But Petiton:5afa074c for remove digging has currently the strongest support (36.65% on just-dice).
It's 36.65% of the actively voting shares on Just-dice. 18.7% of all shares.
Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 197. (Read 1151369 times)
December 13, 2015, 08:57:36 AM
But Petiton:5afa074c for remove digging has currently the strongest support (36.65% on just-dice).
It's 36.65% of the actively voting shares on Just-dice. 18.7% of all shares.
December 13, 2015, 07:48:34 AM
What is the longterm price or market cap. goal of clams? Is it really to attack btc market cap?
Keep the baby fed, avoid running out of oil for the chainsaw, simple goals like that.
CLAM isn't a bitcoin clone, and doesn't offer the scripting (contract) features. [Shoot me, I'm yours]. Unless GMO corn mutates the species into gamblers, CLAM has only a niche application made possible by virtue of its fauceted constituency, and can't approach BTC market cap.
Plus, for technical reasons far beyond me, respected experts consider a POS coin an inferior security model, limiting it's acceptance.
I would put the CLAM market cap upper limit somewhere around the value of Poker Stars, or maybe the Megamillions lottery.
December 13, 2015, 07:31:51 AM
If you allow digging only by staking, you restrict digging speed by the same person. The person will be digging almost half percent of his unclaimed Clams daily only, which means the person needs about one year to dig all coins.
By the way, is there petition for this (and what is support) ?
It will not work in that way. If we link digging to stacking - those who dug more coins have more chances to stake next block. More coins - more speed.
Not there is no known petition about that.
December 13, 2015, 06:03:07 AM
What is the longterm price or market cap. goal of clams? Is it really to attack btc market cap?
December 13, 2015, 05:44:05 AM
I personally am against removing digging and changing the initial rules at all. But Petiton:5afa074c for remove digging has currently the strongest support (36.65% on just-dice). So I wanted to create alternative that does not harm the unaware clam holders so much. They will be able to claim whats theirs one day. (Compare with removing digging)
Voted for your petition - because of two evils I choose the less. Personally I'd like to support postponed spending of digging rewards but it seems - it technically impossible to restrict digging speed or speed of spending digging reward performed by same person.
If you allow digging only by staking, you restrict digging speed by the same person. The person will be digging almost half percent of his unclaimed Clams daily only, which means the person needs about one year to dig all coins.
By the way, is there petition for this (and what is support) ?
December 13, 2015, 05:14:17 AM
And when your bank sends you a letter like that what will you think?
Your money is still there, but you can't claim it for the next x years because we are worried about inflation...
There was a big digger, the market crashed, now the market is recovering/recovered (market cap higher than earlier except the bubble peak). The coin works, just leave it be. If you had undug addresses you wouldn't be suggesting we postpone or cancel digging, don't screw over other people just because you got yours.
Well.
I personally am against removing digging and changing the initial rules at all. But Petiton:5afa074c for remove digging has currently the strongest support (36.65% on just-dice). So I wanted to create alternative that does not harm the unaware clam holders so much. They will be able to claim whats theirs one day. (Compare with removing digging)
Also, comparing initial distribution with the bank account is not fair. When you have bank account, then you have to deposit your own money first.
The initial distribution is more like natural resources. Its like gold vein under your garden. In the initial phase of gold rush, everyone was able to dig/mine/pan gold. But now the countries have rules and quotas when you want to do that.
Voted for your petition - because of two evils I choose the less. Personally I'd like to support postponed spending of digging rewards but it seems - it technically impossible to restrict digging speed or speed of spending digging reward performed by same person.
And again, comparison with the bank account is incorrect. It' more like social grant or award but now with postponed spending permission.
Of course I doubt it could be implemented from beginning of year 2016. Better to start it from date of 14 May 2016.
That petition is the real way to give meaning for "Long live the great CLAM!" slogan.
Edit: agree we need to calibrate that X from 20 to 16 years, maybe, or less.
But 16 years from year 2016 sounds good.
December 13, 2015, 05:04:51 AM
Petition Id: e2ef93da
Link: http://txti.es/e2ef93da
Transaction: 5c24c6f636f0ed3a8b0ea792cd65218b2e2f218d52b7a425b42983cbb6023a33
Postpone digging into the future
- At the exact moment of time will be possible to dig only fraction of initial distribution
- All address from the initial distribution is possible to dig, but only in specific time-frame.
