Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 05:59:18 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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] 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2009002 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 03:36:54 AM
 #14601

I think development on sidechains is a good thing and will open a new ideas and jobs.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/25/bitcoin-2-0-sidechains-and-zerocash-and-ethereum-oh-my/

The need that stimulates ideas and creates jobs isn't going anywhere it's there for the picking SC don't create the opportunity, if we were to meet I could pitch half a dozen ideas that are suppressed by the inclusion of SC.

It's just an opportunity for those who haven't yet invested in Bitcoin the currency.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 03:38:23 AM
 #14602

ideas that are suppressed by the inclusion of SC.

How does that work?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 03:39:43 AM
 #14603

Question : who mines the spin-offs? Can the same concept of merge-mining be applied ?

Spon-offs can be mined in any manner including merge-mining.

Better still spin-offs leaves the field of mining and mining incentives open to innovation and disruption.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 03:50:31 AM
 #14604

Quote
These guys are still at the nervous to invest stage and are trying to leverage there skills to mitigate risk, they see the value in the network and why alts fail and can't out innovate Bitcoin so they've devised this mechanism to leverage the investment.

Interesting insight into a possible alignment of motivations. Cryptopunks showed up, first started hacking then bought coins .... techies showed up, first built miners then bought coins ... VC's showed up, first started start-ups ... lawyers showed up, first started creating unnecessary regulations ... bankers showed up, first started by naked short selling. Explains why bitcoin is going through a soft spell until these last three groups get past their "How can I get into this by risking only some sweat equity first?" phase.

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 04:07:44 AM
 #14605

ideas that are suppressed by the inclusion of SC.

How does that work?


First off SC's are inflationary, ( Bitcoin becomes like a reserve at the FED allowing banks to inflate at will)  so that deals with and stunts all ideas around Austrian principles, second look at mining and distribution, the argument you could make a better xyz that does something better than Bitcoin like faster or more effective micro  transactions is limited to the exponential growth in Bitcoin energy consumption used in mining to maintain the ledger, there are other trust free solution to that problem one could incentivize like bandwidth or storage to perform that function more effectively without distorting or sacrificing or artificially undermining the energy needed to maintain the blockchain as mining rewords diminish.

What we know in Bitcoin is mining rewards will diminish to 0 as a result with every halving the network becomes more energy efficient, and it will reach an equilibrium in my lifetime, it is only growing now given the price but after a fiew halvings it won't grow that fast, the mining power will be sufficient to support the value, and the value will be determined by utility and competition. If the competition or competing utility's are dependent on Bitcoin mining the appropriate investing in mining will be lacking, including the necessary mining innovation for the competition.  

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

Activity: 686



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 04:15:34 AM
 #14606

First off SC's are inflationary
How? I thought all sidechains are pegged using any ratio and must be backed by bitcoin. Even if 1 BTC = 100 Sidecoins the Sidecoins are still valued at 1/100 of a BTC and supply of BTC was never increased.

   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    
   ████████████████████████████████   
     ▀██████████████████████████▀     
        ▀████████████████████▀        
          ████████████████▀          
            █████████████            
            ▀████████████▀            
             ▀██████████▀             
              ██████████              
               ████████               
               ▀██████▀               
                ██████                
                  ▀                  
.
.trade.io.
██████
██████
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
██████
██████

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

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

▄██████████████████▄
████████████████████
███████████████▀▀ ██
█████████▀▀    ███
████▀▀     ▄█▀   ███
███▄    ▄██      ███
█████████▀      ▄██
█████████▄     ████
█████████████▄ ▄████
████████████████████
▀██████████████████▀
██████
██████
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
██████
██████
.
.Join the Trading Revolution.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 04:30:12 AM
 #14607

First off SC's are inflationary
How? I thought all sidechains are pegged using any ratio and must be backed by bitcoin. Even if 1 BTC = 100 Sidecoins the Sidecoins are still valued at 1/100 of a BTC and supply of BTC was never increased.

One of SC proponents described the BTC peg as part of a pie, if the side chain pays transaction fees for eg. then the BTC pie peg shrinks, followed by this won't be a problem because the ratio or scheme will be known upfront. (Can't find the quote but that's what I understood)

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

Activity: 686



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 04:34:16 AM
 #14608

First off SC's are inflationary
How? I thought all sidechains are pegged using any ratio and must be backed by bitcoin. Even if 1 BTC = 100 Sidecoins the Sidecoins are still valued at 1/100 of a BTC and supply of BTC was never increased.

