Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 10:22:44 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 ... 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 1523 1524 1525 1526 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806505 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 08:36:13 PM
 #29501

Lightning network and sidechains are not magical things, they're orthorgonal and not alternatives to relay improvements. But since you bring them up: They're both at a _futher_ level of development than IBLT at the moment; though given the orthogonality it's irrelevant except to note how misdirected your argument is...

I appreciate the further detail that you describe regarding the relay situation. So it seems that you are not optimistic that block propagation efficiency can have a major benefit for all full-nodes in the near future. Yet block propagation overhead is probably the single biggest argument for retaining the 1MB as long as possible. To cap volume growth to a certain extent.

I'm not sure about that.  My opinion is that the biggest argument for retaining the cap (or, at least, not introducing a 20x plus exponential increase or something like that) is the burden on full nodes due to (cumulated) bandwidth, processing power and, last but not least, disk space required.  Of course, for miners the situation may be different - but from my own point of view (running multiple full nodes for various things but not mining) the block relay issue is not so important.  As gmaxwell pointed out, except for reducing latency when a block is found it does only "little" by, at best, halving the total bandwidth required.  Compare this to the proposed 20x or 8x increase in the block size.

Bandwidth is always a much bigger concern than blockchain usage on disk. TB disks are very cheap, v0.11 has pruning.

Block (1) validation time as well as (2) propagation time are both issues for mining security and avoiding excessive forks/orphans which prolong effective confirmations.
They are separate issues however, and you can have either problem without the other in different blocks, or both together.

Both of these are exacerbated by block size.

As eager as I am for a block size increase for scalability, I'm not convinced that it is yet warranted given the risks...  The developers are aware of the issues.  They aren't goofing off.  It is just better to get it right than to get it done.
Validation time, in its self is not an issue, miners have approximately 10 minus to validate, the issues is not the time, it's that you can hack the protocol and validate nothing or force your competitor to waste time validating to gain an advantage, (this is also a temporary hack and if anything highlights where development should occur)

Propagation time is a feature not an issue, (a symbiotic byproduct) that adds to the incentives that make bitcoin work.

their are hypothetical issues with how these features could be abused, the problem is the developers are not separating the hypothetical issues form the features, and working on that, some are working to to change the features.    

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
1481235764
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481235764

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481235764
Reply with quote  #2

1481235764
Report to moderator
1481235764
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481235764

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481235764
Reply with quote  #2

1481235764
Report to moderator
1481235764
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481235764

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481235764
Reply with quote  #2

1481235764
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481235764
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481235764

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481235764
Reply with quote  #2

1481235764
Report to moderator
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 08:38:43 PM
 #29502

notice how the extra fees paid by full blocks actually strengthened the mining hashrate during the last attacks.  probably the extra revenue from tx fees encouraged miners to bring on more hashrate.  that's a good thing and could actually be even better if they were allowed to harvest/clear all the additional fees in the bloated mempools:



your willingness to connect two dots is astounding
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 08:42:11 PM
 #29503


Greg has made it abundantly clear that he is a Bear on Bitcoin.  he should step down as a core dev.

and what's this about him not thinking Bitcoin can be used on small devices?  smartphones are KEY to Bitcoin's long term success.

Yeah... maybe you need to read this again. What did I tell you about putting words in people's mouth.

"A bear on Bitcoin"  Cheesy So much non sense!

dude, you need to read Satoshi's post again.  he's arguing to keep Bitcoin and BitDNS separate b/c either one of them might want to increase their size:

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about unreasonably limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

bolded part mine.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 08:47:50 PM
 #29504

notice how the extra fees paid by full blocks actually strengthened the mining hashrate during the last attacks.  probably the extra revenue from tx fees encouraged miners to bring on more hashrate.  that's a good thing and could actually be even better if they were allowed to harvest/clear all the additional fees in the bloated mempools:



your willingness to connect two dots is astounding

notice how i used that graph in a series of graphs and data to support my supposition.  unlike you who is here to troll and cherrypick.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 08:48:18 PM
 #29505

This is a disaster.

On the one hand, we have a person who's actually telling the truth and also is the same guy who tried to break Tor, add blacklists, and other assorted nasty features.

On the other hand we have someone who tends to invent legitimately useful things, and also lie when it suits his purposes.



There's nothing worse than having to agree with the turd sandwich, because he's the only one telling the truth.


its not as bad as a turd sandwich is it?

it looks to me like on one let him make a turd sandwich, and now he isn't pushing it as he knows it's not a good idea.

on the other hand Gmax is going through the lessons MikeH learned with blacklists just happens that MikeH has a stronger character.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 08:57:50 PM
 #29506

decision to force a fee market is a centralized solution

On it's face this is a nonsense argument since any development decisions are centralized in the same manner.

