Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 04:52:59 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803452 times)
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 02:46:17 PM
 #25041


lol so now gavin is only considering mike's opinion. plus calling for lobbying ( Shocked ) from merchants and centralized businesses...

mymy.. USG get out of this body! Roll Eyes

He has to lobby merchants and exchanges to accept the changes because of the decentralized nature of Bitcoin.

this is what i want to see, the will of the majority crush the minority

this IS what Bitcoin is all about.

Do It Do it, come on, Do it!

As always, the majority is often wrong and misguided. Because masses are far more easy to manipulate than individuals. So your majority can go screw themselves as they are used to. Im not following the sheeples.

Seriously bitcoin is NOT about lobbying, that filthy practice which is far from democratic and in direct opposition to a natural consensus.
Bitcoin is about freedom.
It certainly doesnt need lobbyists a la TBF to take over teh world and them wall street scammers.

Gavin seems pretty desperate here. Good.


edit: funny the irony of such a nice bitcoiner like you to consider bypassing the decentralized consensus of Bitcoin with some nasty self centered lobbyists.


It's not about lobbying or desperation.  This is why bitcoin works:

Quote from: Gavin Andresen
Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
1480740779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480740779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480740779
Reply with quote  #2

1480740779
Report to moderator
1480740779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480740779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480740779
Reply with quote  #2

1480740779
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480740779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480740779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480740779
Reply with quote  #2

1480740779
Report to moderator
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 02:48:36 PM
 #25042


lol so now gavin is only considering mike's opinion. plus calling for lobbying ( Shocked ) from merchants and centralized businesses...

mymy.. USG get out of this body! Roll Eyes

He has to lobby merchants and exchanges to accept the changes because of the decentralized nature of Bitcoin.

this is what i want to see, the will of the majority crush the minority

this IS what Bitcoin is all about.

Do It Do it, come on, Do it!

As always, the majority is often wrong and misguided. Because masses are far more easy to manipulate than individuals. So your majority can go screw themselves as they are used to. Im not following the sheeples.

Seriously bitcoin is NOT about lobbying, that filthy practice which is far from democratic and in direct opposition to a natural consensus.
Bitcoin is about freedom.
It certainly doesnt need lobbyists a la TBF to take over teh world and them wall street scammers.

Gavin seems pretty desperate here. Good.


edit: funny the irony of such a nice bitcoiner like you to consider bypassing the decentralized consensus of Bitcoin with some nasty self centered lobbyists.


It's not about lobbying or desperation.  This is why bitcoin works:

Quote from: Gavin Andresen
Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.

this is pure fud. what then? bitcoin is doomed? bitcoin back to 0 because you cant buy you frappuccino at MK's coffee shop in tokyo? please. Roll Eyes
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 02:53:41 PM
 #25043


lol so now gavin is only considering mike's opinion. plus calling for lobbying ( Shocked ) from merchants and centralized businesses...

mymy.. USG get out of this body! Roll Eyes

He has to lobby merchants and exchanges to accept the changes because of the decentralized nature of Bitcoin.

this is what i want to see, the will of the majority crush the minority

this IS what Bitcoin is all about.

Do It Do it, come on, Do it!

As always, the majority is often wrong and misguided. Because masses are far more easy to manipulate than individuals. So your majority can go screw themselves as they are used to. Im not following the sheeples.

Seriously bitcoin is NOT about lobbying, that filthy practice which is far from democratic and in direct opposition to a natural consensus.
Bitcoin is about freedom.
It certainly doesnt need lobbyists a la TBF to take over teh world and them wall street scammers.

Gavin seems pretty desperate here. Good.


edit: funny the irony of such a nice bitcoiner like you to consider bypassing the decentralized consensus of Bitcoin with some nasty self centered lobbyists.


It's not about lobbying or desperation.  This is why bitcoin works:

Quote from: Gavin Andresen
Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.

this is pure fud. what then? bitcoin is doomed? bitcoin back to 0? please. Roll Eyes

what he is saying is that the economic majority will determine Bitcoin's future.  it always has.  this isn't some pigeon-hole geek experiment confined to technical considerations only.  this has always been primarily an economic project enforced thru technical means.  where would all these geeks be w/o all the fiat money poured into this project since the beginning?  no_where.

the geeks, esp gmax and LukeJr, have tried to make this a tail wagging the dog project.  instead, Gavin understands that ultimately the dog needs to wag the tail.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:00:55 PM
 #25044


lol so now gavin is only considering mike's opinion. plus calling for lobbying ( Shocked ) from merchants and centralized businesses...

mymy.. USG get out of this body! Roll Eyes

He has to lobby merchants and exchanges to accept the changes because of the decentralized nature of Bitcoin.

this is what i want to see, the will of the majority crush the minority

this IS what Bitcoin is all about.

Do It Do it, come on, Do it!

As always, the majority is often wrong and misguided. Because masses are far more easy to manipulate than individuals. So your majority can go screw themselves as they are used to. Im not following the sheeples.

Seriously bitcoin is NOT about lobbying, that filthy practice which is far from democratic and in direct opposition to a natural consensus.
Bitcoin is about freedom.
It certainly doesnt need lobbyists a la TBF to take over teh world and them wall street scammers.

Gavin seems pretty desperate here. Good.


edit: funny the irony of such a nice bitcoiner like you to consider bypassing the decentralized consensus of Bitcoin with some nasty self centered lobbyists.


It's not about lobbying or desperation.  This is why bitcoin works:

Quote from: Gavin Andresen
Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.

this is pure fud. what then? bitcoin is doomed? bitcoin back to 0? please. Roll Eyes

what he is saying is that the economic majority will determine Bitcoin's future.  it always has.  this isn't some pigeon-hole geek experiment confined to technical considerations only.  this has always been primarily an economic project enforced thru technical means.  where would all these geeks be w/o all the fiat money poured into this project since the beginning?  no_where.

the geeks, esp gmax and LukeJr, have tried to make this a tail wagging the dog project.  instead, Gavin understands that ultimately the dog needs to wag the tail.


ultimately, gavin is USG's dog here.

seriously I am baffled that smart people like you here fail at grasping the situation regarding the US endoctrinement of the masses and manipulation of literally everything they could get a leverage with.

let it not be with Bitcoin. because decentralized consensus. thats what i signed for.

so ultimately, people will fight to get a (rare) piece of that secured and robust technology when the rest of the financial world will be on the hedge. so let it be decentralized man. no need friggin leaders. we already have enough of them.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:02:33 PM
 #25045

we all want things to launch right?  get your space suits on:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:15:46 PM
 #25046


lol so now gavin is only considering mike's opinion. plus calling for lobbying ( Shocked ) from merchants and centralized businesses...

mymy.. USG get out of this body! Roll Eyes

He has to lobby merchants and exchanges to accept the changes because of the decentralized nature of Bitcoin.

this is what i want to see, the will of the majority crush the minority

this IS what Bitcoin is all about.

Do It Do it, come on, Do it!

As always, the majority is often wrong and misguided. Because masses are far more easy to manipulate than individuals. So your majority can go screw themselves as they are used to. Im not following the sheeples.

Seriously bitcoin is NOT about lobbying, that filthy practice which is far from democratic and in direct opposition to a natural consensus.
Bitcoin is about freedom.
It certainly doesnt need lobbyists a la TBF to take over teh world and them wall street scammers.

Gavin seems pretty desperate here. Good.


edit: funny the irony of such a nice bitcoiner like you to consider bypassing the decentralized consensus of Bitcoin with some nasty self centered lobbyists.