One of SC proponents described the BTC peg as part of a pie, if the side chain pays transaction fees for eg. then the BTC pie peg shrinks, followed by this won't be a problem because the ratio or scheme will be known upfront. (Can't find the quote but that's what I understood)
But the fees come from the sidechain coins and are able to be converted back to BTC if you wish.

   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    
   ████████████████████████████████   
     ▀██████████████████████████▀     
        ▀████████████████████▀        
          ████████████████▀          
            █████████████            
            ▀████████████▀            
             ▀██████████▀             
              ██████████              
               ████████               
               ▀██████▀               
                ██████                
                  ▀                  
.
.trade.io.
██████
██████
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
██████
██████

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

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

▄██████████████████▄
████████████████████
███████████████▀▀ ██
█████████▀▀    ███
████▀▀     ▄█▀   ███
███▄    ▄██      ███
█████████▀      ▄██
█████████▄     ████
█████████████▄ ▄████
████████████████████
▀██████████████████▀
██████
██████
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
██████
██████
.
.Join the Trading Revolution.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
October 26, 2014, 04:51:37 AM
 #14609

First off SC's are inflationary
How? I thought all sidechains are pegged using any ratio and must be backed by bitcoin. Even if 1 BTC = 100 Sidecoins the Sidecoins are still valued at 1/100 of a BTC and supply of BTC was never increased.

One of SC proponents described the BTC peg as part of a pie, if the side chain pays transaction fees for eg. then the BTC pie peg shrinks, followed by this won't be a problem because the ratio or scheme will be known upfront. (Can't find the quote but that's what I understood)
But the fees come from the sidechain coins and are able to be converted back to BTC if you wish.

Turns out that it'd damn difficult for off-chain stuff NOT to develop.  That's why we have in late 2014 a fair amount of interest in Bitcoin worldwide and a pretty significant 'market cap' yet we are still not really pushing into the 7 TPS rate in a threatening way.

These reasonably high valuations have resulted in amazingly fast growth in the mining side of infrastructure.  Pretty much only the mining side, unfortunately, because that is where the designer(s) saw fit to provide a reward.  When I first read about Bitcoin I was under the misconception that transferring transactions was rewarded.  Then I thought that there was a mechanism imagined for it but it just was not implemented yet.  Now I see no sign of it.  Oh well.

The problem with the high hashing capacity which has developed in conjunction with the low TPS, is that it is costing someone something like $30 per transaction.  (The high valuations are a factor as well since I've switched to $.)  The 'someone' is not the user.  Inflation is picking up the tab, but the inflation rate is, as we know, a declining feature.  It is somewhat concerning that there could be a lot of excess sha256 mining capacity with nothing to do when it is no longer profitable to mine.  'An idle min[e|d] is the devil's workshop' so they say.

A solution would be monster transaction fees.  But who (besides whacko's like me who already pay $10 transaction fees) want to pay them?

Sidechains to the rescue.  They could (almost not help but) create a situation where hundreds or thousands of user's Bitcon activity are aggregated into a single blockchain transaction.  This means that the transaction fee could be split that many ways and thus be felt as a very tiny and reasonable amount by individual users while the fee the miner gets would be quite generous indeed.


Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 05:17:15 AM
 #14610

First off SC's are inflationary
How? I thought all sidechains are pegged using any ratio and must be backed by bitcoin. Even if 1 BTC = 100 Sidecoins the Sidecoins are still valued at 1/100 of a BTC and supply of BTC was never increased.

One of SC proponents described the BTC peg as part of a pie, if the side chain pays transaction fees for eg. then the BTC pie peg shrinks, followed by this won't be a problem because the ratio or scheme will be known upfront. (Can't find the quote but that's what I understood)
But the fees come from the sidechain coins and are able to be converted back to BTC if you wish.

Turns out that it'd damn difficult for off-chain stuff NOT to develop.  That's why we have in late 2014 a fair amount of interest in Bitcoin worldwide and a pretty significant 'market cap' yet we are still not really pushing into the 7 TPS rate in a threatening way.

These reasonably high valuations have resulted in amazingly fast growth in the mining side of infrastructure.  Pretty much only the mining side, unfortunately, because that is where the designer(s) saw fit to provide a reward.  When I first read about Bitcoin I was under the misconception that transferring transactions was rewarded.  Then I thought that there was a mechanism imagined for it but it just was not implemented yet.  Now I see no sign of it.  Oh well.

