Bitcoin Forum
May 28, 2017, 02:29:46 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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 1480 1481 1482 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1905875 times)
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 08:07:01 AM
 #28621

Who ever have put in place this DoS is extremely persistent:

Code:
Unconf Txs:    30202
Fees:          1.04549825 BTC
Mempoll Size:  73600.9267578125 (KB)

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
1495981786
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495981786

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495981786
Reply with quote  #2

1495981786
Report to moderator
1495981786
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495981786

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495981786
Reply with quote  #2

1495981786
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1495981786
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495981786

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495981786
Reply with quote  #2

1495981786
Report to moderator
1495981786
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495981786

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495981786
Reply with quote  #2

1495981786
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 08:38:18 AM
 #28622

is possible LTC rise to 0.1 BTC?  Huh
I heard bitcoin getting stronger because there are two countries that go bankrupt  Shocked

if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here.

Yep. This is my take:



 Roll Eyes

I really feel sorry for anyone that falls into the trap of this narrative.

I rarely agree with brg and rarely disagree with ICE but in this case I'll do both. LTC is being pumped based on the short term catalyst of the halving and will resume its regularly scheduled march to zero shortly.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 08:49:18 AM
 #28623

Doesn't matter; software changes rapidly and you shouldn't get married to any one implementation (or stock in a promising new sector).

By all means, upgrade the protocol, even to the Litecoin or Monero protocol or whatever. But to change ledgers every time you need to upgrade the protocol doesn't make sense at all. People don't want to have to play stock trader with their bank account.

Fortunately, because of spinoffs (and maybe sidechains), the Bitcoin ledger is a safe place to store value even if the Bitcoin protocol gets superseded.

The problem with this reasoning is that Bitcoin is not a bank account. A chart was recently posted that showed Bitcoin price volatility to be in line with several other asset classes (for some relatively short historical period). Unfortunately, the asset classes were stocks, oil, and a couple of severely damaged/broken currencies. Those are all highly speculative assets.

The nature of speculative assets is that there are more than one of them, people do play stock trader with them, and some of them fail and are replaced by others.

As long as Bitcoin is in the speculative asset category, it doesn't constitute a "global ledger" of anything akin to bank accounts and it makes perfect sense for one speculative asset to potentially be replaced by others. That is nothing like people playing stock trader with their bank accounts.

Only when Bitcoin achieves the status of a reference currency can it claim legitimacy as a ledger that is (even somewhat) immune from the nature of speculative winners and losers, not before.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 10, 2015, 08:54:59 AM
 #28624

But your being politically correct and non confrontational by leaving out one major factor that is driving the debate under the hood. And that is Blockstream. They, like Bitcoin, are also about money. Except I'd argue, by crippling Bitcoin, they are about USD's.

The conflict of interest is a real concern, to be sure, but at this point I think it more likely that they are sincere. At least Greg, because he's always been a bit of a pessimist on Bitcoin scalability as a whole, being so code-focused, it really is quite consistent for him to side with Blockstream. Adam I suspect a bit more, since missing out on Bitcoin and all the financial gains despite having created part of it has to hurt, but I'm not at all willing to assume bad faith on his part either. At this point it's basically a social club for their point of view, and I do think the money influence will be corrupting as time wears on, but I'm skeptical that it's having a substantial effect yet. I

In any case, the main point is that it could be but we simply can't know. We can suspect, and it is probably good to needle them about it, but actually jumping to that conclusion as a decided fact doesn't seem helpful to me.

The conflict of interest is a simple matter of the facts.

Whether it is problematic to the point of whether any recusal is warranted is another matter entirely. 
Likely its sufficient to examine on an issue by issue basis.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:56:18 AM
 #28625

This thread is a perfect example of the power vacuum of politics.

If we had a decentralized system, this thread would not exist.

I am working on that.

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 10, 2015, 10:19:54 AM
 #28626

i said years ago that high tx costs, like we're starting to get now, will drive all these op_return companies away from Bitcoin.  and it will be the fault of guys like iCEBlow, tvbcof, & the BS core devs.  there will be repercussions:

What high TX costs?  Its up a little, but still less than everything comparable (if anything is).
Miner revenue is up lately.

Using only slightly higher than default fee, your TX gets processed without delay.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 10:33:33 AM
 #28627

The sound money is the beginning and the end, the alfa and the omega.

We already have that with gold and silver, but bitcoin has overall better qualities. In times and places where gold has been sound money, it has always been modified with paper substitutes and finanzialization. This has been true the last 500 years. Gold is not sufficiently practical in the modern world. It is the reason why fiat keeps creeping in. With bitcoin, the actual money can be used directly, reducing the danger represented by paper substitutes.

With good quality sound money, people can save money, they are not pressed into risky investments when they don't want. The opportunity to save is the most profound change to the world that bitcoin promises.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 10, 2015, 11:17:30 AM
 #28628

if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here.

Yep. This is my take:



Bwah-ha-ha!  I thank you for that, because I know Frap.doc will be greatly annoyed by being put on the same page as the alt-coiners he hates with such sectarian passion.

The best part is, he did it to himself with his envious, intemperate "if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here" remark.   Smiley

Maybe it's a good idea to diversify investments in a new sector and keep a few carefully chosen hedges around, instead of getting married in a religious ceremony to one particular enterprise?

Nah, that would violate the principle known as Frappuccino_Doc's Razor:

"The single form of e-cash in which I am heavily invested is so totally legitimate it will replace gold, Visa, and car wash tokens; but everything else is a Ponzi Scheme."


It's just like when you are driving.  Everyone going slower than you is a granny creating a safety hazard; everyone going faster than you is a suicidal moran.  Enjoy your road rage, Frap.doc!   Grin

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


Warning Dash is a planned instamine, it wasn't
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 11:51:16 AM
 #28629

But your being politically correct and non confrontational by leaving out one major factor that is driving the debate under the hood. And that is Blockstream. They, like Bitcoin, are also about money. Except I'd argue, by crippling Bitcoin, they are about USD's.

The conflict of interest is a real concern, to be sure, but at this point I think it more likely that they are sincere. At least Greg, because he's always been a bit of a pessimist on Bitcoin scalability as a whole, being so code-focused, it really is quite consistent for him to side with Blockstream. Adam I suspect a bit more, since missing out on Bitcoin and all the financial gains despite having created part of it has to hurt, but I'm not at all willing to assume bad faith on his part either. At this point it's basically a social club for their point of view, and I do think the money influence will be corrupting as time wears on, but I'm skeptical that it's having a substantial effect yet. I

In any case, the main point is that it could be but we simply can't know. We can suspect, and it is probably good to needle them about it, but actually jumping to that conclusion as a decided fact doesn't seem helpful to me.

The conflict of interest is a simple matter of the facts.

Whether it is problematic to the point of whether any recusal is warranted is another matter entirely. 
Likely its sufficient to examine on an issue by issue basis.


Correct, but no one wants or should have  to do this on a case by case basis when it comes  down to what's supposed to be a public good, sound money, or digital gold.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 12:05:59 PM
 #28630

i said years ago that high tx costs, like we're starting to get now, will drive all these op_return companies away from Bitcoin.  and it will be the fault of guys like iCEBlow, tvbcof, & the BS core devs.  there will be repercussions:

What high TX costs?  Its up a little, but still less than everything comparable (if anything is).
Miner revenue is up lately.

Using only slightly higher than default fee, your TX gets processed without delay.

The spammer had gotten his feet up to. 0002 earlier but it may have gone back down to. 0001. Yes not much for you or me but maybe not so for 3rd world. Yes, it's mostly an unusability issue. But still, Nasdaq is not going to get aggressive until a solution to the spam occurs.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
 #28631

It shouldn't need years of engineering studies to understand that there's no real technical discussion going on between the various sub-camps in the developer's camp.

So your take is that devs are going full "political" rather than technical? (serious question)

If yes, what's the way to unlock this impasse?

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

Activity: 28


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 12:46:59 PM
 #28632

It shouldn't need years of engineering studies to understand that there's no real technical discussion going on between the various sub-camps in the developer's camp.

So your take is that devs are going full "political" rather than technical? (serious question)

If yes, what's the way to unlock this impasse?

Given the deadlock, I honestly start to think it might be good to do a 'divorce'. As in, we actually agree to disagree, and all see that there are fundamentally incompatible opinions with regards to the direction of Bitcoin. But we can keep it friendly.  This might be less damage/cost than having a hardfork battle solving it in January 2016.

That way we can avoid the fighting and truly let the market work out the rest. We divide up the common assets of the web sites, code repos etc. between Bitcoin/QT and Bitcoin/XT. Make it clear that Bitcoin is now two Bitcoins, and that the user has to decide.

QT and XT simply seem like two people who shouldn't be married. Better have a clean divorce than endless fighting.

Thoughts?
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 01:03:24 PM
 #28633

It shouldn't need years of engineering studies to understand that there's no real technical discussion going on between the various sub-camps in the developer's camp.

So your take is that devs are going full "political" rather than technical? (serious question)

If yes, what's the way to unlock this impasse?

Given the deadlock, I honestly start to think it might be good to do a 'divorce'. As in, we actually agree to disagree, and all see that there are fundamentally incompatible opinions with regards to the direction of Bitcoin. But we can keep it friendly.  This might be less damage/cost than having a hardfork battle solving it in January 2016.

That way we can avoid the fighting and truly let the market work out the rest. We divide up the common assets of the web sites, code repos etc. between Bitcoin/QT and Bitcoin/XT. Make it clear that Bitcoin is now two Bitcoins, and that the user has to decide.

QT and XT simply seem like two people who shouldn't be married. Better have a clean divorce than endless fighting.

Thoughts?

If XT hadn't been a MIke Hearn's creature I would have said 100% yes.

My gut feeling and few facts that I gather along the way (mainly red-listing, but also having decreased dust fee request https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3305), make me think that way.

But all in all yes, by definition to resolve a deadlock you need to change the policy that have regulated the process since.

I'm still hoping that the situation will be solved without the need of a "schism", though.

Mind you I think that more implementations of the bitcoin protocol (modulo the consensus rules that has to be enforced by
the same library for all the clients) is an healthy thing to have, but that's not the case unfortunately.



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

Activity: 28


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 01:09:20 PM
 #28634

@ Solomon's Trial:

The fundamental problem with seeing it as a King Solomon's trial is that Bitcoin is not to be owned ever by either party. It is a false equivalence.

@sickpig:

Maybe a scheme could be worked out where XT and QT would each have their own set of core dev consensus, with only a partial overlap of core devs between the two?
79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 185

◕_◕


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 01:10:17 PM
 #28635

It shouldn't need years of engineering studies to understand that there's no real technical discussion going on between the various sub-camps in the developer's camp.
So your take is that devs are going full "political" rather than technical? (serious question)

Matters quickly become political when the point of contention is money; as Satoshi and Szabo have starkly reminded us, there is no economics without ideology. Macroeconomists (and among them, fiscal and monetary policists) couch their positions in technical terms under a veil of objectivity and impartiality, but it is fairly simple to sort out their assumptions, biases and allegiances.

Fortunately, the main political implications of the bitcoin economy are set in stone (as they are for the fiat economy). The devs, like the macroeconomists, will fiddle around the edges, try-and-err, and roll with their punches.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 10, 2015, 01:21:50 PM
 #28636

i said years ago that high tx costs, like we're starting to get now, will drive all these op_return companies away from Bitcoin.  and it will be the fault of guys like iCEBlow, tvbcof, & the BS core devs.  there will be repercussions:

What high TX costs?  Its up a little, but still less than everything comparable (if anything is).
Miner revenue is up lately.

Using only slightly higher than default fee, your TX gets processed without delay.

The spammer had gotten his feet up to. 0002 earlier but it may have gone back down to. 0001. Yes not much for you or me but maybe not so for 3rd world. Yes, it's mostly an unusability issue. But still, Nasdaq is not going to get aggressive until a solution to the spam occurs.

Sure, in Venezuela where a month's labor at minimum wage under 33% monthly inflation is less than US$20 at black market exchange rates, such a fee becomes almost meaningful...

The largest bank note in Venezuela is worth about 16 cents currently.


But even (maybe especially) there the fee is affordable if you want to do a sure transaction with new coins.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 10, 2015, 01:26:16 PM
 #28637

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.

Hi doc.  I can't help but notice with each passing day you sound more like a Buttcoiner.

Specifically, Jorge Stolfi - the Buttcoiner's big fat smart-bug:

The "new devs" are impatient for the network to saturate so that the "fee market" will arise, and they have invented several spiffy gadgets to handle it that they are dying to use.  No matter how people explain, they don't want to understand that

* even 80% of saturation would render the use of bitcoin a nightmare, driving users away from bitcoin and stopping its growth well before full saturation.

* when the traffic will stop growing, say at ~80% of capacity in daily average, the "traffic jams" will arise erratically at peak hours and at random variations  of demand and supply;

* the queue lengths will vary pretty fast during a jam,  and will be emptied in a few hours;

* the fees will be useless outside of the jams;

* the right fees will be impossible to predict during a jam, because each jam will be different, the queue status will vary too fast;

* the right fee that you should use to be among the first 2500 entries of the queue that will get into the next block depends on the 3000 transactions that will be issued in the next 10 minutes, by 3000 clients who are trying to choose a fee that will put their transactions ahead of yours;

* twidding the fees will not reduce the average delay by one second, only make everybody spend more money and make the individual delays more unpredictable;

* many clients will end up paying much more than the standard fee, only to wait more than if the transactions were processed first-come, first served;

* most clients -- espcially those who issue important transactions -- have better things to do with their time than sit two hours watching the queues and playing the silly "fee hopscotch" game.

It is useless to point out to them that no business in the world, from lemonade stands to airline manufacturers, uses (or could use) anything remotely like this bizarre pricing mechanism.  It is useless to explain to them that the "fee market" will not be a "fRee market", because they have this silly libertarian definition of "free market" as "a market without government regulations".

Unfortunately, they are so detached from the real world, so fired up with the "fee market" fantasy, and so anxious to see their toys at work -- that they cannot even understand how that "fee market" will transform the act of paying something with bitcoin from a mildly complicated routine into an absolutely stupid, lengthy, incomprehensible and frustrating game.

They are like kids who set fire to the house because they want to play firemen and put the filre out with their water guns.

Bitcoin has been dead for more than a year, and was very sick before that.  What is still twitching there is a bizarre and terribly expensive payment system that resembles bitcoin, and works like it for some puroses; but with a crucial difference -- it depends on 5 people not having bad ideas.

Besides the trivial 'Buttcoin' vs 'Cripplecoin' choice of vocabulary and your lacking their keen sense of puckish humor, you seem to agree with most/all of their Standard Litany of Reasons Why Butt/Cripple-coin Has Failed, Is Failing, and Will Fail.

Any thoughts on this?  Perhaps you should take your ball, go home, and become the LeBron of Buttcoin!   Tongue

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


Warning Dash is a planned instamine, it wasn't
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 01:34:03 PM
 #28638

@sickpig:

Maybe a scheme could be worked out where XT and QT would each have their own set of core dev consensus, with only a partial overlap of core devs between the two?

It could be a solution If all the parties involved are able to get a "consensus" around this plan. No pun intended.

I'm not good at making estimates but I'd not giving an high success probability to this solution. I could be wrong, though. 

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 01:39:29 PM
 #28639

An amazing wall of political morass verbiabage.

uvwvj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 160


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 01:42:21 PM
 #28640


Sure, in Venezuela where a month's labor at minimum wage under 33% monthly inflation is less than US$20 at black market exchange rates, such a fee becomes almost meaningful...

The largest bank note in Venezuela is worth about 16 cents currently.


But even (maybe especially) there the fee is affordable if you want to do a sure transaction with new coins.

This is why I worry about the current Bitcoin bullshit with transactions, I can afford paying $0.25 to send money around the globe.  Someone who is in Venezuela cant.  I dont know if the answer if raising the block limit, using sidechains for regionally curriences backed by bitcoin or what

But to the Dev Masters - quit your fucking bitching - come to an answer and fix the fucking problem at halving and be done with it.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1480 1481 1482 ... 1559 »
  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!