Eternal — Power Of A Woman M People — Renaissance Inner City — Good Life Paula Abdul — Forever Your Girl Mary Mary — Shackles Praise You TLC — No Scrubs Whitney Houston — Step By Step Anastacia — Paid My Dues Five — Keep On Movin Desree — You Gotta Be Neneh Cherry — Woman CD 5: The Flying Lizards — Money Racey — Some Girls Juice Newton — Queen Of Hearts Hook — Walk Right In UB40 Feat.
Wilson Phillips — Hold On Marvin Gaye — Sexual Healing Shirley Bassey — Big Spender The Exciters — Tell Him Little Eva — The Locomotion The Chiffons — Hes So Fine Helen Reddy — I Am Woman Fresh - La-Di-Da - 06 - Di. Tracklist: 1. Darkwing Duck — Intro German 2. Katy Perry Feat. Tinie Tempah — E. Official Remix 3. Deuces Remix 5. T-Pain ft. Chris Brown — Best Love Song 7. Jeremih — Down On Me 8.
Soulja Boy — Speakers Going Hammer 9. Madcon Feat. Ameerah — Freaky Like Me Ester Dean ft. Dj Cracked — Drop It Low Tinie Tempah — Pass Out Anthem Kingz — The Next Kush DJ Vhon — Big Thing Chris Brown ft. Tyga — Holla Me Unk — Wiggle It Mann — Buzzin Snoop Dogg feat. T-Pain — Boom Fatman Scoop — Be Faithful Michael Jackson — Billie Jean Michael Jackson ft. Michael Jackson — Smooth Criminal Michael Jackson — Thriller Usher ft. Bubba Sparxxx feat. Ying Yang Twins — Ridiculous DJ Derezon Feat.
Jason Caesar — Let U Go Angelica ft Lil Kim — Knock Off DJ Class ft. Fatman Scoop — Get ya azz up Edward Maya — Stereo Love Return of The Mack Electro Remix Black Eyed Peas — The Time Chris Brown — Yeah 3x Lil Jon feat.
Jay Sean feat. Pitbull Ft. Neyo - Everything Tonight Remady feat. DJ Vengerov pres. DJ Sebastien feat. Sonnenstudio Marion Eminem Lose Yourself Eminem Till I Collapse Eminem Without Me Eminem Rock Bottom Eminem Mushrooms Eminem When Im Gone Yeah, I'm still interested and I guess, speaking of that early period that seems like it's still part of the dream of Bitcoin, of trying to achieve a robust financial system.
The way that Satoshi envisioned it is something that would compete against that level. We don't have a ton of insight into his thinking. Because I don't even know to the extent that his perception on his own creation changes. We don't really have that insight. It's tough when you're looking at the old logs for Satoshi, because you can get glimpses of things, because you can see that he took action. He wrote words saying, like he thought big was private.
Obviously, that's not in the white paper. Maybe that occurred to him later or, maybe he maybe that was something else. Maybe there was multiple people working on it, who just disagreed. You can only really draw so many inferences.
I guess, my takeaway on the privacy and the original part is, obviously not really there in the white paper, but seems to be there in the initial discussions when he starts circulating it.
Then later on, there's a scrubbing and a moving away from that, where that language just changes. I don't know if Adam has any more insight from his reading of those logs. My takeaway as it seems to be more of a private realization that didn't happen. Yeah, certainly something that I wish we had more about. There really wasn't much in the way of technical motivation, like explaining the design considerations, or design alternatives.
Not what it was trying to solve, or alternatives discarded, or sparse information. It's similar about the use case motivations, but I think, probably the Genesis quote is pretty political in nature. It's like about a reform of monetary base, almost. Which was, actually, I would say was something that — some people had thought about, but not everybody. Other people were thinking about more about in previous lecture, we're thinking more about just the privacy angle.
Not that it would be a reform for separate money from state, just that you'd be able to use fiat money anonymously and electronic form, or something like that. By combining those two things, I think Bitcoin benefits a great deal, because at the time that it was released, and now there's a lot of concern about inflation and management of fiat currencies. The fact that it has a floating value create an adoption incentive. I think, people get exposed to Bitcoin for a lot of different reasons.
One of them is as an investment. Then, they learn more about it, they philosophically become attracted to it. Or more philosophical reasons over time. I've got to assume that, accelerate the adoption a lot compared to something that was effectively like a stablecoin, which was a concept with the other systems. Or worse than a stablecoin. Like RPOW, for example. RPOW works. It did offer the privacy benefits that Hal Finney and the other privacy advocates and Cypherpunks were looking for.