It's not about lobbying or desperation.  This is why bitcoin works:

Quote from: Gavin Andresen
Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.

this is pure fud. what then? bitcoin is doomed? bitcoin back to 0? please. Roll Eyes

what he is saying is that the economic majority will determine Bitcoin's future.  it always has.  this isn't some pigeon-hole geek experiment confined to technical considerations only.  this has always been primarily an economic project enforced thru technical means.  where would all these geeks be w/o all the fiat money poured into this project since the beginning?  no_where.

the geeks, esp gmax and LukeJr, have tried to make this a tail wagging the dog project.  instead, Gavin understands that ultimately the dog needs to wag the tail.


ultimately, gavin is USG's dog here.

seriously I am baffled that smart people like you here fail at grasping the situation regarding the US endoctrinement of the masses and manipulation of literally everything they could get a leverage with.

let it not be with Bitcoin. because decentralized consensus. thats what i signed for.

so ultimately, people will fight to get a (rare) piece of that secured and robust technology when the rest of the financial world will be on the hedge. so let it be decentralized man. no need friggin leaders. we already have enough of them.

we're on the same team.  we all want more decentralization.  we're simply arguing about the best way to achieve that.  multiple ppl here have argued how increasing the block size will facilitate that.  i happen to think those arguments are most sound.

i'm not sure why you say Gavin is a USG lap dog.  over Bitcoin's entire history since his involvement, he has been shown to provide sound leadership.  my poll and the other github poll show this.  the general tenor of comments show this.  yes, there are haters but on balance he is the right one to have been chosen to be lead.  
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:16:57 PM
 #25047

Gold preparing to take the next dive.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:20:54 PM
 #25048

The reason we have to worry about miners producing "too large" blocks is because they don't pay for all the P2P network resources they use (neither do end users).

All the arguments we have about resource consumption are derived from that primary design flaw.

If we fix it, then we won't have to argue any more.

Well put.

Till we have had a 1:1 ratio between full node and miner, the block reward
did pay for all the resoures involed in the process. Once such ratio started
to decrease, due to the introduction of mining pools, mining and full node
role became more and more decoupled.

The block reward remains on the miner side, though.
* edited to read more clearly.
I agree with the notion that miners are for the most part unaffected by block size and are empowered not to care, this is also why I dismiss those developer arguments that want to solve the block size problem by manipulating mining fees, or some variant of this idea. The incentive is not in the TX fee to reduce block size - that's paying miners not nodes if anything you want the incentive to be supply and demand based on node size.

Ironically it is only the competition for the fee between miners that will force writing blocks to the marginal cost and force the block size to the smallest size capable of sustaining a profit, this could be neatly modeled by the Nash equilibrium.

As block rewards diminishes the Nash equilibrium is introduced and miners become marginalized with little to no power in the system.

I participated in discussing the idea in 2012  of financially incentivizing notes in a market driven way to regulate miners and block size. But after pondering the idea over time it seemed it was not  necessary.

People invested in the idea that money is memory who store that memory on the blockchain - They have a lot of "memory",ie. an invested interest in the blockchain will want to preserve the blockchain, some call it altruistic but I prefer to think they will use greed for the grater good.

The conclusion I draw is as long as wealth is distributed and people are in competition with one another the blockchain will remain distributed. by the nature of the design of Bitcoin, the wealth that is still to move in to Bitcoin cannot be transferred into Bitcoin with out redistributing it to the participants who grow the network.  

 

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:25:02 PM
 #25049

some call it altruistic but I prefer to think they will use greed for the grater good.

 

Nash was a great man.  watch the video:

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/602533856290349056
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 29, 2015, 03:27:12 PM
 #25050

There's a peculiar kind of incoherence about people who can argue both for decentralization and also argue that users of the system can not be relied up to decide their own best interests.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:32:34 PM
 #25051

There's a peculiar kind of incoherence about people who can argue both for decentralization and also argue that users of the system can not be relied up to decide their own best interests.

especially profound given how many here argue that individuals are "stupid" and irrational.  this is a particular form of pessimism and hubris. 

given the proper incentives, individuals can be counted on to be quite rational to work not only in their individual best interest, but that of the group.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 29, 2015, 03:34:00 PM
 #25052

It's not possible to build a currency on misanthropy.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/reciprocal-altruism-in-the-theory-of-money/

Quote
Reciprocal altruism is a great first start as a theory of money because it so neatly undercuts a lot of the most common fallacies. First, what gives money value? An adherent of commodity money might say that it is the industrial uses of the money good, whereas an adherent of fiat money might say that it is the force of the government issuing it, and the loyalty people have toward their government. Neither of these answers is true. It is true that some system is required to keep track of who has money and who does not, but that is not what makes money valuable. The value of money is the value of cooperation. It is that simple. The value of money is not somehow in the monetary unit; it is in the whole of society and in peoples’ desire to cooperate.

If you want your money to be valuable you need the people who produce the products and services you want to consume to use that money.

There is no other way to imbue currency with value.

If bringing sound money into existence requires an mass education project to overcome many generations of propaganda-induced fallacies, then that's what it going to take.

There is no shortcut.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:35:47 PM
 #25053

Funny that the new bitcoin fork will be called bitcoinxt Cheesy
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:48:48 PM
 #25054

It's not possible to build a currency on misanthropy.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/reciprocal-altruism-in-the-theory-of-money/

Quote
Reciprocal altruism is a great first start as a theory of money because it so neatly undercuts a lot of the most common fallacies. First, what gives money value? An adherent of commodity money might say that it is the industrial uses of the money good, whereas an adherent of fiat money might say that it is the force of the government issuing it, and the loyalty people have toward their government. Neither of these answers is true. It is true that some system is required to keep track of who has money and who does not, but that is not what makes money valuable. The value of money is the value of cooperation. It is that simple. The value of money is not somehow in the monetary unit; it is in the whole of society and in peoples’ desire to cooperate.

If you want your money to be valuable you need the people who produce the products and services you want to consume to use that money.

There is no other way to imbue currency with value.

If bringing sound money into existence requires an mass education project to overcome many generations of propaganda-induced fallacies, then that's what it going to take.

There is no shortcut.

the Blockstream devs have said they would like to see & study what happens upon the repeated filling of blocks.  they'd like to study what happens to frustrated users, hoodwinked merchants, exchange price volatility, confused full nodes, etc.  to what end?  to satisfy their own curiosity?  and only to then raise the limit as they've admitted to?  what a bunch of misplaced pseudo-academia.

they're like a wife who begs her husband to beat her just so she can experience what it is like.  so he beats her repeatedly.  she finally decides she doesn't like it.   but it's too late; he's already lost all respect for her and leaves for another woman.  that's what will happen to Bitcoin if users and merchants have bad experiences at this early stage of the game.  they'll just leave and may not come back for a 100 yrs.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:56:46 PM
 #25055

Perhaps some of the coders here can help me understand something.

Why not have an new "mempool" be created every 10 minutes, so that if it takes 30 minutes to find a block the winning miner will just take all the valid transactions in the first mempool, no matter how huge the total "blocksize" would be, and put only the hash of those transactions into the block? That way the block itself would be tiny so propagation wouldn't be an issue. All miners and other full nodes would have the first mempool transactions already(?), those being set in stone, so they would just have to check that the hash matches the set of all valid tx in the first mempool. Then the next winning miner would take all the valid tx in the second mempool, etc.

Of course if a miner finds the next block in less than 10 minutes and there is no mempool queued up yet, this doesn't work. Perhap difficulty would have to be adjusted to ensure miners were usually a little bit behind the curve.

This seems to shift the burden from bandwidth to CPU power for checking the hash, but as long as miners are behind the curve it seems to avoid the "race" where lower-bandwidth miners/nodes are at a disadvantage.

Does this, or anything like it, make any sense?
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2015, 04:02:45 PM
 #25056

Perhaps some of the coders here can help me understand something.

Why not have an new "mempool" be created every 10 minutes, so that if it takes 30 minutes to find a block the winning miner will just take all the valid transactions in the first mempool, no matter how huge the total "blocksize" would be, and put only the hash of those transactions into the block? That way the block itself would be tiny so propagation wouldn't be an issue. All miners and other full nodes would have the mempool transactions already(?), so they would just have to check that the hash matches the set of all valid tx in the first mempool. Then the next winning miner would take all the valid tx in the second mempool, etc.

Of course if a miner finds the next block in less than 10 minutes and there is no mempool queued up yet, this doesn't work. Perhap difficulty would have to be adjusted to ensure miners were usually a little bit behind the curve.

Does this, or anything like it, make any sense?

i think thats more or less how its currently works when there's a backlog of unconfirmed TX

this is fine for now, but at one point if theres alot of TX the mem pool will just grow and grow, and TX will confirm slower and slower.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 04:04:16 PM
 #25057

such a simple but elegant point here from Reddit:

[–]painlord2k 5 points 48 minutes ago

Use your coins as usual. More uses, more transactions, the smaller blockchain will not be able to manage the transactions and people will be forced to migrate to the larger.

permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 04:06:09 PM
 #25058

Perhaps some of the coders here can help me understand something.

Why not have an new "mempool" be created every 10 minutes, so that if it takes 30 minutes to find a block the winning miner will just take all the valid transactions in the first mempool, no matter how huge the total "blocksize" would be, and put only the hash of those transactions into the block? That way the block itself would be tiny so propagation wouldn't be an issue. All miners and other full nodes would have the mempool transactions already(?), so they would just have to check that the hash matches the set of all valid tx in the first mempool. Then the next winning miner would take all the valid tx in the second mempool, etc.

Of course if a miner finds the next block in less than 10 minutes and there is no mempool queued up yet, this doesn't work. Perhap difficulty would have to be adjusted to ensure miners were usually a little bit behind the curve.

Does this, or anything like it, make any sense?

i think thats more or less how its currently works when there's a backlog of unconfirmed TX

this is fine for now, but at one point if theres alot of TX the mem pool will just grow and grow, and TX will confirm slower and slower.

You're saying miners currently sometimes only put the hash of all the tx in a block, instead of the tx themselves? Huh
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2015, 04:08:44 PM
 #25059

Perhaps some of the coders here can help me understand something.

Why not have an new "mempool" be created every 10 minutes, so that if it takes 30 minutes to find a block the winning miner will just take all the valid transactions in the first mempool, no matter how huge the total "blocksize" would be, and put only the hash of those transactions into the block? That way the block itself would be tiny so propagation wouldn't be an issue. All miners and other full nodes would have the mempool transactions already(?), so they would just have to check that the hash matches the set of all valid tx in the first mempool. Then the next winning miner would take all the valid tx in the second mempool, etc.

Of course if a miner finds the next block in less than 10 minutes and there is no mempool queued up yet, this doesn't work. Perhap difficulty would have to be adjusted to ensure miners were usually a little bit behind the curve.

Does this, or anything like it, make any sense?

i think thats more or less how its currently works when there's a backlog of unconfirmed TX

this is fine for now, but at one point if theres alot of TX the mem pool will just grow and grow, and TX will confirm slower and slower.

You're saying miners currently sometimes only put the hash of all the tx in a block, instead of the tx themselves? Huh

i miss read, ya no they put the Full TX

I dont see how knowing which TX to include in the next block is going to help tho.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 04:12:39 PM
 #25060

Perhaps some of the coders here can help me understand something.

Why not have an new "mempool" be created every 10 minutes, so that if it takes 30 minutes to find a block the winning miner will just take all the valid transactions in the first mempool, no matter how huge the total "blocksize" would be, and put only the hash of those transactions into the block? That way the block itself would be tiny so propagation wouldn't be an issue. All miners and other full nodes would have the first mempool transactions already(?), those being set in stone, so they would just have to check that the hash matches the set of all valid tx in the first mempool. Then the next winning miner would take all the valid tx in the second mempool, etc.

Of course if a miner finds the next block in less than 10 minutes and there is no mempool queued up yet, this doesn't work. Perhap difficulty would have to be adjusted to ensure miners were usually a little bit behind the curve.

This seems to shift the burden from bandwidth to CPU power for checking the hash, but as long as miners are behind the curve it seems to avoid the "race" where lower-bandwidth miners/nodes are at a disadvantage.

Does this, or anything like it, make any sense?

the mempool is rarely uniform across all nodes.  it would be impossible to reconstruct which unconf tx's a node would be missing.

your idea is a variation on IBLT.  but in that case, nodes can reconstruct their missing tx's due to the math of the IBLT.

and your idea would totally render SPV clients unusable as they rely on retrieving the Merkle tree path with it's block header to their specific tx history they are interested in.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 ... 1560 »
  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!