Bitcoin Forum
April 05, 2020, 04:34:59 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Bitcoin fork proposal by respected Bitcoin lead dev Gavin Andresen, to increase the block size from 1MB to 20MB.
pro
anti
agnostic
DGAF

Pages: « 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 [127] 128 129 130 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154258 times)
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 05:45:30 PM
 #2521

Why not ?

Why would I obstruct development efforts that I believe would harm Bitcoin in the long run and invest resources for another fork to win if I wanted to Short?  

Which brings us back a few posts...  to me...  the said contracts would make sense only if I believed that these large businesses pushing for the increase would end back on the 1 MB chain.

...still might be missing something though...

Let's assume the prices of bitcoin and gavincoin diverge because of the shorting and that you can sell one bitcoin for two gavincoins.

If you support the original bitcoin you'll mine on the original chain.

Now if you think gavincoin will prevail, it's still more profitable to mine on the original chain, because whatever you mine, it will ultimately yield two gavincoins for every original bitcoin you mine.

And obviously, by doing so you're strengthening bitcoin at the expense of gavincoin. The value of a coin attracts mining, which in turns increases the value of this coin against the other.

What you are missing it that if the fork is actually made, blocks compatible with the 20 MB fork only will come after 75% of the nodes have announced themselves that they will be ready for the fork. So, either this happens and it's more profitable to mine on the 20 MB chain, or this doesn't happen and nobody will be mining on the 20 MB chain.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 05:46:42 PM
 #2522

People squashing Gavin's forward moving ideas. Oh dear, BTC showing early signs of death.


No signs of death here.  Those who want to stay behind are more than welcome to.  They claim that their 1MB chain will end up superior and yet they keep pleading page after page for us to stick around and not leave them behind.  Doesn't sound like they have much confidence in their words.  One way or another, the forward momentum will carry on.  

And twisting logic, such as claiming that people who voted agnostic/DGAF are automatically against the fork.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1051


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 05:49:42 PM
 #2523

Finally a reasonable question:

Gavin, could you please explain the reason behind trying to guess and hard-code the optimal limit, instead of doing something adaptive, like "limit = median(size of last N blocks) * 10"?

The problem people are worried about if the maximum block size is too high:  That big miners with high-bandwidth, high-CPU machines will drive out either small miners or I-want-to-run-a-full-node-at-home people by producing blocks too large for them to download or verify quickly.

An adaptive limit could be set so that some minority of miners can 'veto' block size increases; that'd be fine with me.

But it wouldn't help with "I want to be able to run a full node from my home computer / network connection." Does anybody actually care about that? Satoshi didn't, his vision was home users running SPV nodes and full nodes being hosted in datacenters.

I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'd bet the number of personal computers in homes is declining or will soon be declining-- being replaced by smartphones and tablets. So I'd be happy to drop the "must be able to run at home" requirement and just go with an adaptive algorithm. Doing both is also possible, of course, but I don't like extra complexity if it can be helped.

It is hard to tease out which problem people care about, because most people haven't thought much about the block size and confuse the current pain of downloading the chain initially (pretty easily fixed by getting the current UTXO set from somebody), the current pain of dedicating tens of gigabytes of disk space to the chain (fixed by pruning old, spent blocks and transactions), and slow block propagation times (fixed by improving the code and p2p protocol).


PS: my apologies to davout for misremembering his testnet work.

PPS: I am always open to well-thought-out alternative ideas. If there is a simple, well-thought-out proposal for an adaptive blocksize increase, please point me to it.


How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296
Merit: 1535


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 06:04:12 PM
 #2524

People squashing Gavin's forward moving ideas. Oh dear, BTC showing early signs of death.


No signs of death here.  Those who want to stay behind are more than welcome to.  They claim that their 1MB chain will end up superior and yet they keep pleading page after page for us to stick around and not leave them behind.  Doesn't sound like they have much confidence in their words.  One way or another, the forward momentum will carry on.  

And twisting logic, such as claiming that people who voted agnostic/DGAF are automatically against the fork.

Indeed.  And if we do start hitting full blocks on a regular basis, people will suddenly become far less agnostic and will definitely "GAF" when their transactions take longer to confirm.  It would be far nicer, however, to avoid that rather unfortunate turn of events and fix it before it becomes an issue.



PPS: I am always open to well-thought-out alternative ideas. If there is a simple, well-thought-out proposal for an adaptive blocksize increase, please point me to it.


This is the part they're struggling with.  After at least three threads and who knows how many hundreds of pages, they still can't suggest a viable alternative that doesn't involve providing a second-tier service to the majority of users.  Quick to say the sky is falling and make idle threats to protect their own petty interests, but slow to provide an alternative that doesn't benefit them at the expense of everyone else. 

danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 06:04:46 PM
 #2525

But it wouldn't help with "I want to be able to run a full node from my home computer / network connection." Does anybody actually care about that? Satoshi didn't, his vision was home users running SPV nodes and full nodes being hosted in datacenters.

I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'd bet the number of personal computers in homes is declining or will soon be declining-- being replaced by smartphones and tablets. So I'd be happy to drop the "must be able to run at home" requirement and just go with an adaptive algorithm. Doing both is also possible, of course, but I don't like extra complexity if it can be helped.

You are so despicable. Those people can just use a 3rd party shared wallet if they are so disinterested in actually keeping a full copy of the ledger. What is the difference from their point of view? Whereas the difference from your point of view is clear: your handlers want the full ledger to be as centralized as possible so that maybe they can corrupt it!

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1080


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:10:19 PM
 #2526


PPS: I am always open to well-thought-out alternative ideas. If there is a simple, well-thought-out proposal for an adaptive blocksize increase, please point me to it.

Sidechains.

Bitcoin does not know nor care about the 'adaptation' (which can happen on multiple fronts simultaneously) and they can in principle be a near to a perfect proxy for space in the native Bitcoin blockchain desired.  And, or course, if one really needs an ultra-high level of security, one can always just use native Bitcoin and pay what this kind of security is worth.


yampi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:15:39 PM
 #2527

What's stopping people from launching this fork already?
Why wait for the opinions of members of some "foundation"?
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 06:19:25 PM
 #2528

Presumption is negative.  Burden of proof falls on the affirmative.  

Why?  Because if presumption was affirmative, we'd have to prove negatives to rebut it.  And you can't prove a negative.  QED.

Actually, what you can't do is prove that you can't prove a statement. But this is from Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem. I don't know how this is related to statistics.

Formal logic != statistics.

Thank you for degrading the conversation with your sophomoric pedantry, which is easily mitigated by appeal to the comparably vast wisdom of Yahoo Answers:

Quote
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110307170939AA7BPmy

It is short hand for a much more logical expression.
Which is, "You cannot prove a universal, existential negative."
In other words, you cannot prove that some hypothetical does not exist, anywhere in the universe, because that would require that you be able to look everywhere at the same moment. And, of course, if the hypothetical something, in question is claimed to be invisible and undetectable by any means, in principle, it gets even sillier to attempt to disprove that hypothetical's existence.

But saying all that, over and over gets really tiring, so most people just shorten it to, "You cannot prove a negative." and go on to do something more productive with their time.

You don't get to count agnostic/DGAF votes in the pro-fork column.  They are functionally equivalent to anti votes, because all reject (whether actively or passively) Gavin's BloatCoin proposition, and thus affirm (implicitly or explicitly) status quo.

I hope you never serve on a jury.  The other jurors would have to put up with your idiotic claims that voting not-guilty affirms guilt, just because they didn't vote 'innocent.'   Grin


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

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
sed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:35:16 PM
 #2529

Logic 101, bro.

Presumption is negative.  Burden of proof falls on the affirmative.  

Why?  Because if presumption was affirmative, we'd have to prove negatives to rebut it.  And you can't prove a negative.  QED.