However, it had this big problem that it didn't hold value very well. If it doesn't hold value, what then? People are, they're not very excited to accept it. If people are not very excited to accept it, then no one's accepting it, then you can spend it anywhere. Now you have private money, but you can't spend it anywhere. That's one of the things that Bitcoin very cleverly did. On the one hand, of course you have the money reformers and the gold box, that really like this limited supply.
On the other hand, the privacy should also like this limited supply, because now, at least works. At least, there's an incentive for people to accept it. Even if that's not their primary concern, at least, this economic incentive makes that it's being adopted.
Now, you can actually use this money, which is fairly private at least, and hopefully, more private in the future. I think, the privacy is incrementally improving over time as well. Each major release of Bitcoin usually has some incremental privacy improvement in the networking, or the taproot proposal just now activated, has some anti fingerprinting, basically. The different types of transactions look the same, whether they're Lightning channel, or a single signature, or a multi-signature.
In most cases, they look indistinguishable. That helps, because one of the ways that somebody would analyze a blockchain is to try and categorize types of transactions and cluster them, and then analyze within that, so they could identify, oh, that's a Lightning channel, that's a green wallet, but it's only sig type, which is distinct and stuff like that. They want to maybe hear your take on — you spent a lot of your personal time and energy and obviously, your colleagues at Blockstream on during this block size war on trying to make sure to keep the blockchain in a state where the average person could run it at home.
Why did you all spend so much time and energy on this? Can you give us some reflections on that period in Bitcoin history? Actually, the Blockstream as a company try to not have a official position. The views of individual people who worked on protocols, implementations varied a bit.
There were a couple of people that thought big blocks would be good, or somewhere in between would be good. Other people thought too largely bad. I think, some people's views changed over the years as well.
They thought large blocks would be okay, and then they came to realize that would actually be a problem. I think, there's a couple of things. One generic argument is that if you look at Bitcoin's differentiator, what makes it unique and different from other systems is that it is permissionless and auditable. If it becomes too big and heavy, so that it can only be run by a business on million dollars of hosting per year or something, and nobody can verify it, then it's going to be subject to corporate interpretations.
You've got to stay away from that extreme, or it will fail in a centralization sense. That was the concern, too. The key differentiator from Bitcoin — I think, people have different views about what Bitcoin is. It seems to me and evidently to the majority of the market, given what happened after the forks, Bitcoin rapidly became the dominant financial outcome of it, is that the differentiator is that it's permissionless, and that arises from the decentralization, basically.
If you try to scale it in a crude way, that will inevitably get eroded. That was one factor. Another factor is that networking is a — it sounds simple, but in practice, it's a area of computer science that is a specialized area and most network theory and most networks in practice, the Internet, GSM networks, 3G, 4G networks, they have some common patterns, which is that you don't broadcast everything, because broadcast doesn't scale very well.
They have to switch networking and not broadcast networking. It's pretty obvious to anybody with any networking experience that what you want to do is use the Bitcoin base layer as the censorship resistant, very survivable and robust, secure core. Then, you want to build switch networks on top. Obviously, Lightning is a switch network. It's much easier to scale switch networks, because not everybody has to deal with traffic.
That's another thing. The final thing was I think that Bitcoin has no governance by design. I think, I would describe governance as groups of humans and committees, or organizations that are going to decide, rules of management of some institution, or something. People use the word governance. I think, it just doesn't apply to Bitcoin.
Without attributing [inaudible ], I'm sure everybody at the time, both sides of the folk drama was just trying to improve Bitcoin and make it available to more people. The people that want a big block seemed to go about it in a sense of while they were going to make a run at it and set up a governance group of some companies and miners, and then they were going to tell the world how they were going to change Bitcoin.
That, I think more than I think, was unethical to what Bitcoin's about. You can't have a centralized governance process for a decentralized, permissionless system. It doesn't work. I think, that's what caused a lot of the backlash, that it wasn't — Bitcoin changes themselves are always opt in incremental improvements. Don't deprive anybody of previous functionality.
There's no governance rate. There's no rule change of anything in variant, like number of clients, the supply, censorship, backwards compatibility.
All that stuff's invariant. Having a centralized governance puts that invariant at risk. I think, that was part of it. For some people, they would have been happy with doubling the block size.
They didn't really mind. They weren't going to accept that being forced, or pushed by a centralized governance process. It was almost more about the way that it was proposed than what was proposed. CK, we've got questions coming in.
I feel like, we could start taking some folks up here as well, if you want. Talking about some of the idiosyncratic, or interesting features of Bitcoin that were seemed weird maybe, when you first looked at, Adam, but maybe now seems more powerful. One person's asking about halving, and it being every four years instead of a continuous decrease.
Maybe that halving some very interesting butterfly effects later. Now, it's clear that the halving will probably be some global holiday thing in the future. Really, it does interesting things with the currency markets. Do you want to weigh in on this particular feature and then maybe comment on some of the other weird features of Bitcoin that you think maybe have become a big deal? Sorry to interrupt.