Increase the blocksize, decrease the blocksize, or leave it alone, they are all (centralized) development decisions.

It's also false that anything is really centralized about it because if there were truly a consensus for change (over the objections of the 'centralized' developers) there would be a successful fork.


Yes all dev decisions are essentially centralized, including the decision to NOT do something.  Since that is trivially true, I am talking about the effect of the decision.  And in one case miners can optimize their profitability by choosing to include transactions while in another case they are artificially limited.

Listen to New Liberty, he got this completely right. Whether miners can optimize their profitability is beside the point, because in doing so they also influence others' costs, and they are most certainly not optimizing that.

The idea of a sensible market arising for block size in the current structure if the consensus block size rule (which is the only mechanism for the "others" in the previous paragraph to participate in such a market) is a fantasy.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:00:10 PM
 #29507

on the technology front the Bitcoin developers seem oblivious to innovations in data access and storage.

http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2015/07/28/intel-and-micron-produce-breakthrough-memory-technology

Quote
"One of the most significant hurdles in modern computing is the time it takes the processor to reach data on long-term storage," said Mark Adams, president of Micron. "This new class of non-volatile memory is a revolutionary technology that allows for quick access to enormous data sets and enables entirely new applications."

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:00:27 PM
 #29508

notice how the extra fees paid by full blocks actually strengthened the mining hashrate during the last attacks.  probably the extra revenue from tx fees encouraged miners to bring on more hashrate.  that's a good thing and could actually be even better if they were allowed to harvest/clear all the additional fees in the bloated mempools:



your willingness to connect two dots is astounding

notice how i used that graph in a series of graphs and data to support my supposition.  unlike you who is here to troll and cherrypick.

Do not spread nonsenses.
How this chart correlates with your theory.



And look at this http://www.kncminer.com/blog/newsarchive#changing-the-game-again
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:06:31 PM
 #29509

decision to force a fee market is a centralized solution

On it's face this is a nonsense argument since any development decisions are centralized in the same manner.

Increase the blocksize, decrease the blocksize, or leave it alone, they are all (centralized) development decisions.

It's also false that anything is really centralized about it because if there were truly a consensus for change (over the objections of the 'centralized' developers) there would be a successful fork.


Yes all dev decisions are essentially centralized, including the decision to NOT do something.  Since that is trivially true, I am talking about the effect of the decision.  And in one case miners can optimize their profitability by choosing to include transactions while in another case they are artificially limited.

Listen to New Liberty, he got this completely right. Whether miners can optimize their profitability is beside the point, because in doing so they also influence others' costs, and they are most certainly not optimizing that.

The idea of a sensible market arising for block size in the current structure if the consensus block size rule (which is the only mechanism for the "others" in the previous paragraph to participate in such a market) is a fantasy.


i don't get this at all.  as a former miner, given all the investment in mining equipment one has to make along with all the labor and ongoing costs, any profit the miner makes is deserved; and it's often not that much of a profit.  full nodes, otoh, only have to rent a vps at most which is minimal cost. 

all this complaining by LukeJr et al about everyone else forcing him to bear costs in Bitcoin is ridiculous.  by running a full node you're helping to prop your investment in the coin and you should be using it to secure your own tx's; which should be a security measure you're willing to pay for.  as the user base grows, if we let it, then merchant base grows with it and they will be more than willing from a security and fiduciary standpoint to increase the availability of full nodes across the network.

and as far as game theory with miners goes, they sure do have an incentive to optimize the size of their blocks thru fear of orphaning and thru fear of causing disruption to full nodes and users which both would decrease their surrounding security and tx throughput in terms of fees by users.  not to mention constantly having a Damocle's Sword over their heads via their hashers who can move to another pool in an instant.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:10:10 PM
 #29510

notice how the extra fees paid by full blocks actually strengthened the mining hashrate during the last attacks.  probably the extra revenue from tx fees encouraged miners to bring on more hashrate.  that's a good thing and could actually be even better if they were allowed to harvest/clear all the additional fees in the bloated mempools:



your willingness to connect two dots is astounding

notice how i used that graph in a series of graphs and data to support my supposition.  unlike you who is here to troll and cherrypick.

Do not spread nonsenses.
How this chart correlates with your theory.



And look at this http://www.kncminer.com/blog/newsarchive#changing-the-game-again

how does it not correlate with my theory?  yours is just a long term zoom out of the hashrate which obscures the shorter effect of the stress test.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:18:16 PM
 #29511

missed the part about KNC and 16nm.  sure, that could be it also altho given that post is from June 3 it's not clear if those are online yet.
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:21:33 PM
 #29512

The introduction of sidechains, LN and whatever other solutions is a complicated solution. It's also a solution motivated by a desire to fix a perceived economic issue, rather than sticking to the very simple issue at hand. It is the very opposite of what you are claiming to be important, that software should be kept simple.

That is a contradiction.

The simple solution is to remove the artificial cap. A cap that was put in place to prevent DDOS.

Your reference of CVE-2013-2292 is just distraction. It is a separate issue, one that exists now and would continue to exists with a larger block size.

Bloating Layer 1 is a complicated solution; scaling at Level 2+ is an elegant one.

You still don't understand Tannenbaum's maxim.  Its point isn't 'keep software simple FOREVER NO MATTER WHAT.'  That is your flawed simpleton's interpretation.

"Fighting features" means ensuring a positive trade-off in terms of security and reliability, instead of carelessly and recklessly heaping on additional functionality without the benefit of an adversarial process which tests their quality and overall impact.

One does not simply "remove the artificial cap."  You may have noticed some degree of controversy in regard to that proposal.  Bitcoin is designed to strenuously resist (IE fight) hard forks.  Perhaps you were thinking of WishGrantingUnicornCoin, which leaps into action the moment anyone has an idea and complies with their ingenious plan for whatever feature or change they desire.

Like DoS, CVE-2013-2292, as an issue that exists now, is fairly successfully mitigated by the 1MB cap.  It is not a separate concern because larger blocks exacerbate the problem in a superlinear manner.  You don't get to advocate 8MB blocks, but then wave your hands around eschewing responsibility when confronted with the immediate entailment of purposefully constructed 8MB tx taking 64 times longer to process than a 1MB one.  The issue is intrinsic to larger blocks, which is why Gavin proposed a 100k max tx size be married to any block size increase.

Fully parsed, what you are claiming is

Quote
The simple solution is to remove the artificial cap hard fork Bitcoin.

Do you realize how naive that makes you look?

If you truly understood your own position then you would argue it instead of just railing at people who might have an opposing view. Call me some more names, it's really helping the credibility of your argument.

What *is* bloat? (apart from the intentional choice of hyperbolic word). Can you put a value on what is considered bloated? Can you confidently say that your idea of what constitute bloat is some world wide standard?

You put words in my mouth, then claim those invented words make me look stupid. In fact this only serves to make you look even more desperate. if I didn't understand the maxim, I would not be able to point out just how incoherent your thought process must be if you are attempting to equate feature-set with size-of-data. I understand the difference between feature-set and data-size, do you? I'll bet you do. So, don't even for one second pretend you think that systems with more data are inherently more complex than systems with less data.

Do you truly believe they are the same thing or are you again being disingenuous in order to try and maintain your tenuous argument that effectively 'changing a config setting' is somehow more complicated than developing a whole new platform and all the interfaces necessary to communicate.

Its about as elegant as your debating skill....

Fully parsed your argument against Gavin's fix for CVE-2013-2292 seems to be, don't do it because it increases complexity. Again disingenuous or actually not very smart?

Then finally you try to create further confusion between the feature-set of software vs its deployment. To be clear, what is being kept simple is the software. I'm interested to know though just exactly what it is that is complex about the hard fork. I can think of other words that might apply - contentious, unpredictable even undesirable - depending on your viewpoint - but not complex. You put the new release up, and those that want it deploy it. Those that don't do not.

Interestingly those words that apply to the hard fork, could quite easily be used to describe intentionally restricting transaction growth by refusing to update the max block size. So in that respect both 'solutions' are equal.

In another very important respect, they are not equal. Releasing a version of bitcoin core with an increased block size allows for true consensus from the user base. Refusing to do so, is enforcing the view of some core-devs. That's what is despicable.

Thankfully in time, once the details have been ironed out and devs eventually accept some form of block size increase schedule (and they will, however much you cling to your delusion) the hard fork can happen in core, and then the miners can have the final say in what goes forward. If everyone sticks on 1MB coin then you get your wish! I'll send you a cookie, iced with the words "Well done you!".

I think though, that is what you are terrified of. That you know there is actually no way in hell the block size will stay at 1MB, but you are so married to your position that you can't let go and will say anything to defend it. It comes across in your posts.

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
nby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:28:29 PM
 #29513




Now its Frap.doc's turn to get rekt:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.


 Cheesy

You should keep in mind this while posting.

Maybe then you would take a full quote of a post, instead of just extracting a part out of its context in order to prove your point.

BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:28:44 PM
 #29514

how does it not correlate with my theory?  yours is just a long term zoom out of the hashrate which obscures the shorter effect of the stress test.

I think, everybody can see that the hashrate is growing. No matter if there is "stress test" or not.