- It lowers amount of clam entering the market.
- No one will be harm, everybody will be able to claim their Clams, they should only have to wait.
I.e.
Allow digging only for 1/X undug addresses:
So it takes 20 years to dig them all and then it can start new round.
In year 2037 everyone had the chance to claim all their Clams.
Value of X and exact address hashing algorithm is for future discussion. (May be is not necessary to hash it, as the address itself is just number)
Note: Petition hash is made from the raw txti source.
Link: http://txti.es/e2ef93da
Transaction: 5c24c6f636f0ed3a8b0ea792cd65218b2e2f218d52b7a425b42983cbb6023a33
Postpone digging into the future
- At the exact moment of time will be possible to dig only fraction of initial distribution
- All address from the initial distribution is possible to dig, but only in specific time-frame.
- It lowers amount of clam entering the market.
- No one will be harm, everybody will be able to claim their Clams, they should only have to wait.
I.e.
Allow digging only for 1/X undug addresses:
Code:
Example for X=20
year 2016 allows to dig only addresses where sha256(ADDRESS)%20 == 16
year 2017 allows to dig only addresses where sha256(ADDRESS)%20 == 17
year 2018 allows to dig only addresses where sha256(ADDRESS)%20 == 18
So it takes 20 years to dig them all and then it can start new round.
In year 2037 everyone had the chance to claim all their Clams.
Value of X and exact address hashing algorithm is for future discussion. (May be is not necessary to hash it, as the address itself is just number)
Note: Petition hash is made from the raw txti source.
And when your bank sends you a letter like that what will you think?
Your money is still there, but you can't claim it for the next x years because we are worried about inflation...
There was a big digger, the market crashed, now the market is recovering/recovered (market cap higher than earlier except the bubble peak). The coin works, just leave it be. If you had undug addresses you wouldn't be suggesting we postpone or cancel digging, don't screw over other people just because you got yours.
Well.
I personally am against removing digging and changing the initial rules at all. But Petiton:5afa074c for remove digging has currently the strongest support (36.65% on just-dice). So I wanted to create alternative that does not harm the unaware clam holders so much. They will be able to claim whats theirs one day. (Compare with removing digging)
Also, comparing initial distribution with the bank account is not fair. When you have bank account, then you have to deposit your own money first.
The initial distribution is more like natural resources. Its like gold vein under your garden. In the initial phase of gold rush, everyone was able to dig/mine/pan gold. But now the countries have rules and quotas when you want to do that.
Bearing in mind the 3-10% annual total-supply inflation, you do need to calibrate X a bit to preserve some modicum of fairness. To take an extreme point on the curve, with 10% if you have to wait 20 years you might as well consider your CLAMs gone altogether. Noted that you called for further analysis and discussion of X..
December 13, 2015, 03:57:57 AM
Petition Id: e2ef93da
Link: http://txti.es/e2ef93da
Transaction: 5c24c6f636f0ed3a8b0ea792cd65218b2e2f218d52b7a425b42983cbb6023a33
Postpone digging into the future
- At the exact moment of time will be possible to dig only fraction of initial distribution
- All address from the initial distribution is possible to dig, but only in specific time-frame.
- It lowers amount of clam entering the market.
- No one will be harm, everybody will be able to claim their Clams, they should only have to wait.
I.e.
Allow digging only for 1/X undug addresses:
So it takes 20 years to dig them all and then it can start new round.
In year 2037 everyone had the chance to claim all their Clams.
Value of X and exact address hashing algorithm is for future discussion. (May be is not necessary to hash it, as the address itself is just number)
Note: Petition hash is made from the raw txti source.
Link: http://txti.es/e2ef93da
Transaction: 5c24c6f636f0ed3a8b0ea792cd65218b2e2f218d52b7a425b42983cbb6023a33
Postpone digging into the future
- At the exact moment of time will be possible to dig only fraction of initial distribution
- All address from the initial distribution is possible to dig, but only in specific time-frame.
- It lowers amount of clam entering the market.
- No one will be harm, everybody will be able to claim their Clams, they should only have to wait.
I.e.
