November 25, 2024, 02:08:02 AM

Welcome, Guest

News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]

Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion

Pages:

«
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
»

Author

Topic: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell - page 8. (Read 46265 times)

Alex.BTC

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 08:42:53 PM

That would be subjective.
If one decide the objective of POW is to hash fully and whoever gets it first wins then fair do - subjective.
If one decide the objective of POW is to hash fully and a miner isn't hashing fully, (A programming short cut of using 3 sha256 operations instead of 4 when mining a block hash.) then one may decide that the miner is cheating based on a principle and not regard it as optimisation - subjective.

Objective is better than subjective. You can see way the debates goes on and on. There are two subjectives to one objective. Thus two opinions. Of course people may decide there are more opinions but i am just mentioning 2. Who is right and who is wrong - neither.

The most objective thing would be to just tell Core to patch the damn code.

I see you've caught that little subliminal message I placed near the end.

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 11:23:58 PM

I asked jonald earlier, instead of hubs, why can't we do bi-directional channel using existing full nodes (non miner)?

You can almost hear Adam Back gasping: You mean cut out the middle man? How the hell is Blockstream supposed to get paid?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 11:20:37 PM

If i understand this right, if i were to send to b then both a and b must have a channel open and be online. Is that correct?

if you want to send to B with LN, you either have a channel with them, or go through another party like A.

Obviously you need to be online to send anything unless you're going to give someone a thumbdrive.
But generally, the bidreictional payments are P2P, not over bitcoin network except when opening and closing the channel.

The One

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: traincarswreck on April 11, 2017, 11:23:38 PM

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 11:14:23 PM

Individual action - micro thus the sum of many micros - macro. When an individual changes their subjectivity - macro data fast out-of-date. Thus governments managing the economy will always fail.

Now stop beating around the bush and answer this - Explain your reasoning for "macro economic implications of the block size limit."

It's a Keynesian theory, isn't it, that governments must manage our economy. I don't agree, or at least I was unaware, that macroeconomics implies this. That studying the models and understanding them, implies we must apply our extrapolations from them.

If bitcoin can evolve as a gold, as an inflation hedge, it will put pressure on respective fiat. As bitcoin becomes more relevant as an inflation hedge, governments are forced to reign in their money supply.

Thus taking away their ability to arbitrarily print money, lest their lose all their customers.

The macro-economic implications are that government will no long control the value of money, and thus it will stabilize.

The government will never lose control of the money supply as politicians can only win election by bribing the idiots whom voted for them. If the money supply keeps on expanding, inflation keeps on going up, wages keeps on going up - Bitcoin value will keep on going up as there is only 21m coins. Fiat value goes down. The government can do what they want and my BTC will grow in value to compensate for the government's incompetence. You should be happy but those who don't have BTC will feel the pain. Therefore it is essential for BTC to grow. 2mb is perfectly safe and the best solution for now.

The One

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 11, 2017, 11:17:39 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 11, 2017, 10:43:34 PM

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 10:17:55 PM

Is it not possible to do LN using full nodes (non-miners) that exist now, rather than "hubs?"

It may be entirely possible. I'm sure its possible with certain parameters, but no one has given a clear picture.

Suppose Alice wants to send Carol 5 bitcoins, through Bob. Alice has a channel with Bob, and Bob has a channel with Carol.

Alice->Bob->Carol.

The channels must be 5 bitcoins "wide" first of all. And both channels must pay fees for both opening and closing.
Alice and Carol can send money back and forth a gazillion times if both channels stay open and the amounts
stay within the channel parameters.

But if Carol needs her 5 bitcoins for whatever, and she closes the channel, then she has to open the channel with Bob
again before the transacting can go on, which she can perhaps no longer do because she is out of bitcoins.
Also, if Alice wants to send 10 bitcoins instead of 5, but Bob and Carol's channel
only supports 5 bitcoins, I don't think that is possible in a safe way.

So already there's complexity and we're talking about 3 people. You can begin to imagine that as the network of people
grows, you start to need more big channels that stay open.

So everyone ends up with a postal system, you have mail boxes, mail hubs, post offices, mail routes, prepaid envelopes, stamps, even spam.

Except it's much more complex, you have to buy prepaid envelopes for different destinations, sometimes you can reuse them, but sometimes you can't and what's left is wasted.

Usually when you build a peer to peer delivery system, you end up with something like TCP/IP, or bittorrent.

LN at this stage is like the worst of both worlds. How the hell is it even supposed to work for a small country?

