Bitcoin Forum
May 25, 2017, 01:22:07 AM *
News: If the forum does not load normally for you, please send me a traceroute.
 
   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 ... 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 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1902915 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 01:48:18 PM
 #30461

That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.


I think Bitcoins are absolutely a unique collectible. I hate to "call up" authority but its own creator was well aware of that:

Quote
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Quote
It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. -Satoshi Nakamoto

Quote
Aug. 27, 2010: Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Satoshi quotes which are correct, but also relate to when BTC was the only cryptocurrency.
Today http://coinmarketcap.com has about 600 listed, including - if I choose one at random - Monero.

So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!

YES!

Now are they as "rare" by my definition than Bitcoin? No. But by all account they have obtained a significant amount of "collectors" because of its own rather unique property, as smooth pointed out.

"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
"In a nutshell, the network works like a distributed timestamp server, stamping the first transaction to spend a coin. It takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread but hard to stifle." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1495675327
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495675327

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495675327
Reply with quote  #2

1495675327
Report to moderator
1495675327
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495675327

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495675327
Reply with quote  #2

1495675327
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 01:51:12 PM
 #30462

That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.


I think Bitcoins are absolutely a unique collectible. I hate to "call up" authority but its own creator was well aware of that:

Quote
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Quote
It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. -Satoshi Nakamoto

Quote
Aug. 27, 2010: Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Satoshi quotes which are correct, but also relate to when BTC was the only cryptocurrency.
Today http://coinmarketcap.com has about 600 listed, including - if I choose one at random - Monero.

So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!

YES!

Now are they as "rare" by my definition than Bitcoin? No. But by all account they have obtained a significant amount of "collectors".

People will collect just about anything. I'm not sure how relevant that is, but it is certainly true. I understand people collect even centrally-issued virtual assets and trade the for significant money. It is quite an odd human phenomenon. But to deny it is to deny how humans actually behave.
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 01:54:16 PM
 #30463

That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.


I think Bitcoins are absolutely a unique collectible. I hate to "call up" authority but its own creator was well aware of that:

Quote
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Quote
It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. -Satoshi Nakamoto

Quote
Aug. 27, 2010: Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Satoshi quotes which are correct, but also relate to when BTC was the only cryptocurrency.
Today http://coinmarketcap.com has about 600 listed, including - if I choose one at random - Monero.

So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!

YES!

Now are they as "rare" by my definition than Bitcoin? No. But by all account they have obtained a significant amount of "collectors" because of its own rather unique property, as smooth pointed out.

Hang on a sec whilst I just nip down and photocopy an thousand copies of the Mona lisa. This is money were talking about network effect and userbase are all that is important.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 01:56:04 PM
 #30464

That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.


I think Bitcoins are absolutely a unique collectible. I hate to "call up" authority but its own creator was well aware of that:

Quote
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Quote
It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. -Satoshi Nakamoto

Quote
Aug. 27, 2010: Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Satoshi quotes which are correct, but also relate to when BTC was the only cryptocurrency.
Today http://coinmarketcap.com has about 600 listed, including - if I choose one at random - Monero.

So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!

YES!

Now are they as "rare" by my definition than Bitcoin? No. But by all account they have obtained a significant amount of "collectors".

People will collect just about anything. I'm not sure how relevant that is, but it is certainly true. I understand people collect even centrally-issued virtual assets and trade the for significant money. It is quite an odd human phenomenon. But to deny it is to deny how humans actually behave.

Yes! But I'm sure you will agree the different properties and scarcity of these items will define their own market value and make them unique in their own right.

I think we are getting a little too far from my original point so I guess we should leave it at that..

"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
August 14, 2015, 01:58:59 PM
 #30465

That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.


I think Bitcoins are absolutely a unique collectible. I hate to "call up" authority but its own creator was well aware of that:

Quote
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Quote
It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. -Satoshi Nakamoto

Quote
Aug. 27, 2010: Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Satoshi quotes which are correct, but also relate to when BTC was the only cryptocurrency.
Today http://coinmarketcap.com has about 600 listed, including - if I choose one at random - Monero.

So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!

YES!

Now are they as "rare" by my definition than Bitcoin? No. But by all account they have obtained a significant amount of "collectors" because of its own rather unique property, as smooth pointed out.

Hang on a sec whilst I just nip down and photocopy an thousand copies of the Mona lisa. This is money were talking about network effect and userbase are all that is important.

Bingo. 

esp since Bitcoin units are an abstract concept which can't be coddled, hugged, and fawned all over like gold.

this why a fixed supply of Bugati's or even cowry shells will never function as money in a real world.
Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 838



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 02:00:14 PM
 #30466



XT nodes are still rising ! It is not about that we, the XT nodes, want a XT fork. We use this node to show our vote for bigger blocks. Because that is the only way how you can vote in this ecosystem, through a majority of nodes (if you are not a (big) mining pool). At least that is my perspective.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 02:02:53 PM
 #30467

That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.


I think Bitcoins are absolutely a unique collectible. I hate to "call up" authority but its own creator was well aware of that:

Quote
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Quote
It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. -Satoshi Nakamoto

Quote
Aug. 27, 2010: Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Satoshi quotes which are correct, but also relate to when BTC was the only cryptocurrency.
Today http://coinmarketcap.com has about 600 listed, including - if I choose one at random - Monero.

So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!

YES!

Now are they as "rare" by my definition than Bitcoin? No. But by all account they have obtained a significant amount of "collectors" because of its own rather unique property, as smooth pointed out.

Hang on a sec whilst I just nip down and photocopy an thousand copies of the Mona lisa. This is money were talking about network effect and userbase are all that is important.

Hmm... I'm aware of that. Maybe you'd like to return to my original post to understand the point I was trying to make which is basically that as far as Bitcoin is concerned we are still very much in the "collector" stage where users, in majority, will use it to store wealth and not necessarily to trade for goods and services.

"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 02:05:30 PM
 #30468

this why a fixed supply of Bugati's or even cowry shells will never function as money in a real world.

Not sure what you mean by that? Cowry shells were used as money in the real world.

"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
August 14, 2015, 02:16:43 PM
 #30469

The reason is that I don't find your answers convincing, nor rigorously analyzed or presented, for the most part. That even applies to Peter R, in terms of many of his answers on this. His paper was good but it only addressed a small part of the larger set of questions.



then i'm sure you'll accept the fact that i find your fears even less rigorously presented.

at least when i throw up all those graphs from Tradeblock, Chain.io, statoshi.info, i analyze and attempt to explain what i see in the data.  and what i see during stress tests, is a network that is being artificially constrained in that there are no massive full node failures as a result of their unfortunate wasted needs to validate inflated mempools, i see no massive orphaning (that's b/c all pools are processing 1MB blocks together), i see no delays in the avg 10 min block processing, i see no problems in the storage capacities of any of my full nodes, and i hear no complaints from miners.

all i hear is complaints from users who get unconf stuck tx's and high fees and wonder what the hell is going on? sure, there's a small subset of us that know how to get thru but that is a small minority and totally ignores all those newbies who could be coming onboard to Bitcoin if not for the problems the congestion caused.  what a wasted opportunity we had a month ago during the Greek peak crisis.

and here's the thing.  i think all of us have access to the same data all the core devs have access to for the most part.  even the technical simulations they rarely do.  so really it boils down to interpretation of what we see going on and i see artificial constraint.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 02:23:12 PM
 #30470

The reason is that I don't find your answers convincing, nor rigorously analyzed or presented, for the most part. That even applies to Peter R, in terms of many of his answers on this. His paper was good but it only addressed a small part of the larger set of questions.



then i'm sure you'll except the fact that i find your fears even less rigorously presented.

Sure. I haven't claimed otherwise, and I don't really think most of my posts on this should be convincing to anyone. They are generally conversational in tone and not trying to be authoritative. Although occasionally I do point out clear errors on specific points.

The thing is, I see this as a really hard problem to answer in a rigorous way. As I said, Peter R's paper was really good but only looked a small portion of the relevant concerns. I imagine it was also a fair amount of work. Now imagine five or so more papers like that looking at other aspects of the problem, and finally some additional papers looking at the entire thing at a system level. That's what is really needed. I don't think we are going to get that before this issue or the conflict over it becomes a serious problem one way or another.

We are trying to design an airplane upgrade while the plane is in the air, without any real knowledge of aerodynamics.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 02:23:52 PM
 #30471

The reason is that I don't find your answers convincing, nor rigorously analyzed or presented, for the most part. That even applies to Peter R, in terms of many of his answers on this. His paper was good but it only addressed a small part of the larger set of questions.



what a wasted opportunity we had a month ago during the Greek peak crisis.


oh please... Roll Eyes

"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
August 14, 2015, 02:36:13 PM
 #30472

I must have missed this video excerpt where hearn says to "ignore the longest chain" and basically throw out consensus to fork.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

thoughts?

Cypher?

Ice?

Smooth?

Peter?

it seems the avg Bitcoiner can't bear to hear or even discuss "possible" messy scenarios as Mike is quite rightfully willing to do.  as he should and as all of should and DO.   Brian asked him to explain in detail what he meant so Mike simply explained a possible solution, checkpoints, that could be used if the Chinese hashing power didn't go along with 20MB blocks. 

first off, i don't think it gets that far.  when push comes to shove, everyone will converge to one network to preserve value.  second, since i don't agree with the concept of checkpoints, i would probably go with which chain ISN'T employing them.  anyways, these scenarios are all very theoretical and it doesn't hurt to discuss them as Mike did.  they aren't likely to occur.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 02:42:12 PM
 #30473

this one is a big loss for NY:

http://blog.sci.ph/?p=564
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 02:46:19 PM
 #30474

Apple still not doing well:

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 03:28:05 PM
 #30475

The reason is that I don't find your answers convincing, nor rigorously analyzed or presented, for the most part. That even applies to Peter R, in terms of many of his answers on this. His paper was good but it only addressed a small part of the larger set of questions.

then i'm sure you'll except the fact that i find your fears even less rigorously presented.

Sure. I haven't claimed otherwise, and I don't really think most of my posts on this should be convincing to anyone. They are generally conversational in tone and not trying to be authoritative. Although occasionally I do point out clear errors on specific points.

The thing is, I see this as a really hard problem to answer in a rigorous way. As I said, Peter R's paper was really good but only looked a small portion of the relevant concerns. I imagine it was also a fair amount of work. Now imagine five or so more papers like that looking at other aspects of the problem, and finally some additional papers looking at the entire thing at a system level. That's what is really needed. I don't think we are going to get that before this issue or the conflict over it becomes a serious problem one way or another.

We are trying to design an airplane upgrade while the plane is in the air, without any real knowledge of aerodynamics.

I agree with everything you said above, and I appreciate having people like you who understand how scientific progress is often made incrementally by analyzing a small part of a larger and more complex problem.

However, I'm not sure I agree with everything you might have implied (correct me if I'm wrong).  I agree we do not yet have sufficient knowledge to choose the best course of action regarding the block size limit, but that applies equally well--and perhaps more so--to keeping the limit constant at 1 MB.

I personally think we should increase the limit in some way while we continue to perform the research you suggested above.  This seems like the least bad way to move forward.  Do you disagree?

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 03:29:17 PM
 #30476

"frap.doc" smear.

As an observer I can tell you that I can't really tell the difference between this and your "ICEblow" stuff. I just see hate flying back and forth between you.

I have no idea who started it or what.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 03:30:23 PM
 #30477

I must have missed this video excerpt where hearn says to "ignore the longest chain" and basically throw out consensus to fork.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

thoughts?

Cypher?

Ice?

Smooth?

Peter?

For someone to ignore the longest chain, there must be a reason for it in the parameters of the longest chain (else he just forgoes the chain with the best liquidity). It can certainly happen, but only if the majority does something stupid like changing the number of coins. If so, two chains is the best result.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 03:32:10 PM
 #30478

The reason is that I don't find your answers convincing, nor rigorously analyzed or presented, for the most part. That even applies to Peter R, in terms of many of his answers on this. His paper was good but it only addressed a small part of the larger set of questions.

then i'm sure you'll except the fact that i find your fears even less rigorously presented.

Sure. I haven't claimed otherwise, and I don't really think most of my posts on this should be convincing to anyone. They are generally conversational in tone and not trying to be authoritative. Although occasionally I do point out clear errors on specific points.

The thing is, I see this as a really hard problem to answer in a rigorous way. As I said, Peter R's paper was really good but only looked a small portion of the relevant concerns. I imagine it was also a fair amount of work. Now imagine five or so more papers like that looking at other aspects of the problem, and finally some additional papers looking at the entire thing at a system level. That's what is really needed. I don't think we are going to get that before this issue or the conflict over it becomes a serious problem one way or another.

We are trying to design an airplane upgrade while the plane is in the air, without any real knowledge of aerodynamics.

I agree with everything you said above, and I appreciate having people like you who understand how scientific progress is made incrementally by analyzing a small part of a larger and more complex problem.

However, I'm not sure I agree with everything you might have implied (correct me if I'm wrong).  I agree we do not yet have sufficient knowledge to choose the best course of action regarding the block size limit, but that applies equally well--and perhaps more so--to keeping the limit constant at 1 MB.

I personally think we should increase the limit in some way while we continue to perform the research you suggested above.  This seems like the least bad way to move forward.  Do you disagree?

Yes I do. I've said a number of times I do support a 2-3 MB bump. I'm a bit perplexed by (what I perceive to be) the opposition to BIP102. I understand there were some technical issues with it, but fixing that should be straightforward. There seems to be more behind the hostility to it. That was when I first started to believe (somewhat) the conspiracy-ish theories about the motives of the small block side of the debate.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 03:36:54 PM
 #30479

"frap.doc" smear.

As an observer I can tell you that I can't really tell the difference between this and your ICEblow stuff. I just see hate flying back and forth between you.

I have no idea who started it or what.


don't get me wrong.  i don't hate iCE at all.  i think i actually like him.  he's an intelligent fellow; i just hate his tactics and over the top bombastic bile and vomit.  i think there is an agenda there but i can't be sure what it is.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 03:56:43 PM
 #30480

I'm actually quite excited about this idea.  It has a sort of inevitable feel to it.

Yes. Since anyone can run any software they want to interact with the Bitcoin network, this idea does seem like a logical development.

It also seems like one of those counter-intuitive anti-fragility things, where the seeming chaos and instability at a micro level will actually lead to a more predictable and stable behaviour at the macro level.

If it became more common for individual nodes to be able to tweak consensus parameters, then I think that would actually lead to more predictable and stable consensus behaviour in the long run. The worst thing that can happen to a node operator is to fall out of consensus with the rest of the network, so individual node operators would be strongly incentivised to develop methods to ensure they can track the status of the network, and deal with any potential consensus forks.

As it stands now, consensus behaviour is based on the specific implementation details of Bitcoin Core. The software is not designed with the assumption that hard consensus forks are a likely event, and when they do happen nodes are not designed to handle it gracefully. The accidental hard form of March 2013 happened because of an obscure implementation detail in the Core software, and was only possible because the software monoculture created a "single point of failure". A more diverse implementation of consensus rules might result in more frequent consensus divergences and orphaned blocks, but each one would be non-catastrophic, and would lead toward a more stable and resilient network in the long run.

Great insight!

You bring up an interesting point: rather than viewing forks as something that must be avoided, let's view them as something inevitable and necessary for the evolution of Bitcoin, and then work to find ways to make convergence of consensus in the presence of forks as robust as possible. 

I think you're right that this "seeming chaos and instability at a micro level will actually lead to a more predictable and stable behaviour at the macro level."

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 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!