the build produced is the same for all.

This helps ensure that the release manager is not under duress, unknowingly infected with malware, or corrupt.  No security solution is perfect, but it raises the bar significantly when multiple parties verify the build.

You should never trust just one person to produce release binaries, in any crypto-finance project.  That's called a Single Point of Failure, and it is easy to attack such a narrow victim vector.




Jeff, let me ask you something:

On twitter you were emotionally "rude" and "harsh" with NXT. Now, here I see a perfectly balanced post with argumented reasons. Why? Why these "SCAMCOIN", "I am done with your SCAM", "Nice scam you are running here" etc on public (twitter), and this "polite" post in "private" (BTT)? Are you going to blame the 140characters limitation? Or are you hiding an agenda against NXT?


+10000000000000000000000000099

"Pioneering a revolutionary novel consensus mechanism called proof of importance."
Bassica
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 244


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 09:20:09 PM
 #12198

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/15/conversation-between-downs-armstrong-sept-15th-2014/

Interesting talk between Armstrong and Downs about the economical/political state of the world. At part 2 after about 10 mins it gets (even more) interesting. They're talking about gold being a hedge against souvereign trouble. They briefly talk about diamonds being easier to take with and being harder to detect.

All I'm thinking is, if that predicted scenario would indeed unfold, bitcoin would both be a hedge against the $ as well as a payment system (Bitcoin) to transfer/transact wealth to anywhere in the world.

 



STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile WWW
September 16, 2014, 09:42:11 PM
 #12199

Diamonds are not fungible as the quality varies, its harder to ascertain the value in bulk exactly.  That causes more dramatic value shifts and they are high up the speculative value scale apparently, much like sub prime (or even normal commercial) debt altered as the general market shifted so they were never suitable as a core asset.

http://i.imgur.com/ZkqDr0B.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/d00teMO.jpg
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/redrawing-exter-pyramid-paul-mylchreests-latest-observations-flow-funds-and-more

I would rate bitcoin as speculative still unless it became invaluable to emerging market consumers like dollar is used now, not sure on that one but its not true yet imo

klee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 09:42:35 PM
 #12200

I personally think bitshares x has a better product than nxt with a truly decentralized AND collateralized market.  I believe this achievement is being overlooked because this is the first time in human history that any asset on earth can be traded with actual collateral backing up the trade (btsx) and enforced automatically by an algorithm instead of people.  This is NOT an IOU for an asset, which has been the only option in markets until now.  Also, the DPOS model will be great if it stands the test of time because of the 10s confirmation times. 

Bitcoin and nxt have both been tested with bailouts/qe/inflation with Mt gox and bter repectively and both have passed the test.  The question remains; is work truly required to give a money it's value?  This is more of a socionomic question and a bit harder to predict but I don't think so.  I believe we will see 3 to 5 dominant chains emerge with Bitcoin being the primary POW, or digital gold.  Other chains will provide other uses but their associated currencies will act as money in many cases.  The alternative is for Bitcoin to survive as the sole form of money with open transactions, side chains, or some type of m of n oracle system to provide collateralized markets with Bitcoin being collateral. 

Is not the alternative (bolded) more likely?  Is this a true statement?:

   The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.  

If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens.  Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.  

The appcoins appear to be further along in development.  As a test on the btsx platform, I successfully sold 124 btsx for $5(bitusd) on Sept 11 and then sold that $5 for 134 btsx on sept 15, keeping in line with overall market prices.  This was all done completely in a decentralized system with btsx as the underlying collateral and enforced automatically by a smart contract, keeping the entire trade in a trustless, yet collateralized environment.  Once I can do this with bitcoin I will definitely take notice.  Perhaps I already can and just don't know about it?  Gold (bitgld) can also be traded.

Obviously this is in the early stages (alpha) of development and this design has never been tried before so plenty can go wrong.  The client is also buggy at this version.  I am all for a working solution and if devs can make this happen with bitcoin then that would be great.  I own both.

The appcoins are further along because that's their angle--that's the value proposition they use to monetize their proprietary tokens.  What I'm arguing is that if any of these apps prove useful, then if it is possible to create the same app but using bitcoin as fuel, then someone will create that app, and it will tend to outcompete the proprietary token.  The example you gave about the decentralized BITUSD assets is interesting and a potentially useful product.  But I don't see what's special about BitShares other than it was the first to do this.  This functionality could be built on top of bitcoin (no protocol changes), and, by learning from the BitShares experience, probably executed better. 

I don't think the bitcoin core devs should do anything in the way of "more features."  Bitcoin is just better money.  Any truly useful apps can be implemented on top using oracles, sidechains or open transactions like you said. 

I see this as a vastly more robust solution than some hodgepodge cryptocurrency with a feature set that changes from week to week.   
Hope dies last I suppose...

BTC: 1K9atu5zgz7izCMAynk5adBJ8Qn2YgS6nT
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 ... 1560 »
  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!