Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 02:35:36 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 ... 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] 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803427 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 06:24:44 PM
 #15781

again, when you say "market" you're confining your definition perspective to that of Bitcoiners only.  other ppl/entities with other agendas will look at this totally differently.

other ppl/entities have been trying to disrupt Bitcoin's market leading position for quite some time now. so far they have failed quite spectacularly. how is sidechains helping them again?

(please don't say merged mining)

mainly by breaking the inextricable linkage btwn the BTC currency unit and its blockchain, the MC.  it allows all these games we've been discussing for the last few dozens of pages to be played.
1480732536
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732536

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732536
Reply with quote  #2

1480732536
Report to moderator
1480732536
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732536

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732536
Reply with quote  #2

1480732536
Report to moderator
1480732536
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732536

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732536
Reply with quote  #2

1480732536
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 06:26:08 PM
 #15782

mainly by breaking the inextricable linkage btwn the BTC currency unit and its blockchain, the MC.  it allows all these games we've been discussing for the last few dozens of pages to be played.

So you're saying altcoins are going to take over because it is potentially easier to transfer BTC to sidechains than it is to buy them on exchange?

That's not a very good argument

"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 05, 2014, 06:28:48 PM
 #15783

yes it is competing. but if scZC is only $0.006/scZC vs $340/scBTC and ppl like me like perfect anonymity but don't want to pay $340/scBTC, i will buy the $0.006/scZC with fiat on an exchange.

and once scZC establishes a value, miners will be encouraged to direct mine or MM.

So finally you admit that miners will not care to mine or MM a shitsidecoin with no market acceptance/value.

so instead of giving me a rational argument about why my above scenario is wrong, you'd rather deflect the issue?
any nowhere did i say that miners will not care to mine or MM this scZC.  i said the opposite, they would be encouraged to mine or MM it.
Quote
Therefore you propose that some users will prefer storing their value in a sideshitcoin that is more volatile, less risk-averse, less secure and has no distinct feature.

the scBTC have no every reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put.  and the miners have every reason to mine or MM scZC b/c of the extra block rewards and tx fees from both scZC and scBTC.
Quote
Roll Eyes

btw you can buy Monero right now, perfect anonymity, and you only have to pay a fraction of BTC's price, a real bargain! don't lose your chance!
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 06:29:33 PM
 #15784

If you've been following the pre-sidechain discussions in this thread about money as a ledger and the inseparability of currency from the Blockchain, you'll recognize the irony in this CoinDesk article about lighter regulations for "non-financial use of blockchain technology":

http://www.coindesk.com/lawsky-non-financial-block-chain-projects-exempt-current-bitlicense/

However untrue it may be, I'm starting to see that the meme "blockchain technology has a bright future but the currency-aspect is dubious" is actually in our benefit.  I'm rolling with it  Cheesy.  People can accept this premise much easier and thereby recognize the importance of the Network and the Blockchain.  

Of course this meme is a Trojan horse.  Once one has accepted the importance of a decentralized, trustless, and unforgeable ledger, it's a much smaller step to realize that our most important records (and also the one's most tempting to alter) should be stored on that ledger.  These records are money itself. Bitcoin will force the world to re-learn what money is...  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
neilol-real
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 06:35:20 PM
 #15785

If you've been following the pre-sidechain discussions in this thread about money as a ledger and the inseparability of currency from the Blockchain, you'll recognize the irony in this CoinDesk article about lighter regulations for "non-financial use of blockchain technology":

http://www.coindesk.com/lawsky-non-financial-block-chain-projects-exempt-current-bitlicense/

However untrue it may be, I'm starting to see that the meme "blockchain technology has a bright future but the currency-aspect is dubious" is actually in our benefit.  I'm rolling with it  Cheesy.  People can accept this premise much easier and thereby recognize the importance of the Network and the Blockchain.  

Of course this meme is a Trojan horse.  Once one has accepted the importance of a decentralized, trustless, and unforgeable ledger, it's a much smaller step to realize that our most important records (and also the one's most tempting to alter) should be stored on that ledger.  These records are money itself. Bitcoin will force the world to re-learn what money is...  

Well put as usual Peter. This is along the same lines as Apple Pay, which is a great product in the sense that it will get the general population accustomed to using their smartphone as a wallet. It will eventually help Bitcoin adoption, it can't  compete (or at least won't win) because it is orders of magnitude less efficient by design.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 05, 2014, 06:39:08 PM
 #15786

Of course this meme is a Trojan horse.  Once one has accepted the importance of a decentralized, trustless, and unforgeable ledger, it's a much smaller step to realize that our most important records (and also the one's most tempting to alter) should be stored on that ledger.  These records are money itself. Bitcoin will force the world to re-learn what money is...  
The largest risk of that strategy is underestimating the intelligence of whomever the Trojan horse is supposed to fool.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 06:41:59 PM
 #15787

If you've been following the pre-sidechain discussions in this thread about money as a ledger and the inseparability of currency from the Blockchain, you'll recognize the irony in this CoinDesk article about lighter regulations for "non-financial use of blockchain technology":

http://www.coindesk.com/lawsky-non-financial-block-chain-projects-exempt-current-bitlicense/

However untrue it may be, I'm starting to see that the meme "blockchain technology has a bright future but the currency-aspect is dubious" is actually in our benefit.  I'm rolling with it  Cheesy.  People can accept this premise much easier and thereby recognize the importance of the Network and the Blockchain.  

Of course this meme is a Trojan horse.  Once one has accepted the importance of a decentralized, trustless, and unforgeable ledger, it's a much smaller step to realize that our most important records (and also the one's most tempting to alter) should be stored on that ledger.  These records are money itself. Bitcoin will force the world to re-learn what money is...  

The 'Bitcoin is money' bullshit has been going on as long as I've been paying attention.  I've long argued (weakly since I don't really give a shit about it) that whatever Bitcoin is, there is no utility in calling in 'money'.  Doing so just invites hassles.

It's difficult not to get frustrated at the narrow mindedness and lack of self-assurance of the great swaths of the Bitcoin community.  But I persevere.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 06:45:20 PM
 #15788

mainly by breaking the inextricable linkage btwn the BTC currency unit and its blockchain, the MC.  it allows all these games we've been discussing for the last few dozens of pages to be played.

So you're saying altcoins are going to take over because it is potentially easier to transfer BTC to sidechains than it is to buy them on exchange?

That's not a very good argument

what i'm saying is you're letting altcoins/sidecoins/SC's into the core engine of the Bitcoin business by allowing them to hitch themselves to the Bitcoin blockchain and siphon BTC currency via the 2wp as well as luring Bitcoin miners to MM.  if the altcoin/sidecoin/SC can offer attractive features like perfect anonymity to scBTC holders, why wouldn't BTC holders migrate to it when they have the risk free put?

the double whammy comes with the scZC with an initial low price, maybe $0.006/scZC.  since investors/speculators understand the importance of anonymity as a desired feature, they will buy these up like crazy b/c if they're right, the entire BTC holding community might have to migrate over to this chain increasing its usage and ultimate value.  if other speculators follow on by buying up scZC at higher prices, this further increases the value of the SC.  miners will leave the Bitcoin MC to take advantage of all these dynamics.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 06:56:31 PM
 #15789

so instead of giving me a rational argument about why my above scenario is wrong, you'd rather deflect the issue?

The argument is here :

Therefore you propose that some users will prefer storing their value in a sideshitcoin that is more volatile, less risk-averse, less secure and has no distinct feature.

Can you argue this is not plausible?
any nowhere did i say that miners will not care to mine or MM this scZC.  i said the opposite, they would be encouraged to mine or MM it.

Yes you did, right here :

and once scZC establishes a value, miners will be encouraged to direct mine or MM.

This suggest before scZC establish considerable value there is no incentive for miners to MM or mine them

the scBTC have no reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put.  

 Huh You realise this goes against every one of your arguments. Indeed, the scBTC defeats every reason to put anyone's value anywhere else because of the risk free put. The risk free put doesn't exist on the shitsidecoin




"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
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 07:01:18 PM
 #15790

why wouldn't a new investor buy scZC on a fiat exchange?  why wouldn't a miner want to not only mine tx fees for scBTC as well as mine scZC block rewards + scZC tx fees?

don't say there is no one "using" scZC.  Bitcoin's price started out at $0 when no one was "using" it.  look what happened to it.

