Bitcoin Forum
July 28, 2017, 03:15:34 PM *
News: BIP91 seems stable: there's probably only slightly increased risk of confirmations disappearing. You should still prepare for Aug 1.
 
   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 ... 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] 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1941001 times)
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:01:11 PM
 #15361

I see a sidecoin as an altcoin, but with an interesting bootstrap method.

The peg is not really possible, unless there is a full reserve, that is, the bitcoins are paralyzed while the corresponding sidecoins exist. Forget about independent coin creation in the sidechain aka govcoin. That makes the new sidecoins unbacked, and the peg fails.

Troubling how after so many pages of arguments on sidechains you can still utter such nonsense

YES the peg is possible. YES there is a full reserve. OF COURSE the bitcoins are paralyzed while the corresponding sidecoins exist.

Correct.  I think its worth clarifying that the peg is algorithmic, because its seems from the thread that some people may not understand that.  You, personally, can ask the network automatically to swap unlimited quantities of BTC on the sidechain for BTC on the main bitcoin chain.

Ok, assuing full reserve. Since there is a peg, the value is not allowed to differ, but still it is two different coins that by themselves would have different value in the market. The result is binary, either the sidecoin takes over (if the value is higher) or it disappears into oblivion (if the value is lower).

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:01:37 PM
 #15362

Au contraire. You're the one spamming my thread. You could just go away or put me on ignore but clearly you won't do that along with odalv. Who knows what your motivations are.

And i have a track record that supercedes yours. I know that will  anger alot of people but yeah, I think that deserves me to be heard.  and I'm annoyed that you and the community might end up letting guys like GM and Luke perhaps make millions off this while yes,  putting all the rest of us at risk.

Your hubris acting like you know with certainty that there cannot be a bad outcome is highly suspect and naive. I see clear unpredictable economic possibilities which all you SC proponents want to sweep away.

You're even more delusional than I thought..

Spamming your thread? I suggested we stop talking about sidechains in this thread a couple of pages ago. Remember your response ?

Your track record doesn't enable you to spew blatant FUD based on illogic and strech of the mind scenarios.

I suggest your put away your tinfoil hat for a moment and present a sensible argument against sidecoins that is not premised with the creation of an altcoin. Until then, your "track record" has taken quite a hit in credibility in the last few days.

Your problem is you don't want to listen to any of my arguments. And I'm right simply because of one simple fact: the risk of changing the source code cannot be zero, despite you arguing that it is. And the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that what you say is true because alot of people have money on the line.

Im not against innovation. That's a stupid allegation. No one saw me arguing against 0.8.1 despite what happened. No one hes me argue  against updates. It's the severing of the link between the currency unit and the Blockchain that has me bothered conceptually. And I don't believe it's a seamless efficient 2wp. It's unproven.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:10:33 PM
 #15363

Who knows what your motivations are.

My motivation is preventing others who might give too much merit to your "track record" from getting fooled by your delusions.

Considering most, if not all of your concerns have been debunked or dismissed as irrelevant to the existence of sidechains I think most here are curious about YOUR motivation to spread FUD.

And you just  saying that doesn't make it true though keep trying
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:13:23 PM
 #15364

Consulting contracts building SC's. For gvts et al. Maybe starting an sidecoin of their own.

Maybe you don't know what you're talking about  Huh

And you can guarantee human behavior in perpetuity? 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:15:10 PM
 #15365

Your problem is you don't want to listen to any of my arguments. And I'm right simply because of one simple fact: the risk of changing the source code cannot be zero, despite you arguing that it is. And the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that what you say is true because alot of people have money on the line.

Im not against innovation. That's a stupid allegation. No one saw me arguing against 0.8.1 despite what happened. No one hes me site against updates. It's the supposing of the link between the currency unit and is Blockchain that has me bothered conceptually. And I don't believe it's a seamless efficient 2wp. It's unproven.

On the contrary, I have listened patiently to ALL of your arguments, carefully considered them and debunked most of them as disingenuous or not entirely dependent on the existence of sidechains to exist.

You will indeed be right everytime because everytime your argument faces rebuttal you move the goal post.

So not your final hail mary is : "changing the source code is risky". Did I get this right?

Otherwise, I, again, challenge you to come up with a significant risk scenario that relies on the creration of 1:1 BTC pegged sidechains. Because that is the one true innovation within sidechains. Every other threat you have previously suggested existed before with altcoins.