Allow digging only for 1/X undug addresses:
Code:
Example for X=20
year 2016 allows to dig only addresses where sha256(ADDRESS)%20 == 16
year 2017 allows to dig only addresses where sha256(ADDRESS)%20 == 17
year 2018 allows to dig only addresses where sha256(ADDRESS)%20 == 18
So it takes 20 years to dig them all and then it can start new round.
In year 2037 everyone had the chance to claim all their Clams.
Value of X and exact address hashing algorithm is for future discussion. (May be is not necessary to hash it, as the address itself is just number)
Note: Petition hash is made from the raw txti source.
And when your bank sends you a letter like that what will you think?
Your money is still there, but you can't claim it for the next x years because we are worried about inflation...
There was a big digger, the market crashed, now the market is recovering/recovered (market cap higher than earlier except the bubble peak). The coin works, just leave it be. If you had undug addresses you wouldn't be suggesting we postpone or cancel digging, don't screw over other people just because you got yours.
Well.
I personally am against removing digging and changing the initial rules at all. But Petiton:5afa074c for remove digging has currently the strongest support (36.65% on just-dice). So I wanted to create alternative that does not harm the unaware clam holders so much. They will be able to claim whats theirs one day. (Compare with removing digging)
Also, comparing initial distribution with the bank account is not fair. When you have bank account, then you have to deposit your own money first.
The initial distribution is more like natural resources. Its like gold vein under your garden. In the initial phase of gold rush, everyone was able to dig/mine/pan gold. But now the countries have rules and quotas when you want to do that.
December 13, 2015, 03:32:15 AM
Petition Id: e2ef93da
Link: http://txti.es/e2ef93da
Transaction: 5c24c6f636f0ed3a8b0ea792cd65218b2e2f218d52b7a425b42983cbb6023a33
Postpone digging into the future
- At the exact moment of time will be possible to dig only fraction of initial distribution
- All address from the initial distribution is possible to dig, but only in specific time-frame.
- It lowers amount of clam entering the market.
- No one will be harm, everybody will be able to claim their Clams, they should only have to wait.
I.e.
Allow digging only for 1/X undug addresses:
So it takes 20 years to dig them all and then it can start new round.
In year 2037 everyone had the chance to claim all their Clams.
Value of X and exact address hashing algorithm is for future discussion. (May be is not necessary to hash it, as the address itself is just number)
Note: Petition hash is made from the raw txti source.
Link: http://txti.es/e2ef93da
Transaction: 5c24c6f636f0ed3a8b0ea792cd65218b2e2f218d52b7a425b42983cbb6023a33
Postpone digging into the future
- At the exact moment of time will be possible to dig only fraction of initial distribution
- All address from the initial distribution is possible to dig, but only in specific time-frame.
- It lowers amount of clam entering the market.
- No one will be harm, everybody will be able to claim their Clams, they should only have to wait.
I.e.
Allow digging only for 1/X undug addresses:
Code:
Example for X=20
year 2016 allows to dig only addresses where sha256(ADDRESS)%20 == 16
year 2017 allows to dig only addresses where sha256(ADDRESS)%20 == 17
year 2018 allows to dig only addresses where sha256(ADDRESS)%20 == 18
So it takes 20 years to dig them all and then it can start new round.
In year 2037 everyone had the chance to claim all their Clams.
Value of X and exact address hashing algorithm is for future discussion. (May be is not necessary to hash it, as the address itself is just number)
Note: Petition hash is made from the raw txti source.
And when your bank sends you a letter like that what will you think?
Your money is still there, but you can't claim it for the next x years because we are worried about inflation...
There was a big digger, the market crashed, now the market is recovering/recovered (market cap higher than earlier except the bubble peak). The coin works, just leave it be. If you had undug addresses you wouldn't be suggesting we postpone or cancel digging, don't screw over other people just because you got yours.
December 13, 2015, 02:59:46 AM
Petition Id: e2ef93da
Link: http://txti.es/e2ef93da
Transaction: 5c24c6f636f0ed3a8b0ea792cd65218b2e2f218d52b7a425b42983cbb6023a33
Postpone digging into the future
- At the exact moment of time will be possible to dig only fraction of initial distribution
- All address from the initial distribution is possible to dig, but only in specific time-frame.
- It lowers amount of clam entering the market.
- No one will be harm, everybody will be able to claim their Clams, they should only have to wait.
I.e.
Allow digging only for 1/X undug addresses:
So it takes 20 years to dig them all and then it can start new round.
In year 2037 everyone had the chance to claim all their Clams.
Value of X and exact address hashing algorithm is for future discussion. (May be is not necessary to hash it, as the address itself is just number)
Note: Petition hash is made from the raw txti source.
Link: http://txti.es/e2ef93da
Transaction: 5c24c6f636f0ed3a8b0ea792cd65218b2e2f218d52b7a425b42983cbb6023a33
Postpone digging into the future
- At the exact moment of time will be possible to dig only fraction of initial distribution
- All address from the initial distribution is possible to dig, but only in specific time-frame.
- It lowers amount of clam entering the market.
- No one will be harm, everybody will be able to claim their Clams, they should only have to wait.
I.e.
Allow digging only for 1/X undug addresses:
Code:
Example for X=20
year 2016 allows to dig only addresses where sha256(ADDRESS)%20 == 16
year 2017 allows to dig only addresses where sha256(ADDRESS)%20 == 17
year 2018 allows to dig only addresses where sha256(ADDRESS)%20 == 18
So it takes 20 years to dig them all and then it can start new round.
In year 2037 everyone had the chance to claim all their Clams.
Value of X and exact address hashing algorithm is for future discussion. (May be is not necessary to hash it, as the address itself is just number)
Note: Petition hash is made from the raw txti source.
December 13, 2015, 02:48:46 AM
Hi!
What about not removing digging, but just spread digging into next few years.
Something like allow digging only for 1/X undug addresses:
I.e. For X=20
year 2016 allows to dig only addresses where sha256hash(UNDUG_CLAM_ADDRESS)%20 == 16
year 2017 allows to dig only addresses where sha256hash(UNDUG_CLAM_ADDRESS)%20 == 17
...
So it takes 20 years to dig them all and then it can start new round.
What do you think?
EDIT:
http://www.opb.org/news/article/new-law-no-more-than-850-gold-mining-dredges-allow/
What about not removing digging, but just spread digging into next few years.
Something like allow digging only for 1/X undug addresses:
I.e. For X=20
year 2016 allows to dig only addresses where sha256hash(UNDUG_CLAM_ADDRESS)%20 == 16
year 2017 allows to dig only addresses where sha256hash(UNDUG_CLAM_ADDRESS)%20 == 17
...
So it takes 20 years to dig them all and then it can start new round.
What do you think?
EDIT:
http://www.opb.org/news/article/new-law-no-more-than-850-gold-mining-dredges-allow/
I think it would be fairer then to lower the amount of clams that are bound to a bitcoin and so on address. That way every address can be claimed though the digging slowly get's less. Similar to block halving. If it would be slow then it would be not a so hard break.
I think with your way all addresses still could be claimed. You only need to wait for the next year to claim the rest, isn't it?
Yes. All addresses still could be claimed, you just need to wait for it.
December 12, 2015, 10:46:43 PM
Crazy Idea Time.
We're trying to address a few problems. Notably the vulnerability to large dig's, and the desire to keep digging alive. Also this would encourage people to always be on the look out for new clams. Maybe even get more folks to run the wallet locally.
What if we could somehow seed new clams onto the chain at some interval (Weekly) and ties them to BTC,LTC, and Doge addresses that have been used recently (last 2 months?) Then only allow digs from block that are so new (Last 14,400 blocks or 10 Days.).
The idea being there are new opportunities every week to claim clams. And if you have an Active BTC, LTC or Doge wallet you may have clams. But you only have 10 days to claim your clams. We could decide how many should be distributed, and start off fairly large and shrink the seeding based on how many are actually claimed.
Since you can only dig from the last X (14,400) that would lock up the original claims in the first blocks. Based on the selection of the addresses anyone might get new clams. The time limit will keep BIG users from accumulating to many free clams.
Just throwing it out there, I'm sure this would not be an easy thing to do technically, But, before we even look at that, does this even have merit? Maybe I missed something?
OK, Maybe I injected to much of my own ideas.
Would a new digging system, that would eliminate the existing distribution, and include newer crypto folks make any sense?
If you keep some type of digging that might satisfy the Purists.
If you eliminate the possible Large cache of clams being claimed by one person, that's what some want.