Why? Because it's essentially a new alt coin. How is the actual zerocoin doing? Any miners bothered merged mining it?

The new investor can either buy the scZC and expose himself to all the risks or buy BTC and use the scBTC zerocoin feature pegged 1:1 with the risk-free put.

Which one would you use?

Sidechains are there to create new applications/features that are not possible on the Bitcoin chain. There's no reason why you would create a sidecoin on top because it defeats the whole purpose of the 2wp.

if the scZC is priced at, let's say $0.006/scZC compared to $342/BTC, i would buy the coin with the greater upside (scZC) that has the same anonymity feature as scBTC since the SC has MM for security with actual direct mining from small miners defecting.

He doesn't understand that sidecoin = altcoin.

He can't comprehend why there is no more incentive for miners to merge mine or smaller miners to direct mine sidecoins than regular altcoins.

He doesn't want to admit that the market wants to protect the value of their investment and make it possible to use new features : the essence of sidechains.

Or maybe he does, but he is so disingenuous he will not admit it.

This has been the entire problem with this thread IMHO. The arguments for sidechains (true sidechains with 1:1 pegging) are getting merged with the arguments against altcoins.

Most of the "discussion" against sidechains is focused on saying that SC's are a backdoor method to enable altcoins, which damage the value of the mainchain. This is cypherdoc's argument above in saying that he would buy scZC at $0.006 for the upside potential.

But this is wrong, altcoins already exist today and have no practical effect on Bitcoin. Example: there are tons of "faster" altcoins and they are dying. Example: there are tons of altcoins capable of MM with Bticoin, but most are ignored by miners. In the end network effects will ensure there is only one true ledger, and that ledger is going to be Bitcoin's 21M coins. Sidechains that implement an altcoin aspect, will see that that altcoin will be as successful at today's altcoins.

The beauty of sidechains is they enable new features to be added to the Bitcoin mainchain 21M BTC ecosystem, while not requiring risky hard forks of the mainchain. This will grow the value of that 21M coins.

I have seen no valid arguments against this.

I haven't had time to go over the 100+ pages on the topic

And it shows.

You missed my point. It was not that I am not familiar with SC's because I haven't tracked the 100 pages here very closely. It was that I think the 100+ pages have mostly been hysterical noise. I understand your argument 2 posts up, I just disagree completely with it.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 07:14:10 PM
 #15791

what i'm saying is you're letting altcoins/sidecoins/SC's into the core engine of the Bitcoin business by allowing them to hitch themselves to the Bitcoin blockchain and siphon BTC currency via the 2wp as well as luring Bitcoin miners to MM.  if the altcoin/sidecoin/SC can offer attractive features like perfect anonymity to scBTC holders, why wouldn't BTC holders migrate to it when they have the risk free put?

Here is the fundamental problem/misunderstanding in your argument. Sidecoins have no risk free put. Only 1:1 scBTC have. This is precisely why there will be no interest to invest in a sidecoin when there is a scBTC that offers the same feature AND the risk-free put

the double whammy comes with the scZC with an initial low price, maybe $0.006/scZC.  since investors/speculators understand the importance of anonymity as a desired feature, they will buy these up like crazy b/c if they're right, the entire BTC holding community might have to migrate over to this chain increasing its usage and ultimate value.  if other speculators follow on by buying up scZC at higher prices, this further increases the value of the SC.  miners will leave the Bitcoin MC to take advantage of all these dynamics.

btw you can buy Monero right now, perfect anonymity, and you only have to pay a fraction of BTC's price, a real bargain! don't lose your chance!

care to tell me the difference between scZC and Monero?

"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
November 05, 2014, 07:18:29 PM
 #15792

Most of the "discussion" against sidechains is focused on saying that SC's are a backdoor method to enable altcoins, which damage the value of the mainchain. This is cypherdoc's argument above in saying that he would buy scZC at $0.006 for the upside potential.