Before you answer that question, Adam, if anyone wants to come up and ask a educated question, I will be screening folks to come up. Yeah, when you come up on stage, we're going to have you ask the question and I'm going to take you off stage. Feel free to request and I'll screen people to come up. Yeah, go for that question. You have 21 million coins versus That seems a arbitrary number. The halving is interesting, because you could envisage it being a smooth curve. Now that we have it, it seems to create a heartbeat economic cycle almost, which is maybe.
Let's get Adam in here and I'll go ping Aaron really quick. Rizzo is going to be a little bit late. He has a bit of a refrigerator emergency, it seems. Can we get P up as a co-host, too, Eli? Let me go ping Aaron really quick. Gladstein, if you don't mind following up really — Oh, here's Aaron.
If you don't mind following up really quickly with Adam, that'd be fantastic. P, I don't know if you want to do some schilling for the conference while we try to get settled in here. Or not. I guess, I could do it. That's fine, too. There's going to be stuff everywhere.
It's going to be the thing where even over two full GA days, you're not going to be able to see all of the amazing stuff that's going on.
Lightning is going to be a major feature. Everything else that you'd expect is going to be there. Everyone you'd expect is going to be there. If you want to buy a ticket, if you haven't already, first of all, shame on you. Adam's coming in shortly. Aaron, I figure maybe we can steer this conversation together and maybe rotate questions.
I think it's important for people listening to know that Aaron is basically a historian of early Bitcoin technology. I've tried to do a little bit of that myself and we're going to have here someone who is essentially, one of the founding fathers of Bitcoin. You could think of it that way. I think, we got to start at with the beginning.
Adam's here, so we'll get him up and we'll get going. Adam, welcome. We have Aaron from Bitcoin Magazine. I think, Aaron and I will just start to steer a conversation with you, Adam, that takes us from the beginning to today. It's ambitious, but we really want to start at the beginning. Let's go back to the late '80s, early '90s, to the beginnings of the crypto wars and the beginning days of the Cypherpunks. Would love to hear Adam, if you could just give the audience today some color as to what that was like, and what was the big battle at the time and what intrigued you to start joining the list and contributing?
What intrigued me to join the list, the Cypherpunks List and get interested was the release of PGP, email encryption program. You could use it to encrypt files as well. And the change in the balance of power that brought about that individuals could coordinate online and exchange messages that the establishment and the spy apparatus couldn't decrypt.
That caused quite a lot of discussion about the gradual change in the balance of power. I happen to be aware of that RSE encryption algorithm that PGP is — That's the main building block is this public key cryptography technology that had been invented in the late 70s. He was doing it on a distributed system, like a system with communication at work and many cause. We were both working in distributed systems. My PhD was in distributed systems. Yeah, I thought that was a very interesting and intriguing combination of positive, societal value and mathematical cryptography, computer science.
I went to see where people were talking about such things, and find out where people are talking about that and further things you could build on it. I found the Cypherpunks List and certainly, people were interested in a lot of related things, like disk encrypted, anonymity and privacy, so how Finney is well-known in Bitcoin circles, was already active.
At that time, there was a remailer technology that would provide you with anonymity to post, to send emails, or post on the discussion list, basically by sending your email through multiple hops. It didn't have any encryptions. People like that were probably be able to do, would be able to tell where the message came from. How Finney implemented P2P encryption into that remailer technology, so that it would be a lot harder. They would be encrypted.
Then there was a batching, so that each remailer would receive, let's say, a batch of 20 or 50 mails, shuffle them and send them out again, so you wouldn't be able to tell which email, in corresponds to which email. That technology improved over time to become Mixmaster, which was a way to standardize, to make a fixed size message chunks, so that you couldn't tell which message was which based on the size, which was in case, the original one.
I guess, the background for the audience would be that cryptography used to be the domain of the military and of governments. As you mentioned, that late '70s, academics in various places, but especially at Stanford came up with this idea of public key cryptography, which about a decade later was actually implemented in a way that made it easy for PC users to exchange private messages beyond the control of spy agencies.
As you mentioned, Hal Finney, who was essentially, the first person to receive a Bitcoin transaction from Satoshi was an early, I think, the second PGP contributor technically. You have a lot of people like yourself working in this space before it became about money. I don't know if Aaron wants to weigh in on that transition as well.
Would love to just focus in on this a little bit, this provenance of the people who fought for digital cash and how meaningful it was that they started out as privacy advocates. One of the problems that the remailers were facing was at that time, spam. Anyone who was operating a remailer was essentially doing it as a free service, but that free service was starting to be abused.
