Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 07:26:11 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 ... 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 [1182] 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022040 times)
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 08:45:22 PM
 #23621



^ Here's a chart that shows the historical blocksize growth along with the limits, the "block fullness," and some commentary on how the limits have changed in the past and may change in the future.

Credit to Solex for the 1MBCON Advisory System Status and DeathAndTaxes for digging up the GitHub commits that introduced the blocksize limits.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
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
May 08, 2015, 08:49:41 PM
 #23622

so why did the /u/blockchain_explorer account get deleted over on Reddit, vigorous 1MB defender?  he first popped up just a coupla days ago after Gavin's proposal?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 08:52:03 PM
 #23623



^ Here's a chart that shows the historical blocksize growth along with the limits, the "block fullness," and some commentary on how the limits have changed in the past and may change in the future.

Credit to Solex for the 1MBCON Advisory System Status and DeathAndTaxes for digging up the GitHub commits that introduced the blocksize limits.

geez, looks to me like we'd have to cut Gavin's adoption time by half to avoid problems.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 09:06:04 PM
 #23624

GBTC volume spiking.  closed @$49.  that's very good.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 09:07:05 PM
 #23625

dow up 275.. i guess dip is over

you're not safe until $DJT goes back up and sets new high which would invalidate the current non-confirmation. in the meantime, it's quite possible for the $DJI to go back up and set a new high but that by itself won't invalidate the non-confirmation.  in fact, that by itself would exacerbate it:

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 10:45:22 PM
 #23626



^ Here's a chart that shows the historical blocksize growth along with the limits, the "block fullness," and some commentary on how the limits have changed in the past and may change in the future.

Credit to Solex for the 1MBCON Advisory System Status and DeathAndTaxes for digging up the GitHub commits that introduced the blocksize limits.

Wow! Very informative graphic, Peter. This needs to be seen more widely.

20/20 hindsight is always easy, and we can see that three things went wrong.

Satoshi implemented the limit back-to-front i.e. it should have required consensus to renew it, not remove it:
If block-height < 123,456
     max-block-size = 1MB

He disappeared before he could use his authority to modify the change.

He did not expect it to become a sacred cow:




marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 11:27:42 PM
 #23627



^ Here's a chart that shows the historical blocksize growth along with the limits, the "block fullness," and some commentary on how the limits have changed in the past and may change in the future.

Credit to Solex for the 1MBCON Advisory System Status and DeathAndTaxes for digging up the GitHub commits that introduced the blocksize limits.

Wow! Very informative graphic, Peter. This needs to be seen more widely.

20/20 hindsight is always easy, and we can see that three things went wrong.

Satoshi implemented the limit back-to-front i.e. it should have required consensus to renew it, not remove it:
If block-height < 123,456
     max-block-size = 1MB

He disappeared before he could use his authority to modify the change.

He did not expect it to become a sacred cow:



C'mon that's totally unfair to the majority of developers (again). It is not simply a 'sacred cow' and that totally over-simplifies the problem while casting negative aspersions against most of the developers.

These guys have worked themselves to the point of mental exhaustion in some cases to keep this thing scaling up to handle the transaction growth rate thus far and have made huge advances. They would all simply agree (ya know, a consensus) to raise the limit if it was such an obvious 'fix', it is not and there are no obvious fixes, that is just wishful thinking by the unthinking majority. Raising the limit is the last ditch 'suck it and see' hail mary pass when everything else has been optimised as much as possible ...

If the limit gets raised substantially above the technological improvements growth rate I'll be pulling the vast majority of my investment out because it is not going to be operating like we thought it would, i.e. it won't be a clearing and settlement digital gold network but a paypal2.0, fun internet googlesque reversable, traceable payments network

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 11:48:18 PM
 #23628

But if it can't handle lots of txns it won't be that either.  Limiting txns to 1MB is giving up b4 the match begins.  1mb is too small for even overlay settlement networks. The only way fwd is to put in the higher txn rates now encourage growth and work on scalability.  U need scarcity and intrinsic value to make a currency.  BTC intrinsic value IS its ease of worldwide cheap txns and large network.  Without that its no different than a unique poker chip or an alt coin.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 11:49:33 PM
 #23629

C'mon that's totally unfair to the majority of developers (again). It is not simply a 'sacred cow' and that totally over-simplifies the problem while casting negative aspersions against most of the developers.

These guys have worked themselves to the point of mental exhaustion in some cases to keep this thing scaling up to handle the transaction growth rate thus far and have made huge advances. They would all simply agree (ya know, a consensus) to raise the limit if it was such an obvious 'fix', it is not and there are no obvious fixes, that is just wishful thinking by the unthinking majority. Raising the limit is the last ditch 'suck it and see' hail mary pass when everything else has been optimised as much as possible ...

If the limit gets raised substantially above the technological improvements growth rate I'll be pulling the vast majority of my investment out because it is not going to be operating like we thought it would, i.e. it won't be a clearing and settlement digital gold network but a paypal2.0, fun internet googlesque reversable, traceable payments network

You are expanding my criticism of the handling of this 1MB issue to a general criticism of the developers. I have nothing but admiration for what they have done for many years, but if it takes a bit of shock-value to get this one issue dealt with - then it is worth it, because ignoring it could undermine the benefit of years of dev work (by stalling the ecosystem and its network effect).

In August last year I attempted a good case for a 3MB limit, trying to buy time, but even this moderate increase found little favor.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709970.msg8129058#msg8129058
Since then,  the LN paper* has appeared, and there is even less reason for delay in buying time, because there is a very real chance that a high-volume layer can be built over Bitcoin while keeping main-chain usage to a minimum. Why won't the devs buy a few years?
(I note that ArcticMine who was active in the 1MB debate last year has given up on the argument and moved his investment into Monero. This problem is already forcing people away from Bitcoin and the limit is not yet impinging on user-experience).

I really hate conspiracy theories, and am not quite yet with JR on how there might be ulterior motives behind the scenes. But what else can be done to advance a solution?

*edit: Joseph Poon's and Thaddeus Dryja's paper

marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 12:02:52 AM
 #23630

Quote
BTC intrinsic value IS its ease of worldwide cheap txns and large network.

Wrong, you could get that with Ripple. The utility value of bitcoin is decentralised, irreversible, permissionless settlement and clearing, (trust no-one consensus) ... like SWIFT but better. Bitcoin will get more valuable the less people can use it but want to, like any desirable scarce resource commodity. The demand already exists and the miner's are providing the secure commodity.

The days of people writing graffitti and spam into the blockchain ending will be the evidence that it is finally useful only as a monetary network, not some kind of toy ... who would use SWIFT to message banal profanities?

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 12:04:32 AM
 #23631

These guys have worked themselves to the point of mental exhaustion in some cases to keep this thing scaling up to handle the transaction growth rate thus far and have made huge advances. They would all simply agree (ya know, a consensus) to raise the limit if it was such an obvious 'fix', it is not and there are no obvious fixes, that is just wishful thinking by the unthinking majority. Raising the limit is the last ditch 'suck it and see' hail mary pass when everything else has been optimised as much as possible ...

If the limit gets raised substantially above the technological improvements growth rate I'll be pulling the vast majority of my investment out because it is not going to be operating like we thought it would, i.e. it won't be a clearing and settlement digital gold network but a paypal2.0, fun internet googlesque reversable, traceable payments network

You are doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing. There is no consensus or even an easy answer, whether Bitcoin should be a "clearing and settlement digital gold network" or a "payments network" (I don't think too many want it to be reversible and traceable but you are injecting that as a form of commentary). If there were an easy answer, it would already be accepted as consensus, but there isn't and it isn't.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 12:13:21 AM
 #23632

These guys have worked themselves to the point of mental exhaustion in some cases to keep this thing scaling up to handle the transaction growth rate thus far and have made huge advances. They would all simply agree (ya know, a consensus) to raise the limit if it was such an obvious 'fix', it is not and there are no obvious fixes, that is just wishful thinking by the unthinking majority. Raising the limit is the last ditch 'suck it and see' hail mary pass when everything else has been optimised as much as possible ...

If the limit gets raised substantially above the technological improvements growth rate I'll be pulling the vast majority of my investment out because it is not going to be operating like we thought it would, i.e. it won't be a clearing and settlement digital gold network but a paypal2.0, fun internet googlesque reversable, traceable payments network

You are doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing. There is no consensus or even an easy answer, whether Bitcoin should be a "clearing and settlement digital gold network" or a "payments network" (I don't think too many want it to be reversible and traceable but you are injecting that as a form of commentary). If there were an easy answer, it would already be accepted as consensus, but there isn't and it isn't.


Implicitly,

decentralised => clearing and settlement digital gold network

centralised => reversable, traceable payments network

(without thinking that is not well-known by now).

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 12:19:12 AM
 #23633

These guys have worked themselves to the point of mental exhaustion in some cases to keep this thing scaling up to handle the transaction growth rate thus far and have made huge advances. They would all simply agree (ya know, a consensus) to raise the limit if it was such an obvious 'fix', it is not and there are no obvious fixes, that is just wishful thinking by the unthinking majority. Raising the limit is the last ditch 'suck it and see' hail mary pass when everything else has been optimised as much as possible ...

If the limit gets raised substantially above the technological improvements growth rate I'll be pulling the vast majority of my investment out because it is not going to be operating like we thought it would, i.e. it won't be a clearing and settlement digital gold network but a paypal2.0, fun internet googlesque reversable, traceable payments network

You are doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing. There is no consensus or even an easy answer, whether Bitcoin should be a "clearing and settlement digital gold network" or a "payments network" (I don't think too many want it to be reversible and traceable but you are injecting that as a form of commentary). If there were an easy answer, it would already be accepted as consensus, but there isn't and it isn't.


Implicitly,

decentralised => clearing and settlement digital gold network

centralised => reversable, traceable payments network

(without thinking that is not well-known by now).

Yes of course, but there is no consensus that bitcoin is supposed to be a clearing and settlement network and not a decentralized payments network. You are assuming that combination is impossible. Some people agree with you, some don't.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 12:19:27 AM
 #23634

from gmax:

"So far the mining ecosystem has become incredibly centralized over time."

i totally disagree.  the trend has been back towards decentralization since ghash and ghash has been punished accordingly by the market down to a measly 3.6%.  what i see in this graph is a normal, expected distribution gradient from large to small share.  btw, gmax has been complaining about mining centralization since at least 2012 but yet here we are.  why do we accept his arguments on this when there hasn't been one major incident of a 51% attack?:

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 12:20:44 AM
 #23635

from gmax:

"So far the mining ecosystem has become incredibly centralized over time."

i totally disagree.

I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. I still see 3 pools (assuming "unknown is a mostly some big pool, if not that changes things") with >50%. The other tiny little slices don't matter at all as long as the top 3 agree and if even two of them agree, the tiny slices still hardly matter at all.

kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 12:22:38 AM
 #23636

from gmax:

"So far the mining ecosystem has become incredibly centralized over time."

i totally disagree.

I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. I still see 3 pools with >50%. The other tiny little slices don't matter at all as long as the top 3 agree and if even two of them agree, the tiny slices still hardly matter at all.



all it takes is for the owners of the 3 pools to be corrupt and btc is screwed. that isnt decentralization... thats asking for trouble.

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

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

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




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
























rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 12:23:03 AM
 #23637

These guys have worked themselves to the point of mental exhaustion in some cases to keep this thing scaling up to handle the transaction growth rate thus far and have made huge advances. They would all simply agree (ya know, a consensus) to raise the limit if it was such an obvious 'fix', it is not and there are no obvious fixes, that is just wishful thinking by the unthinking majority. Raising the limit is the last ditch 'suck it and see' hail mary pass when everything else has been optimised as much as possible ...

If the limit gets raised substantially above the technological improvements growth rate I'll be pulling the vast majority of my investment out because it is not going to be operating like we thought it would, i.e. it won't be a clearing and settlement digital gold network but a paypal2.0, fun internet googlesque reversable, traceable payments network

You are doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing. There is no consensus or even an easy answer, whether Bitcoin should be a "clearing and settlement digital gold network" or a "payments network" (I don't think too many want it to be reversible and traceable but you are injecting that as a form of commentary). If there were an easy answer, it would already be accepted as consensus, but there isn't and it isn't.


Implicitly,

decentralised => clearing and settlement digital gold network

centralised => reversable, traceable payments network

(without thinking that is not well-known by now).

The only thing that needs to remain decentralized is the mining process. As long as mining remains decentralized bitcoin will continue as a "clearing and settlement digital gold network". The P2P network can become a more centralized pool of services that run in AWS, but it is the miners that determine the longest chain and the official record.

Since most mining is done through pools already, miners are not exposed to the blocksize. It could be 1MB or 1TB, the work presented to a miner is the same and the security model is the same as what we have today. This is all that matters.

Additionally, most users today already use SPV wallets. These rely on trusting the P2P network peers and not on your own verification. This seems to be OK with most people. In SPV mode whether the P2P network has 100K nodes or 1000 nodes, the security model is the same.

I fail to see how the security model changes as the blocksize scales up and P2P nodes become more like professional services. The mining security model and the SPV usage model are the same.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 09, 2015, 12:26:15 AM
 #23638

from gmax:

"So far the mining ecosystem has become incredibly centralized over time."

i totally disagree.

I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. I still see 3 pools with >50%. The other tiny little slices don't matter at all as long as the top 3 agree and if even two of them agree, the tiny slices still hardly matter at all.
Is it better, worse, or about the same as in the past?

Maybe some people are complaining about centralization when they actually mean they are disgruntled about competition making mining at home less lucrative than it was in the good old days.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 12:27:15 AM
 #23639

Quote
BTC intrinsic value IS its ease of worldwide cheap txns and large network.

Wrong, you could get that with Ripple. The utility value of bitcoin is decentralised, irreversible, permissionless settlement and clearing, (trust no-one consensus) ... like SWIFT but better. Bitcoin will get more valuable the less people can use it but want to, like any desirable scarce resource commodity. The demand already exists and the miner's are providing the secure commodity.

The days of people writing graffitti and spam into the blockchain ending will be the evidence that it is finally useful only as a monetary network, not some kind of toy ... who would use SWIFT to message banal profanities?

marcus, for Bitcoin to act as digital gold it is not enough to simply have scarcity.  it's too early.  it needs to become known, disseminated to all corners of the Earth, be used on a reliable basis and w/o problems, and over many years.  we are not there yet altho all those are achievable goals.  b/c Bitcoin is virtual, the only way billions of ppl will learn to trust it is to be able to access it, use it reliably, and do things with it that they can't do with gold currently.  for that, the only possible way to achieve this is for Bitcoin to become a reliable, more expansive payment network so that it can disseminate itself far and wide so that it can prove itself to humanity that it is indeed a superior form of digital gold:

i see that alot of the 1MB proponents are attempting to use the excuse of "digital gold as a reserve currency" or as a "settlement currency" to argue for their cap.

as one of the first, if not the first, to have made the conceptual switch from physical gold to what i consider digital gold (Bitcoin), AND act on it, i think i am qualified to comment on this excuse:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35956.msg443129#msg443129

my argument against leaving the limit at 1MB to guide Bitcoin's future towards being a reserve or settlement currency is that it is too early to claim Bitcoin as a gold substitute.  Bitcoin is unknown by probably greater than 60-70% of the world's population.  those African kids digging gold out of mine shafts 3ft wide and down 100 yds have no idea that something like Bitcoin even exists.  otoh, they obviously know about the value of gold.  i'd argue they even understand why; that it can't be debased by their gvts by legalized counterfeiting.  they also understand that they can hold the metal in their hands.  it's hard, it's physical, they can break it up, it doesn't seem to lose it's value, and they can instantly transact with it with their local peers.  this is possible b/c gold has been around for thousands of years and has had the benefit of time and usage to spread itself along with it's sound money properties to all corners of the Earth.  the hivemind around gold is set, it's mature, it's universal, it's accepted by gvts and central banks; it's a given.

contrast that with Bitcoin that has maybe a couple of hundred thousand dedicated users.  that is not enough.  there are very few of us, mostly those of this in this thread, that understand that Bitcoin is actually a superior form of gold, ie, digital gold.  it can be transmitted across the internet in fractions of a second.  it's supply is harder and more fixed than gold ever can be by the laws of mathematics.  it isn't under threat of further debasement by asteroid mining or ocean gold.  it's more easily transportable and crosses guarded borders seamlessly and effortlessly.  it certainly can replace gold.  but it is too early to make the claim.

b/c Bitcoin is digital, there exists a burden of proof that is higher than just proving mathematically that the supply is fixed.  that involves proving it's worth as a payment network. this is not only b/c Bitcoin has the unique ability to be the best payment network the world has ever seen but also b/c it is necessary to prove it's worth as a gold substitute.  it will do so by proving to be a reliable payment network which will allow BTC units to be disseminated widely to places like Africa.  b/c those kids in Africa can't touch Bitcoin, admire it's color, wear it, transact with it (no smartphones), they will never accept Bitcoin until these things happen:  

1. they first have to be able to access it:  this first challenge is easily foreseeable as long as we let the Bitcoin expand; smartphone penetration is coming.  all data analyses point to this.  as we speak, thousands of miles of fiber optic cable is being laid across Africa.  Benedict Evans of a16z regularly talks about this.  this eventually will solve the problem of these ppl accessing the internet which will make transacting in Bitcoin possible.  actually, as an aside, i was the first i know to have talked publicly about M-Pesa being a great foreseeable example of how Bitcoin could take over Africa.  here is where i first talked about it.  someone correct me if they know of someone else who talked about it earlier than this:

https://bitcoin-forums.net/index.php?topic=6322.20

2. since those kids can't touch or feel Bitcoin, these kids have to be able to use it reliably; no payment delays, no double spending, no loss of tx's in a queue, no loss in value. this is necessary to develop confidence in Bitcoin as a gold substitute.  this is a few years off even with a block size increase.  but Bitcoin won't even get to them with the 1MB cap as this will prevent the worldwide dissemination necessary for this level of confidence to occur.

capping at 1MB will cause unacceptable confirmation delays, lost tx's, loss of revenues, loss of user base, loss of confidence, loss of exchange value, and generalized degradation of Bitcoin.  it will then never reach the status of digital gold we all aspire to.

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 12:28:54 AM
 #23640

from gmax:

"So far the mining ecosystem has become incredibly centralized over time."

i totally disagree.  the trend has been back towards decentralization since ghash and ghash has been punished accordingly by the market down to a measly 3.6%.  what i see in this graph is a normal, expected distribution gradient from large to small share.  btw, gmax has been complaining about mining centralization since at least 2012 but yet here we are.  why do we accept his arguments on this when there hasn't been one major incident of a 51% attack?:


What people seem to keep missing in this "mining is centralized" claim, is that pools are not miners. They are services with ZERO barriers to entry and exit from the mining community.

As long as there is ONE honest P2P node who would publicly flag that a pool was behaving badly (an assumption I believe will always be true), then the pools can not abuse their position.

If any corrupt pool, or collection of corrupt pools, tried to falsify the record, it would immediately become public and that pool would lose most of it's miners in a matter of hours. Miners could simply switch to another honest pool, and there will always be an honest pool to switch to.

This would completely destroy the future profit stream for an established pool. Why the heck would anyone try this, especially given that it would be a futile effort?
Pages: « 1 ... 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 [1182] 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 ... 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!