Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 12:29:08 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 [1330] 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805792 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:17:10 PM
 #26581

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481156948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481156948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481156948
Reply with quote  #2

1481156948
Report to moderator
1481156948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481156948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481156948
Reply with quote  #2

1481156948
Report to moderator
1481156948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481156948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481156948
Reply with quote  #2

1481156948
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:19:41 PM
 #26582

Meanwhile in other news:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-china-becomes-first-chinese-bank-to-help-set-gold-price-1434453559

Great, now China is set to get in on the Gold price fixing (fraud).  Is this good news?

the mere fact that it can be set indicates there's a problem there.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:21:34 PM
 #26583

Meanwhile in other news:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-china-becomes-first-chinese-bank-to-help-set-gold-price-1434453559

Great, now China is set to get in on the Gold price fixing fraud.
That was a no brainer.. Jpm basically left the game and moved onto something else.. What that is who knows.

with China snarfing up all the world's gold and the US on the brink of disaster with it's 44 yr history of fiat debasement while now at the zero bound and with Blythe Master's pumping Bitcoin, one could be surprised what JPM decides to go after.

and that actually would be a good thing.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:28:15 PM
 #26584

with all this talk about the advantages of Matt Corallo's relay network inferring onto large miners, one of the first things i'm going to do when i get around to it is to hook up a bunch of full nodes to said relay network which, imo, will help negate any latency large blocks might infer to large miners trying to exploit a large block attack by choking full nodes and small miners.

essentially, the way i understand it, is that the relay network is a form of IBLT which limits the need for tx propgation to one.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:29:45 PM
 #26585

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:33:36 PM
 #26586

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:38:27 PM
 #26587

I think I've heard all the arguments, but I still cannot understand the opposition to increasing the blocksize.

I don't have an (maybe I should say: a valid) opinion on the block size debate. I would prefer to err on the side of decentralization, but at this point I'm not even sure what that is. I think magic numbers are a poor solution (but I'm sure they are sometimes necessary).

I'm not afraid of forks, like most people seem to be. I think that everyone should be prepared for how they will deal with possible forks in the future.

What I do know is that after spending a lot of time reading about Bitcoin for the past several years, and getting a feel for some of the people involved, I would prefer to stay far, far away from anything that is related to Mike Hearn. For the life of me, I can't even understand why someone like him is interested in Bitcoin (unless it's to change it into something else entirely). I'm thankful that he has barely touched Bitcoin Core.

So I oppose BitcoinXT, but not necessarily a block size increase.

Disclaimer: I use Mycelium for convenience from time to time and do not know whether or not that is based on any of Hearn's BitcoinJ.

as long as Gavin remains as lead core dev, i'm ok with Hearn being a core dev. 

there was a thread on Reddit yesterday devoted to trashing Hearn that provided the obvious links to his controversial proposals in the past.  i was grateful for that as it allowed me to go back and review them.  no surprise, i was very vocal against his suggestion to redlist addresses while him being on the foundation board.  but then yesterday i read a little deeper and his "suggestion" to do that was in reaction to the Cryptolocker Bitcoin correlation that was prevalent at the time.  at least his heart was in the right place altho redlisting is still a terrible idea for fungibility.  i get that ppl think he is flippant about centralizing ideas and i would agree with that.  but at the same time, he clearly wants Bitcoin to succeed; and in a BIG way.  thus, i choose to look at him with a little bit more moderation than i have in the past.  he is terribly smart and it should be clear his refusal to participate in BIP's over the last couple years has been in reaction to having to deal with ppl like gmax.  i don't blame him. 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:40:13 PM
 #26588

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:44:30 PM
 #26589

no surprise, i was very vocal against his suggestion to redlist addresses while him being on the foundation board.  but then yesterday i read a little deeper and his "suggestion" to do that was in reaction to the Cryptolocker Bitcoin correlation that was prevalent at the time.  at least his heart was in the right place... 

Spoken in the true Hegelian dialectic paradigm of good car salesman and bad car salesman, i.e. build a crisis to offer a less worst option. I have a neurobiologist researcher analyzing everyone's posts in this thread and giving me analysis of their behavior. Creepy? No just rational.

Here is the equation I use to model the effect on the Hegelian dialectic paradigm.

...

The independent minded people you see in Colorado will jump to comply with NWO directives for as long as they can keep their lifestyles 90% intact.

Let me show you my equation for the slow burn:

0.90 ^ n

Where n = the duration of the slow burn and ^ is the exponentiation operator.

Humans comply to keep 90%. Rinse and repeat.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:50:35 PM
 #26590

check out of the gold collapse

I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming.

I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement.

What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed!

Has it ever been any different?

What you have to remember about this thread is that if all the egos were laid end to end....


...no-one would be in the least bit surprised.

TRUE. One huge egotrip in this thread. It should be locked and forgotten about.
But BTC is dropping and gold will climb, so at the very least it should have it's title changed.


sorry, Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
 #26591

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:58:03 PM
 #26592

$DJI up a measly +38 while the $DJT down -73.

simply more divergence.  not good.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:00:14 PM
 #26593

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:00:31 PM
 #26594

http://www.8btc.com/blocksize-increase-2

Courtesy of google translator:

Quote
Beijing June 11, 2015, five Chinese mine pool jointly organized the "mine pool Technology Seminar" at the National Convention Center participating F2pool.com, BW.com, BTCChina, Huobi.com, Antpool.com five mine pool cell technology for ore-depth discussions and reached consensus on the expansion part of the block. They agreed that capacity is needed Bitcoin block size; in ensuring the premise of unified Bitcoin network intends in the next period of time to accept the size does not exceed 8MB (8,000,000Bytes) blocks.

edit: just found out there's already a thread in the speculation section https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091170.0

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:01:21 PM
 #26595

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

hooohoooohoooo.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:06:02 PM
 #26596

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

hooohoooohoooo.

Lol I just realized that you probably can't run bitcoin on a raspberry pie  Cheesy


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:09:07 PM
 #26597

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?

Or so you were lead to believe.

And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers also divested all their wealth too.

P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

i am in agreement to talk with you on video Skype.  what's your handle?

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

yoohoo, TPTB_need_war, yoohoo.

hooohoooohoooo.

Lol I just realized that you probably can't run bitcoin on a raspberry pie  Cheesy



how many hoos can a yahoo like TPTB_need_war hoo?

answer:  zeroo
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:17:59 PM
 #26598

wow, that shut his ass up quick didn't it?  Cheesy

anyone who shills so hard for Martin Armstrong so much, who writes so poorly as Martin Armstrong so much (probably using spellchecker and grammar check), and who argues against Bitcoin as Martin Armstrong so much, probably is Martin Armstrong.

of course i could be entirely wrong.  which is why i'm perfectly fine to video Skype with TPTB_need_war.
 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:23:57 PM
 #26599

wow, that shut his ass up quick didn't it?  Cheesy

anyone who shills so hard for Martin Armstrong so much, who writes so poorly as Martin Armstrong so much (probably using spellchecker and grammar check), and who argues against Bitcoin as Martin Armstrong so much, probably is Martin Armstrong.

of course i could be entirely wrong.  which is why i'm perfectly fine to video Skype with TPTB_need_war.
 

and, yahoo TPTB_need_war, if you are Martin Armstrong, don't you dare try to get a sit in for yahoo TPTB_need_war  because i will quiz that kid up the wazoo, you yahoo, on the massive content of what you've spammed in this thread which the poor kid would have no hope or understanding of that history.
illodin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:29:08 PM
 #26600

Are you on the manic phase currently?

I thought you had him on ignore btw.  Roll Eyes
Pages: « 1 ... 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 [1330] 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 ... 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!