Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 08:35:49 PM *
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 ... 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 [1381] 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805691 times)
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 27, 2015, 05:07:19 PM
 #27601

I read that comment and thought the same thing.
I think it would be a tragedy for them to miss that lesson, and then lose the ability to make beneficial contributions to Bitcoin in the future.

On a related note, the people whom I follow and consider the top thinkers in bitcoin, were perhaps 2 to 1 in favour of SPVP sidechains.  I've noticed that this blocksize debate has triggered several of them to reconsider, and my hunch is that this group is now 2 to 1 against.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
1481142949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142949
Reply with quote  #2

1481142949
Report to moderator
1481142949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142949
Reply with quote  #2

1481142949
Report to moderator
1481142949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142949
Reply with quote  #2

1481142949
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481142949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142949
Reply with quote  #2

1481142949
Report to moderator
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 27, 2015, 05:12:22 PM
 #27602

I read that comment and thought the same thing.
I think it would be a tragedy for them to miss that lesson, and then lose the ability to make beneficial contributions to Bitcoin in the future.

I'd love to see the blinded output amounts from Confidential Transactions make it into Bitcoin, but I don't think their current approach to this debate is a viable way of ensuring they'll be in a position to advocate for that in the future.

I would afraid to have CT on main chain.
There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 27, 2015, 05:20:20 PM
 #27603

There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.
That is the risk - the scheme relies on the security of ECDSA to protect the currency supply.

We're already relying on ECDSA to protect our balances from overt theft, so I'm not sure how much it actually changes the security model to also rely on it to protect our balances from covert theft via counterfeiting.

The reason I'm interested in amount blinding is that my current project is working out a multi-step plan to kill graph analysis. With the right plan and without blinded amounts we can kill graph analysis, but with blinded amounts we can drive a stake through its heart to make sure it stays dead.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 27, 2015, 05:35:08 PM
 #27604

There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.
That is the risk - the scheme relies on the security of ECDSA to protect the currency supply.

We're already relying on ECDSA to protect our balances from overt theft, so I'm not sure how much it actually changes the security model to also rely on it to protect our balances from covert theft via counterfeiting.

The reason I'm interested in amount blinding is that my current project is working out a multi-step plan to kill graph analysis. With the right plan and without blinded amounts we can kill graph analysis, but with blinded amounts we can drive a stake through its heart to make sure it stays dead.

We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 27, 2015, 05:56:40 PM
 #27605

tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?

i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point.  the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.

get with the character assassinations you thugs.

Just FWIW, your attacks on Maxwell in particular contributed to my pulling out all the stops in going after your champions Hearn and Andresen.  Even so, I never stooped to using absurd bullshit arguments (that I can recall.)  All of my critiques have been what I felt comfortable arguing vigorously.  Perhaps for that reason they are rarely challenged (to my dismay.)


Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 27, 2015, 06:03:04 PM
 #27606

Much of the blocksize-limit debate is about keeping Bitcoin decentralized.  But I'm not even sure we even agree what that word means!  I'll propose the following as a working definition:

  "A system is decentralized if no entity exists that can exert veto power over the consensus process."

Interestingly, according to this definition a system cannot be more decentralized or less decentralized.  Similar to how a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant, a system is either decentralized or it is not.  

Of course there's certain behaviours that a woman can do to increase the chances of moving from the "not" state to the "pregnant" state, and certain precautions she can take to decrease these chances--but this is a different matter entirely to whether she is or is not pregnant.  Analogously, there are certain designs that may be more (or less) robust to moving to a centralized state, but that's a different thing from whether the system is or is not decentralized.  

So we actually need two distinct terms: "decentralized" is one of them, but we need another term that refers to the system's likelihood of remaining in the decentralized state.  

Not bad. The market is what we need.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 27, 2015, 07:22:53 PM
 #27607

There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.
That is the risk - the scheme relies on the security of ECDSA to protect the currency supply.

We're already relying on ECDSA to protect our balances from overt theft, so I'm not sure how much it actually changes the security model to also rely on it to protect our balances from covert theft via counterfeiting.

The reason I'm interested in amount blinding is that my current project is working out a multi-step plan to kill graph analysis. With the right plan and without blinded amounts we can kill graph analysis, but with blinded amounts we can drive a stake through its heart to make sure it stays dead.

We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.