The only sensible thing to do is to make everything in between simple and free, then charge network usage bandwidth from end points like ISP, that's the only way it'll be simple enough to work properly. If you keep doing accounting between nodes, the accounting database will end up being millions times bigger than than blockchain itself.

And I think that's why Blockstream is holding the lock on 1MB, they're trying to build networks and ISPs on top of Bitcoin's blockchain.

I asked jonald earlier, instead of hubs, why can't we do bi-directional channel using existing full nodes (non miner)?

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 11:14:23 PM

Individual action - micro thus the sum of many micros - macro. When an individual changes their subjectivity - macro data fast out-of-date. Thus governments managing the economy will always fail.

Now stop beating around the bush and answer this - Explain your reasoning for "macro economic implications of the block size limit."

It's a Keynesian theory, isn't it, that governments must manage our economy. I don't agree, or at least I was unaware, that macroeconomics implies this. That studying the models and understanding them, implies we must apply our extrapolations from them.

If bitcoin can evolve as a gold, as an inflation hedge, it will put pressure on respective fiat. As bitcoin becomes more relevant as an inflation hedge, governments are forced to reign in their money supply.

Thus taking away their ability to arbitrarily print money, lest their lose all their customers.

The macro-economic implications are that government will no long control the value of money, and thus it will stabilize.

The One

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 11, 2017, 11:00:39 PM

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 10:51:34 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 11, 2017, 10:43:34 PM

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 10:17:55 PM

Is it not possible to do LN using full nodes (non-miners) that exist now, rather than "hubs?"

It may be entirely possible. I'm sure its possible with certain parameters, but no one has given a clear picture.

Suppose Alice wants to send Carol 5 bitcoins, through Bob. Alice has a channel with Bob, and Bob has a channel with Carol.

Alice->Bob->Carol.

The channels must be 5 bitcoins "wide" first of all. And both channels must pay fees for both opening and closing.
Alice and Carol can send money back and forth a gazillion times if both channels stay open and the amounts
stay within the channel parameters.

But if Carol needs her 5 bitcoins for whatever, and she closes the channel, then she has to open the channel with Bob
again before the transacting can go on. Also, if Alice wants to send 10 bitcoins instead of 5, but Bob and Carol's channel
only supports 5 bitcoins, I don't think that is possible in a safe way.

So already there's complexity and we're talking about 3 people. You can begin to imagine that as the network of people
grows, you start to need more big channels that stay open.

That what i am having a problem with. BTC, i send 1 BTC from a to b. Same with cash, debit card, online account. I have never gone back and forth multiples times between a and b. Now why would i need to go through another party like bob in your example. If i understand this right, if i were to send to b then both a and b must have a channel open and be online. Is that correct?

Not sure I fully get your question, but you seem to be getting at: why would they get through bob if they were planning to transact a bunch of times together directly? And yeah, the answer is they should. 2 parties that are going to do a lot of back and forth can just open a channel and THAT makes sense, but that is not the typical use case...and that is too restricted of a scenario to help with worldwide scaling...so then the question becomes how will it work in a practical manner where anyone can pay anyone , if not for hubs.

If I just so happen to have a channel open with my buddy Dave, and we typically settle up at the end of the month, and I also happen to have a channel open with my wife... which stays open all the time, and my wife's happens to have a channel with her friend Lori, and Dave also has a channel up with his dad... and Lori knows Dave's dad , she could use the channel path... so theoretically it could work with the proper routing protocol, I just haven't seen it.

Why would two parties go back and forth so many times? I can't even think of any individuals doing that. I can imagine two companies trading with each other do go back and forth. Buy they already have a system in place that is better than LN.

If i understand this right, if i were to send to b then both a and b must have a channel open and be online. Is that correct?

Alex.BTC

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 11, 2017, 10:43:34 PM

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 10:17:55 PM

Is it not possible to do LN using full nodes (non-miners) that exist now, rather than "hubs?"

It may be entirely possible. I'm sure its possible with certain parameters, but no one has given a clear picture.

Suppose Alice wants to send Carol 5 bitcoins, through Bob. Alice has a channel with Bob, and Bob has a channel with Carol.

Alice->Bob->Carol.

The channels must be 5 bitcoins "wide" first of all. And both channels must pay fees for both opening and closing.
Alice and Carol can send money back and forth a gazillion times if both channels stay open and the amounts
stay within the channel parameters.

But if Carol needs her 5 bitcoins for whatever, and she closes the channel, then she has to open the channel with Bob
again before the transacting can go on, which she can perhaps no longer do because she is out of bitcoins.
Also, if Alice wants to send 10 bitcoins instead of 5, but Bob and Carol's channel
only supports 5 bitcoins, I don't think that is possible in a safe way.

So already there's complexity and we're talking about 3 people. You can begin to imagine that as the network of people
grows, you start to need more big channels that stay open.

So everyone ends up with a postal system, you have mail boxes, mail hubs, post offices, mail routes, prepaid envelopes, stamps, even spam.

Except it's much more complex, you have to buy prepaid envelopes for different destinations, sometimes you can reuse them, but sometimes you can't and what's left is wasted, unless you do a refund at certain time.

Usually when you build a peer to peer delivery system, you end up with something like TCP/IP, or bittorrent.

LN at the current stage is like the worst of both worlds. How the hell is it even suppose to work in a small country?

The only sensible thing to do is to make everything in between simple and free, then charge network usage bandwidth from end points like ISPs, that's the only way it'll be simple enough to work properly. If you keep doing accounting between nodes, the accounting database will end up being millions times bigger than the blockchain itself.

And I think that's why Blockstream is holding the lock on 1MB, they're trying to build networks and ISPs on top of Bitcoin's blockchain.

The One

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: traincarswreck on April 11, 2017, 10:58:54 PM

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 10:53:37 PM

But be warned, macroeconomics is a load of rubbish. Stop twisting my sentence. I'm in favour of microeconomics. Understand the differences.

Explain your reasoning for "macro economic implications of the block size limit."

It was a typo. I meant to ask with all that knowledge and expertise you think macroeconomics is rubbish?

Quote

mac·ro·ec·o·nom·ics
ˈmakrōˌekəˈnämiks,ˈmakrōˌēkəˈnämiks/
noun
noun: macroeconomics; noun: macro-economics

the part of economics concerned with large-scale or general economic factors, such as interest rates and national productivity.

You think the study of economics concerned with large-scale or general economic factors, such as interest rates and national productivity is rubbish. And you write for mises? and you have read 100's of books on economics?

And you think I could explain to you the macro economic implications bitcoin's block size limit?

How do think we should attend to our global economy without macro-economics?

Individual action - micro thus the sum of many micros - macro. When an individual changes their subjectivity - macro data fast out-of-date. Thus governments managing the economy will always fail.

Now stop beating around the bush and answer this - Explain your reasoning for "macro economic implications of the block size limit."

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 10:51:34 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 11, 2017, 10:43:34 PM

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 10:17:55 PM

Is it not possible to do LN using full nodes (non-miners) that exist now, rather than "hubs?"

It may be entirely possible. I'm sure its possible with certain parameters, but no one has given a clear picture.

Suppose Alice wants to send Carol 5 bitcoins, through Bob. Alice has a channel with Bob, and Bob has a channel with Carol.

Alice->Bob->Carol.

The channels must be 5 bitcoins "wide" first of all. And both channels must pay fees for both opening and closing.
Alice and Carol can send money back and forth a gazillion times if both channels stay open and the amounts
stay within the channel parameters.

But if Carol needs her 5 bitcoins for whatever, and she closes the channel, then she has to open the channel with Bob
again before the transacting can go on. Also, if Alice wants to send 10 bitcoins instead of 5, but Bob and Carol's channel
only supports 5 bitcoins, I don't think that is possible in a safe way.

So already there's complexity and we're talking about 3 people. You can begin to imagine that as the network of people
grows, you start to need more big channels that stay open.

That what i am having a problem with. BTC, i send 1 BTC from a to b. Same with cash, debit card, online account. I have never gone back and forth multiples times between a and b. Now why would i need to go through another party like bob in your example. If i understand this right, if i were to send to b then both a and b must have a channel open and be online. Is that correct?

Not sure I fully get your question, but you seem to be getting at: why would they get through bob if they were planning to transact a bunch of times together directly? And yeah, the answer is they should. 2 parties that are going to do a lot of back and forth can just open a channel and THAT makes sense, but that is not the typical use case...and that is too restricted of a scenario to help with worldwide scaling...so then the question becomes how will it work in a practical manner where anyone can pay anyone , if not for hubs.

If I just so happen to have a channel open with my buddy Dave, and we typically settle up at the end of the month, and I also happen to have a channel open with my wife... which stays open all the time, and my wife's happens to have a channel with her friend Lori, and Dave also has a channel up with his dad... and Lori knows Dave's dad , she could use the channel path... so theoretically it could work with the proper routing protocol, I just haven't seen it.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 10:53:37 PM

But be warned, macroeconomics is a load of rubbish. Stop twisting my sentence. I'm in favour of microeconomics. Understand the differences.

Explain your reasoning for "macro economic implications of the block size limit."

It was a typo. I meant to ask with all that knowledge and expertise you think macroeconomics is rubbish?

Quote

mac·ro·ec·o·nom·ics
ˈmakrōˌekəˈnämiks,ˈmakrōˌēkəˈnämiks/
noun
noun: macroeconomics; noun: macro-economics

the part of economics concerned with large-scale or general economic factors, such as interest rates and national productivity.

You think the study of economics concerned with large-scale or general economic factors, such as interest rates and national productivity is rubbish. And you write for mises? and you have read 100's of books on economics?

And you think I could explain to you the macro economic implications bitcoin's block size limit?

How do think we should attend to our global economy without macro-economics?

The One

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: traincarswreck on April 11, 2017, 10:46:03 PM

You've read 100's of books on the subject and you write for misses and you think economics is a load of rubbish?

But be warned, macroeconomics is a load of rubbish. Stop twisting my sentence. I'm in favour of microeconomics. Understand the differences.

Explain your reasoning for "macro economic implications of the block size limit."

The One

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 11, 2017, 10:43:34 PM

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 10:17:55 PM

Is it not possible to do LN using full nodes (non-miners) that exist now, rather than "hubs?"

It may be entirely possible. I'm sure its possible with certain parameters, but no one has given a clear picture.

Suppose Alice wants to send Carol 5 bitcoins, through Bob. Alice has a channel with Bob, and Bob has a channel with Carol.

Alice->Bob->Carol.

The channels must be 5 bitcoins "wide" first of all. And both channels must pay fees for both opening and closing.
Alice and Carol can send money back and forth a gazillion times if both channels stay open and the amounts
stay within the channel parameters.

But if Carol needs her 5 bitcoins for whatever, and she closes the channel, then she has to open the channel with Bob
again before the transacting can go on. Also, if Alice wants to send 10 bitcoins instead of 5, but Bob and Carol's channel
only supports 5 bitcoins, I don't think that is possible in a safe way.

So already there's complexity and we're talking about 3 people. You can begin to imagine that as the network of people
grows, you start to need more big channels that stay open.

That what i am having a problem with. BTC, i send 1 BTC from a to b. Same with cash, debit card, online account. I have never gone back and forth multiples times between a and b. Now why would i need to go through another party like bob in your example. If i understand this right, if i were to send to b then both a and b must have a channel open and be online. Is that correct?

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

You've read 100's of books on the subject and you write for misses and you think economics is a load of rubbish?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 10:17:55 PM

Is it not possible to do LN using full nodes (non-miners) that exist now, rather than "hubs?"

It may be entirely possible. I'm sure its possible with certain parameters, but no one has given a clear picture.

Suppose Alice wants to send Carol 5 bitcoins, through Bob. Alice has a channel with Bob, and Bob has a channel with Carol.

Alice->Bob->Carol.

The channels must be 5 bitcoins "wide" first of all. And both channels must pay fees for both opening and closing.
Alice and Carol can send money back and forth a gazillion times if both channels stay open and the amounts
stay within the channel parameters.

But if Carol needs her 5 bitcoins for whatever, and she closes the channel, then she has to open the channel with Bob
again before the transacting can go on, which she can perhaps no longer do because she is out of bitcoins.
Also, if Alice wants to send 10 bitcoins instead of 5, but Bob and Carol's channel
only supports 5 bitcoins, I don't think that is possible in a safe way.

So already there's complexity and we're talking about 3 people. You can begin to imagine that as the network of people
grows, you start to need more big channels that stay open.

The One

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: traincarswreck on April 11, 2017, 10:18:27 PM

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 10:14:45 PM

I didn't say i read over 100 books in 7 years. Blocksize needs to go up. 2mb is nothing and will do Bitcoin a world of good for this year. It's not a permanent solution but it certainly better than all this squabbling and high TF that is going nowhere.

Link me some of your writing there I will check it. - nice try but i prefer to stay anonymous thanks.

I see. So you claim to have read 100 books on the subject. And you claim you have writing on mises. But you are unwillingly to back up those claims and unable. You don't understand the macro economic implications of the block size limit. And you don't want to reveal your identity to be linked to a few 100 posts on this forum but your identity is linked to your relevant writings on mises.org?

What impartial observer do you think will believe you based on these facts, based on such claims with no evidence and no willingness to back them up?

On here and elsewhere are two or more different things. I am not prepared to have this and elsewhere linked ok. You are just going to have to accept it.

Explain your reasoning for "macro economic implications of the block size limit." But be warned, macroeconomics is a load of rubbish.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 10:14:45 PM

I didn't say i read over 100 books in 7 years. Blocksize needs to go up. 2mb is nothing and will do Bitcoin a world of good for this year. It's not a permanent solution but it certainly better than all this squabbling and high TF that is going nowhere.

Link me some of your writing there I will check it. - nice try but i prefer to stay anonymous thanks.

I see. So you claim to have read 100 books on the subject. And you claim you have writing on mises. But you are unwillingly to back up those claims and unable. You don't understand the macro economic implications of the block size limit. And you don't want to reveal your identity to be linked to a few 100 posts on this forum but your identity is linked to your relevant writings on mises.org?

What impartial observer do you think will believe you based on these facts, based on such claims with no evidence and no willingness to back them up?

The One

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 11, 2017, 09:46:05 PM

Quote from: AngryDwarf on April 11, 2017, 08:07:15 PM

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 07:46:25 PM

Quote from: kiklo on April 02, 2017, 02:14:58 AM

SegWit & LN are all about removing Transactions Offchain, meaning the miner will see reduced income from transaction fees, until the point LN/Banking Cartels Bankrupt the BTC miners and take over completely.

That is a problem, one of the many, i have with LN. Taking TF from miners would destabilise the maintenance of the network as altruism isn't going to be enough. The point of TF is to replace POW rewards in 20ish years time. I do not get why everyone is so up for LN. Do people really understand it?

I'm not sure I really understand LN. From what I can work out, it is a trustless system which requires trust to operate. As soon as the participants do not trust each other, they start a cascade of closing channels. Sounds like something of an Oxymoron. Perhaps I should try to understand it better.

IMO, the main problem with LN is that its somewhat advertised as 'anyone can send to anyone else in the world by interconnected channels'.
However, no one has been able to explain yet (afaik) how that will be achieved using a mesh-like topology with sensible economics.
Instead, its looking like a network of "hubs".

This wouldn't be a problem if people had free choice to use off chain vs on chain because if people felt the hubs got to be too
expensive or too regulated, they could choose to stop using them.

Blockstream wants on-chain to be expensive. They want you to use the LN.

They will say "we know what's good for you. The network could centralize
if nodes get too expensive, so we need to restrict the blocksize." The part
they don't tell you is how you could end up using big centralized hubs, and
that the more expensive on chain is, the more centralized it will be.

Is it not possible to do LN using full nodes (non-miners) that exist now, rather than "hubs?"

The One

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: traincarswreck on April 11, 2017, 09:42:52 PM

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 09:22:32 PM

Are you being funny? I spent 7 years studying business, computing, marketing, economics & accountancy. I read over 100 economics books and frequently write on Mises.org.

What about you?

Sure but im not really formally educated. Link me some of your writing there I will check it. How do you spend 7 years reading 100 books on economics and come to the asinine conclusion we need raise the block size limit? And what theory/theories are you founding this assertion on?

I didn't say i read over 100 books in 7 years. Blocksize needs to go up. 2mb is nothing and will do Bitcoin a world of good for this year. It's not a permanent solution but it certainly better than all this squabbling and high TF that is going nowhere.

Link me some of your writing there I will check it. - nice try but i prefer to stay anonymous thanks.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 09:52:56 PM

Do you realise that attacking everyone on here doesn't make you look good. Making assumptions is even worse. I do not imply anything but stating that this debate serves no purpose at all. The squabbling/division is insane. It will rumble on and on.

It's not an attack to point out someone's conclusion is so off that they probably or seemingly haven't read the associated material. You already responded to that post you quoted of me. I responded to your response and asked you to link to some of your writing on mises.org so I might parse through it and get a better understanding of your perspective so I can speak to your argument better.

Links?

The One

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: AngryDwarf on April 11, 2017, 08:07:15 PM

Quote from: The One on April 11, 2017, 07:46:25 PM

Quote from: kiklo on April 02, 2017, 02:14:58 AM

SegWit & LN are all about removing Transactions Offchain, meaning the miner will see reduced income from transaction fees, until the point LN/Banking Cartels Bankrupt the BTC miners and take over completely.

That is a problem, one of the many, i have with LN. Taking TF from miners would destabilise the maintenance of the network as altruism isn't going to be enough. The point of TF is to replace POW rewards in 20ish years time. I do not get why everyone is so up for LN. Do people really understand it?

I'm not sure I really understand LN. From what I can work out, it is a trustless system which requires trust to operate. As soon as the participants do not trust each other, they start a cascade of closing channels. Sounds like something of an Oxymoron. Perhaps I should try to understand it better.

Well i've read it 3 times now and somewhat getting there. I do have specific questions to ask, but no idea who to ask as i'm not sure anyone understands it.

Pages:

«
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
»

Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion

Jump to: