Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 04:24:05 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 ... 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 [1097] 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010810 times)
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 09:22:34 AM
 #21921

I cannot see any noteworthy economic disadvantages with sidechains. 
I can think of a big one. You cannot use Proof of Work on a sidechain. Therefore you accept security and/or counterparty risk. It will up to the sidechain user to determine how much risk to accept.

proof of work wont make it to the mainstream.
1billionTM people will never benefit from it ~directly.
its insane. they just need ~apps.

ETFs, sidechains, offchains, blythechains.. whatever.
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.
1511281445
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281445

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281445
Reply with quote  #2

1511281445
Report to moderator
1511281445
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281445

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281445
Reply with quote  #2

1511281445
Report to moderator
1511281445
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281445

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281445
Reply with quote  #2

1511281445
Report to moderator
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
March 12, 2015, 09:35:49 AM
 #21922

It isn't the 20MB block size that scares me, it is the automatic doubling every two years until we reach 20GB blocks. This scares the crap out of me because if a problem turns up we need a fork to pause the scaling.

I'm starting to wonder if forks are really that big a deal.

Imagine if all the exchanges were set up to handle economic arbitrage of two or more forks. Say you have 20 BTC on Bitstamp when a fork happens. Your account is automatically split into 20 BTC in BitcoinOld and 20BTC in BitcoinNew. If you don't know/care about the fork, you do nothing. If you think one of the two is obviously more viable and/or obviously more likely to get support, you immediately start selling BTC in one for BTC in the other.

Since everyone is doing the same, I bet this all plays out in a matter of minutes because once the trend becomes clear it will snowball since no one wants to be on the losing fork. Luckily, again, you can sit out the arbitrage and leave your stash untouched whichever fork wins. It's just that you can earn yourself some extra coin if you guess the winning fork correctly.

Now to guard against possible glitches in BitcoinNew, even if it wins in initial trading, BitcoinOld will probably still retain some value for a time - for instance 10% of its former value for a few days or weeks - as a representation of an estimated 10% probability of a glitch in BitcoinNew. After that it would likely fade into nothingness. All the while your bitcoins are safe no matter the outcome.

Not only is this far faster than waiting for "consensus," it also ties more solidly into the basic economics of Bitcoin itself. As Daniel Krawisz has pointed out, where investors go, everyone else follows. Investors have the ultimate control, so the forking process should reflect this and exchanges should be setting their systems up for this.
uki
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


cryptojunk bag holder


View Profile
March 12, 2015, 10:52:13 AM
 #21923

Meanwhile, US Dollar Index is about to cross 100.
Looks toppish to me. Two important levels 100 (psychological) and 101.50.
Expect a correction from there. Gold doesn't look that bad so far.

Looks topish? lol check the monthly.. its prob about half way through

yes, it looks toppish to me, weekly chart with gold overlay attached below:



Do you think further move of dollar at such pace is sustainable? You say half way through, do you really expect to see 120? Do you know what consequences it would have for global economies?

Ps. don't need more lols, let's talk arguments and charts.

this space is intentionally left blank
uki
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


cryptojunk bag holder


View Profile
March 12, 2015, 10:56:07 AM
 #21924

Gold collapsing.  Bitcoin UP.

nice ramp in the dollar going on right now.  something's up.
gold in the dead cat bounce today, Bitcoin correcting slightly.
Last support in gold is the November low at $1130 and then $1094 at the quarterly chart.

this space is intentionally left blank
Spaceman_Spiff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638


₪``Campaign Manager´´₪


View Profile
March 12, 2015, 01:53:29 PM
 #21925

I don't sell (much) at the tops.  I don't want to be known as the guy who bilked lots of suckers out of $ if Bitcoin fails.  I want to be known as a guy who identified BTC's potential as a force for positive social change through economics early and invested accordingly.
I don't see how selling at the tops is immoral.  If anything it is praiseworthy, since selling at the top and buying at the bottom will smoothen out BTC's price, resulting in lower volatility and greater usability for commerce, store-of-value etc. .  

