Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 06:30:37 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 ... 254 »
  Print  
Author Topic: SatoshiDICE.com - The World's Most Popular Bitcoin Game  (Read 398473 times)
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414

Newbie


View Profile
December 02, 2012, 05:56:05 PM
 #881

So a mining pool operator could get away with it until SatoshiDICE (or anyone else looking at the double spends) points out which pool operator is doing this and thus that pool loses hashing capacity as miners move on to other pools that don't use their customer's hashing strength to cheat bitcoin businesses.

I bet if the pool pays extra coins for such blocks then most of the miners will stay there. More miners can even join the pool.
1480876237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480876237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480876237
Reply with quote  #2

1480876237
Report to moderator
1480876237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480876237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480876237
Reply with quote  #2

1480876237
Report to moderator
1480876237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480876237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480876237
Reply with quote  #2

1480876237
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
warweed
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 130


View Profile
December 02, 2012, 06:04:29 PM
 #882

i may be just new but why has the min bets gone from .001 up to .01

and will it ever go back ?
2GOOD
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 519


First bits: 12good


View Profile WWW
December 02, 2012, 06:13:30 PM
 #883

i may be just new but why has the min bets gone from .001 up to .01

and will it ever go back ?

That's too bad, my bet strategy is gone now or scaled up.. either way I'll play less now.


Български Биткойн Форум - BitcoinBG.eu
Tips accepted at: 12good4Buys8cvTj6EB4MTGNTSC4w9Swnz
Gyrsur
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


#BEL+++++


View Profile WWW
December 02, 2012, 06:36:28 PM
 #884

why did you change min bet from 0.001 to 0.01?? please explain! thanks!

EDIT: if you not roll back this change please change max bet from 250 to 2500 too! thanks!

warweed
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 130


View Profile
December 02, 2012, 08:57:14 PM
 #885

Im assuming satoshidice ran out of money hence the delays in payout's then they raised the min's to screw all the small time martingaler's and bring the pot back up i could be *completely* wrong but it would appear that way

either way im stopping playing till the min's go back down ..
warweed
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 130


View Profile
December 02, 2012, 09:19:39 PM
 #886

and the site appears to be really lagging for me
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
December 02, 2012, 09:20:54 PM
 #887

Increasing the minimum bet might be a service for bitcoin as a whole. There'll be less satoshdicedust to bloat the blockchain.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
warweed
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 130


View Profile
December 02, 2012, 09:36:10 PM
 #888

Increasing the minimum bet might be a service for bitcoin as a whole. There'll be less satoshdicedust to bloat the blockchain.

what differance does it make if it bloats the block chain .. there is a reason why we pay transaction fee's what do you think will happen when there is no longer any rewards per block ?

I admit i may have had part in messing with satoshidice inadvertently by place 2000 or so bets it .001 plus using the martingale style strat was doing pretty damn good to right up until i walked away from the computer and the min's went up and i got raped over and over and over again on transaction fee's and returned bets
evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
December 03, 2012, 06:18:24 AM
 #889

why did you change min bet from 0.001 to 0.01?? please explain! thanks!

EDIT: if you not roll back this change please change max bet from 250 to 2500 too! thanks!

Sorry for the delays in responding here, I just returned from our trip to Macau/Hong Kong (Macau gaming industry is now starting to learn about BTC Wink )

We've increased the max bet from .001 to .01 for two reasons:

1) Due to the fee of .0005, players who are betting .01 are going to lose no matter what. It is not wise to bet .001 when fees are paid.
2) There was a player recently sending tons of .001 transactions to SatoshiDice. This caused most of the delays players have experienced over the past few days. Whether it was malicious or not, it seemed smarter to just remove that tiny bet option. Any "strategy" that used small bets like that is a bad strategy unless fees were not being paid, and fees should be paid by anyone sending so many transactions.

evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
December 03, 2012, 06:19:57 AM
 #890

Im assuming satoshidice ran out of money hence the delays in payout's then they raised the min's to screw all the small time martingaler's and bring the pot back up i could be *completely* wrong but it would appear that way

either way im stopping playing till the min's go back down ..

SD has not "ran out of money." November was actually one of the best months yet for house returns.

Min was not raised to "screw people". See above post.
lightlord
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile WWW
December 03, 2012, 10:21:21 AM
 #891

evoorhees I have an idea.

You get tons of bet every single day, and nearly like 5-10 every couple seconds?

Why not make it that every 10 bets you send out the winners to everyone on the list.
It would effectively cut transaction fees by 1/10th.

Also you can put in a 90 second rule. If 10 people hasn't made a bet on the site, then
you send to the amount that has, and still cut it by 1/10th.

You would lose very little. But It would make a lot of people support this.
After all a bet of a bitcent, and 0.0005 is 5%, and that adds up a ton.
It be nice to cut that to 0.5%. A lot of people would agree with me.

And would increase popularity, and perhaps more bets would be placed
due to less been eaten to fees. And in the end you would make more money.

Why not do this?



.
.BITVEST DICE.
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████

▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████

██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░

██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄

██░████████░███████░█
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████

▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
lightlord
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile WWW
December 03, 2012, 10:30:50 AM
 #892

Also another idea is, when I send multiple bets, like using added transaction from my client.
And sent to 10 addresses at the same time, it costs me 0.0005 for those ten. But
your site charges 0.0005 for every single one.

How about your wallet or code detects that I sent multiple of bets from my address alone.
And your wallet does the same thing, and only charge 1 unit 0.0005 and not 10 units,
when I do that?



.
.BITVEST DICE.
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████

▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████

██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░

██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄

██░████████░███████░█
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████

▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
Herbert
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 488



View Profile WWW
December 03, 2012, 02:35:49 PM
 #893

Why not make it that every 10 bets you send out the winners to everyone on the list.
It would effectively cut transaction fees by 1/10th.

Also you can put in a 90 second rule. If 10 people hasn't made a bet on the site, then
you send to the amount that has, and still cut it by 1/10th.

You would lose very little. But It would make a lot of people support this.
After all a bet of a bitcent, and 0.0005 is 5%, and that adds up a ton.
It be nice to cut that to 0.5%. A lot of people would agree with me.

Although the idea itself sounds quite simple this would mean a huge increase of complexity on satoshidice side. Right now each and every bet is a very simple process: Transaction comes in, payment is sent out. This is a quite atomic process which can be tested easily, and is a perfect candidate for scaling up. You could set up 20 bitcoinds (or whatever backend they use) on 10 different servers behind three loadbalancers and each instance could work fully independent of each other. (Beware, this is probably over-simplified. But you should get the idea Wink)

With your proposal the "atomicness" of each bet is lost. Now you have to collect and combine payouts from each backend instance, put them in some kind of distributed task queue, add a payment service that works on this task queue to push the combined payments out. And do all this in a failsafe and scaleable way.

So I fully agree that the transaction spam and fees are a huge PITA, but I can also understand why the implementation on Satoshidice is done like this.

With bitbattle.me I was trying from the beginning to NOT have transaction spamming, but took a different approach by introducing the player & session concept. This has some advantages (you save a lot of transaction fees, have a lot less transactions, have individual bet addresses and stats) but also some disadvantages (code complexity, scaling potential), the biggest being that you need the website in order to keep up with your bet results (there is no tx created for lost bets - You only will see on the website that your bet was actually placed).
Personally i consider the website dependency not a big problem compared to the transaction fees and spam, but this is of course a matter of personal preference.
 
Edit:
I hope this does not look too much like thread highjacking. This is just a topic i spent a lot of time thinking about, so i felt the urge to reply. If this is deemed unappropriate in this thread feel free to delete this posting.

www.bitcoinmonitor.net - Free payment notification via email, newsfeed, xpmm/jabber, url callback and full API access!
Send SMS with www.txt4coins.net! No registration, pay-per-use, full API access, bulk messages - All inclusive!
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988



View Profile
December 03, 2012, 07:17:53 PM
 #894

1) Due to the fee of .0005, players who are betting .01 are going to lose no matter what.

Did you mean .001?

Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988



View Profile
December 03, 2012, 08:06:04 PM
 #895

Why not make it that every 10 bets you send out the winners to everyone on the list.

While that might reduce a little of the amount of data in the blockchain, it would be a nightmare for support.

KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid

One bet.  One payout.

Simple.

Given a link to the payout, nobody should be left with any doubt that they were paid (once it confirms).

warweed
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 130


View Profile
December 03, 2012, 09:15:35 PM
 #896

why did you change min bet from 0.001 to 0.01?? please explain! thanks!

EDIT: if you not roll back this change please change max bet from 250 to 2500 too! thanks!

Sorry for the delays in responding here, I just returned from our trip to Macau/Hong Kong (Macau gaming industry is now starting to learn about BTC Wink )

We've increased the max bet from .001 to .01 for two reasons:

1) Due to the fee of .0005, players who are betting .01 are going to lose no matter what. It is not wise to bet .001 when fees are paid.
2) There was a player recently sending tons of .001 transactions to SatoshiDice. This caused most of the delays players have experienced over the past few days. Whether it was malicious or not, it seemed smarter to just remove that tiny bet option. Any "strategy" that used small bets like that is a bad strategy unless fees were not being paid, and fees should be paid by anyone sending so many transactions.



i was using 1FwRf32RKkMUKZtdX58io4mv6jsJC3cNre but i had one prior now you say .00X is pointless but the strategy actually wasn't bad because the event of say 3 loses and then a win at a increase of say 2.9 the intial wager would still net profit the only instance this is not the case was when you would get more then say 14 loses in a row which does happen and it bankrupts you lol as you can see both in that address and one other one where i was fooling with some .001 bids transaction fee's were being paid ..

so was my bets causing SD to lag ?

anyways i would kindly urge SD to re allow .001 min's or at the very least .003 .005 and then just step up there game on the server side if it's causing the system to lag out ..

a bet is still a bet and money in your pocket is still money in your pocket Sad

pleaaaaaaase Tongue
fireduck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 366



View Profile
December 03, 2012, 11:20:28 PM
 #897

So, some recent problems I've been working on:

1) Website/Frontend Database very slow (solved (I think))
I added some calls to a cache to avoid hitting the database.  This has improved things a great deal.

2) We were running out of available funds, which means we would pay with pending funds which can lead to a very poor user experience.  I've made a change such that once the available funds drops below a certain point Satoshidice will only process bets that meet our isLegit() check.  This check passes if the transaction is confirmed or if the transaction and all its UNCONFIRMED parents are known by Satoshidice and have a fee of at least 0.0005 BTC and if the depth of unconfirmed parents is less than 8.  This can lead to a delay, but I think it makes sense when available funds are running low to use them on the transactions most likely to confirm soon first.

3) We have had some things that have made me question the integrity of some of our databases.  As a recent example one of our internal reports of funds in accounts was off by several thousand BTC.  This is not good and led to the system thinking there was more funds than actually were there in our online wallet causing it to automatically send excess funds to an offline wallet.  This of course didn't help with problem #2 above.  I'll be working to track that down.  In the process of doing that there have been some outages in processing last night and this morning.  There will likely be more as I rebuild tables and do consistency checks over the next week or so.
deepceleron
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile WWW
December 03, 2012, 11:22:51 PM
 #898

We've increased the max bet from .001 to .01 for two reasons:

1) Due to the fee of .0005, players who are betting .001 (fixed) are going to lose no matter what. It is not wise to bet .001 when fees are paid.
2) There was a player recently sending tons of .001 transactions to SatoshiDice. This caused most of the delays players have experienced over the past few days. Whether it was malicious or not, it seemed smarter to just remove that tiny bet option. Any "strategy" that used small bets like that is a bad strategy unless fees were not being paid, and fees should be paid by anyone sending so many transactions.

Increasing the minimum bet is wise (just keep anything below the minimum that actually confirms as a donation). Acceptance and immediate 0-confirmation processing of the small amounts could be the root of many problems. Bitcoin requires the minimum per-KB fee for all transactions smaller than 0.01 BTC, whereas for 0.01 BTC transactions and larger, the minimum fee is only required if the transaction input(s) priority is too low (based on coin age and value of inputs). Sending no-fee 0.001 transactions (with a modified client) will clog up Satoshidice and everybody else's memory pools with unconfirmed transactions waiting for some pool that also doesn't follow Bitcoin rules to eventually include the free transactions, or for them to trickle down to a 'free transaction' block window, which may never happen if Bitcoin is busy.

If one were to write an informed Satoshidice-sending client seeded with enough money, it could potentially send free transactions every three blocks or sooner that comply with Bitcoin rules, through careful address management:

1. Fill address #1 with 100 BTC of gambling money,
2. Wait for two confirmations,
3. Priority of any payment from this address is now priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes = 100 * 100,000,000 * 2 / 300 = priority 66,666,666, which is higher than the low-priority fee requirement threshold 57,600,000. Any payment from the address is fee-free.
4. Send 0.01 bet to Satoshidice and 99.99 change to address #2,
5. If Satoshidice returns a 0.00000001 loss, discard address #1, otherwise file it away as a win address for future redemption,
6. Wait for two confirmations,
7. Priority of any payment from address #2 is then priority = 99.99 * 100,000,000 * 2 / 300 = priority 66,660,000, higher than the low-priority fee threshold 57,600,000. Any payment from address #2 is again fee-free.
8. Send 0.01 bet to Satoshidice and 99.98 change to address #3

...repeat forever and fill the blockchain for free. Load ten addresses with 100 BTC each and send 20 free transactions (or minimum two "martingales") every hour.

The same technique can be used with only one address by the client ignoring return-payment transactions when betting and only sending the large change input over and over again when it is free (along with a final "withdraw" option that sends everything except the loser dust to your main wallet).

...or someone could send 100 BTC just once to their favorite betting site that uses accounts.

warweed
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 130


View Profile
December 04, 2012, 01:30:54 AM
 #899

So, some recent problems I've been working on:

1) Website/Frontend Database very slow (solved (I think))
I added some calls to a cache to avoid hitting the database.  This has improved things a great deal.

2) We were running out of available funds, which means we would pay with pending funds which can lead to a very poor user experience.  I've made a change such that once the available funds drops below a certain point Satoshidice will only process bets that meet our isLegit() check.  This check passes if the transaction is confirmed or if the transaction and all its UNCONFIRMED parents are known by Satoshidice and have a fee of at least 0.0005 BTC and if the depth of unconfirmed parents is less than 8.  This can lead to a delay, but I think it makes sense when available funds are running low to use them on the transactions most likely to confirm soon first.

3) We have had some things that have made me question the integrity of some of our databases.  As a recent example one of our internal reports of funds in accounts was off by several thousand BTC.  This is not good and led to the system thinking there was more funds than actually were there in our online wallet causing it to automatically send excess funds to an offline wallet.  This of course didn't help with problem #2 above.  I'll be working to track that down.  In the process of doing that there have been some outages in processing last night and this morning.  There will likely be more as I rebuild tables and do consistency checks over the next week or so.
Im assuming satoshidice ran out of money hence the delays in payout's then they raised the min's to screw all the small time martingaler's and bring the pot back up i could be *completely* wrong but it would appear that way

either way im stopping playing till the min's go back down ..

SD has not "ran out of money." November was actually one of the best months yet for house returns.

Min was not raised to "screw people". See above post.


you guys are contradicting each other ?

so i was right you are running out of funds... regardless i can't see the harm in running my php martingale script at min .001 if im paying the .0005 tx fee can some one explain to me how that is bad ? what effect it has on satoshi dice or the network itself ? i would think overall it would be a good thing for the network increasing traffic
fireduck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 366



View Profile
December 04, 2012, 02:52:10 AM
 #900

++



you guys are contradicting each other ?

so i was right you are running out of funds... regardless i can't see the harm in running my php martingale script at min .001 if im paying the .0005 tx fee can some one explain to me how that is bad ? what effect it has on satoshi dice or the network itself ? i would think overall it would be a good thing for the network increasing traffic

I'll explain in further detail.  I was talking about running about available funds, by which I mean confirmed funds.  We prefer to send bet returns with confirmed funds since they are more likely to confirm faster and be a better user experience.  To get an example, lets say soemone bets 0.001 BTC and they win 0.0005 BTC.  So we need to pay them.  Lets say we have an unspent of 5 BTC and we happen to use that.  So the change back to us from that transaction will be something like 4.995 BTC but we don't want to use that until it confirms.  So in this way each bet (big or small) limits our ability to pay other bets.  So we decided it was no longer in our interest to support very small bets, below 0.01 BTC.  People tend to place a flurry of these small bets and it limits our ability to quickly respond to other transactions.  So we can have plenty of funds and still run of out confirmed funds.

As far as being screwed (not sure who claimed that first), it is our choice to decide what services we offer and what limits we put on them.  Does Costco screw anyone by not selling toilet paper one roll at a time? No, they just simply make a choice about what makes sense for their business and you can shop there or not.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 ... 254 »
  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!