"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
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:20:02 PM
 #15366


Your problem is you don't want to listen to any of my arguments. And I'm right simply because of one simple fact: the risk of changing the source code cannot be zero, despite you arguing that it is.  ...

The risk of inserting exponential transaction growth as Gavin wants to try to sneak in as a hard fork is, to me, greater than the risk of increasing the 21 million currency base figure.

Adding a feature as a soft fork to support sidechains is, from a technical structural standpoint, not necessarily a very risky thing.  If it is implemented in a reasonably manner I'll definitely prefer it as the mainline Bitcoin codebase.

In some respects I actually would like to see sidechains implemented exercising a federated paradigm (instead of or in addition to a soft-fork) because development of such a solution has potential to mitigate against other forms of superior resource based attacks.  And thus make them less likely to be attempted.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:20:53 PM
 #15367

Your problem is you don't want to listen to any of my arguments. And I'm right simply because of one simple fact: the risk of changing the source code cannot be zero, despite you arguing that it is. And the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that what you say is true because alot of people have money on the line.

Im not against innovation. That's a stupid allegation. No one saw me arguing against 0.8.1 despite what happened. No one hes me site against updates. It's the supposing of the link between the currency unit and is Blockchain that has me bothered conceptually. And I don't believe it's a seamless efficient 2wp. It's unproven.

On the contrary, I have listened patiently to ALL of your arguments, carefully considered them and debunked most of them as disingenuous or not entirely dependent on the existence of sidechains to exist.

You will indeed be right everytime because everytime your argument faces rebuttal you move the goal post.

So not your final hail mary is : "changing the source code is risky". Did I get this right?

Otherwise, I, again, challenge you to come up with a significant risk scenario that relies on the creration of 1:1 BTC pegged sidechains. Because that is the one true innovation within sidechains. Every other threat you have previously suggested existed before with altcoins.

See, you don't listen. Imo, all of my prior arguments still stand, even my base case of 1:1 with a simple SC. I think Adrians long term economic assumption is valid that miners will migrate to SC for fees plus the innovation. 
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:28:11 PM
 #15368


Au contraire. You're the one spamming my thread. You could just go away or put me on ignore but clearly you won't do that along with odalv. Who knows what your motivations are.


I'm trying to explain you what SC is.

btw:

a) You can change bitcoin protocol by hard-fork
b) or one of SC capabilities is "upgrade bitcoin to new version."

1. create SC what is same as MC + has support for SC's (Bitcoin 2.0)
2. test SC using Federated peg
3. test SC using MM
4. When MM > 60 %  then you can switch to new version.

=> this sequence replaces hard-fork => more testing is done before hard-fork.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:28:50 PM
 #15369


See, you don't listen. Imo, all of my prior arguments still stand, even my base case of 1:1 with a simple SC. I think Adrians long term economic assumption is valid that miners will migrate to SC for fees plus the innovation. 

No they don't. I have proved why it is so repeatedly. You are the one not listening.

Adrians long term economic assumption depends on the creation of an altcoin that is better than sidechains. Sidechains does not enable that risk. It existed ever since the first altcoin was created.


"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: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:42:10 PM
 #15370

The risk of inserting exponential transaction growth as Gavin wants to try to sneak in as a hard fork is, to me, greater than the risk of increasing the 21 million currency base figure.

 Huh

but it (sidechains) does not do that

and I disagree. the moment the 21,000,001 coin appears I'm selling all of my BTC.

"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
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:50:51 PM
 #15371

Yeah it should be crystal clear that ANYONE holding btc would be very very very unhappy if the 21,000,000 cap were lifted either directly or indirectly.

It seems clear that with a fixed peg the 21 million limit of btc is not altered in anyway. If anything with the likelihood of side chains messing up it will probably lead to more lost coins.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 09:13:01 PM
 #15372

Yeah it should be crystal clear that ANYONE holding btc would be very very very unhappy if the 21,000,000 cap were lifted either directly or indirectly.