The problem with the high hashing capacity which has developed in conjunction with the low TPS, is that it is costing someone something like $30 per transaction.  (The high valuations are a factor as well since I've switched to $.)  The 'someone' is not the user.  Inflation is picking up the tab, but the inflation rate is, as we know, a declining feature.  It is somewhat concerning that there could be a lot of excess sha256 mining capacity with nothing to do when it is no longer profitable to mine.  'An idle min[e|d] is the devil's workshop' so they say.

A solution would be monster transaction fees.  But who (besides whacko's like me who already pay $10 transaction fees) want to pay them?

Sidechains to the rescue.  They could (almost not help but) create a situation where hundreds or thousands of user's Bitcon activity are aggregated into a single blockchain transaction.  This means that the transaction fee could be split that many ways and thus be felt as a very tiny and reasonable amount by individual users while the fee the miner gets would be quite generous indeed.

I don't see it like that, the blockchain is maintained by the nodes, the nodes are the ones paying the price for included transactions, they pay for bandwidth and storage. As a result they hold the ability to propagate the protocol  that is used (including mining fees). Miners on the other hand are competing for the fees, they have the ability to charge, but not at the expense of exclusion from acceptance by the nodes.

There is excess mining now and will be most likely untill the latter half of 2016,  but they won't be able to sustain themselves with high fees, (effectively they want huge transaction (in data size) not value to earn more while nodes want less.

SC take advantage of excess mining capacity and security today but will not allow mining power to scale to the appropriate size to protect the value stored on the blockchain in say 1 or 2 halvings. As the miners won't secure it if the value isn't reflected in there reward and fees. (SC depend on Bitcoin, boasting that they take the load off the network, adding value elsewhere at the protocol level) - seems like a blockchain cancer to me when I project 6 years ahead.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 05:30:00 AM
 #14611

First off SC's are inflationary
How? I thought all sidechains are pegged using any ratio and must be backed by bitcoin. Even if 1 BTC = 100 Sidecoins the Sidecoins are still valued at 1/100 of a BTC and supply of BTC was never increased.

One of SC proponents described the BTC peg as part of a pie, if the side chain pays transaction fees for eg. then the BTC pie peg shrinks, followed by this won't be a problem because the ratio or scheme will be known upfront. (Can't find the quote but that's what I understood)
But the fees come from the sidechain coins and are able to be converted back to BTC if you wish.
Go back a fiew pages others have discussed it quite clearly.

Yes is the answer to your question, but SC are intended to give you back less Bitcoin than you put in, if they don't why have them just use Bitcoin - want faster transactions they say, what's the economic motivation to develop a SC that is faster than BTC if the developers can't benefit? None, there will be costs they are now pushing to have the ability incorporated at the protocol level.

Funny thing is so are many long time Bitcoin proponents supporting the idea, I'm thinking they're short Bitcoin and long on ability and political manipulation. I guess every problem looks like nail if you're a hammer.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 26, 2014, 05:49:13 AM
 #14612

Pegged SCs can increase BTC TPS 5 fold just by using the sendmany function. Then the SC can then use SSS magic to subdivide the bitcoins into smaller denomination SC coins but still be pegged to Bitcoin. Then all they need to do is build a faster cheaper blockchain.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 05:51:42 AM
 #14613

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

that's right. sidechains are essentially a laboratory of innovation akin to altcoins but supported by and supporting Bitcoin's network effect

I see this as an attempt at creating altcoins and Bitcoin 2.0 contracts, by leveraging the existing Bitcoin network.

Bitcoin's support grows by increasing it's network effect, it's network effect grows by investing and storing value in the ledger.

 Bitcoin is not supported when one grows value elsewhere leveraging the existing value of the network.

There are more effective ways to innovate and they should be explored if they fail come back in 3 to 5 years and let's consider SC then.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 26, 2014, 05:55:26 AM
 #14614

Pegged SCs can increase BTC TPS 5 fold just by using the sendmany function. Then the SC can then use SSS magic to subdivide the bitcoins into smaller denomination SC coins but still be pegged to Bitcoin. Then all they need to do is build a faster cheaper blockchain.

What is TPS and SSS?
Transactions per second and Shamir's Secret Sauce (Sharing)

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 06:01:54 AM
 #14615

Pegged SCs can increase BTC TPS 5 fold just by using the sendmany function. Then the SC can then use SSS magic to subdivide the bitcoins into smaller denomination SC coins but still be pegged to Bitcoin. Then all they need to do is build a faster cheaper blockchain.