You should have learned that in high school.  Consider suing your teachers for doing a really shitty job of educating you.

Uh oh.  I think you might want to double-check your own logic teachers.  The old yarn about "not proving a negative" isn't in any way a QED it's a popularism which, while related to an actual fact of logic, is actually a fallacy in the way that you've deployed it.

In fact, "proving a negative", as you say, is one of the basic argumentation techniques for proof.  You take a statement you want to prove, you negate it, you show that that leads to absurdity, this is QED for the original statement.  The crucial point, in fact, relates to the square of opposition (cf. Arisitotle's Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας, Latin: De Interpretatione).  Contradictories divide up the space between them with nothing left so that either A or ~A is true, it's impossible for it to be otherwise.  When you're dealing with propositional/sentential negation then you are dealing with contradictories so it is quite useful to employ negation in proofs.   On the other hand, contrary statements allow for the middle ground to also be true and this is where you have to be careful employing negation.

All cats are black [is contradictory to] Some cats are not black (= not(all cats are black)).
All cats are black [is contrary to] No cat is black.

In the contradictories, either the left or right is true, no other options (in fact, I believe in the real world that the right side is true, some cats are not black).  However, in contraries, it's possible that neither the left or right is true (and, btw, I believe this is the case in the real world for this example).

The old yarn about "you can't prove a negative" is a popularism which is often employed without considering how vague it really is.  If you really want to understand syllogistic logic and negation, start with the square of opposition.

Best!
CoinCidental
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000


Si vis pacem, para bellum


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:36:14 PM
 #2530

There is no "three-to-one" margin.  You don't get to claim agnostic/DGAF as votes to affirm your silly fork, which actually only enjoys 60% support against the negative/status quo default presumption.

His math is correct though, if you have 60% X and 20% Y then you have a 3-to-1 ratio

I think it will be 4-1 in reality
Before i did any research on it I voted that I was undecided

Now I.know the details I would have voted yes and I'm sure I'm not the only one who didn't have enough info to make an informed choice when this thread was started

R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:43:11 PM
 #2531

What's stopping people from launching this fork already?
Why wait for the opinions of members of some "foundation"?

The code is not ready yet. Gavin is still testing it.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
NxtChg
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000


Simcoin Developer


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 06:43:34 PM
 #2532

Doing both is also possible, of course, but I don't like extra complexity if it can be helped.

Thanks for explaining, and you're right - doing both is not a good idea.

Interesting idea about the minority vetoing block size increases: since there is no market mechanism, an "arms race" might be the next best thing Smiley

Need to think more about it.

Simcoin: https://simtalk.org:444/ | The Simplest Bitcoin Wallet: https://tsbw.io/ | Coinmix: https://coinmix.to | Tippr stats: https://tsbw.io/tippr/
--
About smaragda and his lies: https://medium.com/@nxtchg/about-smaragda-and-his-lies-c376e4694de9
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:55:54 PM
 #2533

Thank you for degrading the conversation with your sophomoric pedantry, which is easily mitigated by appeal to the comparably vast wisdom of Yahoo Answers:

Quote
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110307170939AA7BPmy

It is short hand for a much more logical expression.
Which is, "You cannot prove a universal, existential negative."
In other words, you cannot prove that some hypothetical does not exist, anywhere in the universe, because that would require that you be able to look everywhere at the same moment. And, of course, if the hypothetical something, in question is claimed to be invisible and undetectable by any means, in principle, it gets even sillier to attempt to disprove that hypothetical's existence.

But saying all that, over and over gets really tiring, so most people just shorten it to, "You cannot prove a negative." and go on to do something more productive with their time.

You don't get to count agnostic/DGAF votes in the pro-fork column.  They are functionally equivalent to anti votes, because all reject (whether actively or passively) Gavin's BloatCoin proposition, and thus affirm (implicitly or explicitly) status quo.

