Bitcoin Forum
July 11, 2020, 02:47:02 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 ... 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 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2030619 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 05:26:43 AM
Last edit: May 20, 2015, 05:42:10 AM by TPTB_need_war
 #24541

A lot has happened since then more than 50% of the world's population now live in urban environments. I'm from Africa and electricity is more prevent than water, moreover cell reception is more prevent than electricity, cell reception is ubiquitous and governments are spending a lot of printed money to bring electricity to urban areas, I can't see your vision because it conflicts with some things I see that are tangent to your circular view of the world.

You focused only on the less salient point that I made. My point is energy efficiency for excess heat is not a target market in the developing world. Severely resource constrained people don't heat their homes, they wear extra clothing instead. They use cold water for the most part, or boil their water in a pale, or us a hot water heater at the shower head which only runs a few minutes per day. Go take a look around your area and confirm it for those who are not wealthy enough that the savings is irrelevant to their core opportunity costs. For those who can afford to heat their homes, the opportunity cost is only going to make sense for a fraction of them. It is an incremental target market, not a huge sweeping one.

Please make sure you understand my point about tsuris and opportunity cost before retorting me.

1594435622
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594435622

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594435622
Reply with quote  #2

1594435622
Report to moderator
1594435622
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594435622

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594435622
Reply with quote  #2

1594435622
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1594435622
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594435622

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594435622
Reply with quote  #2

1594435622
Report to moderator
1594435622
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594435622

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594435622
Reply with quote  #2

1594435622
Report to moderator
1594435622
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594435622

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594435622
Reply with quote  #2

1594435622
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 05:54:20 AM
Last edit: May 20, 2015, 06:20:23 AM by TPTB_need_war
 #24542

all of which may or may not contribute to the centralization of the network, which was the original point.
Hardware will decentralizes, profits may or may not. Control will depend on the education level of the market.

Which is non-existent on both economics and Bitcoin amongst the target market segment.

And you don't have a shred of hope of educating them in a premature acceleration. I've tried and realized it was futile.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 05:56:56 AM
Last edit: May 20, 2015, 06:10:37 AM by TPTB_need_war
 #24543

I agree the idea of a hardware wallet combined with mining in a small device makes a lot of sense.

If you desire BTC and micropayments. The target market desires only the smartphone. Shoehorning through deception rarely creates mass movements. Somebody at 21 Inc flunked Marketing 101.

The elite are trying so hard to get the developing world onto the electronic currency in an accelerated timeline but they can't erase the natural inertia of the developing world.

It takes me numerous instances of repetitive teaching just to get people here to understand what message forwarding does. They don't even know how to enter a URL in the browser, they search the url in google! They don't easily adapt to a new site with a similar paradigm of sign up, sign in, send message. If the UI is slightly different than Facebook, they get confused. In my site they are not asked to input an email address on signup/in and instead their mobile. This confuses the hell out of them.

The adopters of crypto are in the developed world. We are the movers and shakers. Sorry Dirty Larry.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 06:01:58 AM
 #24544

the device makers will have the incentive to form their own mining pools to collect BTC which i am sure they'll do.  this will further decentralize mining.
or it may concentrate it. we shall find out.

i don't see how taking today's mining pools and adding dozens of phone maker, router maker, and other device making mining pools with their millions of users can result in centralization.

It isn't clear those parties will create their own mining pools. They may outsource. But we don't know at this point, everyone is guessing, including whether this who concept gets any traction at all.

We don't need to guess about the inexorable trend to the maximum-division-of-labor.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 06:04:38 AM
Last edit: May 20, 2015, 06:18:43 AM by TPTB_need_war
 #24545

also, i don't think these companies would have invested in 21 w/o some larger plans:

“We think 21’s technology has the potential to span across a wide variety of industries and look forward to working with Balaji and the team.”
— Nagraj Kashyap, Senior Vice President, Qualcomm Ventures
“Bitcoin could be the internet’s next great protocol. With the blockchain’s distributed ledger and micro-transaction capabilities, it has the potential to become an enabling technology that expands well beyond digital payments. We’re delighted to be an investor in 21 and to work closely with Balaji and Ben.”
— Padmasree Warrior, Chief Technology & Strategy Officer, Cisco

Their current business models need expanding markets. The smartphone markets are becoming saturated in the West. Their need obscures their objectivity, because their main goal is to sell the growth projections to shareholders.

People like me in their company that raise our hand, are fired. Groupthink.

Western companies trying to understand developing markets from their armchairs and lack of hands on experience. I've lived in the developing world 1990, 1991, 1996 - 1999, 2003 - present. They did better being suppliers to Samsung and manufacturers in Asia than top-down dictating the paradigm.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 06:14:05 AM
 #24546

Wanted to hear of your opinion of why billionaire VC's only claim to hold a few coins in public and invest millions into BTC companies.
Is this their way of taking a bet and hedging against Bitcoins failure? Wont their ROI be better just owning BTC.
Is there more money to be made building services around Bitcoin than the store of value property of BTC.

Venture capitalists make most of their money on fees (including performance fees), which they get for providing the service of investing other people's money into startup companies. That's what they're paid to do, so that's what they do.

It's debatable whether just owning BTC would be a better ROI, but that's irrelevant if you are in the business of backing companies.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 06:16:24 AM
 #24547

Wanted to hear of your opinion of why billionaire VC's only claim to hold a few coins in public and invest millions into BTC companies.
Is this their way of taking a bet and hedging against Bitcoins failure? Wont their ROI be better just owning BTC.
Is there more money to be made building services around Bitcoin than the store of value property of BTC.

Venture capitalists make most of their money on fees (including performance fees), which they get for providing the service of investing other people's money into startup companies. That's what they're paid to do, so that's what they do.

Thank you. I sensed there was a good reason for me to avoid that morass, but I had never tried. I remember reading about for example how Bill Gross's ideaLab required the startup to take on this shared overhead that the ideaLab provides to its incubated companies.

Last thing I need is some bean counter or premature optimization of marketing wasting my time while innovating.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 06:19:28 AM
 #24548

There is nowhere else for the heat to go.

Aren't you forgetting that the efficiency of a thermodynamic process is proportional the ratio of the differences in temperature and the ambient.

For someone who trumpets regularly about his superior intelligence and his breaking insights into fields from physics to economics, you sure get a lot of the basics wrong.  If a mining device uses X joules of electrical energy to perform Y hashes, those X joules get converted into an equal amount of heat.  This is basic conservation of energy.

Didn't I make it clear from my upthread posts that I was talking about fact that heat has to be transferred to the environment over spacetime, and the assumption of the integral of transfer being contained with the duty cycle of the effective use of the heat may not be perfectly aligned. If I am not mistaken the differential temperature is one of the metrics on the calculation of the spacetime performance characteristics of a thermal exchange.

Smooth retorted that for example the miner could be turned off before the use of the hair dyer ceased, but that is not a fungible use case of the normal usage of a hair dyer where I don't need to inform my hair dyer how many minutes I will be using it.

No what I suggested was that if that the typical use time of a hair dryer were say 10 minutes, it could be designed to turn off the mining chip after 9 minutes (or a smarter one -- not hard to imagine if it has a mining chip in it --  may learn it's owner's specific usage pattern). That likely reduces the (already small) residual heat to a bare minimum (only in those cases where the user turns it off early, for example if the phone rings).

Toasters and hair driers might be dumb uses for it anyway, though it depends how low the cost of the chip can be driven down. Room heaters, water heaters, etc. are much better.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 06:29:01 AM
 #24549

Room heaters, water heaters, etc. are much better.

In what way if any is my upthread argument against these being a wide-scale target market not correct?

Or are you still just arguing about (I assert irrelevant) energy efficiency without respect to (I assert relevant) overall efficiency?

Edit: I wasn't trying to make it appear you erred on the points about energy efficiency. I am concerned with what is relevant and didn't think I was attempting to make it appear you made an error. I am urging you to raise the debate to relevant factors because I am most interested in a conclusion so I can move on.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 06:34:27 AM
 #24550

His question was not asking about energy efficiency, but rather what is the holistic point of it all. And he is correct that the energy efficiency is scam. The real goal is enslavement of the developing world by loaning a smartphone in exchange for unnoticed electricity usage.

His question was exactly efficiency. I answered both with respect to energy efficiency (much better than the best ASICs as currently deployed, given effectively free electricity) and overall efficiency (likely also, since the chips will likely be very cheap). If I recall correctly I also said I didn't think it was a particularly good idea, regardless of efficiency.

He didn't ask about Larry Summers, etc. That's fair game for you be interested in talking about, but not what he asked.

Is it possible for a toaster/phone + mining chip to be as/more efficient than the best ASIC's on the market, and if it is not, how can this be a cost-efficient way to mine?

Cropping what he wrote doesn't help you. It is clear to me he was asking what the overall economic point is, and he introduced energy efficiency as one of the aspects that doesn't give him a holistic understanding. If you then argue that efficiency is improved in irrelevant and insignificant markets, you create holistic myopia instead of understanding.

The markets are not insignificant. The water heater market is approximately 100 million units per year. The largest markets are currently Brazil and China, I guess due to rapid urbanization and development. Of current deliveries, electric-powered units are a large share, possibly >50% (Brazil appears to lack gas distribution or has some other reason to favor electric, because almost all of the market there is electric.)

I don't really understand what notion of "total efficiency" you are using other than what it is people in the market choose to buy. People seem to want to buy electric heating devices. There is little question that eventually these electric heating applications will migrate to some sort of mining-integrated solution, assuming mining continues to be a thing. I don't know if that really has anything to do with how 21 plans to make money. It doesn't seem like a terribly good business in terms of sustainable margins, even if it will eventually happen regardless.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 07:02:36 AM
Last edit: May 20, 2015, 07:19:10 AM by TPTB_need_war
 #24551

The markets are not insignificant. The water heater market is approximately 100 million units per year. The largest markets are currently Brazil and China, I guess due to rapid urbanization and development. Of current deliveries, electric-powered units are a large share, possibly >50% (Brazil appears to lack gas distribution or has some other reason to favor electric, because almost all of the market there is electric.)

You mean potential market. But you need to quantify what % of that market can be realistically captured.

I don't really understand what notion of "total efficiency" you are using other than what it is people in the market choose to buy. People seem to want to buy electric heating devices. There is little question that eventually these electric heating applications will migrate to some sort of mining-integrated solution, assuming mining continues to be a thing.

You don't agree that some (probably most) people in the market for a water heater don't have incentive for the tsuris of figuring out all the details with getting a mining device running, connected to the internet, integrate into their tax return, operational issues with wallets, etc.?

Hey I am at the hardware store and my gf is begging me to hurry up because we need to get to her mother's birthday by 2pm. I don't have time for this Bitcoin complication. Sell me a water heater please.

Naive non-marketers think "I want a water heater", "mining device makes heat free", "thus I want water heater + mining device". This is myopic because it doesn't factor in that the + operator is not a zero cost operation in the marketing context. Upsells are lossy especially if only 0.1% of the population is in the market for your upsell.

But there was an easier way to refute this point that had escaped both of us (only because I was too sleepy last night when I signed off).

A water heater requires 4000W of power (in order to provide rapid heatup function that most consumers demand). I can't find a BTC miner with that wattage consumption for less than perhaps $20,000. I just briefly checked and only saw a 1250W one for $10,200.

Who is going to pay $10,000+ (or even $1000) extra for a water heater?

The entire energy efficiency deal is a ruse and coverup for the real goal which is to shoehorn mining into smartphones for a market segment that has no knowledge nor use for it.

If excess heat were a viable business model, the miners would have long ago adopted it as major movement. It doesn't take $116 million in capital to figure out how to retrofit mining hardware onto an insulated water tank.

This is yet another example of how the TPTB are top-down misallocating resources (because the free market always does it better) and destroying the global economy into their NWO death paradigm.

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1001



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 07:12:02 AM
 #24552

i see this as all positive:

"We are now going to use our name, reputation and global index provider stature to provide bitcoin values that the rest of the market can look to," says Tom Farley, who serves as president of NYSE, the venerable financial institution that has come to symbolize Wall Street and capitalism more broadly."

"New technology does not intimidate us, it excites us," Farley says, effectively summing up the new mindset of NYSE. Bitcoin in particular excited him, both because of the interest in the currency and the blockchain technology behind it, which serves as a transaction database. "It was that curiosity and also... let's not wait for this to fully evolve; let's get a seat early on and see how this matures."

http://mashable.com/2015/05/19/new-york-stock-exchange-bitcoin/

I stop reading @"NYSE, the venerable institution..." Roll Eyes

Seriously why do bitcoiners keeps on sucking up them masters arses?! Bitcoin is not here to save wall street's minions. Its here to bypass them.

PS: i dont want bitcoin to be linked in any sort with their reputation

but why would you want to deny them their rightful participation in a new form of money they might actually believe in?  afaict, they aren't trying to change anything about Bitcoin; they just want in.  that can be beneficial for the space.


meh: "fool me once, shame on you.. fool me twice.. shame on me"

its pretty dull to think they'll change or that their "motivations" towards Bitcoin are "humble" in any sort.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 07:18:10 AM
 #24553

You don't agree that some (probably most) people in the market for a water heater don't have incentive for the tsuris of figuring out all the details with getting a mining device running, connected to the internet, etc.?

I don't know. Depends how the device is designed. If it simply mines for the manufacturer and subsidizes the cost of the purchase, and if configuration is simple or nonexistent (perhaps a built-in cellular data chip with prepaid access), then I can see that working absolutely, and even possibly driving non-mining heaters off the market altogether. Many purchases are made without thinking past the up front cost.

Quote
I can't find a BTC miner with that wattage consumption for less than perhaps $20,000. I just briefly checked and only saw a 1250W one for $10,200.

I don't believe that is remotely applicable because you are paying for cutting edge power efficiency, for the case where that matters (high density deployments in data centers and mining farms), not the case where power is effectively free. If you can find them, you can buy older, less power-efficient miners for next to nothing. Underclock a bit so they run quietly and they make great room heaters!

It's also not a mass market product where chip prices can be driven down enormously. (How many microprocessors/microcontrollers would you imagine people own without even being aware of it? The number is quite high.)

Also, the mining component doesn't have to provide all the heat output, only some of it.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 07:18:22 AM
 #24554

If I recall correctly, the Bitcoin dev team was really excited about Zerocoin, until they saw that computational overhead which rightfully scared them away.

Now a zerocoin sidechain that is merged mined with Bitcoin and only lives off of it's own transaction fees, would enable people to fully clean any coin they have for a modest fee.

I vaguely remember the problem you mentioned and the shared secret needed in the bootstrapping step as the main causes why zerocoin wasn't merged, but I could be wrong.

Now both of them are solved in zerocash, though a merge now is highly improbable for economical, political and technical reasons.


Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 07:30:59 AM
 #24555

You don't agree that some (probably most) people in the market for a water heater don't have incentive for the tsuris of figuring out all the details with getting a mining device running, connected to the internet, etc.?

I don't know. Depends how the device is designed. If it simply mines for the manufacturer and subsidizes the cost of the purchase, and if configuration is simple or nonexistent (perhaps a built-in cellular data chip with prepaid access), then I can see that working absolutely, and even possibly driving non-mining heaters off the market altogether. Many purchases are made without thinking past the up front cost.

Cellular providers are not fungible every where. You are consistently attempting to erase the non-fungible characteristics in your analysis.

Quote
I can't find a BTC miner with that wattage consumption for less than perhaps $20,000. I just briefly checked and only saw a 1250W one for $10,200.

I don't believe that is remotely applicable because you are paying for cutting edge power efficiency, for the case where that matters (high density deployments in data centers and mining farms), not the case where power is effectively free. If you can find them, you can buy older, less power-efficient miners for next to nothing.

Can you show me any example? If we choose 10X less efficient technology, thus 10X less Bitcoins for the same wattage, thus my maximum of $50 (probably less) water portion of the electric bills gets subsidized by $5 per month. And for what additional cost and tsuris?

Work some specific numbers and I challenge you to find it to be viable. Is all the cost of BTC miners in the exclusivity (limited supply) of the latest (Intellectual Property) designs and virtually no hardware fabrication cost at all? Surely more firms would have entered to drive down prices in that case.

I do understand that if you produce a dedicated chip instead of ASIC, then costs decline significantly with volume. But efficiency also declines with age of the design.

If you don't replace your miner every 18 months, then you subsidy declines by half according to Moore's law. Are Bitcoin miners following Moore's law.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 07:48:39 AM
 #24556

Apparently space heating is 63% of electricity costs in cold climates compared to 17% for water heating:

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/products/categories/water-heaters/13735

Water heating cost can in many cases be reduced by 90% with a solar water heater assuming especially so in warmer climates. This is a more permanent option than Bitcoin mining, doesn't require periodic upgrading, doesn't require tax reporting.

Consider also the losses due to taxes on minted coins.

With space heating, we don't need 21 Inc. Anyone in the market for space heating with Bitcoin mining, can go buy a used miner on ebay now. Thus if that was a big mass movement market, why hasn't it happened already?

Either the economics or the market awareness are not conducive. Can 21 Inc do something to change that?

lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 07:50:10 AM
 #24557

UBS pays $545m to settle foreign exchange probe BBC - UBS FINE

Quote
US and UK authorities are expected to hand out penalties to major banks totalling about $5bn related to the foreign exchange investigation.

Just remind me again, what's the yearly quantity of money that got manipulated in the global Forex markets???
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 07:52:57 AM
 #24558

UBS pays $545m to settle foreign exchange probe BBC - UBS FINE

Quote
US and UK authorities are expected to hand out penalties to major banks totalling about $5bn related to the foreign exchange investigation.

Just remind me again, what's the yearly quantity of money that got manipulated in the global Forex markets???

Let's slap each other's wrist while we are copulating under the table with our other hands. But really can't you see we are smilingsneering (it so vigorous ya) and thus reforming.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:01:18 AM
 #24559

If I recall correctly, the Bitcoin dev team was really excited about Zerocoin, until they saw that computational overhead which rightfully scared them away.

Now a zerocoin sidechain that is merged mined with Bitcoin and only lives off of it's own transaction fees, would enable people to fully clean any coin they have for a modest fee.

I vaguely remember the problem you mentioned and the shared secret needed in the bootstrapping step as the main causes why zerocoin wasn't merged, but I could be wrong.

Now both of them are solved in zerocash, though a merge now is highly improbable for economical, political and technical reasons.

You are confusing the coin and the cash.  Zerocoin had severe scaling issues but less of a threat of unknown money supply (coins can be minted if key compromised but all coins coming out the accumulator are countable). Zerocash reduced scaling issues (but arguably not enough to scale) but added an uncountable money supply along with greater anonymity of every aspect of the transaction including the payment amounts.

Afaik, there was an attempt to fix the process of selecting the master key in Zerocash which is argued to be secure, but afaik there are still detractors who question if that process is secure. Bottom line is you can't count the money supply in Zerocash thus you can not prove whether it was secure or not in the real world.

Also I was worried about how reverted transactions would work in Zerocash with orphaned chains if there was attempt to avoid selfish mining using my math to merge blockchains and pay proportion coinbase (minted coins on) all orphaned chains.

Have there been developments since that?

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:05:28 AM
 #24560

With space heating, we don't need 21 Inc. Anyone in the market for space heating with Bitcoin mining, can go buy a used miner on ebay now. Thus if that was a big mass movement market, why hasn't it happened already?

It has. Poke around the mining forums and you see people mentioning constantly that keeping their home warm is part of the value proposition of mining for them.

21 apparently wants to scale out appliance and device mining to the mass market. That hasn't happened yet because no one has done it yet. The mass market isn't interested in (perhaps less than optimally efficient) mining rigs as heating units, but they'll be happy with an integrated plug-in unit that costs them less because it mines for the manufacturer.

Also, there no real tax burden to the manufacturer, mining revenue is taxed essentially the same as product or service revenue, especially if converted to fiat right away. That might well be part of the value-add to a subsidized-product model of mining.




Pages: « 1 ... 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 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 ... 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!