What is TPS and SSS?
Transactions per second and Shamir's Secret Sauce (Sharing)
Thanks
And what is Shamir's Secret Sauce (Sharing)? - I'm not familiar with any names in the SC propaganda campaign except for Andreas Antonopoulos.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
October 26, 2014, 06:04:36 AM
 #14616


The problem with the high hashing capacity which has developed in conjunction with the low TPS, is that it is costing someone something like $30 per transaction.  (The high valuations are a factor as well since I've switched to $.)  The 'someone' is not the user.  Inflation is picking up the tab, but the inflation rate is, as we know, a declining feature.  It is somewhat concerning that there could be a lot of excess sha256 mining capacity with nothing to do when it is no longer profitable to mine.  'An idle min[e|d] is the devil's workshop' so they say.

A solution would be monster transaction fees.  But who (besides whacko's like me who already pay $10 transaction fees) want to pay them?

Sidechains to the rescue.  They could (almost not help but) create a situation where hundreds or thousands of user's Bitcon activity are aggregated into a single blockchain transaction.  This means that the transaction fee could be split that many ways and thus be felt as a very tiny and reasonable amount by individual users while the fee the miner gets would be quite generous indeed.



bingo. nice post.

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 26, 2014, 06:14:02 AM
 #14617

Pegged SCs can increase BTC TPS 5 fold just by using the sendmany function. Then the SC can then use SSS magic to subdivide the bitcoins into smaller denomination SC coins but still be pegged to Bitcoin. Then all they need to do is build a faster cheaper blockchain.

What is TPS and SSS?
Transactions per second and Shamir's Secret Sauce (Sharing)
Thanks
And what is Shamir's Secret Sauce (Sharing)? - I'm not familiar with any names in the SC propaganda campaign except for Andreas Antonopoulos.
Shamir's Secret Sharing (and its derivatives) is a basic cryptology method that multi-signature transactions and dark wallets use. Besides, I'm conjecturing about what SC may become, not as it is currently proposed, which has minimal information available. All I'm saying is that SCs can enhance Bitcoin kind of like building a stock car into a racing machine.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
October 26, 2014, 06:43:36 AM
 #14618


The problem with the high hashing capacity which has developed in conjunction with the low TPS, is that it is costing someone something like $30 per transaction.  (The high valuations are a factor as well since I've switched to $.)  The 'someone' is not the user.  Inflation is picking up the tab, but the inflation rate is, as we know, a declining feature.  It is somewhat concerning that there could be a lot of excess sha256 mining capacity with nothing to do when it is no longer profitable to mine.  'An idle min[e|d] is the devil's workshop' so they say.

A solution would be monster transaction fees.  But who (besides whacko's like me who already pay $10 transaction fees) want to pay them?

Sidechains to the rescue.  They could (almost not help but) create a situation where hundreds or thousands of user's Bitcon activity are aggregated into a single blockchain transaction.  This means that the transaction fee could be split that many ways and thus be felt as a very tiny and reasonable amount by individual users while the fee the miner gets would be quite generous indeed.



bingo. nice post.
So what do you think happens to sha256 mining when the real transaction cost shrinks from $30 per transaction down to $1 or $0.05 (considering tvbcov is arguing they stay high or go higher and we do most transactions on SC's.) Are the predictions of higher transaction costs creditable or are they founded on a linear projection that mining will need to charge X to stay viable in today's climate?

The facts are we know the reward that makes the real transaction cost is halving every 4 years and can ultimately only be sustained by use of the network.

I haven't been convinced that transaction costs will increase to sustain my mining profit without innovating the energy cost to below market rates and I'm actually convinced BTC transaction costs will decrease over time.

SC propose a threat if you considered lower transaction costs, costs that are driven by the nodes (protocol validators/ hosts) not the miners, SC will leave the network vulnerable to attack from the very miners who are disenfranchised by the off chain growth.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
October 26, 2014, 12:52:35 PM
 #14619

In addition to our speculation about banks failing the (ECB) stress test.

http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-25-eurozone-banks-fail-ecb-stress-test-2014-10

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2014/html/pr141026.en.html

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/ssm/assessment/html/index.en.html

Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency
Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2014, 03:17:26 PM
 #14620

-- This is equivalent to saying there is no reason to use Monero in the first place. Everyone there was there because they believed in a pure anonymous coin and the market it served. However now with that possibility achieved via sidechains, there remains no reason to be in Monero any longer (imo).

This is jumping the gun a little, isn't it?
Isn't it a bit like saying:  "Now with the theory of relativity, there is no reason to use gasoline".
Or "because of the theory of quantum cryptography, there remains no reason to be in Bitcoin any longer".
A description of a thing, is quite different from the thing itself.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 ... 1558 »
  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!