Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 02:33:10 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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 1432 1433 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2009285 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 11:13:58 PM
 #27641

...
Blockstream can't enforce a monopoly on SC experimentation.  ...

I would be shocked if they did.  Beyond that, I would be surprised and disappointed if they did not fairly actively encourage and facilitate others to do so.  It strikes me as a strategic blunder to do otherwise.


1511101990
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511101990

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511101990
Reply with quote  #2

1511101990
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 11:24:42 PM
 #27642

...
Blockstream can't enforce a monopoly on SC experimentation.  ...

I would be shocked if they did.  Beyond that, I would be surprised and disappointed if they did not fairly actively encourage and facilitate others to do so.  It strikes me as a strategic blunder to do otherwise.

I assume Blockstream's income will come from consulting and or taking positions in SCs that generate dividends or such (they will sort of be in the driver's seat to copy experimentations into a sanctioned SC). Or perhaps a fee to federated servers.

I speculate TPTB wanted SCs as an alternative mechanism to create a bloatchain (which they can dump the masses on via their control of Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, Zuckerbook, etc) should they not be able to push it through Core. Thinking they could then deprecate Core by 51% attacking it after the mass move to the SC. I believe TPTB thinktanks miscalculated because they thought no one could solve the 51% attack vector. I think the gestation period since 2009 was to see if anyone could solve that 51% attack issue, before they decided to go all in with vulture capital (but they didn't factor in that I was late to the Bitcon scene Wink). Any way, that is wild speculation on my part.


Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 11:49:57 PM
 #27643

Gold up

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 11:52:28 PM
 #27644

Meanwhile... A money pit called Ethereum.

Interestingly I guess I stumbled onto the solution to Ethereum's key intractable, scaling problem, which is how to get consensus on a script without forcing every miner to verify the script.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 11:53:49 PM
 #27645

Gold up

Gold and BTC doing the summer bounce exactly as I told you all they would.

Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 29, 2015, 12:05:50 AM
 #27646

A large miner only needs a hash of the transactions in order to mine remotely, so it could delegate the censorship of transactions to some other entity (e.g. IBLT), thus effectively censorship of transactions is under control of an entity that is aggregating hashrate (nodes).
You're describing a mining pool, and disparate miners connect via stratum to the pool, which administers the mining node. Nothing new here with larger maxblocksize.

Whereas, a smaller independent miner that refuses to delegate and be permanently sited so that it can't be easily regulated by TPTB, will need to have enough ephemeral bandwidth to see every transaction across the P2P network. For example, I can still obtain an unregistered, wireless connection to the internet here in my location with a prepaid 3G USB dongle, but if I site any where but a few special locations then I will often see the bandwidth drop down to 28.8K baud.

I throw 'baud' in there to remind youngsters that maybe somebody in this world still uses an analog audible spectrum telephone (or HAM radio?) modem.

Small time miners solo mining via 3G dongle, 28.8k baud modems, and HAM radios? Are you serious? Are you describing your, as yet unreleased, superproject? You're not describing post 2011 Bitcoin.

Hand waving about TPTB shutting down/censoring bitcoin on a global scale because of bigger blocks is hyperbolic.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 29, 2015, 01:12:48 AM
 #27647

A large miner only needs a hash of the transactions in order to mine remotely, so it could delegate the censorship of transactions to some other entity (e.g. IBLT), thus effectively censorship of transactions is under control of an entity that is aggregating hashrate (nodes).
You're describing a mining pool, and disparate miners connect via stratum to the pool, which administers the mining node. Nothing new here with larger maxblocksize.

Nothing new by forcing more miners to pools with sufficient connectivity Huh Nothing new by enabling those with more connectivity to harness higher revenue per block and to block propagation (orphan rate) attacks on the less well connected nodes  Huh

Whereas, a smaller independent miner that refuses to delegate and be permanently sited so that it can't be easily regulated by TPTB, will need to have enough ephemeral bandwidth to see every transaction across the P2P network. For example, I can still obtain an unregistered, wireless connection to the internet here in my location with a prepaid 3G USB dongle, but if I site any where but a few special locations then I will often see the bandwidth drop down to 28.8K baud.

I throw 'baud' in there to remind youngsters that maybe somebody in this world still uses an analog audible spectrum telephone (or HAM radio?) modem.

Small time miners solo mining via 3G dongle, 28.8k baud modems, and HAM radios? Are you serious? Are you describing your, as yet unreleased, superproject? You're not describing post 2011 Bitcoin.

Hand waving about TPTB shutting down/censoring bitcoin on a global scale because of bigger blocks is hyperbolic.

Go ahead. I am quite happy if you centralize Bitcoin Core. PLEASE MAKE MY DAY (and fatten my wallet by a few $million at least).

shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


@theshmadz


View Profile
June 29, 2015, 01:18:03 AM
 #27648

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  
If the price does not rise, there's no extra security needed to protect the system... Why pay more to defend a system that's not increasing in value? We see this market force in action right now as the low prices have caused the global hash rate to stagnate.

My long term plan is that users will be willing to pay increasing fees due to scarcity of embedding information in the most secure ledger on the planet. When you propose changes to a system that may have an effect on the security profile of such a system, you should expect serious opposition.

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 29, 2015, 01:19:53 AM
 #27649

ooh, looky here, Dow futures:

shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


@theshmadz


View Profile
June 29, 2015, 01:20:28 AM
 #27650

Although I'm opposed to the current proposals for block size increase, I'm not opposed to the idea entirely, and I'm optimistic that a compromise can be reached.

Supply is halving every 4 years. And I think that doubling block size every 4 years is enough to compensate.

Thanks Odalv, this is perhaps the simplest and most reasonable proposal I've heard on the subject, though I disagree with the following:

And maybe it would be fine to double block size in the middle of halving period.

It may be only semantic, but I think the doubling of the block size should happen in tandem with the halving of the reward. It makes for a kind of trade off, trade half the disbursement awards for potentially double the transaction rewards.

The important thing here is that the much slower rate of increase should keep the security profile of the network intact, and increasing to 2mb in 2016 and 4mb in 2020 etc. should enforce an acceptable level of scarcity while allowing the network to grow.

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 29, 2015, 01:21:23 AM
 #27651

above chart 1min.  here's the daily Dow futures.  note the breakdown.  they were lying to you:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 29, 2015, 01:23:52 AM
 #27652

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  
If the price does not rise, there's no extra security needed to protect the system... Why pay more to defend a system that's not increasing in value? We see this market force in action right now as the low prices have caused the global hash rate to stagnate.

My long term plan is that users will be willing to pay increasing fees due to scarcity of embedding information in the most secure ledger on the planet. When you propose changes to a system that may have an effect on the security profile of such a system, you should expect serious opposition.

a goal of increasing fees is a worthy goal.  but when you propose to maintain a 1MB choke that was always meant to be a DoS protection mechanism to be removed when Bitcoin is ready, then YOU should expect serious opposition.
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 29, 2015, 01:25:45 AM
 #27653

A large miner only needs a hash of the transactions in order to mine remotely, so it could delegate the censorship of transactions to some other entity (e.g. IBLT), thus effectively censorship of transactions is under control of an entity that is aggregating hashrate (nodes).
You're describing a mining pool, and disparate miners connect via stratum to the pool, which administers the mining node. Nothing new here with larger maxblocksize.

Nothing new by forcing more miners to pools with sufficient connectivity Huh Nothing new by enabling those with more connectivity to harness higher revenue per block and to block propagation (orphan rate) attacks on the less well connected nodes  Huh

This already happened, several years ago in fact. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

The former already happening substantially negates your second point. Additionally, we are talking about graduated increases here, not 1 to 256MB overnight.

shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


@theshmadz


View Profile
June 29, 2015, 01:44:48 AM
 #27654

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  
If the price does not rise, there's no extra security needed to protect the system... Why pay more to defend a system that's not increasing in value? We see this market force in action right now as the low prices have caused the global hash rate to stagnate.

My long term plan is that users will be willing to pay increasing fees due to scarcity of embedding information in the most secure ledger on the planet. When you propose changes to a system that may have an effect on the security profile of such a system, you should expect serious opposition.

a goal of increasing fees is a worthy goal.  but when you propose to maintain a 1MB choke that was always meant to be a DoS protection mechanism to be removed when Bitcoin is ready, then YOU should expect serious opposition.

Aha   thank you. Now I understand the vehemence and panic that I sense from most of the people that are trying to push for bigger blocks. The problem here is that you cannot force me to accept your fork; you can't force me to accept your blocks; you can't force me to accept your unspent transactions.   You. can't. force. me.   You must convince me, but since you lack sufficient logical argument to convince, you resort to coercion, or as in your original post that ruffled my feathers , down right threats.

As I posted earlier I am open to compromise or negotiation, and I think that eventually a rational solution will find consensus and bitcoin will move on. I just find the aggressive posturing and fear-mongering methods of many of the people pushing for bigger blocks to be tiresome, and frankly, childish.

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 29, 2015, 02:24:21 AM
 #27655

A large miner only needs a hash of the transactions in order to mine remotely, so it could delegate the censorship of transactions to some other entity (e.g. IBLT), thus effectively censorship of transactions is under control of an entity that is aggregating hashrate (nodes).
You're describing a mining pool, and disparate miners connect via stratum to the pool, which administers the mining node. Nothing new here with larger maxblocksize.

Nothing new by forcing more miners to pools with sufficient connectivity Huh Nothing new by enabling those with more connectivity to harness higher revenue per block and to block propagation (orphan rate) attacks on the less well connected nodes  Huh

This already happened, several years ago in fact. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

The former already happening substantially negates your second point. Additionally, we are talking about graduated increases here, not 1 to 256MB overnight.

No it doesn't negate the second point unless you think winner-take-all (or at least greater centralization) of the pools is a desired next step.

Also the former did not already happen for those with sufficient hashrate (or perhaps hardware NAV economics) such that mining on a pool has undesirable tradeoffs, such as paying fees (or perhaps anonymity timing correlation attacks on onion routing to the known termination node the pool). I don't claim to be omniscient on all the reasons why nodes don't all mine on pools. Also keep in mind P2Pool which has some of the economic benefits of a pool yet requires miners to have the bandwidth to handle the block size.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 29, 2015, 02:36:34 AM
 #27656

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  
If the price does not rise, there's no extra security needed to protect the system... Why pay more to defend a system that's not increasing in value? We see this market force in action right now as the low prices have caused the global hash rate to stagnate.

My long term plan is that users will be willing to pay increasing fees due to scarcity of embedding information in the most secure ledger on the planet. When you propose changes to a system that may have an effect on the security profile of such a system, you should expect serious opposition.

a goal of increasing fees is a worthy goal.  but when you propose to maintain a 1MB choke that was always meant to be a DoS protection mechanism to be removed when Bitcoin is ready, then YOU should expect serious opposition.

Aha   thank you. Now I understand the vehemence and panic that I sense from most of the people that are trying to push for bigger blocks. The problem here is that you cannot force me to accept your fork; you can't force me to accept your blocks; you can't force me to accept your unspent transactions.   You. can't. force. me.   You must convince me, but since you lack sufficient logical argument to convince, you resort to coercion, or as in your original post that ruffled my feathers , down right threats.

As I posted earlier I am open to compromise or negotiation, and I think that eventually a rational solution will find consensus and bitcoin will move on. I just find the aggressive posturing and fear-mongering methods of many of the people pushing for bigger blocks to be tiresome, and frankly, childish.


sorry you weren't able to discern that i merely parroted your very words back at you.  so any "aggression" you attempt to smear me with, simply look back in the mirror.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 29, 2015, 02:40:53 AM
 #27657

Once upon a time when gold was used as currency, silver was also used because you couldn't reasonably mint coin small enough to pay for things like a meal (I heard that this is also why the "bar tab" was invented -- when even silver became too valuable).

With Bitcoin, it seems like 1 Satoshi is small enough to ensure that a "silver to bitcoin's gold" does not happen.  However, I think that this is untrue; 1 Satoshi is analogous to 1 atom of gold.  The actual minimum bitcoin transfer can be estimated by the point where is becomes inconvenient or expensive to make the transfer.  This varies by the individual but I feel it would be a transaction fee of somewhere between 1 and 10 percent.

So the Satoshi is not the smallest effective Bitcoin unit.  The smallest practical bitcoin unit is something between 10 and 100 times the transaction fee.

I think that the result of an unscaled bitcoin blockchain is that small-payment niche will open up, allowing a scalable altcoin blockchain to gain market share (lightning network, centralized solutions, and sidechains may block this niche, to an unknown extent -- but note they didn't for gold).  This cryptocurrency will begin as the "silver to bitcoin's gold", and a clever implementation might ride Bitcoin's coat-tails to adoption.  If Bitcoin becomes extremely successful this new cryptocurrency will overtake it in daily use just like silver overtook gold.  But what advantages will Bitcoin have over this new currency?  Gold's advantage was essentially its greater value to volume (and weight) ratio.  But (as with any crypto-currency), you'll be able to carry and transact large quantities of this new cryptocurrency just as easily as small.  So Bitcoin will have no advantage.  The new cryptocurrency will ultimately dominate transactions and market cap.

What do you think about this reasoning?



Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 29, 2015, 02:41:06 AM
 #27658

This already happened, several years ago in fact. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

The former already happening substantially negates your second point. Additionally, we are talking about graduated increases here, not 1 to 256MB overnight.

No it doesn't negate the second point unless you think winner-take-all (or at least greater centralization) of the pools is a desired next step.

Also the former did not already happen for those with sufficient hashrate (or perhaps hardware NAV economics) such that mining on a pool has undesirable tradeoffs, such as paying fees (or perhaps anonymity timing correlation attacks on onion routing to the known termination node the pool). I don't claim to be omniscient on all the reasons why nodes don't all mine on pools. Also keep in mind P2Pool.

You are mistaken if you think solo miners, large enough to reliably mine solo blocks, don't operate very well connected and outfitted nodes already. P2Pool may be another case because of its own architecture, but in reality it's not remotely large enough to justify outsized influence on protocol wide parameters. If miners felt that was wrong, they could work to give P2Pool more share in terms of global hashrate.  
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


@theshmadz


View Profile
June 29, 2015, 02:57:11 AM
 #27659

Once upon a time when gold was used as currency, silver was also used because you couldn't reasonably mint coin small enough to pay for things like a meal (I heard that this is also why the "bar tab" was invented -- when even silver became too valuable).

With Bitcoin, it seems like 1 Satoshi is small enough to ensure that a "silver to bitcoin's gold" does not happen.  However, I think that this is untrue; 1 Satoshi is analogous to 1 atom of gold.  The actual minimum bitcoin transfer can be estimated by the point where is becomes inconvenient or expensive to make the transfer.  This varies by the individual but I feel it would be a transaction fee of somewhere between 1 and 10 percent.

So the Satoshi is not the smallest effective Bitcoin unit.  The smallest practical bitcoin unit is something between 10 and 100 times the transaction fee.

I think that the result of an unscaled bitcoin blockchain is that small-payment niche will open up, allowing a scalable altcoin blockchain to gain market share (lightning network, centralized solutions, and sidechains may block this niche, to an unknown extent -- but note they didn't for gold).  This cryptocurrency will begin as the "silver to bitcoin's gold", and a clever implementation might ride Bitcoin's coat-tails to adoption.  If Bitcoin becomes extremely successful this new cryptocurrency will overtake it in daily use just like silver overtook gold.  But what advantages will Bitcoin have over this new currency?  Gold's advantage was essentially its greater value to volume (and weight) ratio.  But (as with any crypto-currency), you'll be able to carry and transact large quantities of this new cryptocurrency just as easily as small.  So Bitcoin will have no advantage.  The new cryptocurrency will ultimately dominate transactions and market cap.

What do you think about this reasoning?

Very close, but no cigar. You miss the security gap. This is the real selling point for bitcoin. Silver and gold had very similar security profiles, with gold only being ever-so-slightly better (the value per weight).

In crypto, each coin that has it's own chain has a distinctly different security profile. At this point, bitcoin is in the lead when it comes to security of the ledger. Unless this other coin offers better security, or at least very close to equal security, the scenario you theorize is not possible. It could happen,  maybe, someday, but not currently possible.

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 29, 2015, 03:28:03 AM
 #27660

Once upon a time when gold was used as currency, silver was also used because you couldn't reasonably mint coin small enough to pay for things like a meal (I heard that this is also why the "bar tab" was invented -- when even silver became too valuable).

With Bitcoin, it seems like 1 Satoshi is small enough to ensure that a "silver to bitcoin's gold" does not happen.  However, I think that this is untrue; 1 Satoshi is analogous to 1 atom of gold.  The actual minimum bitcoin transfer can be estimated by the point where is becomes inconvenient or expensive to make the transfer.  This varies by the individual but I feel it would be a transaction fee of somewhere between 1 and 10 percent.

So the Satoshi is not the smallest effective Bitcoin unit.  The smallest practical bitcoin unit is something between 10 and 100 times the transaction fee.

I think that the result of an unscaled bitcoin blockchain is that small-payment niche will open up, allowing a scalable altcoin blockchain to gain market share (lightning network, centralized solutions, and sidechains may block this niche, to an unknown extent -- but note they didn't for gold).  This cryptocurrency will begin as the "silver to bitcoin's gold", and a clever implementation might ride Bitcoin's coat-tails to adoption.  If Bitcoin becomes extremely successful this new cryptocurrency will overtake it in daily use just like silver overtook gold.  But what advantages will Bitcoin have over this new currency?  Gold's advantage was essentially its greater value to volume (and weight) ratio.  But (as with any crypto-currency), you'll be able to carry and transact large quantities of this new cryptocurrency just as easily as small.  So Bitcoin will have no advantage.  The new cryptocurrency will ultimately dominate transactions and market cap.

What do you think about this reasoning?

Very close, but no cigar. You miss the security gap. This is the real selling point for bitcoin. Silver and gold had very similar security profiles, with gold only being ever-so-slightly better (the value per weight).

In crypto, each coin that has it's own chain has a distinctly different security profile. At this point, bitcoin is in the lead when it comes to security of the ledger. Unless this other coin offers better security, or at least very close to equal security, the scenario you theorize is not possible. It could happen,  maybe, someday, but not currently possible.

you may be the one missing something.

what i think he was saying is that if Cripplecoin is allowed to remain in place even with the addition of SC's or LN, it won't be able to compete with a lighter nimble altcoin that has no such block limit.  reason being, that some feel that SC's or LN, esp if Blockstream is allowed to continue it's financial confliction, will result in a centralized, settlement level, high tx value type unusable cryptocurrency only for institutions, geeks, and wealthy elite.  that is, if it doesn't just outright die from small niche use.

a truly scalable Bitcoin knock off w/o this confliction and centralization might be able to truly take off and fund the masses even at the level of microtx's. 

let's hope this isn't what has to happen.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1432 1433 ... 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!