Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 10:01:12 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 ... 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 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807052 times)
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 05:36:32 PM
 #28561

The statement is enlightening because it demonstrates the stark differences of Bitcoin in our world that different people have.

Frankly, I think the only thing it demonstrates is your paranoia.  What matters is whether the Bitcoin network functions according to its promises of (1) double-spend protection and (2) censorship resistance.  The architecture of the network doesn't matter so long as those two promises are kept.  

You could argue that with only four to six copies of the Blockchain worldwide, that there is a greater chance that these promises will be broken (and I would tend to agree), but I see that as a different debate.    

You've posted something similar to this earlier in the thread. I can't really find the words to express it at the moment, but something about this bothers me.

I'll try my best to get some kind of point across:

I don't see a problem with looking at the issues surrounding Bitcoin (the network, protocol, ecosystem, etc) in shades of grey, as opposed to black and white. The network may function exactly the same (black or white) with three independent miners or three thousand independent miners, but it's clear to me which side of that scale (grey) I would rather be on.

I think it's all part of the same debate (keeping promises and the chances of those promises being broken). (I don't really like to use the word "promises" either, as I'm not sure any have ever been made.)

Perhaps I'm paranoid as well, or maybe I'm missing your point entirely? I don't really have time to mull this over at the moment.

That's a fair comment and I think I see your point.  Smooth made a similar comment perhaps a week ago now when I was trying to argue that "centralized" and "decentralized" were absolute adjectives.

I guess I'm just trying to find a way to "break down" the problem into pieces, hoping that it will help us to see things more clearly.  That's why I'm looking at it as two pieces (A) Is the network preventing double spends and is the network censorship resistant? (B) What are the chances of it staying that way?

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
1481277672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277672
Reply with quote  #2

1481277672
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481277672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277672
Reply with quote  #2

1481277672
Report to moderator
1481277672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277672
Reply with quote  #2

1481277672
Report to moderator
1481277672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277672
Reply with quote  #2

1481277672
Report to moderator
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 05:44:58 PM
 #28562

Don't worry.  According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide.
Is he right or wrong about that?

Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity?

Who cares?  Before you ask that question you need to show reasonable likelihood that increasing the block size to 8MB will drop the number of full nodes to 4 or 6.

Frankly, I think that a dramatic reduction of nodes is more likely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement network than if the block size is increased to 8MB.  NOBODY will be interested in holding the data if they can't use the network, so the only full nodes will be those sponsored by the payment aggregators.  These aggregators are also perfect locations for governments to apply identity and green address pressure, destroying fungibility.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 05:51:55 PM
 #28563

Soon you'll see that nearly the entire discussion has been rendered an irrelevant pita.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 05:52:22 PM
 #28564

Don't worry.  According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide.
Is he right or wrong about that?

Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity?

Who cares?  Before you ask that question you need to show reasonable likelihood that increasing the block size to 8MB will drop the number of full nodes to 4 or 6.

Frankly, I think that a dramatic reduction of nodes is more likely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement network than if the block size is increased to 8MB.  NOBODY will be interested in holding the data if they can't use the network, so the only full nodes will be those sponsored by the payment aggregators.  These aggregators are also perfect locations for governments to apply identity and green address pressure, destroying fungibility.


i'd agree with this.  altho i'd like to see the block cap removed altogether, certainly i'd go with Gavin's 8MB BIP101 proposal short term to ease into the long term goal.  i'm sure this interim solution would make many more ppl happy.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 06:19:09 PM
 #28565

Who cares?
I care because there's an appalling lack of rigour going around and it's not helpful.

1. Does the network still provide strong double-spend protection?

2. Can users freely* publish valid transactions to the Blockchain (censorship resistance)?

*That is, subject only to marginal transaction fees.

I think that's a good start. The question can then be translated to "what are the minimum requirements needed to prevent double spending and censorship?"

I suspect the answer in terms of the number of world-wide copies of the blockchain needed has a lower bound of 1, depending on our ability to create efficient fraud proofs and to implement better privacy behaviour in wallets.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 06:20:55 PM
 #28566

Jeff Garzik has just posted 2 pull requests for bitcoin core on github:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6405
Remove TX priority and free transaction area from mempool, block creator.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6402
Floating network relay fee increase, if memory pool grows too large.

the latter will introduce, if merged, "a relay fee that adjusts to floods
which cause the memory pool to grow too large".

It seems that core devs start becoming aware of the lack of
of economic incentives for services provided by full nodes.


i hate to bring up an analogy from medicine since it may not be appropriate but i'll try nonetheless.

one of the greatest things i learned during my internship btwn med school and residency in eyes, is that too much intervention can cause problems for patients.  every 3 mo i'd rotate onto a new ward with responsibilities for about a couple of dozen gorked out patients.  i say gorked out b/c invariably all of them had at least a dozen meds onboard for a variety of reasons most of which had to do with sedation, pain, or anti-anxiety.  problem was, these meds unbeknownst to their previous physicians were preventing these ppl from getting better.  this was a repeating problem.  so the first thing i would do would be to cocentrate on stripping off as many of these unnecessary meds as possible.  much to everyone's amazement, these pts would perk up, turn around and start walking again, interacting with staff, feeling better, be more alert, and generally just get better to the pt i could discharge them.  and this experience happened over and over for me.  twas a great personal accomplishment for me and one i will never forget; don't over do it.

pt being, i still think the block size cap is the fundamental problem here.  more rules and limits that core dev piles on simply complicates the code and makes it more complex.  if anything, we should be stripping off rules and limits so that the free mkt can come to bear on many of these problems we are currently seeing.  the miners and users are perfectly capable of regulating the size of blocks and fees on their own.  if we lift the cap, the spam can actually help the network.  as long as spammers have to pay fees any spam attempts will line the pockets of miners and go back to growing the hashrate.  that would be a good thing and the last thing the spammers want to do.  no doubt they will try at first so we should expect even greater higher level attacks initially but in the long run, they will die off.  that's b/c their real objective is to disrupt new user growth which w/o a cap will be short circuited.  any further spam then will just help the tx mkt to grow, miners to profit, and yes, full nodes will eventually develop their own fee mkt too.  yes, full node capacities will have to grow but that should be viewed as a good thing b/c on the other end that will mean that miners are prospering (which is ok Greg) and user growth will be skyrocketing along with the price.  more merchants will come on board with new user growth and they will want and probably have a fiduciary responsibility to run their own full nodes which will add to network capacity.

so strip off rules and limits within reason, not add, and let BitcoinRun!

Yup, the parallels between economics and biology are striking. Introduce an arbitrary sacred cow "fix" (like the blocksize limit) into the mix, then all the machinery necessary to support it becomes a sacred cow as well. It takes a paradigm shift and a bit of a leap of faith to break out of that vicious cycle.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 06:30:53 PM
 #28567

Who cares?
I care because there's an appalling lack of rigour going around and it's not helpful.

1. Does the network still provide strong double-spend protection?

2. Can users freely* publish valid transactions to the Blockchain (censorship resistance)?

*That is, subject only to marginal transaction fees.

I think that's a good start. The question can then be translated to "what are the minimum requirements needed to prevent double spending and censorship?"

I suspect the answer in terms of the number of world-wide copies of the blockchain needed has a lower bound of 1, depending on our ability to create efficient fraud proofs and to implement better privacy behaviour in wallets.

With single node or 6 nodes we do not need POW. We already had this centralized services. ... but they are all down.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 06:35:57 PM
 #28568

Jeff Garzik has just posted 2 pull requests for bitcoin core on github:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6405
Remove TX priority and free transaction area from mempool, block creator.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6402
Floating network relay fee increase, if memory pool grows too large.

the latter will introduce, if merged, "a relay fee that adjusts to floods
which cause the memory pool to grow too large".

It seems that core devs start becoming aware of the lack of
of economic incentives for services provided by full nodes.


i hate to bring up an analogy from medicine since it may not be appropriate but i'll try nonetheless.

one of the greatest things i learned during my internship btwn med school and residency in eyes, is that too much intervention can cause problems for patients.  every 3 mo i'd rotate onto a new ward with responsibilities for about a couple of dozen gorked out patients.  i say gorked out b/c invariably all of them had at least a dozen meds onboard for a variety of reasons most of which had to do with sedation, pain, or anti-anxiety.  problem was, these meds unbeknownst to their previous physicians were preventing these ppl from getting better.  this was a repeating problem.  so the first thing i would do would be to cocentrate on stripping off as many of these unnecessary meds as possible.  much to everyone's amazement, these pts would perk up, turn around and start walking again, interacting with staff, feeling better, be more alert, and generally just get better to the pt i could discharge them.  and this experience happened over and over for me.  twas a great personal accomplishment for me and one i will never forget; don't over do it.

pt being, i still think the block size cap is the fundamental problem here.  more rules and limits that core dev piles on simply complicates the code and makes it more complex.  if anything, we should be stripping off rules and limits so that the free mkt can come to bear on many of these problems we are currently seeing.  the miners and users are perfectly capable of regulating the size of blocks and fees on their own.  if we lift the cap, the spam can actually help the network.  as long as spammers have to pay fees any spam attempts will line the pockets of miners and go back to growing the hashrate.  that would be a good thing and the last thing the spammers want to do.  no doubt they will try at first so we should expect even greater higher level attacks initially but in the long run, they will die off.  that's b/c their real objective is to disrupt new user growth which w/o a cap will be short circuited.  any further spam then will just help the tx mkt to grow, miners to profit, and yes, full nodes will eventually develop their own fee mkt too.  yes, full node capacities will have to grow but that should be viewed as a good thing b/c on the other end that will mean that miners are prospering (which is ok Greg) and user growth will be skyrocketing along with the price.  more merchants will come on board with new user growth and they will want and probably have a fiduciary responsibility to run their own full nodes which will add to network capacity.

so strip off rules and limits within reason, not add, and let BitcoinRun!

Yup, the parallels between economics and biology are striking. Introduce an arbitrary sacred cow "fix" (like the blocksize limit) into the mix, then all the machinery necessary to support it becomes a sacred cow as well. It takes a paradigm shift and a bit of a leap of faith to break out of that vicious cycle.

thx for taking the time to read that and understand it. 

if you look at everyone's own personal work around that we are now seeing come forth in this light, it soon becomes clear how complex and gorked out the system could become as a result.  Bitcoin's beauty is that it is relatively simple in it's function and why i favor simple solutions.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 06:45:06 PM
 #28569

With single node or 6 nodes we do not need POW. We already had this centralized services. ... but they are all down.
Can you rephrase your comment in terms of how the number of nodes is related to the number of copies of the blockchain in the world, and how both of those affect the ability of an attacker to perform double spending and censorship attacks?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 07:02:42 PM
 #28570

With single node or 6 nodes we do not need POW. We already had this centralized services. ... but they are all down.
Can you rephrase your comment in terms of how the number of nodes is related to the number of copies of the blockchain in the world, and how both of those affect the ability of an attacker to perform double spending and censorship attacks?

If there is only 1 copy of blockchain then I expect it is located in 1 datacenter. (node)
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 07:04:40 PM
 #28571

China threatening short sellers.  Shades of US back in 2008.  the volatility back then makes Bitcoin look like cake:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-09/china-soars-most-2009-after-government-threatens-sellers-arrest-global-stocks-surge

Speaking of volatility:




(From the very good Pantera Report)
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 07:11:12 PM
 #28572

And also speaking of volatility, it seems that I was indeed right in my predictions of a move up.

And it looks like there's a lot more coiled tension where that came from:

Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 07:23:55 PM
 #28573

Another image from the Pantera Report:



If you ignore the late-2013 bubble as being entirely due to Willy Bot / fractional cash reserves at MtGox, it looks like we could be entering the next big run-up right on cue. Or perhaps a little late, with a commensurate increase in pent-up energy.

The stars are aligning: the mother of all stability crests, cyperdoc's Three Buckets with venture capital and mining topping out, years of good news that the price went down on that needs to be corrected, even EW analysis has turned bullish, and of course Greece (and China, and Puerto Rico...).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 07:29:58 PM
 #28574

Another image from the Pantera Report:



If you ignore the late-2013 bubble as being entirely due to Willy Bot / fractional cash reserves at MtGox, it looks like we could be entering the next big run-up right on cue. Or perhaps a little late, with all the more pent-up momentum.

The stars are aligning: the mother of all stability crests, cyperdoc's Three Buckets with venture capital and mining topping out, years of good news that the price went down on that needs to be corrected, even EW analysis has turned bullish, and of course Greece (and China, and Puerto Rico...).

into the next Bull CYCLE?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 07:55:16 PM
 #28575

Yes, but the ongoing spam shows clearly that all full nodes are handling the traffic just fine. We were told that they would crash and burn from overloaded memory. Not true.

Wait, wasn't that exactly Hearn's main argument in his "the sky is falling if we don't increase the blocksize" blog post?  So why do you see the fact that it did not prove true so far as supporting your position of increasing the block size?

b/c the congestion really has only just begun.  if it persists, yes, ppl will start to stop using Bitcoin.  the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.
BTCtrader71
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 641



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 08:17:42 PM
 #28576

the congestion really has only just begun.  if it persists, yes, ppl will start to stop using Bitcoin.  the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

In 5-10 years I can imagine having a handful of dominant blockchains that run in parallel. Today we have Visa, MC, Discover, and AmEx; tomorrow we have bitcoin, litecoin, monero, whatever. Actually we will STILL have Visa, MC etc but they will each utilize multiple blockchains as behind-the-scenes payment rails. If one blockchain goes down, Visa (or whoever puts Visa out of business) will switch to another until the problem is resolved. (All behind the scenes as far as John Q Public is concerned.) If not resolved in a timely manner, miners shut down due to reduced transaction fees (after days-weeks, maybe months of downtime), and that chain suffers. If all major blockchains are running smoothly, then the preferred chains would be the ones with the widest acceptance - just like credit cards today.

It would take a lot of downtime though to kill off a prominent blockchain. It takes time to build up lots of hashpower. And even if miners turn off, where are they going to go, and what prevents them turning back on, once the technical problem (whatever it is) is (hopefully) fixed? Presumably, the major competing blockchains will not use mining equipment that can be switched from one blockchain to another.
 

BTC: 14oTcy1DNEXbcYjzPBpRWV11ZafWxNP8EU
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 09:11:54 PM
 #28577

Don't worry.  According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide.
Is he right or wrong about that?

Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity?

Who cares?  Before you ask that question you need to show reasonable likelihood that increasing the block size to 8MB will drop the number of full nodes to 4 or 6.

Frankly, I think that a dramatic reduction of nodes is more likely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement network than if the block size is increased to 8MB.  NOBODY will be interested in holding the data if they can't use the network, so the only full nodes will be those sponsored by the payment aggregators.  These aggregators are also perfect locations for governments to apply identity and green address pressure, destroying fungibility.


What do you think about reduction of nodes if the block size is increased to 8,000 MB ?
Why do you think "NOBODY will be interested" processing 100,000 transaction per day worth $1,000,000 in fees ?  (especially in the case, that it can be run on a phone ? -> almost no expenses )

Edit:
if you keep block size small then no sponsors are required to run full node b/c it is cheap and millions will run full node just for fun. (I'll be one of them)
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 09:12:25 PM
 #28578

the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

It looks like the bull cycle has already started and investors are looking for alternatives, likely because of the 1mb attack that has gone unresolved for years now.  Hopefully its not too late to increase the limit and let the bull run... or maybe its time to jump ship.


Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 09:19:31 PM
 #28579

the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

It looks like the bull cycle has already started and investors are looking for alternatives, likely because of the 1mb attack that has gone unresolved for years now.  Hopefully its not too late to increase the limit and let the bull run... or maybe its time to jump ship.



Or maybe it's just another trick whales are using to get the last weak hands to dump their BTC. This "attack" is just part of their schemes.

You people need to stop with the paranoia and the scare tactics. All this money is gonna end up flowing back into BTC in due times. Lots of people are going to end up holding the LTC, PPC and NMC bag.

There is no problem with Bitcoin.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 09:38:01 PM
 #28580

Yes, but the ongoing spam shows clearly that all full nodes are handling the traffic just fine. We were told that they would crash and burn from overloaded memory. Not true.

Wait, wasn't that exactly Hearn's main argument in his "the sky is falling if we don't increase the blocksize" blog post?  So why do you see the fact that it did not prove true so far as supporting your position of increasing the block size?

b/c the congestion really has only just begun.  if it persists, yes, ppl will start to stop using Bitcoin.  the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

Tip your miner a dollar 'to insure promptness.'

There is no congestion, only load.  Congestion would be if tx with competitive fees were nevertheless delayed.

Wallets and exchanges are upgrading to adaptive fees, and Bitcoin will soon be all the stronger for the experience.

That's how antifragility works.  These encounters with adversity in the form of spam and crapfloods are already increasing Bitcoin's resilience.   Cool

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
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 ... 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!