It seems clear that with a fixed peg the 21 million limit of btc is not altered in anyway. If anything with the likelihood of side chains messing up it will probably lead to more lost coins.

which won't necessarily lead to an increase in BTC price.

cbeast gave me a hypothetical of losing all BTC to a SC leaving just 1 BTC.  the implication being that, no problem, we'll all just divide up that 1 BTC and off we go again on our merry way.  i think that is naive.  first of all, it ignores all the owners of those, what would be the 13,455,849 BTC lost, getting wiped out.  those ppl include guys like me who are Bitcoin's most ardent supporters who would turn against any further trust in cryptocurrencies and set back the project by 100 yrs i'd guess.  so no, continual loss of BTC on SC's will be damaging, not helpful to our cause.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 09:15:13 PM
 #15373


See, you don't listen. Imo, all of my prior arguments still stand, even my base case of 1:1 with a simple SC. I think Adrians long term economic assumption is valid that miners will migrate to SC for fees plus the innovation. 

No they don't. I have proved why it is so repeatedly. You are the one not listening.

Adrians long term economic assumption depends on the creation of an altcoin that is better than sidechains. Sidechains does not enable that risk. It existed ever since the first altcoin was created.



that was not his argument.  a simple SC with an innovation should be able to defeat the MC w/o the innovation once block rewards disappear.  why?  the risk free put and everyone taking advantage of the innovation to transact.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 09:17:57 PM
 #15374

MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.

=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 09:19:33 PM
 #15375

Quote from: Austin Hill
The KEY idea here is to protect the concept of digital scarcity and 21 million Bitcoin limit
Let's be clear here, this is not the issue, he isn't threatening to mess with the quantity just the value.

I'm concerned you find comfort in this statement.

It's irrelevant how many bitcoins there are. There could be 1 or 1 billion. What is pertinent is the percentage one has of the pie ( the blockchain) and that the value in the pie is the real world investment of energy.

The value is not the unit of measure but the wealth invested in the pie.

You will always get your BTC not the value.


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 09:21:37 PM
 #15376

MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.

this sounds reasonable
Quote
=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.



but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.

and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 09:23:37 PM
 #15377

Quote from: Austin Hill
The KEY idea here is to protect the concept of digital scarcity and 21 million Bitcoin limit
Let's be clear here, this is not the issue, he isn't threatening to mess with the quantity just the value.

I'm concerned you find comfort in this statement.

It's irrelevant how many bitcoins there are. There could be 1 or 1 billion. What is pertinent is the percentage one has of the pie ( the blockchain) and that the value in the pie is the real world investment of energy.

The value is not the unit of measure but the wealth invested in the pie.

You will always get your BTC not the value.



I'm concerned that you would believe this interesting but irrelevant piece of information serves as a counter argument in our debate about sidechains.

How exactly does sidechains affect the ledger?

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 09:25:49 PM
 #15378

Considering the apparent serious implementation and backing behind the sidechain, the market starts using it and finds considerable value in it. price of BTC goes UP



why would price do this?
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 02, 2014, 09:32:49 PM
 #15379

Man you people are so dense it's like you refuse to acknowledge the arguments made in most of my previous posts and insist on your incomprehension of the whole dynamics at stake to justify your ignorance.

Let us do it then step by step so you understand where you mistakes are

Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.)

Agreed.

When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network.  The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage.

Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin.
It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested.

This all sounds good to me... except maybe your inference that Sidechains "mess with this". moving on...

SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value.

Mistake 1 : Sidechains can protect the value through merged mining.
Mistake 2 : A chain that has greater value than Bitcoin = an alt-coin with greater value than Bitcoin. Utility features/services annexed to the main blockchain DO NOT have greater value than Bitcoin, only an alt-coin (supported through a sidechain or not) can claim this. If that is what you are suggesting (altcoin taking over) Sidechains are NOT introducing this risk and do little to enable it. As smooth has pointed out, the creator of such an altcoin would realize it is not necessarily desirable for his coin to utilize a sidechain.

I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain.

Mistake 3 : Assuming the transfer of scBTC does not generate, by proxy, the movement of economic energy to the main blockchain.

SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across.

See Mistake 2 :.

To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin.
The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin.

See Mistake 2 :.

We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely.   I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain)

Refer to Mistake 2 :. Note also that "I don't think that is a secure strategy" is not a reasonable answer to the argument you have been presented. FACT : it is trivial for miners to merge mine just about any chain and they will if there is ANY value in it.

Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded.

No different than creating altcoins.
SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me.

Refer to Mistake 2 :

I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value

Mistake 4 : Failure to understand that sidechains can preserve the ledger AND allow for more features to the unit in the ledger.

