Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 08:33:32 AM *
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 ... 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 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804942 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 07:24:51 AM
 #31081

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual causality.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

1481013212
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481013212

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481013212
Reply with quote  #2

1481013212
Report to moderator
1481013212
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481013212

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481013212
Reply with quote  #2

1481013212
Report to moderator
1481013212
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481013212

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481013212
Reply with quote  #2

1481013212
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 07:24:55 AM
 #31082



Thank you for yet another demonstration of your group's lazy argumentation


Another powerful point not made. Its right up there with your false "Bitcoin is already sidechain readytm!!' claim

https://github.com/ElementsProject/elementsproject.github.io

"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
sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 07:25:33 AM
 #31083


 It's more about wrestling control from a compromised few to..... Mike Hearn.


At least you are now starting to accept that point that they are compromised. Some progress finally.

I really dont value the opinion of that guy to spend time on that blog. I'm aware of him - that is sufficient.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 07:28:43 AM
 #31084



Thank you for yet another demonstration of your group's lazy argumentation


Another powerful point not made. Its right up there with your false "Bitcoin is already sidechain readytm!!' claim

https://github.com/ElementsProject/elementsproject.github.io

It doesnt work on bitcoin.  It uses federated peg servers to fake the functionality ( contract like scripts) until they can shoehorn it into bitcoin.
Nothing these guys are doing at the moment is above PoC level. Its interesting, its just not ready.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 07:29:58 AM
 #31085

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

"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
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 07:30:33 AM
 #31086

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 07:41:17 AM
 #31087

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.

By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature?

"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
Voktar
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 55


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 07:44:27 AM
 #31088

Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.

Central authority like the bitcoin core devs?

The core devs have historically worked using a consensus based model of decision making. Gavin & Mike are the ones attempting to force through a contentious fork.

Explain how this works exactly.  Will gavin and Mike visit each miner, put a gun to their head, and force them to switch to XT.  Explain what mechanism they will use to force miners and users to upgrade to XT against their will.

The issue is not whether they will succeed or not. It's about undermining the value of the original decision model using fear & propaganda.

LOL, that's exactly what Adam is doing. Spreading FUD, telling people Bitcoin will collapse and now saying in reddit he don't mind to sabotage XT putting up a few fake nodes.

I once respected the creator of Hashcash, i mean, they are all very smart guys but this situation is quite sad.

People are not stupid and can see all of this, currently they are all helping XT adoption and i'm glad some individuals are showing now their true faces.

"pit pat piffy wing wong wang"
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 07:48:16 AM
 #31089

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.

By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature?

Yes, in part.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 07:52:23 AM
 #31090

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.

By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature?

Yes, in part.

From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

"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
sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 08:05:50 AM
 #31091


From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin,  just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system.

IOW, their value proposition is based on the limits of bitcoin.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:09:34 AM
 #31092

You - brg444 - captured this thread with 18 (!) posts this morning alone. Not funny. Do you really think it's necessary that you comment everything?

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:10:52 AM
 #31093


From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin,  just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system.


 Huh

I see you're still confused. You do know Blockstream did not come up with LN or write the white paper?

Here is the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper:

Quote
We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own. By reusing Bitcoin’s currency, these systems can more easily interoperate with each other and with Bitcoin, avoiding the liquidity shortages and market fluctuations associated with new currencies. Since sidechains are separate systems, technical and economic innovation is not hindered.

That sounds like scaling features to me.

"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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:11:38 AM
 #31094

You - brg444 - captured this thread with 18 (!) posts this morning alone. Not funny. Do you really think it's necessary that you comment everything?

You wouldn't be trying to censor me would you?  Angry

"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
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:18:05 AM
 #31095

You - brg444 - captured this thread with 18 (!) posts this morning alone. Not funny. Do you really think it's necessary that you comment everything?

You wouldn't be trying to censor me would you?  Angry

I am not a cheerleader of the censors over there. I only asked.

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 08:26:24 AM
 #31096


From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin,  just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system.


 Huh

I see you're still confused. You do know Blockstream did not come up with LN or write the white paper?

Here is the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper:

Quote
We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own. By reusing Bitcoin’s currency, these systems can more easily interoperate with each other and with Bitcoin, avoiding the liquidity shortages and market fluctuations associated with new currencies. Since sidechains are separate systems, technical and economic innovation is not hindered.

That sounds like scaling features to me.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20618/blockstream-starts-development-lightning-network/

They didnt originate it, but it will become their core (pun intended) focus.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:29:30 AM
 #31097

Gavin Andresen On Future Blockchain Security: I Dunno LOL!

http://qntra.net/2015/01/gavin-andresen-on-future-blockchain-security-i-dunno-lol/#comment-7830

Quote
So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?

I honestly don't know.


fuck you gavin.

Oh the butthurt of some users in this thread is strong.

 Roll Eyes

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

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:31:36 AM
 #31098

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20618/blockstream-starts-development-lightning-network/

They didnt originate it, but it will become their core (pun intended) focus.

 Roll Eyes

Yes. Tell me more about your intricate knowledge of their business plans.

You're aware they have a total of ONE developer working on LN out of a total of more than a dozen?

"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
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:33:51 AM
 #31099

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.

By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature?

Yes, in part.

From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

But doesn't blockstream have a financial incentive to keep blocks small enough so that users want to use them as a 3rd party intermediary for smaller transactions that would cost more to do on chain rather than with blockstream?

Yes? No?

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

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 08:35:37 AM
 #31100

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20618/blockstream-starts-development-lightning-network/

They didnt originate it, but it will become their core (pun intended) focus.

 Roll Eyes

Yes. Tell me more about your intricate knowledge of their business plans.

You're aware they have a total of ONE developer working on LN out of a total of more than a dozen?

So you are a blockstream insider then? Figures.

Why would I be privy to such detail? I don't broadcast the breakdown of the development resources in my business.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
Pages: « 1 ... 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 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!