Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 04:19:23 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805126 times)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2015, 05:20:43 AM
 #29421


You also already seem to get the fact that a ~5 cent BTC tx uses electricity equivalent to about 1.5 days worth of typical American home (ie $15-$20; cite: some post on reddit I can no longer find).  That's a good starting point.


This is a perfect example of your flawed reasoning.  This comment is analogous to claiming that a sailboat is incredibly inefficient because its energy use is equal to the total wind power available in the ocean divided by the number of sailboats.

Instead the volume of wind power (energy spent mining) is present for a reason that is completely orthogonal to sailboats (transactions).  It is proportional to the amount of energy being input into the system.  In the Bitcoin world, the "energy input" is the conversion of value into bitcoin representation (i.e. long term purchases).  When the block subsidy dies down, this energy input will be reflected in coin appreciation.  When the block subsidy ultimately approaches a negligible quantity, boats will (finally) have to turn on their motors and pay their way across the bitcoin network.

Additionally, you make the circular fallacy of defining the number of total boats allowed on the ocean, and therefore finding the ocean winds to be inefficient.

Ultimately there will be a fee market.  Miners will turn off hashing power until transactions appear that will make mining the block profitable.  We don't need to centrally force this to happen.  You are falling into the fallacy of thinking that others are forcing a lack of a fee market but in fact you are centrally forcing one to exist.  It is technically feasible to have larger blocks, and having them makes each transaction more efficient, so anything less than larger blocks is central planning and reduces efficiency.

And by forcing a fee market you are running the sails and the motors simultaneously, uselessly, and dangerously.

Why is it dangerous?

Money is defined as better by users fundamentally by its transfer efficiency.  This was hard to measure with fiat or PM currencies but it is simple with Bitcoin.  It is the ratio of the fee to the quantity transmitted.  Once the block subsidy diminishes this ratio will be nowhere near zero like it is today.  It is ironic that you ignore this because it is what fundamentally gave Bitcoin value in the early days while nobel laureate economists were insisting that Bitcoin would fail because it had "no intrinsic value".

Once the motor's (transaction's) true efficiency is not hidden by the wind (block subsidy), the most efficient (and accessible) cryptocurrency implementation will "win" just like gold "won" over silver.  Just like Apple is learning, getting a head start does not matter much when a huge percentage of the world simply cannot afford your product, so MUST choose a competitor.

Money currency
is defined as better by users fundamentally by its transfer efficiency.

fify.  Better: Money is defined as better by users fundamentally by its storage of value efficiency.

Please excuse the digression.   Wink

I like the wind of subsidy in early tx's sails analogy.  But the recent appearance of "cosmic background spam" makes it outdated.

The problem is that sailboats are expensive to construct and operate, while Bitcoin tx are not.

If we are to think about Bitcoin in the long term, and given Bitcoin's reasonably critical economic mass of ~$5 bil, current temporary block subsidies can be discounted as we consider fundamental questions about how and when to change one of Satoshi's Holy Numbers.

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
1481041163
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041163

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041163
Reply with quote  #2

1481041163
Report to moderator
1481041163
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041163

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041163
Reply with quote  #2

1481041163
Report to moderator
1481041163
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041163

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041163
Reply with quote  #2

1481041163
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
nby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 08:17:56 AM
 #29422

[...]
I like the wind of subsidy in early tx's sails analogy.  But the recent appearance of "cosmic background spam" makes it outdated.

The problem is that sailboats are expensive to construct and operate, while Bitcoin tx are not.
[...]

Yes, they're not expensive, especially the spam ones. And guess why is that so ? Because there's no room for those transactions in a 1MB block, and  whoever is sending them can just resend them over and over again without actually spending a dime on them.
dnaleor
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


Want privacy? Use Monero!


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 08:25:03 AM
 #29423

As Frappuccino purchases move off main chain and are consolidated by Layer 2 processes, each of Layer 1's 7 tps becomes increasingly valuable, demonstrating it is not the size of the block that matters, but how you use it.

I LOL'ed Wink

Searching for a trusted escrow service? Check my trust. I use a Trezor device for my escrow services, so your coins are safe. Fee: 0.5% or 0.05 BTC, whichever is lower
I support the largest public transparent p2p ledger Bitcoin (16TwXyEmpz7xKHbyVufZECXGFmUH9wHUyW) and the best private fungible digital cash Monero (dnaleor.weuse.cash)
Cetere mi opinias ke Dasho estas detruenda.     |     1Credit - Fair emission, better than BTC > CLCqECaYpCahgKRsXJiVBzgsiz57ZHfr4u
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 09:43:56 AM
 #29424

If we are to think about Bitcoin in the long term, and given Bitcoin's reasonably critical economic mass of ~$5 bil, current temporary block subsidies can be discounted as we consider fundamental questions about how and when to change one of Satoshi's Holy Numbers.