This “You cannot prove a negative” thing, as you present it, is the basis of most religions, where there's a claim: “God exists”. You can't prove that God doesn't exist, because, as you say, you don't have information everywhere in the universe to analyze it and show that God is not there. However, if you base all your further work on the assumption that God does actually exist, anything you come up with will be just faith, with nobody being able to prove or disprove what you're claiming. Science doesn't work that way.

Now, consider this analogy. People saying that they don't know or don't care about the 20 MB fork is comparable to asking people if they support transitioning to IPv6. Most people would answer “What is IPv6? I've never heard of it”, but that doesn't automatically turn them against IPv6. Why would it? I don't understand your reasoning here.

I hope you never serve on a jury.  The other jurors would have to put up with your idiotic claims that voting not-guilty affirms guilt, just because they didn't vote 'innocent.'

Wait, what? How do you reach that conclusion based on any of what I have been saying so far?

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 06:59:59 PM
 #2534

The old yarn about "not proving a negative" isn't in any way a QED it's a popularism which, while related to an actual fact of logic, is actually a fallacy in the way that you've deployed it.

In fact, "proving a negative", as you say, is one of the basic argumentation techniques for proof.  You take a statement you want to prove, you negate it, you show that that leads to absurdity, this is QED for the original statement.  The crucial point, in fact, relates to the square of opposition (cf. Arisitotle's Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας, Latin: De Interpretatione).  Contradictories divide up the space between them with nothing left so that either A or ~A is true, it's impossible for it to be otherwise.  When you're dealing with propositional/sentential negation then you are dealing with contradictories so it is quite useful to employ negation in proofs.   On the other hand, contrary statements allow for the middle ground to also be true and this is where you have to be careful employing negation.

All cats are black [is contradictory to] Some cats are not black (= not(all cats are black)).
All cats are black [is contrary to] No cat is black.

In the contradictories, either the left or right is true, no other options (in fact, I believe in the real world that the right side is true, some cats are not black).  However, in contraries, it's possible that neither the left or right is true (and, btw, I believe this is the case in the real world for this example).

The old yarn about "you can't prove a negative" is a popularism which is often employed without considering how vague it really is.  If you really want to understand syllogistic logic and negation, start with the square of opposition.

Best!

Yes, I know all about proof by contradiction and reductio ad absurdum.  But thanks for the boring refresher course.

Are you claiming that presumption is affirmative?  Of course not; that would be stupid, and almost as pointless as niggling over paraphrasing.

So spare us the sophomoric pedantry and allow some leeway for rhetorical shorthand.  Even Yahoo Answers knows better than to pull that crap:

Quote
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110307170939AA7BPmy

It is short hand for a much more logical expression.
Which is, "You cannot prove a universal, existential negative."
In other words, you cannot prove that some hypothetical does not exist, anywhere in the universe, because that would require that you be able to look everywhere at the same moment. And, of course, if the hypothetical something, in question is claimed to be invisible and undetectable by any means, in principle, it gets even sillier to attempt to disprove that hypothetical's existence.

But saying all that, over and over gets really tiring, so most people just shorten it to, "You cannot prove a negative." and go on to do something more productive with their time.

The point is that 60% pro-bloat votes isn't anywhere near the desired, much less required, consensus.  And you don't get to count the agnostic/DGAF votes as 'anti-anti-fork' as Gavin illogically did.


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

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
sed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 07:03:22 PM
 #2535


Yes, I know all about proof by contradiction and reductio ad absurdum.  But thanks for the boring refresher course.

Are you claiming that presumption is affirmative?  Of course not; that would be stupid, and almost as pointless as niggling over paraphrasing.

So spare us the sophomoric pedantry and allow some leeway for rhetorical shorthand.  Even Yahoo Answers knows better than to pull that crap:

...

The point is that 60% pro-bloat votes isn't anywhere near the desired, much less required, consensus.  And you don't get to count the agnostic/DGAF votes as 'anti-anti-fork' as Gavin illogically did.

iCEBREAKER, your trolling tone makes you, I think, impossible to speak to.  Good luck convincing anyone with your bullying, namecalling, trolling tactics.
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 07:07:40 PM
 #2536

And you don't get to count the agnostic/DGAF votes as 'anti-anti-fork' as Gavin illogically did.

