Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 06:34:43 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 [721] 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805642 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 12:58:13 AM
 #14401

you still haven't answered how a SC can't hurt Bitcoin if the economic value of a scBTC starts exceeeding a BTC in USD terms b/c of a significant innovation.

Hmm, what about an alt-coin
 -> if the economic value of ALT  starts exceeeding a BTC in USD terms b/c of a significant innovation.



that's true but then why should we duplicate that exposure via SC's?  in fact, this is worse b/c of all the other conflicts of interest involving core devs i've mentioned in this discussion.

Using SC, bitcoin can adapt ANY feature instantly. Bitcoin can test this feature in sandbox (SC) and make result
a) must to have -> feature is implemented
b) nice to have -> let's wait we will see latter, SC works good
c) scam -> feature RIP

It is one of 1,000 ...  advantages of SC

but you haven't addressed JR's complaint in this scenario.  b/c 5 of the devs who can commit (2 of which can write)  are part of Blockstream, they have a financial incentive to perhaps surreptitiously dissuade thru fillibuster any SC innovations that might ported to Bitcoin Core while continuing to nurture the SC. the economic interest to do this would be if they tpre-positioned themselves in some pre-existing SC asse.  and you would never know since ownership would be anonymous.

my point is you can't just say "they would never do this".  history is riddled with such flawed reasoning.

They cannot "pre-positioned themselves in some pre-existing SC asset"
a) scBTC have less value than BTC
b) they have advantage in building scAssets infrastructure (this is part, they can make lot of money)
1481135683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481135683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481135683
Reply with quote  #2

1481135683
Report to moderator
1481135683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481135683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481135683
Reply with quote  #2

1481135683
Report to moderator
1481135683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481135683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481135683
Reply with quote  #2

1481135683
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481135683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481135683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481135683
Reply with quote  #2

1481135683
Report to moderator
1481135683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481135683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481135683
Reply with quote  #2

1481135683
Report to moderator
1481135683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481135683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481135683
Reply with quote  #2

1481135683
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:02:03 AM
 #14402

a) scBTC have less value than BTC

If you are talking about a 1:1 peg I don't see this, really. If it persists then people will just flee the SC and it will become irrelevant (absent some short term uses like paying for coffee perhaps).

If you are talking about a non-1:1 peg then it isn't clear to me that scBTC need necessarily be worth less than BTC. For example scBTC could pay dividends in some non-convertable asset.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:02:42 AM
 #14403

i've given you a very plausible path to a scenario that could hurt Bitcoin.  you can choose to hand wave it away, but i know human nature and if there is money to be made, ppl will go for it.  especially since they are in a for-profit company with a financial guy like Hill.  that's not a personal knock against him; it's his job to go for it.

this thread isn't for sticking your head in the sand.  we flush things out here.

I'm sorry but it is not a plausible scenario.

This is open source software. Even considering stealth development of a rogue sidechain, the moment they commit the code to a sidechain, the code is out there for everyone to see.

You propose that once this happen, the traction and network effect of this sidechain is so fast that Bitcoin core can not adapt in face of a supposedly paradigm shifting implementation of crypto. Again, I'm sorry but this is a losing bet.

There is already ENORMOUS money to be made by Blockstream while behaving in a community-minded, responsible way. Surely Hill is not trying to rule the world. Imagine Blockstream becomes some kind of RedHat for Bitcoin. Well my guess is he doesn't even dream of this measure of success.

The economic interest you are putting forward in your previous post is a considerable RISK considering the open source aspect of crypto. They stand to lose their credibility, their carreer, and more if they even attempt such scheme. In reality, apart from a couple more million in their bank account, there is NO incentive for anyone in this group to behave like you suggest. Considering they already stand to make millions by having a stake in and improving the Bitcoin economy your scenario is a most farfetched one.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:06:07 AM
 #14404



My understanding, and I might be wrong :

- I'm not sure about the concept of scBTC trading on exchanges for reasons that buying a 4$ share of BTC and transferring to SC will give you 4$ share of scBTC. Value of BTC and sBTC are correlated, no matter the 1:x peg.