Austin Hill : "The KEY idea here is to protect the concept of digital scarcity and 21 million Bitcoin limit"

This is also a reiteration of your GOVcoin wins scenario which is truly a disturbing though coming from a Bitcoin proponent. See Mistake 2 :

Man,  you crack me up.

A 24yo insolent  kid with a  self admitted shitty job coming in here and insulting everybody when you've only been a member here since February 16, 2014. Where were you in 2011 when we were figuring this whole thing out? Oh yeah, you were 21! How many bitcoin do you own? Are you a butt hurt kid who wants a 2nd shot at Bitcoin at the expense of the rest of us?

I don't begrudge Cypherdoc not going into detail on dismembering these, because they aren't all that substantial as critic defenses go.  I don't know if it was sincere claim that these "debunk" all concerns for all people reading this or if that is just baiting.
Quote
Mistake 1 : Sidechains can protect the value through merged mining.
This protection isn't needed for Bitcoin, but for what risk SC introduce to Bitcoin mining.  Bitcoin mining is sufficient and expected to remain so absent continued centralization and pooling.  SC are parasitic in this way.  They are dependent on Bitcoin mining.  If at some point in the future, there is a particular SC that consumes the bulk of bitcoins in circulation, there is a non-zero risk to Bitcoin that there will be insufficient bitcoin transactions to support bitcoin mining in the later days.  It will have ended Bitcoin (albeit presumably for something better).  People are not always right, that's how we got to where we are with pervasive central banking.
Cypherdoc's allusion to your ability to predict human behavior is a trope to this.
So while your statement is true it doesn't answer the criticism.  (Yes SC "can" protect the value through merged mining, but that is not their purpose or intent, and it is not such a likely outcome.  Cypher "can" go into space if he pays Virgin enough bitcoin, but I don't think he intends to do that either.)

Quote
Mistake 2 : A chain that has greater value than Bitcoin = an alt-coin with greater value than Bitcoin. Utility features/services annexed to the main blockchain DO NOT have greater value than Bitcoin, only an alt-coin (supported through a sidechain or not) can claim this. If that is what you are suggesting (altcoin taking over) Sidechains are NOT introducing this risk and do little to enable it. As smooth has pointed out, the creator of such an altcoin would realize it is not necessarily desirable for his coin to utilize a sidechain.
This one is simply wrong.  Further, it makes several claims in succession that are not entirely related.  These are specifically a risk that SC do introduce.  In the same way that if physical bitcoin were what everyone wanted, and we traded those instead, there wouldn't be any Bitcoin TX fees.  These do have greater value in the free market than electronic bitcoins.  There is no peg, what there is, is inclusion and embedding of btc in another block chain which is separately traded off Bitcoin's block chain.  

Quote
Mistake 3 : Assuming the transfer of scBTC does not generate, by proxy, the movement of economic energy to the main blockchain.
Patently false.  We can transfer scBTC back and forth to each other, and this does not necessarily have any effect on the main block chain, economic or otherwise.
There might be some effect, but there is no assurance of that at all.  The Bitcoin block chain could even end without impacting the ability to transact amongst ourselves on a SC of BTC.  They may be independent economically.  

Quote
Mistake 4 : Failure to understand that sidechains can preserve the ledger AND allow for more features to the unit in the ledger.
This is your mistake.
SC assures neither of these.
SC does not assure any preserving of the Bitcoin ledger.
The additional features are not in the Bitcoin ledger, they are on the SC.
They are "possible" effects.  You are using the word "can" here and pretending that it means "does", and suggesting that this answers the concern.  Many people do this subconsciously, it is human nature.  Don't feel too bad about it.

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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 09:37:55 PM
 #15380

that was not his argument.  a simple SC with an innovation should be able to defeat the MC w/o the innovation once block rewards disappear.  why?  the risk free put and everyone taking advantage of the innovation to transact.

No, because a 1:1 SC with an innovation only serves as a subset of Bitcoin's money function.

Example :

An anonymous sidechain is only useful to those wanting to participate in private transactions.

A faster transacting is only useful to those needing faster transactions.

BTC, on the other hand, sit on the most liquid & secure chain, are supported by the biggest infrastructure, carry the most important network effect AND can move freely, back and forth, between the two aforementioned sidechains. The features are effectively user-defined and can be used at will, depending on the user's need.

I don't see exactly how the block reward is relevant considering there is no block subsidy on "a simple SC". Miners will mine both chains and profit from both chains' transactions.




"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
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 ... 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!