Gavin didn't. I did, but just to show how ridiculous it is to take them into account in the first place.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 07:17:08 PM
 #2537

consider this analogy. People saying that they don't know or don't care about the 20 MB fork is comparable to asking people if they support transitioning to IPv6. Most people would answer “What is IPv6? I've never heard of it”, but that doesn't automatically turn them against IPv6. Why would it? I don't understand your reasoning here.

I hope you never serve on a jury.  The other jurors would have to put up with your idiotic claims that voting not-guilty affirms guilt, just because they didn't vote 'innocent.'

Wait, what? How do you reach that conclusion based on any of what I have been saying so far?

Your analogy is invalid because "most people" don't GAF about BTC, much less running a node or the health of the network.

If you're not explicitly for the bloat fork, you are against it.

Whether you are explicitly or implicitly against the fork (IE anti or DGAF) is not logically nor functionally relevant.

In my legal analogy, it's like disputing the non-guilt of the accused just because the jury didn't explicitly vote innocent.  You can't equate not-guilty votes with not-not-innocent; that's isn't how it works.  Not-guilty verdicts are functionally equivalent to findings of innocent, but we don't ask for innocent verdicts because you can't prove a negative universal, existential negative.

At the functional level, anti-fork vs. DGAF is a distinction without a difference.  That's why Gavin is wrong to claim DGAF votes for the pro-fork side.


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

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1003



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 07:18:11 PM
 #2538

Hi Gavin.

If I understand well, you would like all transactions in the blockchain.

What would be needed block size to run a network as big as visa+MasterCard?

Knowing that those networks don't handle micro transaction, we would need even more.

I think it would be huge (but I don't have the answer)

I think it would put us in danger because internet service providers will react if we bloat their network (internet is not only for Bitcoiners) I think they would end applying limits to upload and downloads for sure, and maybe apply QOS.

Don't you consider this a threat for Bitcoin?
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 07:22:22 PM
 #2539

I think it would put us in danger because internet service providers will react if we bloat their network (internet is not only for Bitcoiners) I think they would end applying limits to upload and downloads for sure, and maybe apply QOS.

How many bytes do you think Visa and MasterCard use? I bet it's way more than 1 MB every 10 minutes, and you don't see them being blocked by ISPs (or maybe they do?)

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 07:33:54 PM
 #2540

Your analogy is invalid because "most people" don't GAF about BTC, much less running a node or the health of the network.

Well, the option DGAF is for people who don't give a fuck, so there's this tautology. Where is this going?

If you're not explicitly for the bloat fork, you are against it.

This is a fallacy. Person A doesn't give a fuck about the decision, as long as she can transfer money to her family in the other side of the world. If having a 20 MB block is the way to do it, or if sidechains are implemented at last, she doesn't care. She has NO OPINION on the matter.

Whether you are explicitly or implicitly against the fork (IE anti or DGAF) is not logically nor functionally relevant.

While this is technically true, your assumption that people undecided are implicitly against the fork is wrong.

In my legal analogy, it's like disputing the non-guilt of the accused just because the jury didn't explicitly vote innocent.  You can't equate not-guilty votes with not-not-innocent; that's isn't how it works.  Not-guilty verdicts are functionally equivalent to findings of innocent, but we don't ask for innocent verdicts because you can't prove a negative universal, existential negative.

If the jury votes neither guilty nor not guilty, then a verdict can't be made, because there's a “I don't know” in there, and the legal system requires the jury to have a definite answer. I don't know where you come up with this not-not-innocent nonsense.

That's why Gavin is wrong to claim DGAF votes for the pro-fork side.

Again, Gavin didn't claim the votes. I did, just to illustrate the ridiculousness that you are trying to do.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
Pages: « 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 [127] 128 129 130 131 »
  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!