Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is anyone else starting to become a bit worried? mod note in first post
Options
Comments
-
makeorbrake wrote: »You made a statement and it's been dispelled as nonsense. So now you're coming back with secondary nonsense? If blockchain doesn't have a role to play in supply chain, why is it being used by a broad range of private companies in supply chain?
Eh, I'll place my btc where I want thank you very much. Your 'random worthless tokens' jibe is your own deal.
I've asked the question here before but have yet to get a response: why would any company incorporate into their systems a pre-existing coin that would cause cash to flow to coin holders when they could just create their own blockchain? That's 95% of the conversation on this forum is it not? Buying random coins? It hasn't happened and it won't happen because it would be idiotic.
Why do you constantly name-drop legitimate companies and financial institutions here to push your agenda? This is misappropriation of their long established reputations in order to fuel the blockchain hype, and a favoured technique of con artists. And that's where ultimately you're getting this information isn't it? I see the very same articles and videos popping up when I look up something related to bitcoin but whereas I dismiss them for the drivel they are, you recycle them here as if you're some sage revealing secret knowledge.
In my comment about the orange I was highlighting the flawed assumption of the hype merchants of "the internet of things" that some kind of immutable synchresis will be formed between the blockchain and the objects, whether they be antiques or a piece of meat, and that definitive verification will be possible.
It is not possible to merge the physical and abstract in this way.
In practice, a blockchain introduced into a logistics system might only be a marginal improvement over what's currently available.0 -
https://dailyhodl.com/prepare-for-58000-bitcoin-worth-430-million-to-be-dumped-on-the-open-market-says-crypto-analyst/
This could be fairly hilarious.
2k incoming followed by a massive pump.. set the buy orders0 -
https://dailyhodl.com/prepare-for-58000-bitcoin-worth-430-million-to-be-dumped-on-the-open-market-says-crypto-analyst/
This could be fairly hilarious.
Pessimistic view: run, many indicators are already showing red and the market is gonna crash.
Optimistic view: if someone has been dumping 129,000 BTC over the past few weeks and while prices dropped the market didn’t completely collapse; we can probably probably go through another 58,000 BTC, and once that guy is done dumping (around the time of halving), the supply reduction shock could be interesting.0 -
-
I've asked the question here before but have yet to get a response: why would any company incorporate into their systems a pre-existing coin that would cause cash to flow to coin holders when they could just create their own blockchain?
It's a lie that you 'have yet to get a response'. Some corporations might use their own coin - but you discount that also as you say that blockchain isn't being adopted (until it was pointed out to you that it is).
Others may feel that there's little point or need if there's a coin in existence that ticks all the boxes for the use case they are looking at. You could apply this 'logic' of yours to anything. I mean, a company could choose to do absolutely everything in-house - but it doesn't. It usually sticks to its core business and core competence. If you're IBM, you may look to using your own coin - but not every entity has the resources of big blue. And yet, even it has been running services via the Stellar network - go figure.
In the banking industry, should every bank run their own blockchain? JP Morgan are looking to launch their own yet 200 odd banks have signed up with Ripple/XRP.
Your thinking seems to be that entities will go out of their way to make sure that these dastardly speculators have their asses handed to them. They won't. They don't give a monkeys. They will use blockchain networks if there's utility in that for them. If there's utility, it will drive demand in the coin. If the coin price is higher, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to them - and no, they're not going to necessarily go out and construct their own blockchain network with the sole rationale of ensuring that the token has no value.
This sub-forum falls under the 'investments and markets' category - so yes, people are speculating here. What of it?That's 95% of the conversation on this forum is it not?
Random? The 'random' bit you've introduced yourself. It suggests that there is no difference between one coin and another. That's not the case.Buying random coins?
That's your belief and you're entitled to it. However, I disagree entirely. What I would say is that the only thing 'idiotic' is to be as close-minded as this on the topic.It hasn't happened and it won't happen because it would be idiotic.
WTF are you talking about? In a broad-sweeping statement you dissed blockchain tech generally - whilst suggesting that it couldn't possibly be used by anyone. Within that context, I mentioned a few of the worlds biggest corporations in retail who are using the tech right now. That's completely legitimate and doesn't push any 'agenda'.Why do you constantly name-drop legitimate companies and financial institutions here to push your agenda?
Its confirmation that you have no credibility in this discussion. The only misappropriation that's going on if you carry on with this is the use of logic on your part. Your theory was debunked. You are suggesting that Walmart and Carrefour have tarnished their reputations by using blockchain. Really, Sabat? :rolleyes:This is misappropriation of their long established reputations in order to fuel the blockchain hype
Are you saying then that I'm a 'con artist' by participating in a discussion on a new technology that I feel has considerable merit? That makes a lot of sense alright, doesn't it.and a favoured technique of con artists.
The arrogance. You're turning your nose up at the opinions of others and their ability to be objective about the information that they come across. There's bias and prejudice in media that has been both opposed and in favour of this tech. As regards me personally, I'm fortunate enough that I talk directly to people who are innovating in this space on a weekly basis.And that's where ultimately you're getting this information isn't it? I see the very same articles and videos popping up when I look up something related to bitcoin but whereas I dismiss them for the drivel they are, you recycle them here as if you're some sage revealing secret knowledge.
Lets look at your own 'sage' advice... You've said in the past that Bitcoin was a bubble and that it was done for as there couldn't possibly be another mortal soul who would invest a bean in it. Explain then how a year later, it reached $14,000? The answer is that you were plain wrong. It's not done for.
You've also suggested that Bitcoin isn't scarce. You've been happy to throw around 'idiotic' - well have some of that for yourself - because it's idiotic to even suggest that.
Your comment about what??In my comment about the orange ...
And to you, anyone who holds the opposite opinion is a 'hype merchant', right?....I was highlighting the flawed assumption of the hype merchants
So are we to take it that not only do you not believe that blockchain brings anything to the table, IoT is a pointless technology also?of "the internet of things"
If you are saying that a blockchain is only as good as the information thats input onto it, sure - all day long. However, that doesn't dispel the value of blockchain as a technology. Blockchain provides immutability, decentralisation, security and transparency. It facilitates verification and trust without having to be reliant on third parties.that some kind of immutable synchresis will be formed between the blockchain and the objects, whether they be antiques or a piece of meat, and that definitive verification will be possible. It is not possible to merge the physical and abstract in this way. In practice, a blockchain introduced into a logistics system might only be a marginal improvement over what's currently available.0 -
Advertisement
-
Finally managed to scroll past all the text to the reply box.
Worryingly low volume for the past few days. And terrible liquidity. No one buying apart from a few brainlets ‘stacking sats’.0 -
Year end bonus this week, plowing it all into Bitcoin.
More or less at my goal amount of it after that. Stacking cash in 2020.0 -
I'd keep my powder dry InstaSte. Crypto markets are melting away and looking very Bearish. Several problems at the moment, but by far the worst is the complete lack of interest. No real excitement, too many failed or abandoned projects which still have huge market caps. Just have a look at all those Alt coins sub the CMC top 10, the likes of Neo once hailed as the Ethereum of China now more or less abandoned yet has a market cap of €500 million :eek: And that's not the worst of them.
The few worthwhile projects with developers are been dragged down too.
Seems there's a complete lack of direction coming from Bitcoin, it's only use case is as a store of wealth but the problem with that is many investors are uneasy about forking out $7k for Bitcoin when Gold hasn't followed. Given the choice Gold is seen as more secure.
This needs a big correction, and all of those failed/abandoned projects to be cleared and let die.0 -
makeorbrake wrote: »Blockchain provides immutability, decentralisation, security and transparency. It facilitates verification and trust without having to be reliant on third parties.
That simply is not true.
immutability - 51% hacks happen on a regular bases on many of the Bitcoin forks
decentralisation - Nope, the strongest network Bitcoin is heavily centralised and at the mercy of the miners
security - Depends on the strength of the network, the protocol, the trust of the developers
transparency -LOL yeah point that out to all the exchanges using tether.
Come on guys less of the shilling and lets keep an open mind here0 -
Christ on a bike! The 'BItcoin forks' I couldn't personally give a f$&k about. So you have a a hard on for 51%attacks? It's clear as night and day that a network needs to be at a certain level of activity and size to stave off the threat of a 51% attack. That does NOT disqualify immutability as a feature of Blockchain.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »That simply is not true.
immutability - 51% hacks happen on a regular bases on many of the Bitcoin forks
You're referring to bitcoin here and you can peddle that garbage somewhere else. Tell me what effect this 'miner centralisation' could have in real terms? What **** could they possibly pull because miners are not the only stakeholders.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »decentralisation - Nope, the strongest network Bitcoin is heavily centralised and at the mercy of the miners
So what you're saying is that I'm quite right but every project has to be assessed on its own merits? Who ever said differently.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »security - Depends on the strength of the network, the protocol, the trust of the developers
Lol? How about GTF? Blockchain can provide transparency - that's the point that was made. Your specific jibe at Tether doesn't change that.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »transparency -LOL yeah point that out to all the exchanges using tether.Kickstart1.3 wrote: ».
Come on guys less of the shilling and lets keep an open mind here
How about screw your inaccurate shilling jibe. Trolling seems to be what you're about..and in the slim circumstance that's not the case, then time for you to hit the books.0 -
Advertisement
-
makeorbrake wrote: »Christ on a bike! The 'BItcoin forks' I couldn't personally give a f$&k about. So you have a a hard on for 51%attacks? It's clear as night and day that a network needs to be at a certain level of activity and size to stave off the threat of a 51% attack. That does NOT disqualify immutability as a feature of Blockchain.
You're referring to bitcoin here and you can peddle that garbage somewhere else. Tell me what effect this 'miner centralisation' could have in real terms? What **** could they possibly pull because miners are not the only stakeholders.
So what you're saying is that I'm quite right but every project has to be assessed on its own merits? Who ever said differently.
Lol? How about GTF? Blockchain can provide transparency - that's the point that was made. Your specific jibe at Tether doesn't change that.
How about screw you and your inaccurate shilling jibe. Trolling seems to be what you're about..and in the slim circumstance that's not the case, then time for you to hit the books.
Nearly all the blockchain technology is based on some form of Bitcoin fork or clone. That being the case these networks are not strong and are vulnerable to 51% attacks. And even though you might not care or think its relevant, just think what might happen to a blockchain that could be altered.
Mind you that's not the only form of attack that can happen these networks. Mem-pools are very vulnerable on a weak network. The clients themselves are vulnerable too.
Miners can do what they like. So as in the case of Bitcoin they have grinded development to a snails pace. They have refused numerous protocol changes that would have benefited every other stakeholder but themselves. Yes they are not the only stakeholders but they do call the shots
Not much point being transparent if it can be altered. If a Blockchain can be altered then immutability doesn't exist.
Tether is 4th or 5th largest Crypto by market cap. It is by far the largest by volume traded. It is fundamental to every Exchange yet transparency doesn't exist with tether.
Its still the Elephant in the room.
I'm not saying that these will not get sorted, they will in time but at this moment it simply is not the case.
And yes people are shilling here all the time yourself included0 -
Money is nothing but that, money.
Happy to throw it away once I've a roof over the head.
Things may well go to 3/4 k but the 40% pump to over 19k a few weeks back means anything is possible.
Dry powder from 1/1/20 however, time to be a grown up.0 -
I think the apparent lack of interest at the minute is because people don't want it to blow up before the halving.
Generally accepted it will moon late 2020, no reason to shill it before the when you can accumulate at these prices.0 -
If you want to talk about specific Blockchain networks or projects then have at it. You took me to task on a point I made regarding the technology generally - encompassing everything from enterprise Blockchain to fully decentralised. If you are claiming that all of this in its entirety can be challenged in terms of 51% attacks , then you're just plain wrong.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »Nearly all the blockchain technology is based on some form of Bitcoin fork or clone. That being the case these networks are not strong and are vulnerable to 51% attacks. And even though you might not care or think its relevant, just think what might happen to a blockchain that could be altered.
Mind you that's not the only form of attack that can happen these networks. Mem-pools are very vulnerable on a weak network. The clients themselves are vulnerable too.
Miners can do what they like? So can we all - exactly that. Secondly, what are their motivations going to be? We've been through all this already - road tested over 11 years. Bear in mind you are making this claim across ALL Blockchain when that simply doesn't apply.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »Miners can do what they like. So as in the case of Bitcoin they have grinded development to a snails pace. They have refused numerous protocol changes that would have benefited every other stakeholder but themselves. Yes they are not the only stakeholders but they do call the shots
No you don't...you don't get to roll back on that on the basis of some other claim.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »Not much point being transparent if it can be altered. If a Blockchain can be altered then immutability doesn't exist.
Tether is 4th or 5th largest Crypto by market cap. It is by far the largest by volume traded. It is fundamental to every Exchange yet transparency doesn't exist with tether.
Its still the Elephant in the room.
If you want to have a go at Tether, have at it! But Tether doesn't define Blockchain. Secondly, where it does come into play is the markets end of crypto - that doesn't come into play with the actual use case for Blockchain - the very thing that you attacked.
With Tether, you are making my point for me - there are all types of crypto and Blockchain networks. They all have to be weighed up on their own merits and chosen carefully to fit a precise use case.
Screw your accusations - accusations that are based on untruths as laid out above. This board alone is not going to sway jack so there's no reason to 'shill' anything. In fact quite the opposite ... because of yet another shift towards doom and gloom which you're playing a part in right here, I and others will collect once again on the flipside. Notwithstanding that, when you start making 'shilling' claims, you'll then have the impossible task of backing them up.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »And yes people are shilling here all the time yourself included
Bottom line here is that 'blockchain' is capable of all that I claimed. I didn't say that was all necessarily all rolled in to one neat little network but then I didn't need to.0 -
makeorbrake wrote: »If you want to talk about specific Blockchain networks or projects then have at it. You took me to task on a point I made regarding the technology generally - encompassing everything from enterprise Blockchain to fully decentralised. If you are claiming that all of this in its entirety can be challenged in terms of 51% attacks , then you're just plain wrong.
No I'm not wrong. For a decentralised network to come to consensus then the majority have to be in agreement hence any miner or bad actor with 51% or more of the network hash rate can attack the blockchain
Money. You must think they do it for the good of their health!Miners can do what they like? So can we all - exactly that. Secondly, what are their motivations going to be? We've been through all this already - road tested over 11 years. Bear in mind you are making this claim across ALL Blockchain when that simply doesn't apply.No you don't...you don't get to roll back on that on the basis of some other claim.
If you want to have a go at Tether, have at it! But Tether doesn't define Blockchain. Secondly, where it does come into play is the markets end of crypto - that doesn't come into play with the actual use case for Blockchain - the very thing that you attacked.
With Tether, you are making my point for me - there are all types of crypto and Blockchain networks. They all have to be weighed up on their own merits and chosen carefully to fit a precise use case.
Tether is at the crux of all Exchanges. No visibility.
You don't get to dismiss it as not being part of blockchain. Bitcoin the original blockchain has been menaced by tether. If tether can be mustered out of thin air then how can any other project find a true value.Screw your accusations - accusations that are based on untruths as laid out above. This board alone is not going to sway jack so there's no reason to 'shill' anything. In fact quite the opposite ... because of yet another shift towards doom and gloom which you're playing a part in right here, I and others will collect once again on the flipside. Notwithstanding that, when you start making 'shilling' claims, you'll then have the impossible task of backing them up.
Bottom line here is that 'blockchain' is capable of all that I claimed. I didn't say that was all necessarily all rolled in to one neat little network but then I didn't need to.
This is shilling. It only benefits those already hold Bitcoin or are looking to ofload those Alts
Originally Posted by makeorbrake View Post
Blockchain provides immutability, decentralisation, security and transparency. It facilitates verification and trust without having to be reliant on third parties.
Again I'll get back to the original claim that you made is Not true.
To summarise, for a Blockchain be decentralised it must work by some sort of consensus mechanism :- hence if the network isn't robust then immutability security and transparency are not there.
Many of these Blockchains are going to fail or have been abandoned. little or no development on many of the larger market cap coins.
Bitcoin development is choked by the miners and other bad actors such as blockone.
Blockchains that could work are lost in the shilling and speculation bubbles
Have a look at the Tron network ;- down to only 3 people doing any form of development and none have committed anything in the last month!! and this is a No. 12 on CMC valued at €800 million!!
11 years of Bitcoin, the last 7 of which have ground to a development halt.0 -
Kickstart1.3 wrote: »No I'm not wrong. For a decentralised network to come to consensus then the majority have to be in agreement hence any miner or bad actor with 51% or more of the network hash rate can attack the blockchain.
Pay attention a little, maybe. Blockchain was being discussed - not one specific strand of it.
On 51% attacks, I know what a 51% attack is. The point is wtf are they going to do, attack themselves? That makes financial sense alright.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »Money. You must think they do it for the good of their health!
See above. What you're suggesting is that they financially kick themselves in the nads. Furthermore they are but one stakeholder - so what power do they have if everyone tells them to take a hike.
Wrong! I very much do get to dismiss it when you cherry pick specific items in attacking a point I made in relation to Blockchain as an overarching technology.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »Tether is at the crux of all Exchanges. No visibility.
You don't get to dismiss it as not being part of blockchain. Bitcoin the original blockchain has been menaced by tether. If tether can be mustered out of thin air then how can any other project find a true value.
As regards Tether specifically and issues relative to Tether, I brought up the issue here a couple of years ago already. But we were not talking right now about Tether specifically. Furthermore, I mentioned transparency in terms of the recording of data/transactions on a blockchain. You've gone off on a solo run.
You would want to go and learn what shilling actually is before you have the brass neck on you to come along here and accuse people of it!!Kickstart1.3 wrote: »This is shilling. It only benefits those already hold Bitcoin or are looking to ofload those Alts
And I'll go back to telling you that you're plain wrong to cherry pick specific examples in taking down all blockchain tech on this basis.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »Again I'll get back to the original claim that you made is Not true.
.
You can call Bitcoin insecure and claim it's not robust all you want. I don't agree and nor do thousands of others. The situation around mining centralisation is sub optimal but there is no logical grounds for a 51% attack to be carried out.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »To summarise, for a Blockchain be decentralised it must work by some sort of consensus mechanism :- hence if the network isn't robust then immutability security and transparency are not there.
There u go again citing specific blockchains when the point you attacked didn't talk about one specific blockchain. Again, I'm on record here as stating most of these projects will fall by the wayside..not that this should even be brought up by you in this context.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »Many of these Blockchains are going to fail or have been abandoned. little or no development on many of the larger market cap coins.
Have a look at the Tron network ;- down to only 3 people doing any form of development and none have committed anything in the last month!! and this is a No. 12 on CMC valued at €800 million!!.
Bitcoin development is being choked by block one? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense alright. The Bitcoin governance model is geared around slow change not ethereums 'move fast and break things' model.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »Bitcoin development is choked by the miners and other bad actors such as blockone.
So what should have been implemented in those 7 years?Kickstart1.3 wrote: »11 years of Bitcoin, the last 7 of which have ground to a development halt.
The assertion that you attacked remains true. Blockchain is capable of all those items - you citing specific Blockchain network examples of this or that flaw does not change that.
As regards your shilling jibe, if you have a morsel of decency you'll roll that back as I've shilled nothing here.0 -
How much would a 51% attack on BTC cost?0
-
-
@MrBrake
No you are deliberately misleading now
A 51% attack will not currently happen on Bitcoin BUT
since development of the network has been choked the only way to move forward has been to fork the network. It is these forks which are vulnerable and under constant attack not even you can deny this.0 -
Kickstart1.3 wrote: »@MrBrake
No you are deliberately misleading now
I'm not misleading - that seems to be the part that you are playing in this discussion. You've been asked to withdraw your 'shilling' jibe and don't have the decency to do so.Kickstart1.3 wrote: »since development of the network has been choked the only way to move forward has been to fork the network. It is these forks which are vulnerable and under constant attack not even you can deny this.
You can talk about specific 'forks' or blockchain projects or networks until the cows come home. None of that negates or disproves the statement I made on blockchain technology.0 -
Advertisement
-
JohnnyFlash wrote: »Best to use magic dollars
The ones printed as part of QE, for the repo market, or for interest-free loans for the guys at the top of the monetary distribution pyramid? ;-)
The Fed has a magic dollar three indeed!0 -
The ones printed as part QE, for the repo market, or for interest-free loans for the guys at the top of the pyramid? ;-)
The Fed has a magic dollar three indeed!
Stimulating the economy benefits the economy - that is the whole point of QE. Pretty much all money and credit is "created out of thin air", but is backed by a strict process with repercussions if not done correctly or in line with sensible economic, fiscal and monetary policy
Most crypto, as we know, is privately minted, created out of thin air, often with no strict process and at the complete discretion of whomever creates it; individuals, companies, scammers, whoever, thousands of them0 -
Stimulating the economy benefits the economy - that is the whole point of QE. Pretty much all money and credit is "created out of thin air", but is backed by a strict process with repercussions if not done correctly or in line with sensible economic, fiscal and monetary policy
QE is still an experiment that emerged following the 2008 crisis. We've yet to see it's full effects, the ability of state currencies to wean themselves off it etc.
I've no doubt that for currencies and central banks that are more fiscally responsible there's some grounds to have faith in such systems. However, they're still capable of miscalculating and getting it all wrong.
QE and inflation also affect people disproportionately.
Beyond those better performers are a whole host of central banks /governments who have mismanaged their currencies. That's ongoing and there are several examples at any given time. Corporate and decentralised crypto may play a role in ensuring they don't mismanage in the future.
You're talking about a monetary role for crypto so that narrows it down to a handful of digital currencies as it stands right now.Most crypto, as we know, is privately minted, created out of thin air, often with no strict process and at the complete discretion of whomever creates it; individuals, companies, scammers, whoever, thousands of them
Yes anyone can unleash a crypto but they're not all scams, they're not all the same and the presence of a rival coin doesn't necessarily make another crypto less effective.
In the case of bitcoin there is very much a strict process as it's set out from day 1. It doesn't allow tinkering and of course that gets debated back and forth between kenysian and Austrian economic schools of thought as to which works best.0 -
Stimulating the economy benefits the economy - that is the whole point of QE. Pretty much all money and credit is "created out of thin air", but is backed by a strict process with repercussions if not done correctly or in line with sensible economic, fiscal and monetary policy
Sure I understand monetary base expansion and no issue with that in principle. But looking at the chart below I would completely disagree that it was done based om sensible economic and monetary policies since 2008.
0 -
Cryptos are dumping horribly now. Alts taking a real hammering
Whats more worrying is Tether is also negative, this usually means Fiat is being pulled out of the eco-system
The whole market has been bearish since the mid-summer highs. anyone stacking the Sats back then must be getting their nerves tested but that's what hodling is all about
Hard to see where it will end, my worst case predition for Bitcoin is $5000, if it goes below that I'd be surprised
As for some of the Alts their will be no coming back from it (which is no harm btw)0 -
That massive Chinese pyramid scheme unraveling is definitely not helping either.0
-
Bitcoin has little or nothing to do with economics and almost everything to do with people just speculating on the price of a digital asset with a) no intrinsic value b) doesn't produce anything
Which is fine. That's cool, and I'm into that. As long as people recognise it for what it is, rather than some fantasy of what they believe it represents or will become0 -
Bitcoin has little or nothing to do with economics and almost everything to do with people just speculating on the price of a digital asset with a) no intrinsic value b) doesn't produce anything
Which is fine. That's cool, and I'm into that. As long as people recognise it for what it is, rather than some fantasy of what they believe it represents or will become
You're entitled to your opinion as much as the next guy. I get it - you hate the notion of it and the remarkable progress it's made is underpinned by nothing.
That's your fantasy and you're sticking to it. Happy Christmas.0 -
Alts / sh1tcoins dumping nicely against BTC. About time.0
-
Advertisement
-
makeorbrake wrote: »You're entitled to your opinion as much as the next guy. I get it - you hate the notion of it and the remarkable progress it's made is underpinned by nothing.
I hold BTC, I bought it back in 2013, and no I don't "hate it". But I don't have some emotional attachment to it that I feel the need to attack people who point out what it is. Likewise, just because I hold equities, doesn't mean I get angry at definitions of those financial instruments.0
Advertisement