To which holy number are you referring to?

One last question: what's your position on block size limit, never change it or change (in the way you like the most) in the future?

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

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 10:53:39 AM
 #29425

Unfortunately for money to have store of value efficiency it must ultimately have value which with bitcoin rests again on its currency efficiency.

Miners could only store non dust UTXOs in easily accessible storage and ignore incoming txns that spend them unless the fee is worth the cost to look the UTXOs up. There are so many possibilities.   Your problem is that you are a central planner even tho you dont know it -- you are forcing a particular solution (expensive limited txns) onto the network as a whole.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 12:03:30 PM
 #29426

Increasing block size does add features (and/or bugs), in the form of higher tps and whatever concomitant other new auto/adaptive regulation mechanisms come along with the eventual solution.  100k max tx size is probably only the first such required adjustment.

In the very thread you linked gmaxwell said solution proposed by
gavin adopt an indirect and simplistic approach, to which gavin replied:

But I would REALLY hate myself if in ten years a future version of me was struggling to
get consensus to move away from some stupid 100,000 byte transaction size limit
I imposed to mitigate a potential DoS attack.


So I agree, a limit on sigops is the right way to go. And if that is being changed,
might as well accurately count exactly how many sigops a transaction actually
requires to be validated...

the bolded part really makes me laugh, though.

that said it seems that there won't be any cap to tx size for the moment.




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

Activity: 1106


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 12:12:15 PM
 #29427

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.  

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all.



i wonder what all those guys will say next year when the Blockstream guys want to change the code for SC's and LN if Gavin objects.

Sidechains can be done with a soft fork, which means all they need to do is sign up miners (and of course find customers who want to use the side chain). It doesn't require a global consensus.



But if SC, and also LN,  needs a block size increase in any case (source, source2), doesn't this mean that introducing SC implies an hard-fork?

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

Activity: 1330



View Profile
July 28, 2015, 12:32:30 PM
 #29428

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

Oh yeah? So adding complicated stuff like sidechains and lightning network is making bitcoin code smaller?

To the extent those build on top of Bitcoin they aren't adding features to it or making the the core code bigger. If they require changes to the core code or adding new features to it, that's a different matter that needs to be considered carefully.

But if the claim is that sidechains are the 'solution' to the 'problem'. Then you are saying they are part of bitcoin [the ecosystem] whether they are part of core or not.

Increasing block size does not add features *and* it 'solves' the 'problem'. Without introducing any other layers of complexity, or attempting to artificially manipulate the fee economy that is growing organically just as it was always intended.

What frightens me is that the whole thing seems to have turned into a pissing contest.

The fee market isn't a problem right now, the block size is. So why are people trying to pre-emptively fix the fee market in an ass backwards way to address the block size problem.

Nobody is claiming to have predetermined that sidechains (or LN) are necessarily the ENTIRETY of the solution to the scaling problem, only that they are potentially part of it.  Bitcoin is an ongoing bleeding-edge experiment, and we are working with intuition, educated guesses, hypotheses, and prototypes, not off-the-shelf kit in neat little boxes.

Increasing block size does add features (and/or bugs), in the form of higher tps and whatever concomitant other new auto/adaptive regulation mechanisms come along with the eventual solution.  100k max tx size is probably only the first such required adjustment.

And thus, the 100k max tx adjustment neatly destroys your claim that larger blocks do not introduce additional complexity.  More is different; the dose makes the poison...

The Red Queen interpretation, whereby we must change Bitcoin ASAP for the sake of keeping it the same, is absurd.  Moving the tx supply curve with the goal of controlling the range where it intersects that of demand is prima facie centralized market manipulation.  As long as tx fees are absurdly underpriced, in terms of their cost and what users are willing to pay, the fee market is completely broken.  Bitoin's 'free sample/loss leader' viral marketing campaign phase ended with the emergence of omnipresent 'cosmic background spam.'

The "pissing contest" which "frightens" your delicate sensibilities is exactly the "fight" to which Tannenbaum exhorts us, because the "adversarial process is valuable in assuring [features] do not compromise security or reliability."

Misrepresenting my position then arguing against that isn't going to cut it.

I said the problem is that the block size is too small, and that the solution is to make the block size bigger. That doing this requires no additional functionality. I contrasted this to the sidechain solution which does require additional functionality. As you rightly say nobody is claiming that is entirely the solution, but that is irrelevant, the point is that this or other solution(s) that require extra functionality are the very thing that your Tanenbaum quote warns against.

All that stuff you said about how we need to change TX size, thats some other thing. Either you are intentionally conflating the two, which is disingenuous or you really can't tell the difference, which I doubt is the case.

It looks to me like your emotional attachment to your position is causing your reasoning to become irrational. I don't think anyone's argument is absurd. I can see how enforcing higher fees benefits some parties, I think that misses the big picture which is that it *requires* additional functionality.

I'm not frightened of pissing contests, I think they are childish. You don't need to "fight" anything. As a smart human being we all need to listen, think and reason. Not inject hyperbole, and inflammatory language into posts to try and bully your opposition. Your argument should stand on its own merit and not the vehemence with which it is delivered.

http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU)
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 12:33:33 PM
 #29429

Unfortunately for money to have store of value efficiency it must ultimately have value which with bitcoin rests again on its currency efficiency.

Miners could only store non dust UTXOs in easily accessible storage and ignore incoming txns that spend them unless the fee is worth the cost to look the UTXOs up. There are so many possibilities.   Your problem is that you are a central planner even tho you dont know it -- you are forcing a particular solution (expensive limited txns) onto the network as a whole.

He refuses to understand where the speculative value of bitcoin lies, the decentralised cheap unlimited transactional nature of bitcoin coupled with first mover advantage and importantly the expectation of progressive adoptive waves of new users.

If bitcoin is crippled and day to day transactions are forced off chain then bitcoin ceases to maintain either it's attractiveness or advantages over competing usurper chains. It isn't hard to see a migration of new users to alternate chains or digital monetary media and a collapse in the exchange price of bitcoin if that scenario plays out.

Does the Core team really believe bitcoin will maintain it's speculative value if it continues to be a play thing for 10,000 people globally? Wink
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 28, 2015, 02:27:14 PM
 #29430

hang on.  Dow futures -20.
Natalia_AnatolioPAMM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2015, 02:39:18 PM
 #29431

As Frappuccino purchases move off main chain and are consolidated by Layer 2 processes, each of Layer 1's 7 tps becomes increasingly valuable, demonstrating it is not the size of the block that matters, but how you use it.

I LOL'ed Wink

LOL'ed - i love the word  Grin good joke

Earn money when BTC crashes - join BTC-E PAMM
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 28, 2015, 02:42:20 PM
 #29432

notice how stock mkts almost perfectly reflect consumer sentiment/confidence.  or vice versa.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-28/us-economic-consumer-confidence-plunges-10-month-lows-hope-crashes
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 28, 2015, 02:43:48 PM
 #29433

As Frappuccino purchases move off main chain and are consolidated by Layer 2 processes, each of Layer 1's 7 tps becomes increasingly valuable, demonstrating it is not the size of the block that matters, but how you use it.

I LOL'ed Wink

LOL'ed - i love the word  Grin good joke

kinda reflects where his thinking is derived.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 04:35:52 PM
 #29434

lets be honest the main problem with LN right now is that it does not exist and to make that happen it first needs to be built and then every wallet and service will need to be retooled to use it. 

But if the above was completed, its definitely worth using.  But does that mean we should also not scale the mainchain?  Absolutely not.  We need multiple options here.

There are secondary problems with LN which we'll only really start to understand as LN starts being used.

1.  Intermediary: If I understand it correctly, you open a payment channel with a LN node, and they open a payment channel with another LN node or with the ultimate destination.  So LN is an intermediary -- but one of Bitcoin's greatest strengths is its "disintermediation" for the many reasons I won't rehash now.  I've listened to well regarded entrepeneurs/technologists give speeches where this is one of their major talking points.  I guess they'll no longer be interested.

2. Fees:  IIRC, a LN payment requires the LN node contain as much working capital as outstanding payment channels.  So a bitcoin payment of quantity A will "utilize" N*A actual bitcoins during the duration of the payment channel(s), where N is the # of hops through the LN network (minimum 2).  LN nodes are GOING to charge a % for the privilege of using their $.  Lately in fiat currencies it costs 1-3% to make a payment.  It even costs that to get cash from an ATM and nowadays merchants just deposit that cash in the bank.  What an awesome racket to get 1% of every single transaction!  Bitcoin wiped away this scam because you could make a transfer for free or so close to free it did not matter (although you might have to wait).  Not going to happen with the LN.

3. No "Blockchain" applications.  Colored coins, etc won't work through LN (because you don't receive the exact coins that the sender sends into the network).  I suppose you could post a txn to the LN with additional data, but you can only post ONE chunk (because your LN payment channel transaction is repeatedly overwritten).  So I guess all the excitement right now around the blockchain as an immutable ledger (which TBH is the only exciting thing happening) will move to an altcoin...

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 28, 2015, 05:40:50 PM
 #29435

lets be honest the main problem with LN right now is that it does not exist and to make that happen it first needs to be built and then every wallet and service will need to be retooled to use it. 

But if the above was completed, its definitely worth using.  But does that mean we should also not scale the mainchain?  Absolutely not.  We need multiple options here.

There are secondary problems with LN which we'll only really start to understand as LN starts being used.

1.  Intermediary: If I understand it correctly, you open a payment channel with a LN node, and they open a payment channel with another LN node or with the ultimate destination.  So LN is an intermediary -- but one of Bitcoin's greatest strengths is its "disintermediation" for the many reasons I won't rehash now.  I've listened to well regarded entrepeneurs/technologists give speeches where this is one of their major talking points.  I guess they'll no longer be interested.

2. Fees:  IIRC, a LN payment requires the LN node contain as much working capital as outstanding payment channels.  So a bitcoin payment of quantity A will "utilize" N*A actual bitcoins during the duration of the payment channel(s), where N is the # of hops through the LN network (minimum 2).  LN nodes are GOING to charge a % for the privilege of using their $.  Lately in fiat currencies it costs 1-3% to make a payment.  It even costs that to get cash from an ATM and nowadays merchants just deposit that cash in the bank.  What an awesome racket to get 1% of every single transaction!  Bitcoin wiped away this scam because you could make a transfer for free or so close to free it did not matter (although you might have to wait).  Not going to happen with the LN.

3. No "Blockchain" applications.  Colored coins, etc won't work through LN (because you don't receive the exact coins that the sender sends into the network).  I suppose you could post a txn to the LN with additional data, but you can only post ONE chunk (because your LN payment channel transaction is repeatedly overwritten).  So I guess all the excitement right now around the blockchain as an immutable ledger (which TBH is the only exciting thing happening) will move to an altcoin...



no, no, no, nevermind your pretty little head.   iCEBlow has got it all figured out with Team Core.
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016



View Profile
July 28, 2015, 05:43:11 PM
 #29436

i'd like to revisit that thought experiment i introduced last week.

an anonymous person hard forks the current Bitcoin code with the only change being a lifting of the limit.  he provably destroys the commit key (a Bitcoin private key) over at github thru a op_return spend.  the result being a Bitcoin source code with no core devs and thus no ability to change it going forward.  would that be enough to carry Bitcoin forward for the next century?
This message is technically incohearent-- there is no such thing as a a "commit key", and "op_return spend" doesn't destroy information if there were; achieving what you suggest simply requires people stop upgrading (which is also part of the reason that we do not use automatic 'push' upgrades)----  but I certantly get the _intent_. and it's one I've forelorely expressed multiple time myself, going back years:

That it would be philosophically ideal and achieve the highest security properites if the system were completely involatile, defined by it's own mechnical construction, and any change to it would simply be a different system which people could voluntarily move to by their own free choice. Through this the system would be immune to whilm, political control, or subterfuge in a much stronger sense.

Sadly, that result currently appears to be pratically be beyond the scope of human engineering abilities-- or at least beyond the efforts expended on any software system I'm aware of thus far.

A particular point that I couldn't disclose the time cypherdoc initially made the argument was that the software the network was running at that moment was vulnerable: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009697.html

We've had a pipeline of newly discovered non-public vulnerabilties in the Bitcoin protocol running almost all the time since 2012.  I don't have a great answer to that hard questions, but sadly burying our heads in the sand cannot work-- it would just result in a regular series of potentially devistating "emergency" changes, rather than a orderly, planned, resolution.
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
July 28, 2015, 06:25:30 PM
 #29437

hang on.  Dow futures -20.

I have a question...

Everything seems to be going down (except bitcoin, but I exclude it here because it's negligibly small).

Where's the money going?

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


Bitcoin: The honey badger of currencies


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 06:42:34 PM
 #29438

hang on.  Dow futures -20.

I have a question...

Everything seems to be going down (except bitcoin, but I exclude it here because it's negligibly small).

Where's the money going?


cash is king in times like these. Bitcoin will probably see some of that redistribution I imagine however

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
wpalczynski
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


Twitter: @wpalczynski


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 06:46:10 PM
 #29439

hang on.  Dow futures -20.

I have a question...

Everything seems to be going down (except bitcoin, but I exclude it here because it's negligibly small).

Where's the money going?


US Dollar.

uvwvj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 159


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 06:49:00 PM
 #29440

US Dollar.

Just make sure 1-5% of your NET WORTH (don't leverage yourself in a bad position) in BTC
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 ... 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!