Selling at the top gives you the ammo needed to buy at the bottom.  
By buying at the bottom you are showing your faith in the continued existence of bitcoin, and stop a feedback loop of declining prices leading to less interest and a smaller network.  
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
March 12, 2015, 03:29:37 PM
 #21926

I don't sell (much) at the tops.  I don't want to be known as the guy who bilked lots of suckers out of $ if Bitcoin fails.  I want to be known as a guy who identified BTC's potential as a force for positive social change through economics early and invested accordingly.
I don't see how selling at the tops is immoral.  If anything it is praiseworthy, since selling at the top and buying at the bottom will smoothen out BTC's price, resulting in lower volatility and greater usability for commerce, store-of-value etc. .  

Selling at the top gives you the ammo needed to buy at the bottom.  
By buying at the bottom you are showing your faith in the continued existence of bitcoin, and stop a feedback loop of declining prices leading to less interest and a smaller network.  

Yes, like most real world activities the situation is not morally clear cut.  And I do sell some at the tops and certainly have bought on the way down.  Perhaps you are right, the real evil is the hype cycle that gets the suckers to invest.  Ofc without the hype cycle there would not be enough media coverage to pull in everyone else.

I cannot see any noteworthy economic disadvantages with sidechains. 
I can think of a big one. You cannot use Proof of Work on a sidechain. Therefore you accept security and/or counterparty risk. It will up to the sidechain user to determine how much risk to accept.

... and for those people who think that a sidechain might somehow "take over" from Bitcoin, this additional risk is a big reason why one won't.

It isn't the 20MB block size that scares me, it is the automatic doubling every two years until we reach 20GB blocks. This scares the crap out of me because if a problem turns up we need a fork to pause the scaling.

I'm starting to wonder if forks are really that big a deal.

I think that its fascinating.  A fork is like quantum mechanics applied to the real world.  In other words both possibilities exist simultaneously until an event (everybody selling one fork and buying the other) collapses the probability wave.


Bitcoin has all the properties of a super money that gold can only aspire to be.  That has to be on your radar.
Bitcoin is literally at a fork.  One path leads to super-gold, the other leads to yet another forgettable/replaceable retail token.

Why "forgettable/replaceable retail token"?  You could just as easily have said "spendable super gold".

I think that the promise of Bitcoin is, at its core, disintermediation (transfer to anyone, anywhere, nearly instantly).  This is where it gains its intrinsic value which then supports the value holders put on it by holding.  But if it costs too much for individuals to make transactions, then txns must be posted through intermediaries who as Circle/Coinbase have shown are susceptible to all the problems with today's banking system.  "Welcome the new boss same as the old boss". 

Sidechains could solve some of that problem which is why it is interesting to consider them alongside the block size; I suppose we could have sidechains for daily spending and Bitcoin could be essentially be your super-gold "savings account".  A carefully designed sidechain would still achieve disintermediation.  But money flow between sidechains and Bitcoin will not be quick so it would not be and ideal situation, and is still not achieveable with 1MB block sizes.

So I think we should accept Gavin's scalability plan, and guess what?  its not set in stone.  If it scales faster than the available hardware, we can always change it.

Really, the crux of the argument for me is this:

The worst case with the scalability plan is that individuals can't in practice be full nodes, but can STILL hold BTC in local wallets and spend them.

The worst case without scalability is that individuals must trust intermediaries to hold their BTC because a single txn is so expensive it must be aggregated -- i.e. the same banking system we have today. 

(none of the awesome functionality like multi-sig "custodial" accounts can be used (on a per customer basis); they all require a transaction to unlock the funds which would be too expensive to do per customer)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 03:51:26 PM
 #21927

You just can't stop it ;

http://www.cityam.com/211436/new-report-goldman-sachs-shows-why-bitcoin-here-stay
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 03:58:06 PM
 #21928

Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 06:10:11 PM
 #21929

300 coming right up.