But this is wrong, altcoins already exist today and have no practical effect on Bitcoin. Example: there are tons of "faster" altcoins and they are dying. Example: there are tons of altcoins capable of MM with Bticoin, but most are ignored by miners. In the end network effects will ensure there is only one true ledger, and that ledger is going to be Bitcoin's 21M coins. Sidechains that implement an altcoin aspect, will see that that altcoin will be as successful at today's altcoins.

watch him try to refute this with more fallible arguments

"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 05, 2014, 07:25:36 PM
 #15793

so instead of giving me a rational argument about why my above scenario is wrong, you'd rather deflect the issue?

The argument is here :

Therefore you propose that some users will prefer storing their value in a sideshitcoin that is more volatile, less risk-averse, less secure and has no distinct feature.

Can you argue this is not plausible?
but scZC is MM'd and direct mined for security alongside the scBTC.  therefore it is more secure than today's altcoins.  sure, the exchange price for scZC might be volatile as are altcoins today but b/c it has the advantage of being MM'd and direct mined as a result of scBTC being attracted to this SC for the same perfect anonymity reasons, it should do better than today's altcoins.
Quote
any nowhere did i say that miners will not care to mine or MM this scZC.  i said the opposite, they would be encouraged to mine or MM it.

Yes you did, right here :

and once scZC establishes a value, miners will be encouraged to direct mine or MM.

This suggest before scZC establish considerable value there is no incentive for miners to MM or mine them

Bitcoin started of at $0.  "there was no incentive to mine them" yet they were. once they were bought and traded, price started to rise. scZC only has to be mined by its dev to get things going.
Quote

the scBTC have no every reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put.  

 Huh You realise this goes against every one of your arguments. Indeed, the scBTC defeats every reason to put anyone's value anywhere else because of the risk free put. The risk free put doesn't exist on the shitsidecoin





fixed it.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 07:29:26 PM
 #15794

what i'm saying is you're letting altcoins/sidecoins/SC's into the core engine of the Bitcoin business by allowing them to hitch themselves to the Bitcoin blockchain and siphon BTC currency via the 2wp as well as luring Bitcoin miners to MM.  if the altcoin/sidecoin/SC can offer attractive features like perfect anonymity to scBTC holders, why wouldn't BTC holders migrate to it when they have the risk free put?

Here is the fundamental problem/misunderstanding in your argument. Sidecoins have no risk free put. Only 1:1 scBTC have. This is precisely why there will be no interest to invest in a sidecoin when there is a scBTC that offers the same feature AND the risk-free put

what's wrong with you?  why do you keep trying to ascribe that "misunderstanding" to me?  anyone following this knows i know only scBTC have the 1:1 peg.  i'm beginning to think you're a shill here despite your denial.

Quote
the double whammy comes with the scZC with an initial low price, maybe $0.006/scZC.  since investors/speculators understand the importance of anonymity as a desired feature, they will buy these up like crazy b/c if they're right, the entire BTC holding community might have to migrate over to this chain increasing its usage and ultimate value.  if other speculators follow on by buying up scZC at higher prices, this further increases the value of the SC.  miners will leave the Bitcoin MC to take advantage of all these dynamics.

btw you can buy Monero right now, perfect anonymity, and you only have to pay a fraction of BTC's price, a real bargain! don't lose your chance!

care to tell me the difference between scZC and Monero?

i just told you severl times thru several examples.  the 2wp breaks the link btwn BTC the currency and its blockchain and allows scZC to take advantage of certain dynamics that Monero can't.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 07:30:34 PM
 #15795

and i never said the scZC have the risk free put.  only scBTC.

you're purposely misrepresenting my arguments.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 07:33:19 PM
 #15796

why wouldn't a new investor buy scZC on a fiat exchange?  why wouldn't a miner want to not only mine tx fees for scBTC as well as mine scZC block rewards + scZC tx fees?

don't say there is no one "using" scZC.  Bitcoin's price started out at $0 when no one was "using" it.  look what happened to it.

Why? Because it's essentially a new alt coin. How is the actual zerocoin doing? Any miners bothered merged mining it?

The new investor can either buy the scZC and expose himself to all the risks or buy BTC and use the scBTC zerocoin feature pegged 1:1 with the risk-free put.

Which one would you use?

Sidechains are there to create new applications/features that are not possible on the Bitcoin chain. There's no reason why you would create a sidecoin on top because it defeats the whole purpose of the 2wp.

if the scZC is priced at, let's say $0.006/scZC compared to $342/BTC, i would buy the coin with the greater upside (scZC) that has the same anonymity feature as scBTC since the SC has MM for security with actual direct mining from small miners defecting.

He doesn't understand that sidecoin = altcoin.

He can't comprehend why there is no more incentive for miners to merge mine or smaller miners to direct mine sidecoins than regular altcoins.

He doesn't want to admit that the market wants to protect the value of their investment and make it possible to use new features : the essence of sidechains.

Or maybe he does, but he is so disingenuous he will not admit it.

This has been the entire problem with this thread IMHO. The arguments for sidechains (true sidechains with 1:1 pegging) are getting merged with the arguments against altcoins.

Most of the "discussion" against sidechains is focused on saying that SC's are a backdoor method to enable altcoins, which damage the value of the mainchain. This is cypherdoc's argument above in saying that he would buy scZC at $0.006 for the upside potential.

But this is wrong, altcoins already exist today and have no practical effect on Bitcoin. Example: there are tons of "faster" altcoins and they are dying. Example: there are tons of altcoins capable of MM with Bticoin, but most are ignored by miners. In the end network effects will ensure there is only one true ledger, and that ledger is going to be Bitcoin's 21M coins. Sidechains that implement an altcoin aspect, will see that that altcoin will be as successful at today's altcoins.

The beauty of sidechains is they enable new features to be added to the Bitcoin mainchain 21M BTC ecosystem, while not requiring risky hard forks of the mainchain. This will grow the value of that 21M coins.

I have seen no valid arguments against this.

I haven't had time to go over the 100+ pages on the topic

And it shows.

You missed my point. It was not that I am not familiar with SC's because I haven't tracked the 100 pages here very closely. It was that I think the 100+ pages have mostly been hysterical noise. I understand your argument 2 posts up, I just disagree completely with it.


instead of making pronouncements, you should get into the details of what i'm saying to prove me wrong.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 07:33:22 PM
 #15797

Cypherdoc, I would like to know your real intentions. Why are you trying to confuse people.

Are you invested in an alt-coin and now your investment is evaporating ?
Are you trolling ?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 07:38:35 PM
 #15798

but scZC is MM'd and direct mined for security alongside the scBTC.  therefore it is more secure than today's altcoins.  sure, the exchange price for scZC might be volatile as are altcoins today but b/c it has the advantage of being MM'd and direct mined as a result of scBTC being attracted to this SC for the same perfect anonymity reasons, it should do better than today's altcoins.

No, the sidecoin is only MM if there is value in it. The comparison to Bitcoin is asinine. Bitcoin had no competition. There was no choice for miners or better use of their resource

Bitcoin started of at $0.  "there was no incentive to mine them" yet they were. once they were bought and traded, price started to rise. scZC only has to be mined by its dev to get things going.

If it's only mined by its dev than it make it a HUGE security risk. Exactly like any other altcoins. Again, no one wants to store their value on extremely volatile sidecoins that are considerably more risky, less secure and have no distinct feature.

the scBTC have no every reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put.  

there is no risk free put on the scZC

"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 05, 2014, 07:39:17 PM
 #15799

Cypherdoc, I would like to know your real intentions. Why are you trying to confuse people.

Are you invested in an alt-coin and now your investment is evaporating ?
Are you trolling ?

i have no altcoin investments and i don't have any equity investments any Bitcoin companies or altcoins companies.

i have no conflict of interest as i've already stated whatsoever.  but you already read that, didn't you?  

i actually would like to propose that perhaps you and brg444 are paid shills?  

no ones given me any good arguments to mine that i've seen.  all i see are pronouncements and misleading allegations.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 07:40:55 PM
 #15800

and i never said the scZC have the risk free put.  only scBTC.

you're purposely misrepresenting my arguments.

the scBTC have no every reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put.  

 Huh

"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 ... 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] 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 ... 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!