Anybody have a clue why bitcoinwisdom isn't working? (not updating)
its just so boring even bitcoinwisdom couldnt be arsed any more..
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 18954. (Read 26609613 times)
April 14, 2016, 04:55:20 PM
its just so boring even bitcoinwisdom couldnt be arsed any more..
April 14, 2016, 04:21:15 PM
5
April 14, 2016, 04:20:20 PM
Anybody have a clue why bitcoinwisdom isn't working? (not updating)
Are you talking about the App on the Iphone, or some other thing?
For several months, I had noticed that sometimes on the iphone the bitcoinwisdom app does not update right away and you can switch between settings in order to force a loading of an update of the price... I'm not very technical, so I don't know why, but I know that kind of failure to update the price has been happening for me for quite a long time on the iphone app.... and sometimes I switch between bitcoinwisdom and the zeroblock app in order to verify the current price... since the zeroblock app seems to update more quickly.
No, on the web.
I'm always tracking price on there but the ticker is not updating for some reason, but I guess it'll come back.
April 14, 2016, 04:03:18 PM
Aztecminer, in the real world what you say makes sense, with the assumption that you are expecting to make money from the clients that will be using your infrastructure.
Someone is paying you 100$ per month, you get 20$ profit, you are ok with the upgrade costs - otherwise you go out of business. Right?
You are not selling your services for near zero cost. If you did, and you had almost infinite demand as a result, needing upgrades to cope with near infinite demand and near infinite abuse (from the near zero cost situation), you would not upgrade anything. You'd just say "this is ridiculous, I'm going bust".
Your priority would definitely not be to service near-zero-cost users and abusers but to make it viable (=fee market).
If people say that your network or data center services "don't scale" and that the small guy who wanted your hosting services for 2 cents is "excluded" you'd tell them "cry me a river and fuck off".
Why do you want to have something different when bitcoin is concerned? Why should the priority of bitcoin be to service near-zero-cost users and abusers - and do so by upgrading constantly (=giving them more space to abuse, increasing the costs for everyone) with zero tangible benefits? Why do you want to turn the network into an economic amplification attack for those who service it? Why do you want to do with it what you wouldn't do for your own company?
There is a significant distinction between "this is an infrastructure that is used and paid and we must upgrade it" and "this is an infrastructure which is already abused due to the extremely low cost of use - so it doesn't make any sense to give, say, x100 space to the abusers".
Still, the abusers will have their near-zero-cost party, as the upgrades are coming soon and will "relieve" them of the enormous costs of sub 0.02$ fees that they are now using to spam the network
Someone is paying you 100$ per month, you get 20$ profit, you are ok with the upgrade costs - otherwise you go out of business. Right?
You are not selling your services for near zero cost. If you did, and you had almost infinite demand as a result, needing upgrades to cope with near infinite demand and near infinite abuse (from the near zero cost situation), you would not upgrade anything. You'd just say "this is ridiculous, I'm going bust".
Your priority would definitely not be to service near-zero-cost users and abusers but to make it viable (=fee market).
If people say that your network or data center services "don't scale" and that the small guy who wanted your hosting services for 2 cents is "excluded" you'd tell them "cry me a river and fuck off".
Why do you want to have something different when bitcoin is concerned? Why should the priority of bitcoin be to service near-zero-cost users and abusers - and do so by upgrading constantly (=giving them more space to abuse, increasing the costs for everyone) with zero tangible benefits? Why do you want to turn the network into an economic amplification attack for those who service it? Why do you want to do with it what you wouldn't do for your own company?
There is a significant distinction between "this is an infrastructure that is used and paid and we must upgrade it" and "this is an infrastructure which is already abused due to the extremely low cost of use - so it doesn't make any sense to give, say, x100 space to the abusers".
Still, the abusers will have their near-zero-cost party, as the upgrades are coming soon and will "relieve" them of the enormous costs of sub 0.02$ fees that they are now using to spam the network
April 14, 2016, 03:54:51 PM
Anybody have a clue why bitcoinwisdom isn't working? (not updating)
Are you talking about the App on the Iphone, or some other thing?
For several months, I had noticed that sometimes on the iphone the bitcoinwisdom app does not update right away and you can switch between settings in order to force a loading of an update of the price... I'm not very technical, so I don't know why, but I know that kind of failure to update the price has been happening for me for quite a long time on the iphone app.... and sometimes I switch between bitcoinwisdom and the zeroblock app in order to verify the current price... since the zeroblock app seems to update more quickly.
April 14, 2016, 03:48:05 PM
The eyes rolling is mutual..... and your cut and paste provides further proof about how retarded you are that you cannot formulate your thoughts in order to apply such thoughts (if any) towards what is going at this moment and in this situation. Go figure.
yeah i need reformulate and regurgitate it a third time cuz your synoptic pruning deleted your memory cells used to retrieve the data from the last time i told you this same thing. i'm thinking maybe it is a white matter disconnect is why you can't understand it that you require me to reformulate it for you. the part of your brain that perceives the writing in this forum is not communicating effectively with that part of the brain that actually THINKS.
Your further elaboration makes little to no sense.
You are criticizing me for not thinking, but at least I am not cutting and pasting my previous quotes as if that responds to a current post.
To attempt to convert this line of discussion into something a bit more relevant to bitcoin prices, I am looking forward to the day in the likely very near future in which bitcoin prices break through your self-described $500 "ceiling." hahahahhaha
I can already predict you changing your story when you are obvious going wrong with your lame, ill-conceive, conspiratorial and lacking of insight perspective.
I can already anticipate you asserting that you were right all along, even though you are obvious and clearly predicting BTC to be incapable of going passed $500. See more at lame.ztec.ex.miner.com
April 14, 2016, 03:20:23 PM
And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:
It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks. All that matters is what the average transaction fee is. Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks. Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks. Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.
IQ's dropped sharply round here it seems. Anyone suggesting blocks being full is not a problem and those raising it are 'stupid fucks' is being naive in the extreme. Focusing on the transaction fee is absolutely irrelevant. If my transaction won't confirm because transaction fees have risen by 2c from my last transaction - due to full blocks and rising network demand - stating the transaction fee average is low isn't much use to me because bitcoin isn't working as a payment system.
For bitcoin to succeed as a base payment ledger for the internet it needs to be functional and work for end users. You know, the guys who actually give it value. There is a lot of melodrama in this debate. But the minute bitcoin becomes persistently unreliable as a payment network with no realistic proposition of resolution and alternative chains or payment media which do not suffer the same problems, then it's market cap will take a dive of epic proportions.
+1.. the entire 2017 argument is them admitting they are going to do nothing other than kick the can further down the road. we were told this time last year that the fix would be in early this year, yet here we are and your telling us next year is the real deal.. this time your really going to increase the blocks.. promise.. cuz testnet.. segwit.. fees is all that matters.. schnorrt lines... #hardfork2017
You are retarded.
Nobody promised anything, and nobody is promising anything.
There are various developments in the works, as we all know.. including seg wit, and seg wit is currently in testing.. and segwit is likely going to be released soon (unless there is some kind of problematic issue discovered in testing that delays its release).
Helrow?
I would rather have something not released, if there are problems, than to have it released with problems. I believe that a month or two ago, there were some
minor problems with seg wit; however, I believe that those problems were considered to be minor because they were easily fixed. Recently, I have not heard about any problems with seg wit, and I am presuming if there were any significant problems, we would be hearing left, right and center about such problems from the various seem to be bitcoin obstructionists (which seem to include a vast majority of those XT/Classic supporters).
third time i posted this to you: i have the same response as the last two times.
Quote
we were told fix would beginning of this year over a year ago.. they are holding back the fix.... according to you the fix is in the next couple years. whatever.. keep convincing yourself. let me refer back to the problem with your thought process here:
March 30th 2016 i posted:
you know what ?? i have several hardware servers that are over six year old technology.. they run great still, they are Dell 2950 1U servers.. i have mostly migrated everything from those six year old servers and replaced with virtual servers or new hardware server, except for one server. it is running some accounting and product tracking software for one the companies i maintain. the company is totally reliant upon their accounting and product tracking software, if it goes down they are fukd, cant do business until it is back up.. i look at this six year old server and it has an amber light on it.. that means something might be going wrong..i look and see the battery is dead on the perc raid controller card.. np no big deal .. fukit i don't expect anything bad to happen to this server, it has been running great for six years. i can see something is wrong with the perc card but it seems to not be causing an issue to the accounting software.. fukit, i'm just going to leave the accounting software on this six year old server .. i aint gonna do anything about it.. why should i ?? i dont expect anything bad to happen.
that is how you are looking at things. this is where experience with technology comes into play.. i'm not leaving the six year old server like that. instead of waiting until that six year old server dies, i decided to spin up a virtual server and will migrate the accounting software to this new virtual server. here is the kicker: i am going to do this BEFORE my six year old server with the blinking amber light has a fatal hardware error and brings that accounting software down and that entire company to a grinding halt.. today i know its just a bad battery on the perc card, what if tomorrow that perc card goes bad ?? the point is, from an engineering viewpoint, u dont wait when u see a problem developing just because in YOUR OPINION and YOUR EXPECTATIONS that nothing bad is going to happen. in technology, it is more likely than not that something bad is going to happen. we don't take the risk, because if we do and the something bad happens then u have a company losing money every single day they cannot operate.
your veiwpoint is the reason why i do not allow programmers to fuk with hardware. programmers are just smart enough to be dangerous.. as we have seen with bitcoin, the programmers are doing the dangerous thing, they are waiting and taking that risk that nothing bad is going to happen.
The eyes rolling is mutual..... and your cut and paste provides further proof about how retarded you are that you cannot formulate your thoughts in order to apply such thoughts (if any) towards what is going at this moment and in this situation. Go figure.
yeah i need reformulate and regurgitate it a third time cuz your synoptic pruning deleted your memory cells used to retrieve the data from the last time i told you this same thing. i'm thinking maybe it is a white matter disconnect is why you can't understand it that you require me to reformulate it for you. the part of your brain that perceives the writing in this forum is not communicating effectively with that part of the brain that actually THINKS.
April 14, 2016, 03:08:58 PM
Anybody have a clue why bitcoinwisdom isn't working? (not updating)
April 14, 2016, 02:56:33 PM
And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:
It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks. All that matters is what the average transaction fee is. Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks. Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks. Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.
IQ's dropped sharply round here it seems. Anyone suggesting blocks being full is not a problem and those raising it are 'stupid fucks' is being naive in the extreme. Focusing on the transaction fee is absolutely irrelevant. If my transaction won't confirm because transaction fees have risen by 2c from my last transaction - due to full blocks and rising network demand - stating the transaction fee average is low isn't much use to me because bitcoin isn't working as a payment system.
For bitcoin to succeed as a base payment ledger for the internet it needs to be functional and work for end users. You know, the guys who actually give it value. There is a lot of melodrama in this debate. But the minute bitcoin becomes persistently unreliable as a payment network with no realistic proposition of resolution and alternative chains or payment media which do not suffer the same problems, then it's market cap will take a dive of epic proportions.
+1.. the entire 2017 argument is them admitting they are going to do nothing other than kick the can further down the road. we were told this time last year that the fix would be in early this year, yet here we are and your telling us next year is the real deal.. this time your really going to increase the blocks.. promise.. cuz testnet.. segwit.. fees is all that matters.. schnorrt lines... #hardfork2017
You are retarded.
Nobody promised anything, and nobody is promising anything.
There are various developments in the works, as we all know.. including seg wit, and seg wit is currently in testing.. and segwit is likely going to be released soon (unless there is some kind of problematic issue discovered in testing that delays its release).
Helrow?
I would rather have something not released, if there are problems, than to have it released with problems. I believe that a month or two ago, there were some
minor problems with seg wit; however, I believe that those problems were considered to be minor because they were easily fixed. Recently, I have not heard about any problems with seg wit, and I am presuming if there were any significant problems, we would be hearing left, right and center about such problems from the various seem to be bitcoin obstructionists (which seem to include a vast majority of those XT/Classic supporters).
third time i posted this to you: i have the same response as the last two times.
Quote
we were told fix would beginning of this year over a year ago.. they are holding back the fix.... according to you the fix is in the next couple years. whatever.. keep convincing yourself. let me refer back to the problem with your thought process here:
March 30th 2016 i posted:
you know what ?? i have several hardware servers that are over six year old technology.. they run great still, they are Dell 2950 1U servers.. i have mostly migrated everything from those six year old servers and replaced with virtual servers or new hardware server, except for one server. it is running some accounting and product tracking software for one the companies i maintain. the company is totally reliant upon their accounting and product tracking software, if it goes down they are fukd, cant do business until it is back up.. i look at this six year old server and it has an amber light on it.. that means something might be going wrong..i look and see the battery is dead on the perc raid controller card.. np no big deal .. fukit i don't expect anything bad to happen to this server, it has been running great for six years. i can see something is wrong with the perc card but it seems to not be causing an issue to the accounting software.. fukit, i'm just going to leave the accounting software on this six year old server .. i aint gonna do anything about it.. why should i ?? i dont expect anything bad to happen.
that is how you are looking at things. this is where experience with technology comes into play.. i'm not leaving the six year old server like that. instead of waiting until that six year old server dies, i decided to spin up a virtual server and will migrate the accounting software to this new virtual server. here is the kicker: i am going to do this BEFORE my six year old server with the blinking amber light has a fatal hardware error and brings that accounting software down and that entire company to a grinding halt.. today i know its just a bad battery on the perc card, what if tomorrow that perc card goes bad ?? the point is, from an engineering viewpoint, u dont wait when u see a problem developing just because in YOUR OPINION and YOUR EXPECTATIONS that nothing bad is going to happen. in technology, it is more likely than not that something bad is going to happen. we don't take the risk, because if we do and the something bad happens then u have a company losing money every single day they cannot operate.
your veiwpoint is the reason why i do not allow programmers to fuk with hardware. programmers are just smart enough to be dangerous.. as we have seen with bitcoin, the programmers are doing the dangerous thing, they are waiting and taking that risk that nothing bad is going to happen.
The eyes rolling is mutual..... and your cut and paste provides further proof about how retarded you are that you cannot formulate your thoughts in order to apply such thoughts (if any) towards what is going at this moment and in this situation. Go figure.
April 14, 2016, 02:43:56 PM
And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:
It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks. All that matters is what the average transaction fee is. Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks. Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks. Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.
IQ's dropped sharply round here it seems. Anyone suggesting blocks being full is not a problem and those raising it are 'stupid fucks' is being naive in the extreme. Focusing on the transaction fee is absolutely irrelevant. If my transaction won't confirm because transaction fees have risen by 2c from my last transaction - due to full blocks and rising network demand - stating the transaction fee average is low isn't much use to me because bitcoin isn't working as a payment system.
For bitcoin to succeed as a base payment ledger for the internet it needs to be functional and work for end users. You know, the guys who actually give it value. There is a lot of melodrama in this debate. But the minute bitcoin becomes persistently unreliable as a payment network with no realistic proposition of resolution and alternative chains or payment media which do not suffer the same problems, then it's market cap will take a dive of epic proportions.
+1.. the entire 2017 argument is them admitting they are going to do nothing other than kick the can further down the road. we were told this time last year that the fix would be in early this year, yet here we are and your telling us next year is the real deal.. this time your really going to increase the blocks.. promise.. cuz testnet.. segwit.. fees is all that matters.. schnorrt lines... #hardfork2017
You are retarded.
Nobody promised anything, and nobody is promising anything.
There are various developments in the works, as we all know.. including seg wit, and seg wit is currently in testing.. and segwit is likely going to be released soon (unless there is some kind of problematic issue discovered in testing that delays its release).
Helrow?
I would rather have something not released, if there are problems, than to have it released with problems. I believe that a month or two ago, there were some
minor problems with seg wit; however, I believe that those problems were considered to be minor because they were easily fixed. Recently, I have not heard about any problems with seg wit, and I am presuming if there were any significant problems, we would be hearing left, right and center about such problems from the various seem to be bitcoin obstructionists (which seem to include a vast majority of those XT/Classic supporters).
third time i posted this to you: i have the same response as the last two times.
Quote
we were told fix would beginning of this year over a year ago.. they are holding back the fix.... according to you the fix is in the next couple years. whatever.. keep convincing yourself. let me refer back to the problem with your thought process here:
March 30th 2016 i posted:
you know what ?? i have several hardware servers that are over six year old technology.. they run great still, they are Dell 2950 1U servers.. i have mostly migrated everything from those six year old servers and replaced with virtual servers or new hardware server, except for one server. it is running some accounting and product tracking software for one the companies i maintain. the company is totally reliant upon their accounting and product tracking software, if it goes down they are fukd, cant do business until it is back up.. i look at this six year old server and it has an amber light on it.. that means something might be going wrong..i look and see the battery is dead on the perc raid controller card.. np no big deal .. fukit i don't expect anything bad to happen to this server, it has been running great for six years. i can see something is wrong with the perc card but it seems to not be causing an issue to the accounting software.. fukit, i'm just going to leave the accounting software on this six year old server .. i aint gonna do anything about it.. why should i ?? i dont expect anything bad to happen.
that is how you are looking at things. this is where experience with technology comes into play.. i'm not leaving the six year old server like that. instead of waiting until that six year old server dies, i decided to spin up a virtual server and will migrate the accounting software to this new virtual server. here is the kicker: i am going to do this BEFORE my six year old server with the blinking amber light has a fatal hardware error and brings that accounting software down and that entire company to a grinding halt.. today i know its just a bad battery on the perc card, what if tomorrow that perc card goes bad ?? the point is, from an engineering viewpoint, u dont wait when u see a problem developing just because in YOUR OPINION and YOUR EXPECTATIONS that nothing bad is going to happen. in technology, it is more likely than not that something bad is going to happen. we don't take the risk, because if we do and the something bad happens then u have a company losing money every single day they cannot operate.
your veiwpoint is the reason why i do not allow programmers to fuk with hardware. programmers are just smart enough to be dangerous.. as we have seen with bitcoin, the programmers are doing the dangerous thing, they are waiting and taking that risk that nothing bad is going to happen.
April 14, 2016, 02:16:23 PM
The price is flatlining at 425 in this huge flag. Meanwhile the typically popular fora are deathly quiet echo chambers. Where is the new money to drive the next bubble?
April 14, 2016, 01:59:08 PM
Today bought 7 bitcoins , I believe I can fly.
April 14, 2016, 11:54:52 AM
And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:
It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks. All that matters is what the average transaction fee is. Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks. Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks. Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.
IQ's dropped sharply round here it seems. Anyone suggesting blocks being full is not a problem and those raising it are 'stupid fucks' is being naive in the extreme. Focusing on the transaction fee is absolutely irrelevant. If my transaction won't confirm because transaction fees have risen by 2c from my last transaction - due to full blocks and rising network demand - stating the transaction fee average is low isn't much use to me because bitcoin isn't working as a payment system.
For bitcoin to succeed as a base payment ledger for the internet it needs to be functional and work for end users. You know, the guys who actually give it value. There is a lot of melodrama in this debate. But the minute bitcoin becomes persistently unreliable as a payment network with no realistic proposition of resolution and alternative chains or payment media which do not suffer the same problems, then it's market cap will take a dive of epic proportions.
+1.. the entire 2017 argument is them admitting they are going to do nothing other than kick the can further down the road. we were told this time last year that the fix would be in early this year, yet here we are and your telling us next year is the real deal.. this time your really going to increase the blocks.. promise.. cuz testnet.. segwit.. fees is all that matters.. schnorrt lines... #hardfork2017
You are retarded.
Nobody promised anything, and nobody is promising anything.
There are various developments in the works, as we all know.. including seg wit, and seg wit is currently in testing.. and segwit is likely going to be released soon (unless there is some kind of problematic issue discovered in testing that delays its release).
Helrow?
I would rather have something not released, if there are problems, than to have it released with problems. I believe that a month or two ago, there were some
minor problems with seg wit; however, I believe that those problems were considered to be minor because they were easily fixed. Recently, I have not heard about any problems with seg wit, and I am presuming if there were any significant problems, we would be hearing left, right and center about such problems from the various seem to be bitcoin obstructionists (which seem to include a vast majority of those XT/Classic supporters).
April 14, 2016, 10:07:41 AM
And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:
It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks. All that matters is what the average transaction fee is. Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks. Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks. Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.
IQ's dropped sharply round here it seems. Anyone suggesting blocks being full is not a problem and those raising it are 'stupid fucks' is being naive in the extreme. Focusing on the transaction fee is absolutely irrelevant. If my transaction won't confirm because transaction fees have risen by 2c from my last transaction - due to full blocks and rising network demand - stating the transaction fee average is low isn't much use to me because bitcoin isn't working as a payment system.
For bitcoin to succeed as a base payment ledger for the internet it needs to be functional and work for end users. You know, the guys who actually give it value. There is a lot of melodrama in this debate. But the minute bitcoin becomes persistently unreliable as a payment network with no realistic proposition of resolution and alternative chains or payment media which do not suffer the same problems, then it's market cap will take a dive of epic proportions.
+1.. the entire 2017 argument is them admitting they are going to do nothing other than kick the can further down the road. we were told this time last year that the fix would be in early this year, yet here we are and your telling us next year is the real deal.. this time your really going to increase the blocks.. promise.. cuz testnet.. segwit.. fees is all that matters.. schnorrt lines... #hardfork2017
April 14, 2016, 10:03:03 AM
Good morning Bitcoinland.
Yet another day, another $425. Ho freaking hum.
Yet another day, another $425. Ho freaking hum.
April 14, 2016, 06:35:42 AM
What are the origins of segwit? Was it long proposed as a nice idea by multiple people or did it arrive out of nowhere from a single source and tickle everyone pink?
Supposedly began as seeking a solution to malleability.
April 14, 2016, 06:06:23 AM
What are the origins of segwit? Was it long proposed as a nice idea by multiple people or did it arrive out of nowhere from a single source and tickle everyone pink?
April 14, 2016, 06:04:08 AM
SegWit is riskier than a 2MB hard fork because it is a more radical change to the protocol.
I'm starting to believe you're an actual banker shill from constantly repeating stuff like this. Segwit is needed for SPV fraud proofs and malleability regardless of what you think block size should be. Even the Gavinator, lord of the 20MB block says it's needed, so what are you smoking typing stuff like this?
blocks are almost full! we should fork to 200GB blocks!
https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/blocks?sort=size
EDIT: Gavin himself did a test up to 500GB. so no issues expected. just let's do it. better we destroy Bitcoin now.
April 14, 2016, 05:59:34 AM
SegWit is riskier than a 2MB hard fork because it is a more radical change to the protocol.
I'm starting to believe you're an actual banker shill from constantly repeating stuff like this. Segwit is needed for SPV fraud proofs and malleability regardless of what you think block size should be. Even the Gavinator, lord of the 20MB block says it's needed, so what are you smoking typing stuff like this? Did Lambchop buy this account?
April 14, 2016, 05:26:49 AM
I ALWAYS wanted Theymos to encourage brown people to speak nonsensical english spamming some scammers signature
Hold on to your hats gentlemen, don't think I won't buy this shithole of a forum off theymos in the future and Make Bitcointalk Great Again!
Hold on to your hats gentlemen, don't think I won't buy this shithole of a forum off theymos in the future and Make Bitcointalk Great Again!
i can find white people with brown speakable language : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTtxnW9JkB4
Jump to: