Bitcoin Forum
July 11, 2020, 09:15:03 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 ... 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 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2030619 times)
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:21:25 PM
Last edit: May 18, 2015, 10:31:32 PM by rocks
 #24221

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.

The government can attack the fungibility of both by either outlawing the currency or outlawing blacklist transactions, so the fungibility of both rest to a certain extent on the ability of individuals to interact with the currency outside of the law. This is true for gold or any other money in existence.

For an example, the privacy of gold was broken when they outlawed direct possession and forced everyone into bank notes. Gold used to be able to be used privately (direct transfer) but now it wasn't (no direct transfer legally allowed). The innate properties of Gold and Money did not change, gold was still fungible. What changed was the legal framework around them that prevented that fungibility from being used to gain privacy. This leads me to believe again that privacy is NOT an innate property of money, but is determined by how it is used.
1594458903
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594458903

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594458903
Reply with quote  #2

1594458903
Report to moderator
1594458903
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594458903

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594458903
Reply with quote  #2

1594458903
Report to moderator
1594458903
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594458903

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594458903
Reply with quote  #2

1594458903
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1594458903
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594458903

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594458903
Reply with quote  #2

1594458903
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:33:40 PM
 #24222

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.

Legally yes, but in terms of fungibility no. If I'm a fully compliant Bitcoin user I may -- purely as a practical matter -- have to check on coins I'm receiving to see if they are "bad", and because coins may be added to a blacklist (or removed from a whitelist) after I receive them, it means I'm left with performing my own KYC to convince myself that the counterparty is unlikely to be passing off "bad" coins.

I'm not doing this because the law requires it but because I'm worried about being left holding the bag with "bad" coins, even if the transaction itself is entirely legal. This is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fungibility (again, which is distinct from legality).

The risk of this is fungibility concerns is far less to nonexistent with a private coin, where tagging coins as "good" or "bad" is technologically less feasible or impossible (Monero is not as private as say zerocash, so some issues remain there, but far less so than Bitcoin).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:38:30 PM
 #24223

after analyzing the report, i think 21 is going to be big.

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:39:09 PM
 #24224

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.


i think privacy is an important aspect of money.

at least if you want it to be adopted by the broadest swaths of the population which you should.  and that even means adoption by druglords and money launderers who absolutely need their privacy.  not that i advocate those sorts of activities but that's unrelated to my point.

i also don't think Coinbase is a privacy destroyer except if you try to do something illegal with coins one hop away from them.  as the coins spread out through the economy though it's extremely difficult to link illegal activity with those original coins.

Not questioning whether privacy is an important aspect to have in money, it definitely is.

But I think everyone needs to work out for themselves if privacy is: 1) an innate property of money, or if privacy is 2) derived from how money is used. I personally think it is #2. This has very important implications on if you think Bitcoin will win, or if something like Monero will win. If you think #1 then Monero is better money, if #2 then Bitcoin at this point.

Gold was fungible & portable, it was the combination of these two properties that enabled Gold to be used privately. When governments outlawed gold, both portability and acceptance dropped significantly which made gold much more difficult to be used privately. This leads me to believe #2 above.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:39:34 PM
 #24225

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.



i think privacy is an important aspect of money.

at least if you want it to be adopted by the broadest swaths of the population which you should.  and that even means adoption by druglords and money launderers who absolutely need their privacy.  not that i advocate those sorts of activities but that's unrelated to my point.

i also don't think Coinbase is a privacy destroyer except if you try to do something illegal with coins one hop away from them.  as the coins spread out through the economy though it's extremely difficult to link illegal activity with those original coins.

We don't know that Coinbase limits their tracking of "bad" activity to "one hop." In fact I'm pretty sure at least one of the reported cases was more than one hop. Also, I'm certain that Coinbase requires intrusive and privacy-violating measures of their users even when the coins involved have had no connection to illegal activity whatsoever. You can use your imagination to figure out how I'm certain of that.

That said, what is true of Coinbase isn't necessarily true of Bitcoin unless Coinbase and services like it become so pervasive that talking about Bitcoin outside of them is in practice meaningless.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:39:53 PM
 #24226

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.


I fully expect some governments to outlaw Monero in some ways, it is much more dangerous to them than Bitcoin. But it would be out of ignorance because Monero can be made transparent if required by law on a individual basis and not on a panopticon level like Bitcoin.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:42:46 PM
 #24227

We don't know that Coinbase limits their tracking of "bad" activity to "one hop."

doesn't matter. at some point, just b/c you might be in a linear linkage with an address owned by SR at some time doesn't mean you're a criminal.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:45:01 PM
 #24228

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.

Legally yes, but in terms of fungibility no. If I'm a fully compliant Bitcoin user I may -- purely as a practical matter -- have to check on coins I'm receiving to see if they are "bad", and because coins may be added to a blacklist (or removed from a whitelist) after I receive them, it means I'm left with performing my own KYC to convince myself that the counterparty is unlikely to be passing off "bad" coins.

I'm not doing this because the law requires it but because I'm worried about being left holding the bag with "bad" coins, even if the transaction itself is entirely legal. This is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fungibility (again, which is distinct from legality).

The risk of this is fungibility concerns is far less to nonexistent with a private coin, where tagging coins as "good" or "bad" is technologically less feasible or impossible (Monero is not as private as say zerocash, so some issues remain there, but far less so than Bitcoin).

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.

My understanding of your argument is that in order to maintain fungibility, you need privacy or else that fungibility will be attacked. My argument is both a private and a non-private coin can be equally attacked, and in that situation both have to equally resort to being used outside the legal framework in order to maintain fungibility, so I don't see an advantage of one over the other.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:49:10 PM
 #24229

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.

My understanding of your argument is that in order to maintain fungibility, you need privacy or else that fungibility will be attacked. My argument is both a private and a non-private coin can be equally attacked, and in that situation both can be equally used outside the legal framework (i.e. Bitcoin and Monero will both still process "bad" coins with no discrimination) with fungibility untouched.

man that's some mental gymnastic you do, the math is simple, Bitcoin is not inherently fungible but no one is saying it is not or cannot be used as money because of what, you are free to keep using 1984-tokens in your future.
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1013



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:50:32 PM
 #24230

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.  

Having to spend contraband coins in a public blockchain would feel awkward, a private chain suits the use case much better.

HIM TVA Dragon, AOK-GM, Emperor of the Earth, Creator of the World, King of Crypto Kingdom, Lord of Malla, AOD-GEN, SA-GEN5, Ministry of Plenty (Join NOW!), Professor of Economics and Theology, Ph.D, AM, Chairman, Treasurer, Founder, CEO, 3*MG-2, 82*OHK, NKP, WTF, FFF, etc(x3)
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:55:52 PM
 #24231

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.  

Having to spend contraband coins in a public blockchain would feel awkward, a private chain suits the use case much better.

Bitcoin plus this (or any number of other extensions)

enables Bitcoin to be used in a completely private manner. I don't see any difference between Bitcoin with these easy extensions in how it is used, and Monero.

That and there is no difference in the level of "contrabandness" between contraband coins in a public blockchain and a private chain that is declared to be entirely contraband.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:59:55 PM
 #24232

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.

Legally yes, but in terms of fungibility no. If I'm a fully compliant Bitcoin user I may -- purely as a practical matter -- have to check on coins I'm receiving to see if they are "bad", and because coins may be added to a blacklist (or removed from a whitelist) after I receive them, it means I'm left with performing my own KYC to convince myself that the counterparty is unlikely to be passing off "bad" coins.

I'm not doing this because the law requires it but because I'm worried about being left holding the bag with "bad" coins, even if the transaction itself is entirely legal. This is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fungibility (again, which is distinct from legality).

The risk of this is fungibility concerns is far less to nonexistent with a private coin, where tagging coins as "good" or "bad" is technologically less feasible or impossible (Monero is not as private as say zerocash, so some issues remain there, but far less so than Bitcoin).

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.

No you're not because if all coins are bad then all coins have the same value. You can't overpay and be left holding the bag.

That is the definition of fungibility. Again, you are confusing privacy with fungibility. Without regard for the merits of either/both.
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1013



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:01:21 PM
 #24233

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.  

Having to spend contraband coins in a public blockchain would feel awkward, a private chain suits the use case much better.

Bitcoin plus this (or any number of other extensions)

enables Bitcoin to be used in a completely private manner. I don't see any difference between Bitcoin with these easy extensions in how it is used, and Monero.

Far be it from me that I were against Bitcoin! I am one of the few people who even owns a Bitcoin castle!  Grin

But using monero is just soo easy that even if BTC fungibility is fixed and markets would force me to return to it, I would miss the ease of life when it was possible just to click "send" and not care...  Cheesy

HIM TVA Dragon, AOK-GM, Emperor of the Earth, Creator of the World, King of Crypto Kingdom, Lord of Malla, AOD-GEN, SA-GEN5, Ministry of Plenty (Join NOW!), Professor of Economics and Theology, Ph.D, AM, Chairman, Treasurer, Founder, CEO, 3*MG-2, 82*OHK, NKP, WTF, FFF, etc(x3)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:04:09 PM
 #24234

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.  

Having to spend contraband coins in a public blockchain would feel awkward, a private chain suits the use case much better.

Bitcoin plus this (or any number of other extensions)

enables Bitcoin to be used in a completely private manner. I don't see any difference between Bitcoin with these easy extensions in how it is used, and Monero.

The difference is mixing. Bitcoin doesn't have mixing without using some sort of third party mixing process, and that payment code proposal doesn't provide one either. The coins remain traceable on the blockchain.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:10:49 PM
 #24235

We don't know that Coinbase limits their tracking of "bad" activity to "one hop." In fact I'm pretty sure at least one of the reported cases was more than one hop.
Part of the consideration that went into the payment code proposal was finding a way to make analysis of transactions impossible beyond one hop.

Even if they want to do multi-hop analysis, it's possible to make that unfeasible.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:12:20 PM
 #24236

The coins remain traceable on the blockchain.


The coins are traceable, but the link between the coins and to whom they belong is less so.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:16:11 PM
 #24237

The coins remain traceable on the blockchain.


The coins are traceable, but the link between the coins and to whom they belong is less so.

That's irrelevant to the extent that blacklisting or whitelisting (or the prospect of such) impair the value of those coins.

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:20:20 PM
 #24238

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.

Legally yes, but in terms of fungibility no. If I'm a fully compliant Bitcoin user I may -- purely as a practical matter -- have to check on coins I'm receiving to see if they are "bad", and because coins may be added to a blacklist (or removed from a whitelist) after I receive them, it means I'm left with performing my own KYC to convince myself that the counterparty is unlikely to be passing off "bad" coins.

I'm not doing this because the law requires it but because I'm worried about being left holding the bag with "bad" coins, even if the transaction itself is entirely legal. This is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fungibility (again, which is distinct from legality).

The risk of this is fungibility concerns is far less to nonexistent with a private coin, where tagging coins as "good" or "bad" is technologically less feasible or impossible (Monero is not as private as say zerocash, so some issues remain there, but far less so than Bitcoin).

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.

No you're not because if all coins are bad then all coins have the same value. You can't overpay and be left holding the bag.

That is the definition of fungibility. Again, you are confusing privacy with fungibility. Without regard for the merits of either/both.

I don't think so, it seems to be that you've confused them. I think my prior posts (that weren't quoted) explained why. Fungibility is an innate property, privacy is a question of usage. You're free to disagree but I'll still think that these arguments that a coin needs privacy to be built in or off the mark.

Fungibility also doesn't mean how I think you are using it. Even in your black/white coin scenario, Bitcoin coins are still 100% fungible, the bitcoin network will treat 1 BTC as 1 unit and 0.5 BTC as half a unit in all cases (i.e. to the network 1 BTC blacklist = 1 BTC whitelist), that is perfect fungibility.

Things such as dimonds are not fungible, different people will value 2 different one caret diamonds differently. That is an example of something not fungible. Not black/white market coins where a government might try to force different values for them, but the network would treat them identically.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:21:52 PM
 #24239

We don't know that Coinbase limits their tracking of "bad" activity to "one hop." In fact I'm pretty sure at least one of the reported cases was more than one hop.
Part of the consideration that went into the payment code proposal was finding a way to make analysis of transactions impossible beyond one hop.

Even if they want to do multi-hop analysis, it's possible to make that unfeasible.

I don't think you understand what Coinbase is doing. For example, even with non-reused addresses, compliant participants may report their addresses to a risk-scoring service. If you go outside that "system", boom your coins risk score goes way up.

As long as these things remain associated with the coins themselves, fungibility is impaired.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:25:06 PM
 #24240

We don't know that Coinbase limits their tracking of "bad" activity to "one hop." In fact I'm pretty sure at least one of the reported cases was more than one hop.
Part of the consideration that went into the payment code proposal was finding a way to make analysis of transactions impossible beyond one hop.

Even if they want to do multi-hop analysis, it's possible to make that unfeasible.

I don't think you understand what Coinbase is doing. For example, even with non-reused addresses, compliant participants may report their addresses to a risk-scoring service. If you go outside that "system", boom your coins risk score goes way up.

As long as these things remain associated with the coins themselves, fungibility is impaired.

This is where we are disagreeing then.

To the bitcoin network 1 BTC blacklist or low score coin = 1 BTC whitelist coin. They are perfectly the same to the network itself, that is fungibility. This is very different from the diamond example a post up.

You can argue that for gold you could melt it down and recast in new coins to recover all privacy, but I'd argue that advanced mixing could do the same in time.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 ... 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!