December 12, 2015, 10:43:49 PM
Had no idea this was how CLAMs distribution worked (fascinating concept). I'm relatively sure I had some positive balances across all three coins around that time. Downloading blockchain now and interested in seeing how I go about proving ownership over the addy's. I didn't really see any kind of guide in my quick scan but will take a closer look if it doesn't somehow become evident when the blockchain finishes downloading
Here's your answer. I recommend making sure your wallets are empty before importing them.
If you owned, in your private wallet, DOGE, LTC and/or DOGE in May of last year:
1. Download the CLAM client software.
2. Click File->Import Wallet.
3. Browse to the BTC, LTC or DOGE wallet.dat file.
4. If you have CLAM you should see them once you've sync'd to block 10,000.
1. Download the CLAM client software.
2. Click File->Import Wallet.
3. Browse to the BTC, LTC or DOGE wallet.dat file.
4. If you have CLAM you should see them once you've sync'd to block 10,000.
December 12, 2015, 10:08:31 PM
Had no idea this was how CLAMs distribution worked (fascinating concept). I'm relatively sure I had some positive balances across all three coins around that time. Downloading blockchain now and interested in seeing how I go about proving ownership over the addy's. I didn't really see any kind of guide in my quick scan but will take a closer look if it doesn't somehow become evident when the blockchain finishes downloading
December 12, 2015, 08:45:52 PM
It does in the form of staking. If the entire 14 million CLAM distribution actually existed and still exists (which it certainly did not and does not), that would be 3% per year inflation which is isn't trivial. At a more realistic (?) OOMA estimate of 5 million that is 10% inflation which is quite effective in redistributing wealth over time.
Given several years of staking and what has already been dug up, the effect of new digs will be negligible. It may even be already. What are the odds that the recent "dig" is the biggest mass dig that will ever happen in terms of percentage of active supply? Very significant IMO.
Given several years of staking and what has already been dug up, the effect of new digs will be negligible. It may even be already. What are the odds that the recent "dig" is the biggest mass dig that will ever happen in terms of percentage of active supply? Very significant IMO.
There certainly is logic in your argument, and I hope you are pretty accurate. However, the one problem not being factored in is the uncertainty of the undug CLAM. How many people have left CLAM or avoided CLAM after learning of the mega supply that could be unloaded on the market at any time? Sure, there is risk in any currency. But how many people decide the risks with CLAM are just too much? I believe in CLAM, but I think it would be a much easier sell to people if the initial distribution wasn't this huge drag and potential black swan 24/7.
I'm not saying a huge digger will come out tomorrow, or ever again. But the problem is that one can. 10 can. By the end of the day we could see CLAM crash worse than ever before - not because of the CLAM holders who have been supporting the currency, but because of someone discovering a huge cache of undug addresses they had from some experiment they ran, or a web wallet/service. I think the initial distribution added a ton of value to CLAM by being so widespread. But now that distribution is a gun pointed at our head, and nobody knows if its loaded or when it will fire.
10 diggers of the same magnitude relative to active supply is mathematically impossible and it isn't even close. That would increase supply by 1.6^10 or around 100x, so 150 million coins. That's >10x more than the number of undug coins that even exist given the highest possible (unrealistic) estimate.
No, we realistically will probably see at most 1-2 more such big digs, or maybe none. It they do happen it will probably be at much higher prices (on the theory that past prices haven't been high enough to be noticed by potential big diggers, or possibly not high enough to motivate action), which is sort of desirable. It makes the supply elastic and the price less volatile.
You want more crazy pumps and dumps? Removing elasticity from the supply is a good way to do that.
Its really impossible to know for sure on both sides
I suggest voting for whatever makes the most sense
Kind of like beating a dead horse to argue back and forth without any real way of knowing
Vote and put this topic out of its misery one way or another!
December 12, 2015, 08:12:45 PM
It does in the form of staking. If the entire 14 million CLAM distribution actually existed and still exists (which it certainly did not and does not), that would be 3% per year inflation which is isn't trivial. At a more realistic (?) OOMA estimate of 5 million that is 10% inflation which is quite effective in redistributing wealth over time.
Given several years of staking and what has already been dug up, the effect of new digs will be negligible. It may even be already. What are the odds that the recent "dig" is the biggest mass dig that will ever happen in terms of percentage of active supply? Very significant IMO.
Given several years of staking and what has already been dug up, the effect of new digs will be negligible. It may even be already. What are the odds that the recent "dig" is the biggest mass dig that will ever happen in terms of percentage of active supply? Very significant IMO.
There certainly is logic in your argument, and I hope you are pretty accurate. However, the one problem not being factored in is the uncertainty of the undug CLAM. How many people have left CLAM or avoided CLAM after learning of the mega supply that could be unloaded on the market at any time? Sure, there is risk in any currency. But how many people decide the risks with CLAM are just too much? I believe in CLAM, but I think it would be a much easier sell to people if the initial distribution wasn't this huge drag and potential black swan 24/7.
I'm not saying a huge digger will come out tomorrow, or ever again. But the problem is that one can. 10 can. By the end of the day we could see CLAM crash worse than ever before - not because of the CLAM holders who have been supporting the currency, but because of someone discovering a huge cache of undug addresses they had from some experiment they ran, or a web wallet/service. I think the initial distribution added a ton of value to CLAM by being so widespread. But now that distribution is a gun pointed at our head, and nobody knows if its loaded or when it will fire.
10 diggers of the same magnitude relative to active supply is mathematically impossible and it isn't even close. That would increase supply by 1.6^10 or around 100x, so 150 million coins. That's >10x more than the number of undug coins that even exist given the highest possible (unrealistic) estimate.
No, we realistically will probably see at most 1-2 more such big digs, or maybe none. It they do happen it will probably be at much higher prices (on the theory that past prices haven't been high enough to be noticed by potential big diggers, or possibly not high enough to motivate action), which is sort of desirable. It makes the supply elastic and the price less volatile.
You want more crazy pumps and dumps? Removing elasticity from the supply is a good way to do that.
December 12, 2015, 07:30:57 PM
It does in the form of staking. If the entire 14 million CLAM distribution actually existed and still exists (which it certainly did not and does not), that would be 3% per year inflation which is isn't trivial. At a more realistic (?) OOMA estimate of 5 million that is 10% inflation which is quite effective in redistributing wealth over time.
Given several years of staking and what has already been dug up, the effect of new digs will be negligible. It may even be already. What are the odds that the recent "dig" is the biggest mass dig that will ever happen in terms of percentage of active supply? Very significant IMO.
Given several years of staking and what has already been dug up, the effect of new digs will be negligible. It may even be already. What are the odds that the recent "dig" is the biggest mass dig that will ever happen in terms of percentage of active supply? Very significant IMO.
There certainly is logic in your argument, and I hope you are pretty accurate. However, the one problem not being factored in is the uncertainty of the undug CLAM. How many people have left CLAM or avoided CLAM after learning of the mega supply that could be unloaded on the market at any time? Sure, there is risk in any currency. But how many people decide the risks with CLAM are just too much? I believe in CLAM, but I think it would be a much easier sell to people if the initial distribution wasn't this huge drag and potential black swan 24/7.
I'm not saying a huge digger will come out tomorrow, or ever again. But the problem is that one can. 10 can. By the end of the day we could see CLAM crash worse than ever before - not because of the CLAM holders who have been supporting the currency, but because of someone discovering a huge cache of undug addresses they had from some experiment they ran, or a web wallet/service. I think the initial distribution added a ton of value to CLAM by being so widespread. But now that distribution is a gun pointed at our head, and nobody knows if its loaded or when it will fire.
December 12, 2015, 07:19:02 PM
I think the initial distribution worked well. I just wish it had a phase-out built in. I definitely think we should consider fixing that.
It does in the form of staking. If the entire 14 million CLAM distribution actually existed and still exists (which it certainly did not and does not), that would be 3% per year inflation which is isn't trivial. At a more realistic (?) OOMA estimate of 5 million that is 10% inflation which is quite effective in redistributing wealth over time.
Given several years of staking and what has already been dug up, the effect of new digs will be negligible. It may even be already. What are the odds that the recent "dig" is the biggest mass dig that will ever happen in terms of percentage of active supply? Very significant IMO.
December 12, 2015, 06:59:23 PM
Possible technical drawback of bitcoin to 420 zone, lets see it it starts the attacks to the 500 and the clam at end can touch the 0.005
popcorning
popcorning
December 12, 2015, 06:00:13 PM
clams r goin crazy on polo
Jump to: