- 03 May 2025 (4 messages)
-
Counterparty Image Archive torrent -
Try magnet link : https://ctxt.io/2/AAB4pZFwEA
-
Is anyone online today who may be interested in helping getting and seeding this? im having difficulties connecting to JP and although a few trackers show peers, i am unable to connect. Maybe if there are more peers?
-
Hey big brains !!
I’m trying my darndest to on board new people !
And I was wondering I could broker a deal !! lol
Counterparty takes down the odd message that FreeWallet is bad lol
And I’ll see if I can hunt up. A Jdog to remove the banner on token scan !
Maybe I could get him to put a nice message in its place ??
It all feels so odd to me and I have no answers to anyone who asks me about them. Because if you step back from a
“don’t understand the drama”
Point of veiw and step into a “just want to buy digital assets from the best place in the bitcoin universe”Type of idea.
It kinda feels
COUNTER PRODUCTIVE
NOT
A PARTY AT ALL
I know that I am not alone here just wanted to say it out loud !
Let’s fucking start partying again eh !!
So what say you !? - 05 May 2025 (1 messages)
-
Joined. - 06 May 2025 (3 messages)
-
Hey guys, how do you like under the bridge!?))
-
Who has the bypass L7 method for stress testing? 😉
-
Huh? - 07 May 2025 (2 messages)
-
-
Whaat ?
- 09 May 2025 (5 messages)
-
FYI... found more loss of functionality in Counterparty 2.0.... makes me wonder WTF the "test suite with 100% coverage" actually tests 🤷️️️️
-
Unable to create dispenser using subasset name · Issue #3156 · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core
It seems like functionality has been lost as now users are no longer able to specify a subasset name when creating a dispenser, and instead have to specify the NUMERIC name for the subasset instead...
-
-
-
i'd report this in Adam's Counterparty channel... but, ya know, banned 🤷️️️️️️
- 13 May 2025 (6 messages)
-
Hrm... wonder why block hashes for blocks shown on horizon.market no longer match with previous hashes... I could understand messages hashes being off... but we are talking about ledger hashes and txlist hashes being different... the differences start even before the fork...
-
https://horizon.market/explorer/blocks/865999 .... taken directly from current API release... supposedly 10.10.1 (according to the status page)
-
https://tokenscan.io/block/865999 ... taken from v10.10.1 (public.tokenscan.io, a node I run)
-
i'd ask the question in the Counterparty Channel that adam runs.... but, ya know... banned.... kinda pointless channel if ppl who use the platform are not able to bring up issues and ask questions... but what do I know... i'm just a user wondering why shit is changing without explanations... (save your "create a github issue" talk Vector).... not gonna jump through hoops to report issues, if the core devs were truly concerned about things like this, they would run an open channel where anyone could ask questions and voice differing opinions
-
neway... just mentioning it here... maybe someone will ask them directly what is up... or do the work that their test suite should be doing, comparing hashes to previous hashes 🙂
-
i've got to admint that while i was skeptical of the strategy early on - the process to convert Jdog to a full time QA guy has worked really well - 15 May 2025 (2 messages)
-
Joined. -
222 members lucky number
- 21 May 2025 (6 messages)
-
-
interesting... I raised the same objectionsJPJA did about the hashes changing.... and it got me blocked from the repository.... so now i'm not able to even contribute bug reports.... sucks, cuz I just found and reported an issue last week with dispensers not being able to be created using subasset name (even tho the documentation indicated we should, and always have been able to reference the asset by asset name or subasset name)
-
Unable to create dispenser using subasset name · Issue #3156 · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core
It seems like functionality has been lost as now users are no longer able to specify a subasset name when creating a dispenser, and instead have to specify the NUMERIC name for the subasset instead...
-
Gotta love the decentralized manner in which Counterparty is being run.... its an open source project that anyone can contribute to.... except me, the guy who kept it alive for the 10 years adam was gone... lol... what a tool
-
and my offense? simply objecting to the fact that all the hashes for 10 years of counterparty had changed.... Guess talking back to Adam is considered "abuse" and worthy of a ban..... so, no more finding and reporting issues for Counterparty by me anymore 🤷️️️️
-
Adam really doesn't like anyone speaking up if the opinion differs from his.... yet another sad day for Counterparty. 🤔️️️️️️
- 22 May 2025 (1 messages)
-
Is there any change in the market today? - 23 May 2025 (5 messages)
-
Joined. -
Joined. -
anybody can help composing xcp compatible transactoins from python?
-
Use the API sir -
Thought you were died
- 24 May 2025 (4 messages)
-
Ya market is up down sideways and beautiful mainly !!
-
But is the market as beautiful as Lili? 😁 -
Who knows ? Truly
-
- 26 May 2025 (15 messages)
-
Hmm, I took a break, come back and seems like more of the same…
I’m kinda impressed you’re still banging your head against the keyboard
I’m not in the vampire chat, cant remember if I left or it went away. Who knows maybe they changed the channel name. Ask MIS
How is your classic fork ecosystem going? Merge with BTNS yet? -
Not banging my head against the wall, just voicing my opinion on how counterparty and its direction is going the wrong way….. while building X chain platform something I believe in.
As I mentioned before, the intention was never to drive a lot of users to classic so continuing to ask how things are going with classic as if there’s going to be some big explosion of users is kind of silly…. It was more of a fork to keep a community driven version of counterparty rather than one where features are forced upon users without consensus.
As far as the vampire chat, it seemed to be taken over by a lot of Chinese spammers and after a couple of weeks Mikeinspace just deleted it I believe…. Meanwhile, I’m still in the space as always., speaking my truth, and building things I believe in…. If you’re interested, the whole troll chat was archived for historic purposes and you can view. It’s beginning and demise here….. https://j-dog.net/archive/CounterpartyOriginalClassic/Page 1 - Apr 2025 - Counterparty Original Classic Chat - Telegram message archive.Counterparty Original Classic - - Telegram message archive.
-
I hope you had a nice break from the space and that now that you’re back, you build something cool👍🏻
-
-
Oh yeah, nothing much has changed except a handful more people have seen Adam’s leadership abilities and have soured on him and taking a step back… i’ve been blocked from the GitHub repo so I can no longer report issues or raise object …. and his inner circle of supporters have just continued to believe in him and support whatever he does regardless of if it is seeing any kind of community support or usage (quite the opposite in fact)….. not much has changed since you left bro… but glad you’re back😊
-
anybody can kindly direct me to how to encode correctly a counterparty transaction through cli? i sent few transaction trying different encodings as specified here and there, but the xcp protocol simple ignores my transactions :)
-
Why you don't use the API?
-
what api? its so confusing. .can you give me the base url and docs? i see nothing to encode txs on tokenscan api.. sorry
-
The Counterparty API -
Counterparty Core API · Apiary
A place where APIs are kept.
-
thnx.. i dont understand im confused by many partial contraddictory info maybe its just me i'll check thnx
-
YAY! it works thank you!.. one question... to send 1 full pepecash which is divisible what's the quantity i should set?
-
Qty * 10**8
-
Divisible assets has 8 decimals
-
Happy to see that
- 27 May 2025 (24 messages)
-
https://horizon.market/explorer/tx/9adf03f0e989eb825a7b888148603fe3179aa49abb0d0cfe4a39f7e10ccc1b6a
Anyone know why I can only see this no horizon ?Horizon Market | Trade Bitcoin NFTs & Counterparty TokensHorizon Market is the home for Bitcoin NFTs like Rare Pepes and Spells of Genesis. Trade Counterparty assets with trustless, one-confirmation swaps.
-
My guess is this is got another difference between 10.10.1 which tokenscan.io and XcP.io are running on and 11.O.O which is as of yet unreleased and is what horizon runs on….
10.10.1 sees the issuance as trying to reset a non-existing numeric
11.0.0 Sees it as a valid named asset issuance…
This is very bizarre to have different versions of counterparty, parsing an issuance transaction differently…. It’s definitely something that Adam should explain as his explorer is the only one that shows the issuance as a success. Meanwhile, other explorers and the current version of counterparty see the issuance as invalid and numeric. -
I’d create an issue about this however I’ve been blocked from filing any bug reports or giving any comments on counterpartys GitHub repo
-
Might also be worth asking them why they are running non-released versions of counterparty in a production environment, where users are using that version to generate production transactions…. Sure seems like they’re using the community to test their releases before they put releases out rather than testing internally and only putting out releases after they are solid and working correctly.
I hope this is not a case of you registering an asset on a new version of counterparty, which is as yet unreleased and current and old versions of counterparty seeing that transaction differently than the new version ….
Might be a case where your transaction will have to be rolled back to match the 10.10.1 ledger…. As your transaction only appears in the new unreleased 11.0 ledger…… and ledger hashes are supposed to match in new versions right up until the new protocol change goes into effect…. In this case, no new version has been put out and no protocol changes have been activated and yet you’re seeing a transaction in horizon that no one else on the counterparty network is seeing as valid.
These are questions which only Adam can answer …. If you can manage to pin him down and get an answer. -
I’ve asked
But mike was the only answered lol -
Isn't this the same?
-
Lol
-
-
More strangeness going on between versions 10.10.1 and v11.0 ..... Cody has been asking for answers for 3+ days and no reply from adam... and i'm unable to file a bug report to get an answer, so forced to ask him publicly on twitter.... sad state of things
-
-
Not sure if i'll be updating to 11.0 if I dont get an answer on why there are already differences between 10.10.1 and 11.0 when no protocol changes have been activated.... upgrading would just download a bootstrap with the questionable txs marked as valid..... Until the reasoning behind why a single tx is being seen differently on 10.10 and 11.0 is answered, I can't trust that 11.0 is doing things correctly... and therefore most likely will not be updating.
-
real men dont use unknowing community users to test their unreleased software..... 11.0 was being used on production servers for the past few weeks, long before the release today... this is how JP and I found the hash mismatches going back 10 years... and also probably explains why the tx referenced above is seen as a valid NAMED asset issuance on 11.0 and as an invalid numeric issuance on 10.10.1 and earlier versions of counterparty
-
until these questions as to WTF is going on with the same tx being interpreted differently between versions... very difficult to trust the new release is doing things properly... as the bitcoin mantra goes.... "Don't Trust, Verify".
-
Hopefully adam responds... lest we have yet another fork.... you'd think he would have learned his lesson by now about testing and making sure everyone is on board and clearly explaining everything BEFORE putting out a release.... yet here we are again, with unexpected behavior, a released version of counterparty, and a looming protocol activation date.... Hope we dont have yet another fork... already have xcp.dev (9.61.3), tokenscan.io (10.10.1 and classic).... more forks would only make things more confusing... hope he responds with some explanation 🤷️️️️️️
-
i'd delete it but no admin privileges... and @ffmad seems to be asleep at the wheel lately... sure would be great if he would assign some other admins to delete nonsense like this.
-
@jp_janssen @XCERXCP are both admins of this room.... -
🤦♂
-
What’s the issue, the hot Chinese chick? -
The weird TG link
-
Deleted
-
where do you all sell (bulk) CP assets? -
Bulk OTC normally. -
What are you looking to sell?
-
Hahah This was funny
- 28 May 2025 (10 messages)
-
-
Sucks to see long time believers in CP looking to walk away from CP... but I understand the mindset😢
-
could prolly post the addresses your looking to sell in CP chat rooms and accept offers to sweep all balances and asset ownership to a buyer
-
Be sure to hold on to your dogeparty assets and balances... also, the CP asset ownership snapshot for xchain platform took place at block 866,000... so even if you sell asset ownership now on CP, you'll still own those same asset names on XChain platform when it launches 🙂
-
You can dm me your wallet address and I will see if I know someone that might be interested. Please be aware of scammers impersonating me.
-
Non-backward compatible change to issuance message · Issue #3171 · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core
This issuance was valid on Horizon (v11) but not on other explorers : tx_hash = 9adf03f0e989eb825a7b888148603fe3179aa49abb0d0cfe4a39f7e10ccc1b6a Raw issuance message: 434e54525052545916871b**00ff0c...
-
Another shining example of Adam, forcing changes into counterparty and not doing things as we have done them for the past 10 years…. Instead of issuing, a new message type for his new issuance message format. He is simply changing the message format and breaking reverse compatibility with all versions of counterparty before version 11….. and when a well respected community member brings this issue up. It is the same response as always….. saying that the community member is wrong that Adam is right and that it’s too late now since this change has been proposed quietly on get hub where nobody saw and since nobody objected, they are now able to force these changes in.
God every day I wake up and see what’s going on and it continues to get worse and worse ….
Imo counterparty is entering a death spiral and the only thing that gives a value is the historic assets that live on the platform, which, as you can see users are starting to dump and leave the platform -
I wonder how many millions of dollars are tied up geeesh
-
Reminder: we do not need permission to broadcast on chain…
-
honestly i am never going to use the assets if I haven't after 10+ years so might as well get them into new hands 🤷♂️
- 29 May 2025 (89 messages)
-
Drop us an addy !
Or did you ? -
I don't see any reason why you would want to deprecate support for the previous versions? Am I missing something? -
Seems strange
-
I wondered if it has more to do with vc pressure ? Seems like a money play instead of a movement play or exploration of fun ways to do stuff KEK
-
Honestly, I don't think XCP would explode in usage any time soon even with all the features imaginable deployed.
-
NFTs as a topic are still toxic to normies
-
XCP has a really cool niche, should foster the remaining users and community it still has imo.
-
getting taproot address support is nice addition, don't see a downside to that
-
hmu
-
It’s fascinated me since I learned how people’s
Thoughts opinions and ideas have CEMENTED themselves.
In a protocol attached to the motherchain
Eventually with time
Certain assets will be coveted by even normies. Once the bitcoin standard rips through the world !
How can these assets and cool ass lore not just manifest as the new digital fine art that goes hand in hand with btc! KEK.
We aren’t making mass produced shitcoin “nft” pfps -
love the lore
-
Exactly, its one reason I've been pushing back against changes that put scammy/complicated new XCP burns in place. Credibility and history is so fundamental to XCP
-
you tarnish that with getting too cute with trying to play games with tokenomics, it hurts the platform imo
-
💯 totally agree.
I’m not sure Adam knows what exactly he has here.
It’s a lot more than just a place to fleece the shitcoiners
It’s “crypto “btc pepe
History he’s fucking with !
it’s like putting a 4 year old in charge of the louvre -
v11 activates in three weeks.
Service producers should NOT upgrade (err, downgrade). Then in three weeks Horizon will diverge away from Counterparty, which remains on v10. -
If older versions create a hard fork, what’s the difference?
-
I don't understand why you are the admin when you simply are just full of rhetoric
-
Literally asked a question, you are the most miserable person in the universe
-
After everyone hates you in the CP room, you go back apologizing to the room everyone hated you before lmao
-
Resorting to personal attack again and again
-
It's too bad you can't hold your own
-
You made quite the impression barking at people at Bitcoin miami. Thanks for the commercial sample
-
Answer the question
-
Quit tell me what to do
-
Your question is rhetorical by definition
-
Typical Duncan response, it’s a legitimate question I’m asking
-
Sure 👍
-
Joined. -
Coward
-
Duncan’s banned for being a jackass and miserable person
-
You should be removed because you contribute nothing
-
If you stop and think you would realize that an established version is not creating a change. Creating a change is creating a fork.
Your question is nonsensical -
In three weeks ? It’s running on it now on horizon! Shows that on mobile
-
-
If you run any version prior to 10, it will create a hard fork
-
So what’s the importance of backwards capability of all versions if that’s the case
-
Ryan... you continue to support Adam, but IMO you lack the development experience and background to understand protocol changes and reverse compatability... and that this change could easily be rolled out as a new issuance message format with a new ID, as has always been done in the past, so that previous versions of counterparty could continue to interpret issuances perfectly fine, instead of forcing this issuance format change.... Perhaps you should take a step back and consider that those who you consider OGs and who initially supported Adams return to counterparty have drastically different opinions now
-
Your welcome to believe what you believe, but I think best you stay out of actual development conversations unless you have an intimate knowledge of protocol changes, how they have been done historically, and the ramifications of the v11 issuance change format
-
https://x.com/jp_janssen/status/1927973069244567903
https://x.com/jdogresorg/status/1928151893542588818
https://x.com/shaban_shaame/status/1928096073639162207
https://x.com/jdogresorg/status/1928159685481484490J-Dog (@jdogresorg) on XAnother case of a long-time Counterparty member raising valid concerns about how changes are being forced into the protocol (changing format rather than issuing a new message type id, which is what has been done each time the issuance format has changed over the past 10 years. I
-
Of the OGs that originally supported Adams return to counterparty... how many are still supportive of his leadership style and changes? Me? nope... JPJA? nope... Shaban? Nope.... I can only think of ONE "OG" who is still supportive of Adam... Joe looney... and even Joe admits that this format change is not the best path forward for CP
-
Revert CBOR Encoding (?) · Issue #3173 · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core
As part of the v11.0.0 protocol change, we switched to a new transaction data encoding method using the CBOR standard for Sweep, Enhanced Send, Fairminter, Fairmint, Issuance and Broadcast transact...
-
No disrespect meant... I know you just want what is best for CP... but sometimes, your lack of understanding and having to try and explain how protocol changes work and reverse compatibility and forks is too much work 🤷️️️️️️
-
I understand perfectly fine
Prior CP versions will be able to parse all old issuances perfectly fine. The new field type is returned invalid for new assets moving forward. -
Either way.... still considre you a friend... but, consider you might be on the wrong side of this one bro.
-
This shows your lack of understanding... this is not the case.... the format for issuance has changed, using an existing issuance ID.... so what you see with TOOFUNNYPEPE was a preview of what you will see..... v11 will parse transactions issued on v11 fine.... however everything before v11 will NOT be able to parse the new issuance format, and as a result, anything issued on v11 will be parsed as a numeric, not a named asset, due to the 2 extra bytes..... simply adding a new message id for the new issuance format, as has been always done historically since the beginning of CP, is the correct path forward
-
again, no disrespect meant... but I think sometimes you think you understand a bit more of the intricacies and nuances of CP, ledger forks, and protocol changes than you actually do
-
not interested in continuing to go back and forth with you.... just here to share that it sure seems like a bunch of OGs are sharing the same opinion now, that Adam is not a good leader, that they are having to force him to do things the right way by forcing ledger forks, and that he only considers his viewpoint and not any other community members viewpoints.
-
I hope you have a great day... disengaging now... your welcome to reply, but I won't be engaging any further on this as I feel it is wasted energy
-
I still understand perfectly fine
I’m not worried about toofunnypepe not being able to be parsed on old versions
That’s the case for all newly issued assets moving forward -
Stop telling me what I don’t understand when I understand perfectly fine
What other assets besides the ones made by Cody the last few days will not be returned valid? -
You use a single issuance, toofunnypepe, to make it like all old assets won’t be able to be parsed
-
Won’t be engaging because you know I’m right
Instead of answering the question, you try to discredit me and make seem like CP is going back in time affecting everyone’s historical assests and their parsing ability when it literally just affects Cody’s toofunnypepe and NEW assets moving forward
Lmao -
And the best part is, if a new message type was created, the old versions would STILL return them invalid so what’s the fing difference
-
no, wont be engaging because your logic and understanding on how older versions of CP will parse new issuancs is wrong... yet your convinced your understanding is correct... so, letting you believe your right and saving my energy, as I already explained what would happen when you change an existing issuance format in a new version..... old versions wont be able to accurately parse the transaction, due to the 2 new bytes, and as a result the interpretation of the issuance will be wrong (will be seen as numeric asset instead of named asset, and first 2 bytes of the description will be cut off, just like in the TOOFUNNYPEPE asset).
-
-
This is my suggestion
-
incorrect again... if this was the case.. then the 10.10.1 version would have interpreted the v11 TOOFUNNYPEPE as "invalid".... instead it parsed a named asset issuance as a numeric asset issuance and cut off 2 bytes from the description... but again... pointless to go around in circles with you... you believe you know what your talking about cuz your taking your talking points and info from Adam..... versus actually looking at what we already have seen in production.. a v11 tx in the new issuance format being parsed on 10.10.1
-
good day Xcer.... best for us both to just agree to disagree and focus our energies on something productive instead🤷️️️️️️
-
I think that we are past any point of collaboration and an AMA would just devolve into more finger pointing and accusations.... if somehow a CIP community driven style process for proposing changes and moving them from idea to propsal to development emerged as a result of this AMA, I would be supportive of that.... but as I said, I think we are past that now unfortunately 🤷️️️️️️
-
I’m well AWARE new issuances won’t be able to be parsed on older versions as I mentioned above clearly
Even if NEW issuances are parsed as a numeric on OLDER VERSIONS and marked VALID, who cares?
Why are we worried about FUTURE asset issuances being parsed by older versions
It has ZERO affect on old issuance parasability
You can keep trying to discredit me by saying I take talking points from X or Y or you can answer the question -
Because users should WANT to update to new versions of counterparty because of additional features and appeal.... not upgrade because they are FORCED to by breaking backwards compatability to force users to upgrade... it would be trivial to simply add a new message type for the new issuance format and support backwards compatability...... Remember when Javier and I added support for CIP3 and did not create a new message id type for the new issuance format? We got lots of pushback, realized our mistake, and quickly fixed it.... same exact thing here.... I fail to understand why your so against following what we have done historically for the past 10 years of counterparty.... if you come up with a new format, you use a new message type, pretty easy to do, just change one byte.... but you prefer to just agree with Adam and forcing this change on everyone and forcing everyone to upgrade to v11..... We can agree to disagree, but this is not how users should be upgrading
-
I disagree with your viewpoint that forcing changes to issuance messages and forcing users to upgrade by breaking backwards compatibility is the path forward... You clearly have a different viewpoint and share Adams view that "It doesn't matter if we change the new format, cuz everyone will be using the new version"... which is not necessarily true
-
again, we are wasting time going in circles.... best to just move on bro
-
-
It’s a mandatory upgrade, just like it was for 10?
-
her to voice objections, which myself and others in the community have... continuing to bicker over one viewpoint vs the other is silly.
-
Mandatory according to Adam if you want to support the changes in Counterparty.... could very easily add support for taproot and have 100% reverse compatibility to parse in older txs. 🤷️️️️️️
-
-
again, its pointless to continue going in circles with you.... so maybe stop with the silly "You could just answer this simple question" stuff... it wastes both our time... we have differing viewpoints, lets leave it at that and not waste any more energy
-
Apparently, I don’t see the issue with upgrading
All old asset issuances are still read the same exact way and only affects future issuances
No idea what the big deal is tbh -
guess all the OGs who have been around counterparty and working on the code for years are all outraged and upset for no reason... and you and adam are in the right
-
-
Yeah Adam has done a terrible thing letting us create an inscription and ordinal dually at asset issuance 😂
-
If that is what you value, copying a different protocol's features and chasing liquidity.. then guess you could see his changes as a win..... so far atomic swaps and numeric assets have done so great so far... definitely brought more users and liquidity to CP.... fracturing the community and ignoring it has NOTHING to do with the all time low usage numbers and users selling off their collections left and right
-
-
-
Stop generalizing all the time from your own opinion maybe?
-
Shaban, JPJA, Myself... not generalizing... sharing my opinion, just like you do bro...
-
anyway.. back to lurking.. its a waste to continue engaging here.. l8r
-
Fracturing the community giving us amazing upgrades lol
-
Yeah, it's great to make Counterparty more compatible with the other protocols. Everything is Bitcoin and we shouldn't have silos everywhere
-
yup... real high demand features.... 22 numeric subassets registerd in 9 months and atomic swaps... of which there has been exactly 1 in the past 3 months... amazing upgrades.. such adoption
-
-
Ordinals has absolutely destroyed CP in growth, issuance, developer count, you name it
It’s sad -
Time will tell... so far 2 years into adam taking back over and not impressed... apparently you are.. good for u
-
Dude doesn’t stop, works his ass off. I am.
-
actually... kinda pointless for me to even engage in here anymore... so i'll leave... enjoy your echo chamber
-
it's interesting and I see people in "ordinals" are more and more aware of CP. Making it more compatible and accessible to that community will help a lot
-
Yeah, I think this new version upgrade will be huge
- 30 May 2025 (9 messages)
-
-
TOOFUNNYPEPE feels like a drinking game now lol
-
I’ve been looking at ordinals I feel it’s way more clunky and odd compared to the tools we have.
Coming from mega normie land
Ordinals experience definitely is more complex.
So it might be gathering old co users that want to do new stuff. -
Not according to the 100,000,000 ordinals created vs CPs 200,000 assets in 90% less time
-
Anyway, thanks to CPs dev team, ordinal users will be able to mint both a CP asset with an inscription plus an ordinal at once
-
Ya 900,000 of them have 0 substance or historical value long term mostly noise. But I’m sure a bunch of people made money
Depends what you want I guess -
-
Not much time to create assets I’m not sure that’s. A good thing hmm
-
Is there an ordinal group chat ?
- 31 May 2025 (1 messages)
-
Cmon man, selling means someone buying…
