Bitcoin Forum
November 25, 2017, 08:24:56 AM *
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 ... 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 [860] 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2014113 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 09:57:34 PM
 #17181

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

yes.  most ppl missed the point of a post i made the other night.

by destroying Bitcoins sound money principle by inserting an offramp into source, you effectively make the destination speculative SC's inflationary.

This is complete non-sense.

Off ramp created by federated sidechains can be equally speculative & inflationary.

SPVProof is neutral and has no inherent inflation attached. The sidechain issued from a SPVProof are whatever their creator make them to be.

yes, and they can't get to 1st base unless the spvp is inserted into source.
1511598296
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511598296

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511598296
Reply with quote  #2

1511598296
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now 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.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 09:58:07 PM
 #17182

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

yes.  most ppl missed the point of a post i made the other night.

by destroying Bitcoins sound money principle by inserting an offramp into source, you effectively make the destination speculative SC's inflationary.
it will be hard lesson you will be learnt in the next year.

why?
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 10:04:35 PM
 #17183

no counter-party risk.
Bullshit.

Find one credible source who will go on record saying that sidechain units carry zero counterparty risk compared to bitcoins.

Actually the sidechains whitepaper was fairly explicit about saying the opposite.

Reducing counterparty risk is a worthy goal, however one can't build solutions to a problem that one refuses to acknowledge.

Anybody who thinks that counterparty risk for promissory notes can be eliminated is delusional.

Managed? Sure. Reduced? Absolutely. Eliminated? Never.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 10:12:55 PM
 #17184

c'mon man, you do realize what you're saying and how contorted it is?  let me summarize:

"b/c spvp SC's are insecure b/c they won't be MM'd, Blockstream will develop federated SC's instead.  b/c federated SC's will prevent miners from collecting tx fees, we should therefore adopt spvp SC's even though they're insecure and then they can be MM'd."  Roll Eyes

 Cheesy You are so basic.

SPvp SC's will be MM only at the extent that they support a considerable part of the economy and enable a service/feature/application that command a level of decentralization & security on the same level as BTC.

Examples are utility sidechains that serve a money function : fast txs, anonymity. I'm sure there will be more of these but not 1000s or BILLIONS.

These chains are likely the ones that will be supporting a majority of the network transactions, surely enough to satisfy the miners' incentives.

Federated servers sidechains will support more corporation type, centralized sidechains that demand more control and oversight over the chain's parameters. They will be the model of choice for any entity that cannot secure the backing of a majority of the mining network.

SPVProof enables a balance between both types and provides an insurance for the miners incentives.

"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 16, 2014, 10:15:02 PM
 #17185

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

yes.  most ppl missed the point of a post i made the other night.

by destroying Bitcoins sound money principle by inserting an offramp into source, you effectively make the destination speculative SC's inflationary.

This is complete non-sense.

Off ramp created by federated sidechains can be equally speculative & inflationary.

SPVProof is neutral and has no inherent inflation attached. The sidechain issued from a SPVProof are whatever their creator make them to be.

yes, and they can't get to 1st base unless the spvp is inserted into source.

Yes they can : create a speculative federated sidechain today!


"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 16, 2014, 10:18:21 PM
 #17186

no counter-party risk.
Bullshit.

Find one credible source who will go on record saying that sidechain units carry zero counterparty risk compared to bitcoins.

Actually the sidechains whitepaper was fairly explicit about saying the opposite.

Reducing counterparty risk is a worthy goal, however one can't build solutions to a problem that one refuses to acknowledge.

Anybody who thinks that counterparty risk for promissory notes can be eliminated is delusional.

Managed? Sure. Reduced? Absolutely. Eliminated? Never.

It can be reduced to the same extent that counterparty is reduced in Bitcoin.

Sidechains are open source code integrated to Bitcoin on the protocol level. If you trust the maths and they are sound, I don't see how they are any less protected from counterparty risk than Bitcoin is. They are effectively an extension of Bitcoin.

Please point out the additional counterparty risk of a 1:1 open-source & properly implemented sidechain that is MM 100%.


"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
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 10:20:18 PM
 #17187

Please point out the additional counterparty risk of a 1:1 open-source & properly implemented sidechain that is MM 100%.
Please explain the mechanism via which merged mining solves the distributed consensus problem.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 10:30:34 PM
 #17188

Please point out the additional counterparty risk of a 1:1 open-source & properly implemented sidechain that is MM 100%.
Please explain the mechanism via which merged mining solves the distributed consensus problem.

Are you insinuating that this mechanism leads to more centralization and therefore more counterparty risk?

Stop playing around and just say what's on your mind, you don't appear to me to be someone who usually play the cat and mouse game.

I expect your usual candor in your next response.

"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
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 10:52:51 PM
 #17189

Are you insinuating that this mechanism leads to more centralization and therefore more counterparty risk?

Stop playing around and just say what's on your mind, you don't appear to me to be someone who usually play the cat and mouse game.
I'm insinuating that you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to counterparty risk, centralization, or distributed consensus.

The reason I know this is because of how you worded your previous comment - your scenario was a "100% merge mined" sidechain.

Of course that makes sense, right?

1. Hashing is what makes Bitcoin secure
2. More hashing equals more security
3. Therefore any chain that has an equal amount of hashing power as Bitcoin will be equally secure.

Sounds great, except the first premise is false, therefore so is the conclusion.

Hashing isn't what secures Bitcoin - opportunity cost is what secures Bitcoin.

Anybody who doesn't understand that is not qualified to evaluate the security properties of sidechains.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 11:00:50 PM
 #17190

You are dispicible, and I regret ever coming to your defense in previous "troll battles".  If your own privacy is so important, how can you justity putting a bounty on someone else's personal life?  Talk about a double standard.

dude, you really have trouble defining your own ethics don't you?  


Should have let me out you... we could have split the bounty.


 Cheesy Cheesy

of course! to no surprise cypher doesn't catch an obvious sarcasm/joke attempt

Exactly, weaseling his way out of answering the question.  I really do regret helping to create this monster, but we are all foolish from time to time.

The biggest tip off to his dishonesty is that he never admits the smallest imperfection.  Only idiots and con men display such behavior, so which is it cypher?

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 11:06:34 PM
 #17191

Are you insinuating that this mechanism leads to more centralization and therefore more counterparty risk?

Stop playing around and just say what's on your mind, you don't appear to me to be someone who usually play the cat and mouse game.
I'm insinuating that you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to counterparty risk, centralization, or distributed consensus.

The reason I know this is because of how you worded your previous comment - your scenario was a "100% merge mined" sidechain.

Of course that makes sense, right?

1. Hashing is what makes Bitcoin secure
2. More hashing equals more security
3. Therefore any chain that has an equal amount of hashing power as Bitcoin will be equally secure.

Sounds great, except the first premise is false, therefore so is the conclusion.

Hashing isn't what secures Bitcoin - opportunity cost is what secures Bitcoin.

Anybody who doesn't understand that is not qualified to evaluate the security properties of sidechains.

It seems to me attacking any sidechain that is mined by all miners offers no less opportunity cost than attacking BTC.

I don't claim to understand everything. I do know that comparing sidechains to mere promissory notes is disingenuous in itself.

Bottom line is it appears to me sidechains are our best attempt so far at reducing the counterparty risk implied by off-chain/sidechain schemes.

"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 16, 2014, 11:18:43 PM
 #17192

Are you insinuating that this mechanism leads to more centralization and therefore more counterparty risk?

Stop playing around and just say what's on your mind, you don't appear to me to be someone who usually play the cat and mouse game.
I'm insinuating that you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to counterparty risk, centralization, or distributed consensus.

The reason I know this is because of how you worded your previous comment - your scenario was a "100% merge mined" sidechain.

Of course that makes sense, right?

1. Hashing is what makes Bitcoin secure
2. More hashing equals more security
3. Therefore any chain that has an equal amount of hashing power as Bitcoin will be equally secure.

Sounds great, except the first premise is false, therefore so is the conclusion.

Hashing isn't what secures Bitcoin - opportunity cost is what secures Bitcoin.

Anybody who doesn't understand that is not qualified to evaluate the security properties of sidechains.

It seems to me attacking any sidechain that is mined by all miners offers no less opportunity cost than attacking BTC.

I don't claim to understand everything. I do know that comparing sidechains to mere promissory notes is disingenuous in itself.

Bottom line is it appears to me sidechains are our best attempt so far at reducing the counterparty risk implied by off-chain/sidechain schemes.

This blog post is a very interesting practical demonstration of the way I'm seeing it.
http://gendal.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/the-unbundling-of-trust-how-to-identify-good-cryptocurrency-opportunities/

Using his centralization continuum here is my view on the debate


"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
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 11:31:26 PM
 #17193

It seems to me attacking any sidechain that is mined by all miners offers no less opportunity cost than attacking BTC.
Read these:

https://gist.github.com/oleganza/8cc921e48f396515c6d6

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 17, 2014, 12:02:55 AM
 #17194

It seems to me attacking any sidechain that is mined by all miners offers no less opportunity cost than attacking BTC.
Read these:

https://gist.github.com/oleganza/8cc921e48f396515c6d6

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

I have read those a while ago and I appreciate you sharing them again but could you explain how MM creates a different opportunity cost  and maybe provide an example?

"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
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
November 17, 2014, 12:11:45 AM
 #17195

I am only able to sample this thread lately due to time constraints so I apologize if my responses have already been covered.

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

But its not really separated is it?  The BTC unit remains on the mainchain, "locked", essentially backing the sidechain.  Its like paper gold being backed by phys, except that it impossible to hide naked paper.  As a one-time holder of phyz gold and silver, I imagine that you'd agree that problems with the paper are unlikely to significantly affect the actual gold in your vault, except perhaps by removing value that the paper conferred (that is, many people think that gold ETFs drove the rise due by opening a larger market, and of course that additional value also floated phys).

yes, we have been through this, that's how thoroughly we've all picked this apart.  i think it's conceptually constipating to stop your view of what's happening at the SPVproof (spvp) border, as if those BTC's always remain on the MC.  no, it's much more illuminating and as a laxative to view the spvp as an offramp into another speculative asset (defined as anything other than BTC which is the only sound hard money) such as Cashcoin, Truthcoin, votecoin, stocks, bonds, prediction markets, anything else.  as well, your model implies that someday these have to just be unlocked on a journey back to mobile BTC.  not true, whatever emerges on the other side of the spvp may never come back as Bitcoin has been forever changed by the mere insertion of the spvp.  i think that mere insertion forever breaks the Bitcoin concept as Sound Money.  it's like throwing the front door of your cattle barn wide open.  at first, nothing happens.  but once the cattle realize they are no longer safe from wolves entering, they start wandering out until you eventually get a stampede.
Quote
Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.

their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.

I would prefer the devs work independently too, but reality isn't perfect.  But again, the BTC are not "flowing off" the Bitcoin ledger... BTC is simply being used to transparently back another chain.

see above.
Quote
there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?

If there really will be 1000 entities who need sidechains, we now have 1000 additional uses for Bitcoin which will massively increase demand for coins and resulting in a huge price increase.  This is a great problem to have.

We already imagine that if Bitcoin gains a large pct of the world's txns, it may not scale, resulting in high txn fees, and therefore may end up being used mostly for large transfers.  In your 1000 entities scenario, the only difference is that instead of large opaque transfers (we don't know anything about the BTC transfer just that it happened), we can see that X coins moved from SC A to SC B.

But running a SC does have overhead and risk.  It seems obvious to me that companies will use the mainchain if possible (that is, it scales and can capture the transaction).

You can't stop innovation.  If in the SC future there will be 1000 sidechains backed with Bitcoin, in the non-SC future there will be 1000 altcoins, and Bitcoin's market cap will be 1000 times lower then it could have been.


brg444 has also changed his argument to "there will only be Blockstream creating 2 utility SC's to now there will be a bunch of Blockstream-like companies like Google, IBM producing SC's in droves".  i believe this new backpedaled theory is what will happen.  that's b/c the spvp has inserted a costless, riskless, backdoor offramp which breaks Bitcoin's hard money security and allows a siphoning of value to these 1000's of SC's as new speculative assets.

once we allow that offramp to be inserted into the source code, it's game over.

Thanks for catching me back up!!!  I have to say that I don't agree with you though.  Although I think your mind is set, I will just lay out my position here and then leave it:  

If anything there will be a mass stampede back INTO the barn (the bitcoin masterchain) if the danger of SPV-coin-stealing materializes or like with altcoins people realize that a particular sidechain is not valuable.  When compared to altcoins, all sidechains let you do is transfer between the Bitcoin chain in a decentralized fashion and keep the value concentrated into the originally formulated 21 million units.  

Off ramps already exist, centralized exchanges let you convert between btc and other altcoins.  But has everyone left bitcoin?  There are compelling reasons to keep bitcoin. They won't leave with sidechains either.  And altcoins are true offramps -- the value leaves the bitcoin ecosystem.  Sidechains keep the value within the bitcoin 21 million limit, enhancing the aggregate ecosystem... as a bitcoin holder, I would much prefer this when (if) someone comes up with a functionally compelling sidechain.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 17, 2014, 12:14:49 AM
 #17196

When a Bitcoin miner starts merge mining Namecoin, how much more opportunity cost do they forfeit compared to the case where they only mine Bitcoin?

The time, electricity, and capex needed for mining Bitcoin doesn't count because that cost is paid for with Bitcoin. From the perspective of Namecoin's security model, it's not an opportunity cost.

If a Bitcoin miner wants to attack Bitcoin's ledger, they have to pay a real cost for it. If a Bitcoin miner wants to attack Namecoin, the cost of the attack is effectively free.

We know how easy it is for Bitcoin miners to attack other double SHA256 ledgers, because they've done it before.

At best, merge mining creates security equivalent to proof of stake.

notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
November 17, 2014, 12:25:21 AM
 #17197

When a Bitcoin miner starts merge mining Namecoin, how much more opportunity cost do they forfeit compared to the case where they only mine Bitcoin?

The time, electricity, and capex needed for mining Bitcoin doesn't count because that cost is paid for with Bitcoin. From the perspective of Namecoin's security model, it's not an opportunity cost.

If a Bitcoin miner wants to attack Bitcoin's ledger, they have to pay a real cost for it. If a Bitcoin miner wants to attack Namecoin, the cost of the attack is effectively free.

We know how easy it is for Bitcoin miners to attack other double SHA256 ledgers, because they've done it before.

At best, merge mining creates security equivalent to proof of stake.



Merge mining may not require more hashes, but it does require CPU, ram, and network resources.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 17, 2014, 12:30:15 AM
 #17198

When a Bitcoin miner starts merge mining Namecoin, how much more opportunity cost do they forfeit compared to the case where they only mine Bitcoin?

The time, electricity, and capex needed for mining Bitcoin doesn't count because that cost is paid for with Bitcoin. From the perspective of Namecoin's security model, it's not an opportunity cost.

If a Bitcoin miner wants to attack Bitcoin's ledger, they have to pay a real cost for it. If a Bitcoin miner wants to attack Namecoin, the cost of the attack is effectively free.

We know how easy it is for Bitcoin miners to attack other double SHA256 ledgers, because they've done it before.

At best, merge mining creates security equivalent to proof of stake.

How is it free if the chain is secured by the same work as BTC !?

If the work produced to secure Namecoin runs parallel to Bitcoins' and is equivalent then the opportunity cost to attack is the same. No?

I understand that there is no more additional work required from the miner but the work produced is enough to simultaneously secure both chains is it not?

"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
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 17, 2014, 12:46:53 AM
 #17199

Generally speaking, there are two different ways in which a miner can behave: they can operate in good faith or they can grief.

Griefer miners have to pay a real cost for their bad behaviour - they expend significant quantities of electricity and capex depreciation which they will never recover.

What if a Bitcoin miner decides to grief the Namecoin blockchain? Mine empty blocks, intentionally orphan valid parts of the chain, run difficulty up and then pull out, attempt double spends of Namecoins, etc.

Their electricity and capex is paid for by the Bitcoins they mine. Sure, they have to spend a little bit in bandwidth to run a Namecoin node, but that cost is insignificant compared to the cost of mining Bitcoin.

This is why merged mining doesn't provide the kind of security that people think it provides. The only security comes from the goodwill of the mining pool operators, without strong economic incentives that make good behaviour much more profitable than bad behaviour.

Just like proof of stake, and also just like central banks.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 17, 2014, 12:54:51 AM
 #17200

Generally speaking, there are two different ways in which a miner can behave: they can operate in good faith or they can grief.

Griefer miners have to pay a real cost for their bad behaviour - they expend significant quantities of electricity and capex depreciation which they will never recover.

What if a Bitcoin miner decides to grief the Namecoin blockchain? Mine empty blocks, intentionally orphan valid parts of the chain, run difficulty up and then pull out, attempt double spends of Namecoins, etc.

Their electricity and capex is paid for by the Bitcoins they mine. Sure, they have to spend a little bit in bandwidth to run a Namecoin node, but that cost is insignificant compared to the cost of mining Bitcoin.

This is why merged mining doesn't provide the kind of security that people think it provides. The only security comes from the goodwill of the mining pool operators, without strong economic incentives that make good behaviour much more profitable than bad behaviour.

Just like proof of stake, and also just like central banks.

I understand.

But this changes in respect to the economic incentive of the chain, correct? If miners profit from the considerable value transfer (transactions fees) on a sidechain then there is more incentive for miners to operate in good faith, right?

If we consider an ideal situation where there is economic incentive for miners to act with good faith do you agree with this model?

"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 ... 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 [860] 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 ... 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!