- My assumption is the share of scBTC pie you can claim is representative to the share of BTC you own. In that sense, if a SC is so superior that there are clear incentives for people to transfer their BTC to this chain, it does not matter when they do it for their stake in BTC, even while on BTC's blockchain, is simply a stake of scBTC they have not claimed YET.

- If this assumption is true then automatically the value of a Bitcoin will rise will the value of its "to-be-claimed" stake in sBTC and be redeemable for the same USD exchange rate

edit : Maybe this makes no sense but this is how I understand it.


ah, that does make sense actually.  but what happens if, as it becomes clear that a SC is going to win over Bitcoin, miners begin to jack their mining tx fees just b/c they can to create the SPV proof tx required to make the switch to scBTC?

also, there still is the question of Blockstream creating an additional asset on the winning SC ahead of time that stands to profit from a rush of BTC to scBTC.


Here is your arb channel:

BTC -> SCbtc ->USD -> BTC

rinse and repeat


So if BTC=$500 and SCbtc=$1000:

I buy BTC for $500, convert to SCbtc, sell SCbtc for $1000, pocket $500, take the other $500 and buy BTC that can then be converted to SCbtc and be sold for $1000, ect, ect, ect


As you said, the waiting periods and tx fees come into play.

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

Activity: 1064



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:07:26 AM
 #14405

a) scBTC have less value than BTC

If you are talking about a 1:1 peg I don't see this, really. If it persists then people will just flee the SC and it will become irrelevant (absent some short term uses like paying for coffee perhaps).

If you are talking about a non-1:1 peg then it isn't clear to me that scBTC need necessarily be worth less than BTC. For example scBTC could pay dividends in some non-convertable asset.


scBTC has almost same value as BTC (but there is little more risk. BTC == scBTC + riskOfConversion )
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:09:57 AM
 #14406



My understanding, and I might be wrong :

- I'm not sure about the concept of scBTC trading on exchanges for reasons that buying a 4$ share of BTC and transferring to SC will give you 4$ share of scBTC. Value of BTC and sBTC are correlated, no matter the 1:x peg.

- My assumption is the share of scBTC pie you can claim is representative to the share of BTC you own. In that sense, if a SC is so superior that there are clear incentives for people to transfer their BTC to this chain, it does not matter when they do it for their stake in BTC, even while on BTC's blockchain, is simply a stake of scBTC they have not claimed YET.

- If this assumption is true then automatically the value of a Bitcoin will rise will the value of its "to-be-claimed" stake in sBTC and be redeemable for the same USD exchange rate

edit : Maybe this makes no sense but this is how I understand it.


ah, that does make sense actually.  but what happens if, as it becomes clear that a SC is going to win over Bitcoin, miners begin to jack their mining tx fees just b/c they can to create the SPV proof tx required to make the switch to scBTC?

also, there still is the question of Blockstream creating an additional asset on the winning SC ahead of time that stands to profit from a rush of BTC to scBTC.


Here is your arb channel:

BTC -> SCbtc ->USD -> BTC

rinse and repeat


So if BTC=$500 and SCbtc=$1000:

I buy BTC for $500, convert to SCbtc, sell SCbtc for $1000, pocket $500, take the other $500 and buy BTC that can then be converted to SCbtc and be sold for $1000, ect, ect, ect


As you said, the waiting periods and tx fees come into play.

This is not even a possibility.

500$ in BTC = 500$ in SCbtc.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:10:41 AM
 #14407

a) scBTC have less value than BTC

If you are talking about a 1:1 peg I don't see this, really. If it persists then people will just flee the SC and it will become irrelevant (absent some short term uses like paying for coffee perhaps).

If you are talking about a non-1:1 peg then it isn't clear to me that scBTC need necessarily be worth less than BTC. For example scBTC could pay dividends in some non-convertable asset.


scBTC has almost same value as BTC (but there is little more risk. BTC == scBTC + riskOfConversion )

+1

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:16:42 AM
 #14408



My understanding, and I might be wrong :

- I'm not sure about the concept of scBTC trading on exchanges for reasons that buying a 4$ share of BTC and transferring to SC will give you 4$ share of scBTC. Value of BTC and sBTC are correlated, no matter the 1:x peg.

- My assumption is the share of scBTC pie you can claim is representative to the share of BTC you own. In that sense, if a SC is so superior that there are clear incentives for people to transfer their BTC to this chain, it does not matter when they do it for their stake in BTC, even while on BTC's blockchain, is simply a stake of scBTC they have not claimed YET.

- If this assumption is true then automatically the value of a Bitcoin will rise will the value of its "to-be-claimed" stake in sBTC and be redeemable for the same USD exchange rate

edit : Maybe this makes no sense but this is how I understand it.


ah, that does make sense actually.  but what happens if, as it becomes clear that a SC is going to win over Bitcoin, miners begin to jack their mining tx fees just b/c they can to create the SPV proof tx required to make the switch to scBTC?

also, there still is the question of Blockstream creating an additional asset on the winning SC ahead of time that stands to profit from a rush of BTC to scBTC.


Here is your arb channel:

BTC -> SCbtc ->USD -> BTC

rinse and repeat


So if BTC=$500 and SCbtc=$1000:

I buy BTC for $500, convert to SCbtc, sell SCbtc for $1000, pocket $500, take the other $500 and buy BTC that can then be converted to SCbtc and be sold for $1000, ect, ect, ect


As you said, the waiting periods and tx fees come into play.

This is not even a possibility.

500$ in BTC = 500$ in SCbtc.



Yes it is.  BTC and SCbtc are not necessarily fungible because they are on separate chains with separate tech and the market may value them differently.  The spread I gave was wide to illustrate the point.  Spreads will likely be much smaller.

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

Activity: 1246


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:29:26 AM
 #14409

ah, that does make sense actually.  but what happens if, as it becomes clear that a SC is going to win over Bitcoin, miners begin to jack their mining tx fees just b/c they can to create the SPV proof tx required to make the switch to scBTC?

Why don't miners jack txn fees today?  Its actually a small "issue" in the protocol.  Miners that search for a zero txn block have a tiny advantage.  But miners would not want to block movement from BTC to SCBTC.  It can only enhance the value of BTC since a BTC is convertible to an SCBTC at any time (and back).

Aside: This idea of a "rush" to scBTC does not make sense.  People "rush" to get a better deal.  But the deal will always be the same, so no need to rush.

also, there still is the question of Blockstream creating an additional asset on the winning SC ahead of time that stands to profit from a rush of BTC to scBTC.

But this "pre-mine" will be visible on the sidechain.  So I suppose if you want to move your BTC to a chain that is not fully backed that is your choice.  But no matter what happens you'll never be able to move more BTC back the the bitcoin blockchain than was put in because remember BTC is not actually "moved" it is "locked" on the bitcoin blockchain.


you still haven't answered how a SC can't hurt Bitcoin if the economic value of a scBTC starts exceeeding a BTC in USD terms b/c of a significant innovation.

It depends on what you mean by "hurt".  Remember Peter R and how he was saying that the true value of BTC is the memory -- the blockchain history.  And so he was threatening to fork any altcoin project and "pre-mine" it to exactly match the bitcoin blockchain.

Sidechains will preserve the bitcoin "memory" -- the value of the blockchain history.  This will happen because you can move value on a N for M (constant) basis from the bitcoin blockchain to the sidechain, so the value ON the bitcoin blockchain will always be relevant.  In contrast, a wildly successful altcoin (personally I don't think it'll happen, but if it could happen on a sidechain it could happen on an altcoin) would drain value from the bitcoin blockchain.

