Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 09:25:38 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 ... 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 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010359 times)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2015, 10:29:54 PM
 #29221

iCE, didn't you say you own Hecla?  geez man, you gotta get outta that thing.  once it breaks the red support line, it's lights out:

Hecla's been around for 100 years.  They know how to hibernate in bear markets, and historically offer the best leverage to silver.

I'm investing/accumulating for the long term, not day trading.  Let's hope they can snarf up Wildcat for pennies/oz before the market turns bullish.   Cool


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
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.
1511213138
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511213138

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511213138
Reply with quote  #2

1511213138
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
July 23, 2015, 10:38:52 PM
 #29222


I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.

I think that many of the more technically inclined people recognize certain dangers that others do not.  That is the primary reason why there is a rift between those actually doing development and those who are primarily trying to capitalize on the existence of distributed crypto-currencies.

I'm personally a dedicated '1mb blocker' (at this time), but I'm not especially 'conservative.'  I'd actually be happy to see a hard-fork which completely re-designed the consensus mechanism to foster a more robust 'distributed' aspect to the 'distributed crypto-currency' aspect of things.  This based on where I see the most significant risks of failure, and in the comfort to know that there is finally a very strong move toward scaling (and providing other services) via an implementation of sub-ordinate chains.


iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2015, 10:50:58 PM
 #29223

I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.

Bitcoin is by design reactionary, not merely conservative, in its approach to changing things.  Changes are considered an attack until proven otherwise. 

Not one iota of security will be traded for adoption, no matter the preferences of In-Q-Tel, Sand Hill Road, and their sigint-veteran toadies.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/624316213473062913



^That^ is the type of computer science research we need more of in order to make informed decisions regarding block size.

"Throwing the hammer down" and declaring UX the hill upon Bitcoin must die is the kind of drama-queen exaggeration we need to calm down and eschew.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 23, 2015, 11:25:34 PM
 #29224

I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.

Bitcoin is by design reactionary, not merely conservative, in its approach to changing things.  Changes are considered an attack until proven otherwise. 

Not one iota of security will be traded for adoption, no matter the preferences of In-Q-Tel, Sand Hill Road, and their sigint-veteran toadies.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/624316213473062913



^That^ is the type of computer science research we need more of in order to make informed decisions regarding block size.

"Throwing the hammer down" and declaring UX the hill upon Bitcoin must die is the kind of drama-queen exaggeration we need to calm down and eschew.

Another relevant dataset from today:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009567.html

Quote
On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disprove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower internet connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds have improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks.

...

This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.

I'll leave it to cypherdoc to spin this one in his favor

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 11:34:53 PM
 #29225

I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.

Bitcoin is by design reactionary, not merely conservative, in its approach to changing things.  Changes are considered an attack until proven otherwise. 

Not one iota of security will be traded for adoption, no matter the preferences of In-Q-Tel, Sand Hill Road, and their sigint-veteran toadies.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/624316213473062913



^That^ is the type of computer science research we need more of in order to make informed decisions regarding block size.

"Throwing the hammer down" and declaring UX the hill upon Bitcoin must die is the kind of drama-queen exaggeration we need to calm down and eschew.

Another relevant dataset from today:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009567.html

Quote
On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disprove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower internet connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds have improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks.

...

This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.

I'll leave it to cypherdoc to spin this one in his favor


I'm flattered that you think this whole debate hinges around me but I also love how you cherry pick your discussion.

I noticed that Jameson Lopp, well known CS and author of the killer Statoshi website wants to look at the code. We'll see if he gets it because it matters.

I noticed you didn't answer the usability question I posed earlier.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 24, 2015, 12:16:29 AM
 #29226

my impression of this whole debate is that no one really knows for sure what's going on.  esp the CS guys who didn't contribute a lick to Satoshi's original code or assumptions.

the internet is still a relatively new phenomenon that is not well understood.  not to mention, distributed/decentralized systems like Bitcoin.  so many smart technical ppl missed the boat on the investment part of Bitcoin early on b/c of extreme skepticism across the board esp regarding the technical system. even insiders.  they didn't and still don't fully understand the network topology and we see new information uncovered everyday from researchers like Andrew Miller to the selfish mining folks like Sirer to today's report from Zohar.  as evidence for what i say, all we have to do is go back over the dozen or so academic papers over the last 6 yrs that have outlined detailed attacks based on various unfounded assumptions and a ton of math.  so far the result?  nothing.  they've all been wrong.  i was one of the first to start talking about the game theory around Bitcoin and mining.  not that i'm a game theory expert or anything but it was clear to me that there are a lot more disciplines intersecting at the Bitcoin nexus that make it successful, not just the CS.  namely, finance, group psychology, CS, math, networking, engineering, the speculative mind, big money, politics, etc.  it appears no one really has a grasp on all the components.  so yeah, i get a little defensive when new and esp existing ppl from one small corner of the space start going around and making statements as if they're facts.  i'll listen to what they say but if it doesn't make sense, i will challenge them.  iow, i know enough about Bitcoin to make me dangerous.

so yeah, i extrapolate out this "revelation" even to the current set of core devs who are holding up the block size debate.  i think one of the inviolable principles behind Bitcoin are that as many tx's should be kept on MC to replace block rewards going forward.  otherwise, how will miners get paid to confirm tx's and provide the security and decentralization the network desperately needs in the long run?  thus we should try, even at some risk, to expand the block size to as large as we can to accommodate user growth worldwide as no one can predict how fast tech improvements will grow with time to mitigate the effects of slower propagation.  which also is another principle Bitcoin should try to achieve; that being maximum user decentralization worldwide so as to minimize the ability of any one gvt to intervene.

i think Bitcoin is awfully close to achieving this.  if only we can get bigger blocks simply b/c they can provide the growth we want now.  and i say now, b/c as i've been quite nicely forecasting for all of you for a long time now (4y), the financial markets and pm markets are now undergoing the suffering i've predicted and demonstrated in real time.  and i really mean nicely b/c i don't have to do this. i could just simply lock the thread down and sit here behind my computer silently and pick all of you off as a swing trader timing the cycles or by injecting alot of financial obfuscation like many others do.  some of you might actually want to say thank you every once in a while instead of trolling the hell out of me for trying to help.

Bitcoin needs to be ready to accept all that fiat flowing out of those mkts so something needs to be done.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2015, 12:19:30 AM
 #29227

I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.

Bitcoin is by design reactionary, not merely conservative, in its approach to changing things.  Changes are considered an attack until proven otherwise. 

Not one iota of security will be traded for adoption, no matter the preferences of In-Q-Tel, Sand Hill Road, and their sigint-veteran toadies.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/624316213473062913



^That^ is the type of computer science research we need more of in order to make informed decisions regarding block size.

"Throwing the hammer down" and declaring UX the hill upon Bitcoin must die is the kind of drama-queen exaggeration we need to calm down and eschew.

Another relevant dataset from today:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009567.html

Quote
On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disprove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower internet connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds have improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks.

...

This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.

I'll leave it to cypherdoc to spin this one in his favor


I'm flattered that you think this whole debate hinges around me but I also love how you cherry pick your discussion.

I noticed that Jameson Lopp, well known CS and author of the killer Statoshi website wants to look at the code. We'll see if he gets it because it matters.

I noticed you didn't answer the usability question I posed earlier.

I notice Frap.doc has no comment (much less spin) on Szabo's tweet about research into vulnerability vs blocksize trade-offs or the maximum throughput survey (thx for that BTW), except to retreat into a great wall of text about generalities and meaningless platitudes such as "the internet is still a relatively new phenomenon that is not well understood."

Talk about cherry-picking your responses.

Is Frap.doc's 'zeal of the recent Gavinista convert' beginning to wear off?


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 24, 2015, 12:33:55 AM
 #29228

I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.

Bitcoin is by design reactionary, not merely conservative, in its approach to changing things.  Changes are considered an attack until proven otherwise. 

Not one iota of security will be traded for adoption, no matter the preferences of In-Q-Tel, Sand Hill Road, and their sigint-veteran toadies.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/624316213473062913



^That^ is the type of computer science research we need more of in order to make informed decisions regarding block size.

"Throwing the hammer down" and declaring UX the hill upon Bitcoin must die is the kind of drama-queen exaggeration we need to calm down and eschew.

Another relevant dataset from today:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009567.html

Quote
On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disprove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower internet connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds have improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks.

...

This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.

I'll leave it to cypherdoc to spin this one in his favor


I'm flattered that you think this whole debate hinges around me but I also love how you cherry pick your discussion.

I noticed that Jameson Lopp, well known CS and author of the killer Statoshi website wants to look at the code. We'll see if he gets it because it matters.

I noticed you didn't answer the usability question I posed earlier.

I notice Frap.doc has no comment (much less spin) on Szabo's tweet about research into vulnerability vs blocksize trade-offs or the maximum throughput survey (thx for that BTW), except to retreat into a great wall of text about generalities and meaningless platitudes such as "the internet is still a relatively new phenomenon that is not well understood."

Talk about cherry-picking your responses.

Is Frap.doc's 'zeal of the recent Gavinista convert' beginning to wear off?

what was interesting is that the author showed up on Reddit stating flat out he is a bigger block proponent while admitting it's not entirely clear what would happen if they were implemented now.  he, and every other conservative, can sit there and advocate for more research but that doesn't invalidate my pt that every other bear paper on mining has been wrong.  we haven't seen all the selfish mining attacks Eyal outlined.  why is that?  you're supposedly a geek, explain that for all of us.  crickets.......

so yeah, the Zohar paper is probably just the next one to go into the bin of fails.  if you'll notice, i'm in that Reddit thread making the argument that academic papers always fail to consider how participants can react.  i'm not getting any push back either.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 24, 2015, 12:54:30 AM
 #29229

oh wonderful.  just look at what they're doing to our beloved Bitcoin:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/972
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 24, 2015, 01:15:49 AM
 #29230

...

 Roll Eyes

Give us a break.

You're getting dangerously close to Anonymint-levels of megalomania

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 24, 2015, 01:18:48 AM
 #29231

...



 Roll Eyes

Give us a break.

You're getting dangerously close to Anonymint-levels of megalomania


Maybe. But then you could always leave too.

But that never seems to happen.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2015, 01:30:31 AM
 #29232

oh wonderful.  just look at what they're doing to our beloved Bitcoin:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/972

Nobody is doing anything to our beloved Bitcoin, except for ensuring it will scale to and thrive at 1MB despite 'cosmic background spam' and intentional crapflood/DOS attacks.

Your Free Shit Army, OTOH, it getting rekt like Stannis at Winterfell.



██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
July 24, 2015, 02:21:30 AM
 #29233

oh wonderful.  just look at what they're doing to our beloved Bitcoin:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/972
is this "for real", or was the request done in earnest?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 24, 2015, 02:25:10 AM
 #29234

it's getting worse:

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2015, 02:32:53 AM
 #29235


You're getting dangerously close to Anonymint-levels of megalomania


For a minute there, Doc and Anoymint seemed like brothers from different mothers.

But let's move on to more pleasant, positive thoughts.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114945/lightning-network-could-strike-sooner-than-expected

So we'll soon have additional tps capacity in the forms of:

-Sidechains on Mainchain

-Sidechains on Altchains

-Lightning on Mainchain

-Lightning on Altchains

-Lightning on Sidechains(Mainchain)

-Lightning on Sidechains(Altchains)

So much for the 'capacity crunch.'   Smiley


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 24, 2015, 02:32:56 AM
 #29236

oh wonderful.  just look at what they're doing to our beloved Bitcoin:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/972
is this "for real", or was the request done in earnest?

that Tom David Harding guy was the same one who produced this document "in earnest" last month:

https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
July 24, 2015, 07:13:17 AM
 #29237

I cannot wait until we fork this problem away.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
July 24, 2015, 10:51:45 AM
 #29238

...



 Roll Eyes

Give us a break.

You're getting dangerously close to Anonymint-levels of megalomania


Maybe. But then you could always leave too.

But that never seems to happen.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
July 24, 2015, 11:31:52 AM
 #29239

rumour mill latest.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/french-bitcoin-revolution-bnp-paribas-plans-add-crypto-its-currency-funds-1512360

Bnp - France's biggest bank BNP Paribas is looking at ways bitcoin could be incorporated into one its currency funds, according to a source at the bank.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 24, 2015, 11:33:16 AM
 #29240

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 ... 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!