 Once we get through it, we should see a nice pop. 
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
March 12, 2015, 06:13:22 PM
 #21930

I cannot see any noteworthy economic disadvantages with sidechains. 
I can think of a big one. You cannot use Proof of Work on a sidechain. Therefore you accept security and/or counterparty risk. It will up to the sidechain user to determine how much risk to accept.

proof of work wont make it to the mainstream.
1billionTM people will never benefit from it ~directly.
its insane. they just need ~apps.

ETFs, sidechains, offchains, blythechains.. whatever.

blythechains, now that's a thought. What have we wrought.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
March 12, 2015, 06:58:39 PM
 #21931

I cannot see any noteworthy economic disadvantages with sidechains. 
I can think of a big one. You cannot use Proof of Work on a sidechain.  Therefore you accept security and/or counterparty risk. It will up to the sidechain user to determine how much risk to accept.

Those are neither 'economic' disadvantages, especially from Bitcoin's perspective, nor are they meaningful or true.

Firstly, there is a strong incentive on the parts of the Blocksteam folks to design out counter-party risk, and as engineering problems go it is little or no more difficult than doing so in Satoshi's Bitcoin.  At least as long as Satoshi's Bitcoin itself can be relied upon in this respect.

Secondly, note that if one has a backing such as Bitcoin or gold, one does not need to rely on POW for this function.  One could use POW to a much lesser degree to shore up internal bookeeping to keep away the ankle-biters, but that's a secondary design issue and not terribly important.  The backing currency is the ONE system which actually NEEDS absolute security and Bitcoin has ONLY POW to achieve this.  Alts don't have this advantage since they tend to try to occupy the same place as Bitcoin.  Bitcoin can transfer it's security to other solutions with no net loss.  Just the opposite, really, because the more solutions relying on Bitcoin (and likely supporting native Bitcoin in some manner in most sidechains designs I would guess), the better.

The main thing that a user of a backing needs is for that backing to be solid and usable.  For gold this would mean some combination of physical security and transparency.  Gold was not discontinued as a backing currency because these things were impossibly to achieve, but rather because there was a desire by TPTB to get away from a non-inflationary base currency because they wanted an inflationary monetary system.  Achieving transparency and security for Gold would be, while possible, very much less efficient than with Bitcoin.

I think people lose sight of the value of POW in Bitcoin also.  Say you have a speeding semi truck that you wish to stop.  You build a wall of reinforced concrete which is 100' thick.  (Today's sha256.)  How much value is there to making the wall 200' thick?  Twice?  Nope.  There are other ways to attack the wall which will be explored, and a defender would be well advised to try to anticipate these and defend against them accordingly.

As nonsensical as it is to assign a simplistic linear value function in wall thickness as above, it is even more silly to reject any wall for any purpose simply because it isn't as strong as the massively over-spec'd wall for stopping the speeding semi truck.

As long as I have a reliable store of wealth in native Bitcoin, I care very little about the relatively less security of a sidechain (if it is even that much different.)  My uses of the two solutions will be entirely different.  True, in a sidechain failure I might get stung paying native Bitcoin transaction fees to get my money out upon a sidechain failure, but it's not an event that would be common but rather just a hypothetical issue which would give me confidence to use the solution and lessen the incentive for people to run bogus sidechains for the purposes of ripping people off (like some alts for instance.)

I do see it as rational to exclude some people from the highest echelons of monetary security (e.g., native Bitcoin.)  When I was younger I was sometimes lucky to have enough money in my bank account to pay my car insurance or buy a bag of weed.  Did I have some God-given right or entitlement to have my $25 balance secured in a Swiss vault on someone else's dime?  Absolutely not, and I never dreamed to ask for it.  My money, even if it represented half  of my life's savings was never at significant risk in part because if was only $25 on not worth the bother to steal.


molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 09:07:48 PM
 #21932

another ramp in dollar starting right now.  look out risk assets...

more deflation, bad for gold.....until US doesn't raise rates.

Gold price is rising currently, along with US$. Not uncommon, just an unholy alliance, albeit temporary, I assume.

money is fleeing from somewhere... the Eurozone, I guess?

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 09:15:29 PM
 #21933

It isn't the 20MB block size that scares me, it is the automatic doubling every two years until we reach 20GB blocks. This scares the crap out of me because if a problem turns up we need a fork to pause the scaling.

I'm starting to wonder if forks are really that big a deal.

Imagine if all the exchanges were set up to handle economic arbitrage of two or more forks. Say you have 20 BTC on Bitstamp when a fork happens. Your account is automatically split into 20 BTC in BitcoinOld and 20BTC in BitcoinNew. If you don't know/care about the fork, you do nothing. If you think one of the two is obviously more viable and/or obviously more likely to get support, you immediately start selling BTC in one for BTC in the other.

Since everyone is doing the same, I bet this all plays out in a matter of minutes because once the trend becomes clear it will snowball since no one wants to be on the losing fork. Luckily, again, you can sit out the arbitrage and leave your stash untouched whichever fork wins. It's just that you can earn yourself some extra coin if you guess the winning fork correctly.

Now to guard against possible glitches in BitcoinNew, even if it wins in initial trading, BitcoinOld will probably still retain some value for a time - for instance 10% of its former value for a few days or weeks - as a representation of an estimated 10% probability of a glitch in BitcoinNew. After that it would likely fade into nothingness. All the while your bitcoins are safe no matter the outcome.

Not only is this far faster than waiting for "consensus," it also ties more solidly into the basic economics of Bitcoin itself. As Daniel Krawisz has pointed out, where investors go, everyone else follows. Investors have the ultimate control, so the forking process should reflect this and exchanges should be setting their systems up for this.

I agree.

I would like this scenario a lot more if we replaced "exchanges set up to handle multiple forks" to "wallets/nodes set up to handle multiple forks".

Maybe I should prepare for such scenario and have a node / wallet ready that does that. Anyone have a suggestion?

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 09:24:33 PM
 #21934

If you spend bitcoins on one fork then anybody can publish same transaction on other chain ... I think :-)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 09:28:22 PM
 #21935

If you spend bitcoins on one fork then anybody can publish same transaction on other chain ... I think :-)

Yes, but not if the transaction references a coinbase from after the fork directly or indirectly. So 100 blocks after the fork (assuming this rule is not changed), fungibility with respect to publishing on both would start to break.



molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 09:42:50 PM
 #21936

If you spend bitcoins on one fork then anybody can publish same transaction on other chain ... I think :-)

The wallet could manage that by moving the coins to fresh own address on the other chain?

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2015, 09:51:46 PM
 #21937

Bitcoin is literally at a fork.  One path leads to super-gold, the other leads to yet another forgettable/replaceable retail token.

Why "forgettable/replaceable retail token"?  You could just as easily have said "spendable super gold".

I think that the promise of Bitcoin is, at its core, disintermediation (transfer to anyone, anywhere, nearly instantly).  This is where it gains its intrinsic value which then supports the value holders put on it by holding.  But if it costs too much for individuals to make transactions, then txns must be posted through intermediaries who as Circle/Coinbase have shown are susceptible to all the problems with today's banking system.  "Welcome the new boss same as the old boss". 

Sidechains could solve some of that problem which is why it is interesting to consider them alongside the block size; I suppose we could have sidechains for daily spending and Bitcoin could be essentially be your super-gold "savings account".  A carefully designed sidechain would still achieve disintermediation.  But money flow between sidechains and Bitcoin will not be quick so it would not be and ideal situation, and is still not achieveable with 1MB block sizes.

So I think we should accept Gavin's scalability plan, and guess what?  its not set in stone.  If it scales faster than the available hardware, we can always change it.

Really, the crux of the argument for me is this:

The worst case with the scalability plan is that individuals can't in practice be full nodes, but can STILL hold BTC in local wallets and spend them.

The worst case without scalability is that individuals must trust intermediaries to hold their BTC because a single txn is so expensive it must be aggregated -- i.e. the same banking system we have today. 

(none of the awesome functionality like multi-sig "custodial" accounts can be used (on a per customer basis); they all require a transaction to unlock the funds which would be too expensive to do per customer)

We need to get this right the first time.  One does not simply "always change it."  Otherwise hard forks would be called 'easy forks.'   Cheesy

When TOR and other slow/hardened connections are excluded by GavinBlocks, users must then trust their ISP/.gov/etc. to not snoop on or throttle/banhammer their nodes.  This creates intolerable intermediaries at the network layer, which destroys the basis for BTC's antifragility and thus its unique/intrinsic store-of-value function.

We can't ignore the trade off between retail suitability and super-gold fitness.  Trade-offs, like diminishing marginal returns, are economic law. 

Some of us simply won't be able to afford Bitcoin when it assumes its rightful position as Gold 2.0.  Let's accept that and move on, instead of rejiggering everything just to appease us pikers at great risk to the whales who do the heavy lifting to keep BTC viable and growing.  If you can't afford regular gold now, what makes you think you have the right to expect affordable SuperGold?

Many of us will actively resist network degradation and less super-gold fitness in exchange for more retail noise accommodation and uncertainty about the impact of exponential blocksize growth.  It's not just the initial 20MB Gavinblocks, it's the >>20MB Gigablocks that kick in relatively soon which concern those of us who care about the weakest links in the system's chain.

Individuals making low value tx don't have to trust Paymium or other off-chain intermediaries so long as plenty of capacity exists in 2nd tier altcoins' blockchains.  Litecoin, for example, is secured by more than enough ASICs and GPUs to be perfectly acceptable for small and medium size daily retail consumer BS.

Let's also note that blockchain technology, by enabling unprecedented transparency and real time auditing, allows us to keep our off-chain overlords on a short leash.  As Davout put it so succinctly:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

This is sig-worthy quote really gets to the crux of the 'retail token vs super-gold' fissure, and makes clear why the FUD of Fundamentalist Monopolists ("Thou shall have no other coins before Holy BTC, lest you be cast into the off-chain lake of fiat") is unfounded.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2015, 09:57:14 PM
 #21938

I cannot see any noteworthy economic disadvantages with sidechains. 
I can think of a big one. You cannot use Proof of Work on a sidechain. Therefore you accept security and/or counterparty risk. It will up to the sidechain user to determine how much risk to accept.

I think Team Sidechain sees that as a feature, not a bug.   Grin

It's also one of my reasons for believing BTC's antifragility will endure and win out or equilibrate versus the 'free options -> hollowed out mainchain' scenario cypher describes.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 10:02:49 PM
 #21939

Question about economics: say we have a hard fork coming up and people expect 2 chains with trading as described earlier by Zangelbert. Will that generate buying pressure on BTC (vs. fiat) beforehand because everyone wants to participate in 'the doubling' of coins?

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 10:16:00 PM
 #21940

Question about economics: say we have a hard fork coming up and people expect 2 chains with trading as described earlier by Zangelbert. Will that generate buying pressure on BTC (vs. fiat) beforehand because everyone wants to participate in 'the doubling' of coins?

It happens all the time with stock spinoffs. Sometimes there is is some effect when the announcement is made if the move is unexpected and viewed as positive but the actual spinoff itself doesn't move the stock much usually.

To make a specific example here, if the infrastructure were in place to do everything like this smoothly and a fork like that to increase the block size were announced I think the price of BTC would go up, not because of the doubling but because of the damn block size being fixed. However, the ability to pull off these kinds of upgrade forks would be more important than the actual content of the fork. Just my opinions.

BTW, something very similar is discussed at some length here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0 (referencing back to this thread!)

Adam Back's one-way peg idea (before it got, er, "improved" to the two way peg) was similar in net effect but slightly different (existing owners get a call option on newcoin at par instead of getting newcoin directly). I think this is slightly worse overall, but it is debatable.

EDIT: clarify difference between spin off and one way peg.


Pages: « 1 ... 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 [1097] 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 ... 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!