Yes, a wildly successful sidechain could "hurt" bitcoin in the sense that the # of transactions on the bitcoin ledger goes down (moved to the sidechain).  But I don't classify this as "hurt".  In fact, some would see this as an advantage.  Bitcoin could hold huge value denominations of coins (1 or 2 BTC :-)) more safely than the high transaction speed, application specific side-chains.  And note the bitcoin will be a popular mining destination for our lifetimes at least because of the block reward -- every BTC mined is exchangeable N for M with scBTC on the sidechain.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:32:52 AM
 #14410

This is open source software. Even considering stealth development of a rogue sidechain, the moment they commit the code to a sidechain, the code is out there for everyone to see.

the SC doesn't have to be rogue.  it just has to be better.

once it's determined the SC is better, the scBTC become more valuable than BTC.  the arb can't work b/c the SC chain is superior and therefore the scBTC are worth more than the BTC. those who moved first will be in a better position. once other BTC holders detect this, they will start to migrate to scBTC.  but the catch is:  there's a cost to do so. mining fees.

once miners detect this migration they will raise their fees to extortionist levels. they have to b/c accepting a devaluing BTC is risky. 

the reason this is more dangerous than simple altcoins is that you're building a system where there is a temptation for miners to merge mine these SC's thus providing them with the security they need to get up and running.  we know from Peter Todd that Hill has been aggressively attempting to get mining pools to support SC's.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:50:32 AM
 #14411

Two thoughts:

What would Satoshi think of sidechains?

(Hint: I suspect he likes them ... )

What if someone(s) involved with Blockstream is Satoshi?

Now it is all out in the open, like the source code, which for sidechains, does not even exist yet.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:03:49 AM
 #14412

a) scBTC have less value than BTC

If you are talking about a 1:1 peg I don't see this, really. If it persists then people will just flee the SC and it will become irrelevant (absent some short term uses like paying for coffee perhaps).

If you are talking about a non-1:1 peg then it isn't clear to me that scBTC need necessarily be worth less than BTC. For example scBTC could pay dividends in some non-convertable asset.


scBTC has almost same value as BTC (but there is little more risk. BTC == scBTC + riskOfConversion )

No the correct equation is BTC == scBTC + riskOfConversion - added value of being able to buy coffee with 1 second blocks.

The market will determine the difference in value. Given convertibility the difference, +/-, will be small or the side chain (or possibly the main chain) will be abandoned, at which point there is no theoretical bound on the price. (Convertibility in theory doesn't matter if you run out of coins to convert.)

HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:10:36 AM
 #14413

This is open source software. Even considering stealth development of a rogue sidechain, the moment they commit the code to a sidechain, the code is out there for everyone to see.

once it's determined the SC is better, the scBTC become more valuable than BTC.  the arb can't work b/c the SC chain is superior and therefore the scBTC are worth more than the BTC. those who moved first will be in a better position. once other BTC holders detect this, they will start to migrate to scBTC.  but the catch is:  there's a cost to do so. mining fees.


That would only work if ALL users decided to move to SCbtc and no user wanted to buy BTC under any circumstances, even with spreads in the thousands of dollars or more.  If the tech were that far superior then SCbtc deserves to win out.  In reality, there will most likely be debate over which system is better and not all users will convert, resulting in normal arbitration.

Quote
once miners detect this migration they will raise their fees to extortionist levels. they have to b/c accepting a devaluing BTC is risky. 

Most likely processing power would leave the main chain and fees would stay relatively sane because at some point users would refuse to pay the fees.

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

Activity: 23


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:12:39 AM
 #14414

a) scBTC have less value than BTC

If you are talking about a 1:1 peg I don't see this, really. If it persists then people will just flee the SC and it will become irrelevant (absent some short term uses like paying for coffee perhaps).

If you are talking about a non-1:1 peg then it isn't clear to me that scBTC need necessarily be worth less than BTC. For example scBTC could pay dividends in some non-convertable asset.



I feel you and I agree with you.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:19:11 AM
 #14415

That would only work if ALL users decided to move to SCbtc and no user wanted to buy BTC under any circumstances, even with spreads in the thousands of dollars or more.  If the tech were that far superior then SCbtc deserves to win out.  In reality, there will most likely be debate over which system is better and not all users will convert, resulting in normal arbitration.

People would certainly buy BTC if scBTC were worth more, but only at something less than the scBTC value in order to convert it and make a profit. There would be no reason to convert back, since you couldn't do that profitably and then sell to someone who wants to buy-and-convert, and no other demand would exist.

An objectively better chain would certainly rapidly replace an objectively worse one.

What would be peculiar in this case is if it happens while mining rewards still exist, since under the proposed side chain scheme, those are permanently tied to the main chain. In that case people will mine BTC solely for the purpose of converting it. There would be minimal transactions on the main chain (just conversions), so rewards would be the sole reason to mine. They would also merge mine scBTC for the transaction fees.

Once rewards go away, mining on the main chain would stop, and mining for fees would only happen on the side chain. A few stragglers might mine themselves (at relatively low difficulty) in order to process their own conversion transactions, or possibly everyone (other than lost coins) would have already converted.

(I don't believe mining-for-fees is workable, but that's independent of side chain vs. main chain.)


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 24, 2014, 02:19:50 AM
 #14416

Two thoughts:

What would Satoshi think of sidechains?

(Hint: I suspect he likes them ... )

What if someone(s) involved with Blockstream is Satoshi?

Now it is all out in the open, like the source code, which for sidechains, does not even exist yet.
Why would this make any difference?

He'd need to prove his case to, just like everybody else.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:21:05 AM
 #14417

(Hint: I suspect [Satoshi] likes them ... )

Based on what evidence

Quote
What if someone(s) involved with Blockstream is Satoshi?

Evidence?
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:35:23 AM
 #14418

...
Inca, the number of BTC that are put on the sidechain is irrelevant.  As long as there is a single Satoshi left "unlocked" on the bitcoin chain, that satoshi can be transferred into the sidechain for SCBTC.  So that Satoshi is worth its value in SCBTC.  As long as SCBTC has value, BTC would be a store of that value.
...


...
Value of BTC and sBTC are correlated, no matter the 1:x peg.
...


Are these statements actually true? You are both assuming that bitcoin is perpetually transferrable to the sidechain at some perpetually fixed exchange rate.

But, IIRC, the Blockstream crew said in the AMA that the exchange rate can be "any deterministic function", with the constraint that no more BTC can get transferred back to the bitcoin blockchain than got transferred out to begin with. That basically means anything. The rate can change with time, or any other input...as long as it's deterministic. For example:

Say a microtransactions sidechain is developed with a fixed supply of one-billion Micros, and an exchange rate of 1 BTC = 1 million Micros. That means that 1000BTC *total* will ever be able to move to the sidechain. Say the sidechain is very successful; ie, Micros work really well and start to gain a lot of real-world economic traction and value. So the 1000BTC gets transferred over.

Now say that Micros continue to see more use. Their purchasing power goes up, but this has no effect whatsoever on the purchasing power of bitcoin because the max has already moved in. Now all we have is another alt that *used to* have an easy decentralized way of buying it with bitcoin.

I'm frankly struggling to see how sidechains are anything more than an optional decentralized exchange mechanism between BTC and alts.




Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
BlindMayorBitcorn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Blockchain Theorist


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:37:50 AM
 #14419

Two thoughts:

What would Satoshi think of sidechains?

(Hint: I suspect he likes them ... )

What if someone(s) involved with Blockstream is Satoshi?

Now it is all out in the open, like the source code, which for sidechains, does not even exist yet.

That sound pretty legendary dude Shocked

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
juju
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 381


s='s=%r;print s%%s,';print s%s,


View Profile WWW
October 24, 2014, 02:40:18 AM
 #14420

Two thoughts:

What would Satoshi think of sidechains?

(Hint: I suspect he likes them ... )

What if someone(s) involved with Blockstream is Satoshi?

Now it is all out in the open, like the source code, which for sidechains, does not even exist yet.

Cool a speculation thread with people talking about SC, I read the paper the other day and almost cried. This is truly a thing of beauty, I remember writing on my notes: 21Million BTC | ∞  SC Assets

Alot of smart people working on that team/with, likely he has been involved at some stage unbeknownst to all or most.


1jujuGykhtsMigKzZY7UDcfL2pWgKCK8u - www.unsignedtx.com - Bitcoin/Technology Blog
Pages: « 1 ... 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 [721] 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 ... 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!