Actually, the best path to a safe balance is not having a public balance at all.

http://i.imgur.com/fUVBvXK.png

http://i.imgur.com/FY7q54I.png

http://i.imgur.com/MUOwbae.png
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 27, 2015, 07:37:02 PM
 #27608

geezuz crimony.  look at the blocks filling up.  and this is NOT a spam attack. it's from use:

http://btc.blockr.io/block/list/

yet Cripplecoin.

blocks are filling up b/c of the buying going on.  

who here wants to be stuck with unconfirmed tx buy pressure b/c of the fricking 1MB'ers?

According to https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html there are 2,794,041 (53.24%) addresses with value less than 0.0001 btc.

If we have enough space for this shit https://blockchain.info/tx/73026d18b0b3e627c7b1b84bea69496963b91d7e2ddb1b9efab9622836e6c6c8 then we do not need increase in block size.

Let them pay $1 per transaction.

Agreed. Undecided

My bank charges me $10 for international transfer.

$1 per transaction ( 250 bytes )  is $4,000 per 1 MB block.
 - 6 * $4,000 =>  $24,000 per hour
 - 24 * $24,000 => $576,000 fee/day
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 27, 2015, 07:47:25 PM
 #27609

tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?

i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point.  the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.

get with the character assassinations you thugs.

Not to give an opinion on the merit of the above posters, but have you weighed the benefits of page position versus the harm to the signal-to-noise ratio from continual acrimonious/low-content bickering? Even the harm to the reputation of this thread as the easiest place to quickly (i.e., without having to sort through many pages of noise) get abreast of the actually important happenings and debates in the space? Due to the existing quality the good name of the thread will only grow, pushing it ever high on the page, even without all the noise. The noise certainly helps keep the thread near the top but at the cost of threatening to ruin the main selling point of the thread.
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
June 27, 2015, 07:51:30 PM
 #27610

tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?

i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point.  the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.

get with the character assassinations you thugs.

Not to give an opinion on the merit of the above posters, but have you weighed the benefits of page position versus the harm to the signal-to-noise ratio from continual acrimonious/low-content bickering? Even the harm to the reputation of this thread as the easiest place to quickly (i.e., without having to sort through many pages of noise) get abreast of the actually important happenings and debates in the space? Due to the existing quality the good name of the thread will only grow, pushing it ever high on the page, even without all the noise.

the ole S/N has been lots better since i put them all on ignore. Although there has been the odd entire page of "This user is currently ignored." looking at you TBTP.  Roll Eyes
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 27, 2015, 07:54:28 PM
 #27611

...
Let them pay $1 per transaction.

Agreed. Undecided

My bank charges me $10 for international transfer.

$1 per transaction ( 250 bytes )  is $4,000 per 1 MB block.
 - 6 * $4,000 =>  $24,000 per hour
 - 24 * $24,000 => $576,000 fee/day

I pay around $10 per transaction and am happy to do it.  Bitcoin is vastly faster and less hassle than wire transfers, and more reliable than mainstream banking in my experience (having accounts silently shut down with no (written) explanation and no interaction but with a fully licensed and compliant entity (Coinbase).)  Edit:  BTW, my bank charges me $25 or so for wires.

In that case the revenue is more like a quarter-million dollars per hour, and my rough guess without researching it much is that at 1MB Bitcoin could already consume most of the world market for wire transfers.  Or at least international ones.

With these kinds of numbers, even running a pretty small mining setup solo would be better odds than playing the lottery.  If pools were attacked successfully most of the participants would fragment and those who could still obtain access to the Bitcoin network (receive transactions successfully) would likely keep right on chugging away.  In fact, in such an event the large mining farms who are not protected by the state would probably be off-line making the difficulty less.  Of course some of them might keep chugging away working on attacks (specifically, tainting.)

---

Another edit:

Hearn said famously about tainting:  'There is no difference between confiscating someone's BTC and keeping them from being spent for 20 years.'  His example was Qaddafi.  The 20 year figure comes from the Independent miners who were assumed to be priced out of the market by those operating on economies of scale and exploiting revenue streams not available to any but the largest entities on the global internet.

Non-trivial revenue from fees would throw a huge monkey-wrench into that plan, and in particular because a blacklisted (or non-whitelisted) transaction instigator could and would pay even higher fees.  I wonder (and suspect) that that is part of what is driving the desperation to not have transaction fees become a significant part of infrastructure support.


Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 27, 2015, 08:20:43 PM
 #27612

...
Let them pay $1 per transaction.

Agreed. Undecided

My bank charges me $10 for international transfer.

$1 per transaction ( 250 bytes )  is $4,000 per 1 MB block.
 - 6 * $4,000 =>  $24,000 per hour
 - 24 * $24,000 => $576,000 fee/day

I pay around $10 per transaction and am happy to do it.  Bitcoin is vastly faster and less hassle than wire transfers, and more reliable than mainstream banking in my experience (having accounts silently shut down with no (written) explanation and no interaction but with a fully licensed and compliant entity (Coinbase).)  Edit:  BTW, my bank charges me $25 or so for wires.

In that case the revenue is more like a quarter-million dollars per hour, and my rough guess without researching it much is that at 1MB Bitcoin could already consume most of the world market for wire transfers.  Or at least international ones.

With these kinds of numbers, even running a pretty small mining setup solo would be better odds than playing the lottery.  If pools were attacked successfully most of the participants would fragment and those who could still obtain access to the Bitcoin network (receive transactions successfully) would likely keep right on chugging away.  In fact, in such an event the large mining farms who are not protected by the state would probably be off-line making the difficulty less.  Of course some of them might keep chugging away working on attacks (specifically, tainting.)



Combine this 1 MB backbone with thousands of SC where you can make micro-payments instantly
  - we can handle 100,000 transaction/sec.
  - all you need is phone
  - you can run full node and 2-3 preferred fast-wallet services on tihs phone.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 27, 2015, 08:32:32 PM
 #27613

tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?

i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point.  the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.

get with the character assassinations you thugs.

Not to give an opinion on the merit of the above posters, but have you weighed the benefits of page position versus the harm to the signal-to-noise ratio from continual acrimonious/low-content bickering? Even the harm to the reputation of this thread as the easiest place to quickly (i.e., without having to sort through many pages of noise) get abreast of the actually important happenings and debates in the space? Due to the existing quality the good name of the thread will only grow, pushing it ever high on the page, even without all the noise. The noise certainly helps keep the thread near the top but at the cost of threatening to ruin the main selling point of the thread.

interesting points.  no, i haven't done anything formal but i do know that the popularity is growing.  for instance, at the end of February 2015 the view count was approximately 800K.  four months later we're here at 1.2M.  and i'm very sure of that as i made a mental note at the time for a particular reason.  so 400K equals 3333 views per day or 2.31 views per minute.  the previous mental check, which is much more fuzzy cuz i was only roughly keeping track was from Oct 2014 to Feb 2015 when i believe the starting pt was at 400K very roughly.  i remember that time especially well b/c that was precisely when the SC WP came out and brg444 entered the thread.  all of you must remember him and how he spammed the heck out of me just like the current guys. i even remember complimenting him on driving the view rate so high so fast single handedly.  so overall the growth rate was roughly the same from Oct to now or 100K/mo.  the significant metric though is how it took from the beginning of the thread, which was March 13, 2012 all the way to Oct 2014 for it to go to 400K.  the last 8 mo the thread has grown by 200% alone.  in other words, the recent pace of the last 8 months has been increasing at a torrid rate.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 27, 2015, 09:20:42 PM
 #27614

This site http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=350000

reports 67,723,836 (96.97%) spam addresses -> is this true ?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 27, 2015, 09:40:05 PM
 #27615

geezuz crimony.  look at the blocks filling up.  and this is NOT a spam attack. it's from use:

http://btc.blockr.io/block/list/

yet Cripplecoin.

blocks are filling up b/c of the buying going on.  

who here wants to be stuck with unconfirmed tx buy pressure b/c of the fricking 1MB'ers?

According to https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html there are 2,794,041 (53.24%) addresses with value less than 0.0001 btc.

If we have enough space for this shit https://blockchain.info/tx/73026d18b0b3e627c7b1b84bea69496963b91d7e2ddb1b9efab9622836e6c6c8 then we do not need increase in block size.

Let them pay $1 per transaction.

Agreed. Undecided

My bank charges me $10 for international transfer.

$1 per transaction ( 250 bytes )  is $4,000 per 1 MB block.
 - 6 * $4,000 =>  $24,000 per hour
 - 24 * $24,000 => $576,000 fee/day

You have a lot in common with Luke Jr.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 27, 2015, 11:46:54 PM
 #27616

Quoted for truth:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bajai/by_expecting_a_few_developers_to_make/cskk0vq

Quote from: ferretinjapan
The fact that they some take sides (side with people rather than support solutions), get personal, threaten to up and leave/sell their coins, and spread FUD, rather than state their case logically and technically is not what any developer should be doing.

We've all seen Dr. Frappuccino

-side with gavin@mit.tla.gov and hearn@google.mil rather than support a specific solution
-get personal with the core devs, esp. Blockstreamers and GMax in particular
-threaten to up and leave/sell his coins
-spread FUD ("strangle/choking/Cripplecoin") about the sky falling if the block size stays at 1MB

Let's remember this thread is obviously intended to troll gold bugs with insufficiently undivided loyalty to Bitcoin, so his whining about cyber-thugs is just performative drama queening, not actual offense.

I'll still vouch for Frap.doc's character.  His premises, analysis, and conclusions are flawed but his heart is in the right place.   Smiley

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
ssmc2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 12:23:14 AM
 #27617

Ulterior States [IamSatoshi Documentary]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQGQXy0RIIo

Good stuff.

BlindMayorBitcorn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Blockchain Theorist


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 03:54:55 AM
 #27618

I read that comment and thought the same thing.
I think it would be a tragedy for them to miss that lesson, and then lose the ability to make beneficial contributions to Bitcoin in the future.

I'd love to see the blinded output amounts from Confidential Transactions make it into Bitcoin, but I don't think their current approach to this debate is a viable way of ensuring they'll be in a position to advocate for that in the future.

I would afraid to have CT on main chain.
There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.

This might be relevant. It's posted in altcoins. But still...

(1) people who send BTC in the "ring signature sidechain" (RSSC), taint their BTC who are not entering the RSSC. If their identity is matched with the same identity as who put BTC in the RSSC, this person can become "flagged".
No, it's possible to trustlessly coinswap in and out of such a system, with no detectable connectivity.  And there are many reasons to use such a sidechain, such as improved smart contracting.  I consider improved fungiblity to be an essential basic feature.

Unfortunately, it's appears that it isn't possible to trustlessly swap in and out of monero because the developers of bytecoin didn't carry across smart contract functionality which they didn't understand.  Perhaps the capability could be added later.


Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 04:57:39 AM
 #27619

tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?

i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point.  the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.

get with the character assassinations you thugs.

I don't use ignore lists myself since I find it easy enough to do so in real-time.

One problem with ignore lists is that an ignoree might make an ignorer look like a jackass and the ignorer has no clue unless the injury is quoted and thus no ability to defend themselves and try to repair the damage.  I've seen what I believe to be this phenomenon a fair bit over the years.


gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2030



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 06:00:31 AM
 #27620

There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.
That is the risk - the scheme relies on the security of ECDSA to protect the currency supply.
We're already relying on ECDSA to protect our balances from overt theft, so I'm not sure how much it actually changes the security model to also rely on it to protect our balances from covert theft via counterfeiting.
The reason I'm interested in amount blinding is that my current project is working out a multi-step plan to kill graph analysis. With the right plan and without blinded amounts we can kill graph analysis, but with blinded amounts we can drive a stake through its heart to make sure it stays dead.
We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.
Pray tell how you will replace ECDSA when the coins are already assigned to keys for it?  (and when everyone and their sister constantly reuses addresses). A compromise of CT would mean that it was feasible to find discrete logs in this group, with that, anyone who learned your public key could recover your private key.  There are scenarios where the hashing, absent any address reuse, helps  (e.g. say the discrete log finding takes weeks)-- but it's important to not exaggerate the gains.

But indeed it isn't the ~quite~ same.

It's perfectly possible to construct schemes for private values which are unconditionally sound; meaning that there is no cryptographic assumption behind their inflation resistance, and a cryptographic break would only result in a loss of privacy.  I had previously thought that it was necessarily the case that any such scheme would have to be less efficient; but I have since realized my original reasoning for that was incorrect; though I do not (yet) know of a way to construct an unconditionally sound scheme which is anywhere near as efficient as CT;  but finding one is on my TODO list (though it falls below other improvements for CT privacy and network security that I'm working on).


Pages: « 1 ... 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 [1381] 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 ... 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!