And it is obvious that bitcoin price was $318 during the time you took days off.
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:33:31 PM
 #29515




Now its Frap.doc's turn to get rekt:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.


 Cheesy

You should keep in mind this while posting.

Maybe then you would take a full quote of a post, instead of just extracting a part out of its context in order to prove your point.

BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here

Haha. Brilliant!! Smiley
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:35:29 PM
 #29516

decision to force a fee market is a centralized solution

On it's face this is a nonsense argument since any development decisions are centralized in the same manner.

Increase the blocksize, decrease the blocksize, or leave it alone, they are all (centralized) development decisions.

It's also false that anything is really centralized about it because if there were truly a consensus for change (over the objections of the 'centralized' developers) there would be a successful fork.


Yes all dev decisions are essentially centralized, including the decision to NOT do something.  Since that is trivially true, I am talking about the effect of the decision.  And in one case miners can optimize their profitability by choosing to include transactions while in another case they are artificially limited.

Listen to New Liberty, he got this completely right. Whether miners can optimize their profitability is beside the point, because in doing so they also influence others' costs, and they are most certainly not optimizing that.

The idea of a sensible market arising for block size in the current structure if the consensus block size rule (which is the only mechanism for the "others" in the previous paragraph to participate in such a market) is a fantasy.


You are correct to question whether the incentives for miners coincides with what is optimal for the rest of the network.  As we see with empty blocks and non-validated blocks these can differ.  However, your assumption that these do not coincide whatsoever is unsupported.  And with Bitcoin it is all we have, barring some centralized committee making arbitrary decisions like we have today with the core devs.  Personally, I believe that miner incentive is a reflection of optimal network use, if not 100% the same.  For example, a miner who mines a bunch of "spam" txns knows that he must store it for eternity, just like all the other nodes.

A better example is the worry that a miner will include a txn that takes 10+ minutes to validate.  It is dangerous to build on a block that can't be readily validated.  So a miner that includes one could expect that the majority hashing power would NOT move to that block, even though it may be the longest in the chain.  The "fittest" miner will mine 2 blocks in the time it takes others to validate this one and mine the next.  That need only happen once or twice to teach the rest of the network a valuable lesson.  

So miners will evolve to be tweaking their algorithms to eliminate "crazy junk" (unless that junk is sufficiently incentivized with a large txn fee -- and if someone is willing to pay a lot for it, who are we to decide that its not important... that's the free market at work) and even include "human assist" systems to optimize decisions like these.  We may get a few "natural" forks longer than just one or 2 blocks as miners choose different strategies but that is just part of the natural behavior of the core consensus algorithm.  All of this can be done without changing consensus.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:38:48 PM
 #29517

how does it not correlate with my theory?  yours is just a long term zoom out of the hashrate which obscures the shorter effect of the stress test.

I think, everybody can see that the hashrate is growing. No matter if there is "stress test" or not.

And it is obvious that bitcoin price was $318 during the time you took days off.

Haha Odalv:

Quote

You should keep in mind this while posting.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:41:18 PM
 #29518

Quote
Quote
how does it not correlate with my theory?  yours is just a long term zoom out of the hashrate which obscures the shorter effect of the stress test.

I think, everybody can see that the hashrate is growing. No matter if there is "stress test" or not.

And it is obvious that bitcoin price was $318 during the time you took days off.

Haha Odalv:


You should keep in mind this while posting.

Maybe then you would take a full quote of a post, instead of just extracting a part out of its context in order to prove your point.

BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here

Huh


edit:
are you on drugs ?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:43:45 PM
 #29519

how does it not correlate with my theory?  yours is just a long term zoom out of the hashrate which obscures the shorter effect of the stress test.

I think, everybody can see that the hashrate is growing. No matter if there is "stress test" or not.

And it is obvious that bitcoin price was $318 during the time you took days off.

Haha Odalv:


You should keep in mind this while posting.

Maybe then you would take a full quote of a post, instead of just extracting a part out of its context in order to prove your point.

BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here
[/quote]

Huh


edit:
are you on drugs ?
[/quote]

Fixed. Troll.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:47:10 PM
 #29520

Quote
Quote
how does it not correlate with my theory?  yours is just a long term zoom out of the hashrate which obscures the shorter effect of the stress test.

I think, everybody can see that the hashrate is growing. No matter if there is "stress test" or not.

And it is obvious that bitcoin price was $318 during the time you took days off.

Haha Odalv:


You should keep in mind this while posting.

Maybe then you would take a full quote of a post, instead of just extracting a part out of its context in order to prove your point.

BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here

Huh


edit:
are you on drugs ?

Fixed. Troll.
really ?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1523 1524 1525 1526 ... 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!