Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2017, 04:09:43 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1977897 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 01:16:57 AM
 #24021

Quote
Gold and silver are no longer money. They are illiquid assets that will become incredibly more illiquid in the coming war of private assets.

Gold is very liquid in physical sense, not sure how else you would mean.

My upthread post.

1506010183
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506010183

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506010183
Reply with quote  #2

1506010183
Report to moderator
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
.
|
.
|
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
unthy
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 14, 2015, 01:43:15 AM
 #24022

-

when you first registered March 2013 the price was $34.

do you feel silly now?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 01:50:43 AM
 #24023

Armstrong opened my eyes to reality.

[...] he has been selling his conferences on world collapse [...]

I like his ramblings about history but don' t like his simplifications of opponents or people with a different view. It really went south for me when he avoided a factual debate with Denninger on his 'one dollar of capital' suggestion in relation to fractional reserve banking.

The beginning of that debate was here, and it went on for a few thread pages.

Armstrong chimed in with a few more blog posts on the subject matter since:

Creating Market Depth: The First Step in Creating an Economy

But I guess we are all Marxists...  Cool

Yes. The cognitive dissonance is that most men would rather contemplate the system reforming than a totalitarian collapse into a NWO.

You all can't fathom a world where the collective can't reform and it literally euthanizes its citizens. And we are forced to fork away from it to survive.

I observe that most men seem to go into a binary mode, either collective reform or I am an island with my gold. They don't look for the synergies of the third and only realistic option at this juncture.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 01:54:56 AM
 #24024

-

when you first registered March 2013 the price was $34.

do you feel silly now?

 Huh

I spoke to rpietila in January on Skype. I got around to writing a syndicated article "Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch" by March and joined the forum to share it.

Around that time of Dec. 2012, I was suffering severe tinnitus, difficulty swallowing, and other adverse symptoms in a tail-spin collapse with my Multiple Sclerosis (after sending it into complete remission at the end of Sept using high dose vitamin D3 for week, then quitting). I was distracted on fighting to survive.

At the time I didn't know I had M.S.. I thought it was expected long-term head and throat effects from high # strain HPV infection I contracted in 2006.

Chef Ramsay
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
May 14, 2015, 03:19:31 AM
 #24025



Intelligence and beauty finally meet on a hot date. This lady has the full package that many in this community would do wonders for. That's right I said it. And dark eyes usually don't suit me too well.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 14, 2015, 04:31:04 AM
 #24026

-

when you first registered March 2013 the price was $34.

do you feel silly now?

 Huh

I spoke to rpietila in January on Skype. I got around to writing a syndicated article "Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch" by March and joined the forum to share it.

Around that time of Dec. 2012, I was suffering severe tinnitus, difficulty swallowing, and other adverse symptoms in a tail-spin collapse with my Multiple Sclerosis (after sending it into complete remission at the end of Sept using high dose vitamin D3 for week, then quitting). I was distracted on fighting to survive.

At the time I didn't know I had M.S.. I thought it was expected long-term head and throat effects from high # strain HPV infection I contracted in 2006.

well then, you should feel even worse.

in Jan 2013, the price was 13 and you've been a FUDster ever since.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 08:48:19 AM
 #24027

Found an interesting game-theoretic idea on blocksize no one seems to have mentioned before:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35kxdu/mentor_monday_may_11_2015_ask_all_your_bitcoin/cr5fqz


It's a bit rough, but the core idea seems like it could have potential. It's kind of like a Nash equilibrium that disincentivizes miners from tormenting others by creating too-large blocks when the cap is removed.
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
May 14, 2015, 09:28:06 AM
 #24028

Found an interesting game-theoretic idea on blocksize no one seems to have mentioned before:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35kxdu/mentor_monday_may_11_2015_ask_all_your_bitcoin/cr5fqz


It's a bit rough, but the core idea seems like it could have potential. It's kind of like a Nash equilibrium that disincentivizes miners from tormenting others by creating too-large blocks when the cap is removed.

I agree this has potential. It'd be a clean, permanent solution with nothing arbitrary about it. Sometimes we just don't see the simple things?

Too-large-blocks are already disincentivized by their slow propagation and resulting higher orphan risk. I read that many pools already use a "soft limit" well below 1 MB because of this. It would probably make most sense for a miner to calculate the cost of the orphan risk (needs some assumptions, I guess) and contrast that with the potential additional tx fees being earned and make tx inclusion decisions based on that calculation.

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

Activity: 798


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 10:18:23 AM
 #24029

Found an interesting game-theoretic idea on blocksize no one seems to have mentioned before:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35kxdu/mentor_monday_may_11_2015_ask_all_your_bitcoin/cr5fqz


It's a bit rough, but the core idea seems like it could have potential. It's kind of like a Nash equilibrium that disincentivizes miners from tormenting others by creating too-large blocks when the cap is removed.

I agree this has potential. It'd be a clean, permanent solution with nothing arbitrary about it. Sometimes we just don't see the simple things?

Too-large-blocks are already disincentivized by their slow propagation and resulting higher orphan risk. I read that many pools already use a "soft limit" well below 1 MB because of this. It would probably make most sense for a miner to calculate the cost of the orphan risk (needs some assumptions, I guess) and contrast that with the potential additional tx fees being earned and make tx inclusion decisions based on that calculation.


I think it makes sense economically (meaning this is what is going to happen when humans meet and trade). That is why I noted the missing "unlimited" choice in the poll. What can happen, is that the new 20 MB blocksize is programmed into the reference code, but many will just set their own limit, making it soft.


sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 10:34:47 AM
 #24030

Found an interesting game-theoretic idea on blocksize no one seems to have mentioned before:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35kxdu/mentor_monday_may_11_2015_ask_all_your_bitcoin/cr5fqz


It's a bit rough, but the core idea seems like it could have potential. It's kind of like a Nash equilibrium that disincentivizes miners from tormenting others by creating too-large blocks when the cap is removed.

I agree this has potential. It'd be a clean, permanent solution with nothing arbitrary about it. Sometimes we just don't see the simple things?

Too-large-blocks are already disincentivized by their slow propagation and resulting higher orphan risk. I read that many pools already use a "soft limit" well below 1 MB because of this. It would probably make most sense for a miner to calculate the cost of the orphan risk (needs some assumptions, I guess) and contrast that with the potential additional tx fees being earned and make tx inclusion decisions based on that calculation.


what will happen when block propagation will be O(1)?
(see: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2)

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
May 14, 2015, 10:47:34 AM
 #24031

Found an interesting game-theoretic idea on blocksize no one seems to have mentioned before:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35kxdu/mentor_monday_may_11_2015_ask_all_your_bitcoin/cr5fqz


It's a bit rough, but the core idea seems like it could have potential. It's kind of like a Nash equilibrium that disincentivizes miners from tormenting others by creating too-large blocks when the cap is removed.

I agree this has potential. It'd be a clean, permanent solution with nothing arbitrary about it. Sometimes we just don't see the simple things?

Too-large-blocks are already disincentivized by their slow propagation and resulting higher orphan risk. I read that many pools already use a "soft limit" well below 1 MB because of this. It would probably make most sense for a miner to calculate the cost of the orphan risk (needs some assumptions, I guess) and contrast that with the potential additional tx fees being earned and make tx inclusion decisions based on that calculation.


what will happen when block propagation will be O(1)?
(see: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2)

Yes, I know. Also consider: the "IBLT block transfer mode" can already be done among miners/pools without us even knowing. So maybe the disincentive of large blocks doesn't even exist.

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

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 11:23:26 AM
 #24032

That 1TB block is not possible even if the 1MB disappeared, because the 33.5MB message size limit still exists. It would need block segmentation logic to be implemented to increase it.

However, even that is not necessary, 30MB IBLT blocks would facilitate about 3GB standard blocks, or 20,000tps. Bolt on lighting networks, or similar, and who knows, maybe it would be enough handle a large chunk of global commerce.

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
May 14, 2015, 11:25:11 AM
 #24033

The age old model is that when the banks get out of control, a few fail (or a few hundred) and it resets as the survivors scoop up the remains.  Now with the use of state power, they have taxpayer funded bailouts, bail-ins and all sorts of new ways to destroy wealth.

It was the emergence of the "Too Big To Fail" policy which created this and was effectively codified into law with the LTCM bailout in the late 1990s.

To Big To Fail = disabling the clearing mechanism which is necessary for a functioning capitalist society. If you are too big to fail, then you can do anything and be as inefficient as possible, but that inefficiency will never be cleared out of the market.

The creation of the FED in 1913 was essentially to formation of a too big to fail policy at the government level (before the US gov would have to go for bailouts itself). But as you pointed out banks and other industry were still allowed to fail. This stopped in the 1990s and TBTF was extended to corporations, which is why every corporate entity from banks to auto manufactures (i.e. GM/Chrysler) have tried to position themselves as too big to fail.

This will continue until the dollar fails, effectively destroying the too big to fail enabler.

Perfectly stated.

TBTF has also been added on the other side of the dollar though with the IMF SDRs (XDR), so we get to break the world now, not just the United States.  
Here's how:
As you noted, LTCM was the catalyst for the smaller side TBTF.  Since this happened after we already had the fall of USSR from bond failures, the USA certainly has had a similar risk.  XDR are still a small percentage of FOREX trade, but as the USD gets closer to a potential fail point we should see that percentage grow.  

Jim Rickards postulates that the US might do a gold bail-in and initiate a new gold standard, but I suspect that would be a last resort after the XDR TBTF pops.  He details the process the US could use to accomplish this quite well at the end of his last book.  Its feasible.

Bitcoin could also potentially fill that spot if investment continues to advance.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 11:56:29 AM
 #24034

Found an interesting game-theoretic idea on blocksize no one seems to have mentioned before:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35kxdu/mentor_monday_may_11_2015_ask_all_your_bitcoin/cr5fqz


It's a bit rough, but the core idea seems like it could have potential. It's kind of like a Nash equilibrium that disincentivizes miners from tormenting others by creating too-large blocks when the cap is removed.

Absolutely I think many 20MB proponents believe this but see a high limit as a compromise. And note that my suggestion to expand the limit based on txn fees essentially magnifies the slope of the equilibrium curve.  Also note that the same argument also applies to txn fees.  Some future day when the subsidy is near zero miners will refuse to mine a block unless it at least pays for its electricity.  You could even power miners dynamically based on whether a profitable block is available.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 14, 2015, 12:45:17 PM
 #24035

What % of the unconfirmed TX set gets included into every block?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 12:47:45 PM
 #24036

To everyone, I think I've written all I needed to write. Thanks for reading and apologies if haven't managed my couth optimally. Good luck to everyone and hope to see you all on the other side of this chasm.

I don't like the idea for Bitcoin of letting the pools decide the blocksize because via the Sybil attack they have a hidden monopoly and can either drive block size very large to gain 100% hashrate by starving miners with less connectivity and thus higher effective orphan rate; or they can make blocks smaller thus driving tx fees skyhigh for their profits. They'd likely do the former first and the latter later, as all self-respecting monopolies do.

That 1TB block is not possible even if the 1MB disappeared, because the 33.5MB message size limit still exists. It would need block segmentation logic to be implemented to increase it.

However, even that is not necessary, 30MB IBLT blocks would facilitate about 3GB standard blocks, or 20,000tps. Bolt on lighting networks, or similar, and who knows, maybe it would be enough handle a large chunk of global commerce.

As I explained upthread in a reply to thezerg on his micropayments idea, Lightning networks is for real-time payments, not all micropayments. It moves a payment channel between two parties offchain, but it doesn't address the fundamental blockchain scaling problem of distributed micropayments.

At some point the world's transaction rate in the Knowledge Age outscales what Bitcoin can do without being fully centralized and monopolized. But that is okay, because Bitcoin serves us well interim and we can fix this with an altcoin.

The age old model is that when the banks get out of control, a few fail (or a few hundred) and it resets as the survivors scoop up the remains.  Now with the use of state power, they have taxpayer funded bailouts, bail-ins and all sorts of new ways to destroy wealth.

It was the emergence of the "Too Big To Fail" policy which created this and was effectively codified into law with the LTCM bailout in the late 1990s.

To Big To Fail = disabling the clearing mechanism which is necessary for a functioning capitalist society. If you are too big to fail, then you can do anything and be as inefficient as possible, but that inefficiency will never be cleared out of the market.

The creation of the FED in 1913 was essentially to formation of a too big to fail policy at the government level (before the US gov would have to go for bailouts itself). But as you pointed out banks and other industry were still allowed to fail. This stopped in the 1990s and TBTF was extended to corporations, which is why every corporate entity from banks to auto manufactures (i.e. GM/Chrysler) have tried to position themselves as too big to fail.

This will continue until the dollar fails, effectively destroying the too big to fail enabler.

Perfectly stated.

TBTF has also been added on the other side of the dollar though with the IMF SDRs (XDR), so we get to break the world now, not just the United States.  
Here's how:
As you noted, LTCM was the catalyst for the smaller side TBTF.  Since this happened after we already had the fall of USSR from bond failures, the USA certainly has had a similar risk.  XDR are still a small percentage of FOREX trade, but as the USD gets closer to a potential fail point we should see that percentage grow.  

Jim Rickards postulates that the US might do a gold bail-in and initiate a new gold standard, but I suspect that would be a last resort after the XDR TBTF pops.  He details the process the US could use to accomplish this quite well at the end of his last book.  Its feasible.

Bitcoin could also potentially fill that spot if investment continues to advance.

There are factual errors. The Fed was originally created to buy only corporate paper and was supposed to be a backstop on the ebb and flow of the 8.6 year business cycle. Then the powers-that-be launched WW2 with some false flag operations and manipulations of public information (e.g. Pearl Harbor, etc) and with that and FDR's New Deal Socialism, the Fed was tasked with funding the military-industrial complex through the government bond spigot.

So the transgression began in the 1930s. That was roughly when the elite was also funding the Bolsheviks in Russia, Hitler in Germany, the Socialists in Wiemar Germany, etc..

Indeed the elite kept their promise, "By ascent or conquest, we will have our world government".

molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
May 14, 2015, 02:01:17 PM
 #24037

Some future day when the subsidy is near zero miners will refuse to mine a block unless it at pays for itself.

Interesting observation, never thought about it.

Only if there's enough transaction fees to be had from the mem-pool would miners power up. In fact they might even mine a different sha-coin that offers some fees in the meantime. But disregarding that for a moment, what would the effect be? Since the overall effective hashrate is lower, difficulty would drop at some point and then the network would find blocks faster when tx load is high, slower when it's low. Would security suffer? My first thought was: yes, but then again you have the option to fend off an attack by making some high-fee transactions and thereby releasing more hashpower.

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

Activity: 798


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 02:12:27 PM
 #24038

Some future day when the subsidy is near zero miners will refuse to mine a block unless it at pays for itself.

Interesting observation, never thought about it.

Only if there's enough transaction fees to be had from the mem-pool would miners power up. In fact they might even mine a different sha-coin that offers some fees in the meantime. But disregarding that for a moment, what would the effect be? Since the overall effective hashrate is lower, difficulty would drop at some point and then the network would find blocks faster when tx load is high, slower when it's low. Would security suffer? My first thought was: yes, but then again you have the option to fend off an attack by making some high-fee transactions and thereby releasing more hashpower.


I think the number one priority for a large miner is to keep his machinery going as smooth as possible at all times. It is too risky to stop the machines and wait for transactions. With too few transactions with fees, rather the aggregate mining power will suffer.

shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484


@theshmadz


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 02:21:23 PM
 #24039


your doom and gloom is tiresome.  here's the greatest conspiracy of all:  is Anonymint a paid NSA shill?

I didn't want to be the first to say it, but I increasingly believe that he does indeed have ulterior motives.

Like an infiltrator sent to sidetrack or co-opt a group from the inside. The way he can deftly deflect criticism while demanding citations and blathering on about slanderous comments, all the while pouring out links to various rabbit holes just to keep you of balance and waste your time, it's all a little too convenient.

Also the repeated use of the term "DEEP STATE" always in all capitals, over and over, it just reeks of mk-ultra style programming.

- - -
Anyhow, I can't be certain of any of that, but one thing I am certain of is that barring a white paper outlining his "super coin" I won't be wasting any more time on him.

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 14, 2015, 02:28:59 PM
 #24040

right now there are 675 tx/block on average.
each pay around 0.0001 BTC/tx in fees.
that equates to 675*0.0001= 0.0675BTC/block in tx fees.  that is miniscule and accts for why miners construct small blocks mainly to capture block rewards.

if the cap is removed, i figure that to be economically attractive for a miner to create a bloated block just for the sake of mining for extra fees they would have to be at least worth 50% of the current 25 BTC block reward or 12.5 BTC in fees, give or take.

that equates to an extra 12.5/0.0001= 125,000 tx's required per block.  where are those extra tx's going to come from?

answer:

1.  they won't magically appear until the Bitcoin economy grows itself to that point which will take several years.
2.  an attacking miner can try to manufacture them himself to torment small miners.  would he do this?  NO.  the creation of an extra 125,000 worth of tx's would cost time and energy to create, sign, broadcast and then hash the POW for all those extra tx's and for what purpose?  some fuzzy theory about driving unspecified small miners out of business as a result?  no, he will continue to mine small, efficient blocks according to the avg output of the rest of the miners mainly to chase the block rewards.  this dynamic will continue for many years.

here's how i answered theymos on Reddit:

[–]theymos 2 points 2 days ago*
The network needs to completely agree on this. Say that there's no limit, but most miners are producing 1 MB blocks for whatever reason. Then someone mines a 3 MB block. If half of the economy accepts blocks only up to 2 MB in size and half of the network accepts blocks up to 3 MB in size, then these two halves of the network will split forever and never again be able to transact with each other (as long as they don't change). This breaks the network.
There are various things that you might think of to solve this problem, and they've probably all been thought of before. The most common first-impression idea is that you'll have miners decide it. (In fact, you may have been implicitly assuming that this is how it would work, but currently even if 99% of miners mine too-large blocks, they will be ignored by the Bitcoin economy.) The problem with this is that miners nearly always have an incentive to create larger blocks because it gives them higher fees, but they don't have much incentive to be worried about the long-term consequences of larger blocks. You should not be prevented from running a full node (the only type of node with any real security) because a handful of miners in China decide to mine blocks that are too large for your bandwidth/hardware to handle.
permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply

[–]cypherdoc2 1 point just now
the way i would answer this is where is the tripling of tx's and the fees required to mine a 3MB vs 1MB block going to come from?
if that miner is an attacker, would he manufacture his own fake tx's to create a 3MB block? no. it would be too expensive and risky for him to do so, not only from time and energy needed to create them and hash them into a valid POW but also in terms of foregone block rewards that he might miss from being orphaned and screwing around with the system.
permalinksaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply

edit:  the only caveat to my argument, in the 3MB vs 1MB case, is if the bloating miner can pull enough unconfirmed tx's that have been constructed by ordinary users out of his current set in his mempool in order to create that 3MB vs 1MB block.   which is why i asked this:

What % of the unconfirmed TX set gets included into every block?

but it would still be a risk in terms of increased network latency with orphans and the foregone honest blocks.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 ... 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!