That's one of the reasons why the Cypherpunks started to look into, how do you make it, so that running such a system, running a remailer is actually incentivized. For that, you might need some digital cash system and a post-its scheme, right?
You're paying post-its to whoever — a form of post-its to whoever is running these servers. That's, at least, one of the reasons why the Cypherpunks started to think about that, including Adam, very specifically, of course, with Hashcash, which was meant to be an anti-spam system to counter exactly that spam that the remailers were facing. Maybe Adam wants to expand on that.
Sometimes people would send something threatening, or obnoxious to the remailers, and the authorities would come to the exit remailer. The last one in the hop that would actually send the email and try to push them to reveal the previous hop. Of course, they wouldn't know because there's no logs and it's encrypted and stuff like that. Nevertheless, I think the EFF maybe ended up helping defend a couple of people in that position, but there were lots of them and when one failed, another one took over.
There were 50 to a of them at various times. I operated one for a while, which I rented a shell account from a one-man ISP, basically, that was in Switzerland at a time when I was living in the UK. I had some jurisdictional complexity to it, to make it more difficult to work your way back.
Just figured that I would operate it, until such time as there was a major issue. Then I would shut it down and that would be most likely the end of it. That's actually how it progressed. It ran for a few years, some years. He told me and I switched the remailer off. I don't think either of us heard any more about it. We don't know what threatening email was sent, but it was shut down and it did its job for a number of years. That was the remailer. I bought a Swiss domain for it as well.
Was there an excitement among privacy advocates about the idea of government of cash beyond the control of governments? Was that something that immediately interested you, or was that only something that came later for you? That was a were different applied crypto and perhaps, enhancing technologies as they were called. There were a conference series on that. Of course, the Cypherpunks list itself, which was very applied. Now, that'd be more interested in writing code than writing papers.
Apart from disk encryption, email, encryption, anonymous messaging, pseudonymous messaging, so that you could receive a reply, like reply with a remailer, that was another piece of technology they built, various people in the Cypherpunks list.
Steganography was another one, so that you could hide an encrypted message in an image and people wouldn't be able to tell, but it was a message, even without the keys. Electronic cash. I think really, electronic cash was the elusive one. It was the hardest thing to build. It's very difficult to know how you would bootstrap it.
Cause people originally assumed that you would need a partnership, or service from a bank to send money in. Then you would have electronic cash tokens that you could transfer between users very anonymously and then convert them in and out of fiat at some point in between.
People were very excited about building that, but it was a very difficult thing to build. DigiCash tried to commercialize that. They implemented the technology. It's quite elegant and a simple piece of technology, but it started the strongly private electronic cash, which could be both sender and receiver anonymous.
It was a centralized protocol. It went through a central server that was your double spend database. There was no way to audit it, so you had to trust that central server to not create more coins than there were fiat in a bank account. They operate a demo server. People try to bootstrap of value actually, because they said that there'll be no more than a million of these currency units. They would email you, somewhat like a Bitcoin to force it. You could email them and they'd send you a few coins.
They promised , there'll be no more than a million. To be clear, sorry for interrupting, but just to make it clear to the audience, this is basically another — The first one that you just mentioned that essentially had to be backed.
Then they also had this demo version, the cyber box, which they just promised , there will only be a million of this. It basically had no value. I think, that was their intention. It was just a demo thing, but they said there will only be a million. Don't place value on these, but you can play with them.
We will issue a million of them. I don't know why they thought of that, but it created a scarcity concept. A number of people on the Cypherpunks had a go at selling, but just selling things for them. We figured it's only, like there weren't that many people involved, but it's only a million dollars. If we just treat them only a million units, if we treat them as dollars, as a starting point and just sell things, well, and if enough of us do that, maybe it will bootstrap a value.
People had a go at doing that. I had some t-shirts, which were actually about the export restrictions on encryption software. Had a small implementation of RSA on the t-shirt, which was short enough that you could type it in.
I was selling those online anyways, so I figured out I'll try selling them for these DigiCash demo coins and other people did similar things. Before we got very far in this rogue, unauthorized experiment, the DigiCash went bankrupt and the double spend database went offline. Now, you wouldn't be able to tell if your coin — you, wouldn't got to prove to somebody else that your coin was valid or not, because the way you spend coins in the system is you send them to the person and they check if they're valid by a redepositing them on the server and getting a fresh coin as all the server was gone.
That was the end of that. In the meantime, maybe this could spark some parallel structure that could help, in the meantime.
I think, it's also worth noting that the creator of Bit gold, and Nick Szabo, he was also contributing to DigiCash. It seems like, quite a few of you who ended up contributing to what later would become Bitcoin were intrigued by DigiCash, but then saw the problem with the centralized mint. Then, that was the next great challenge. Is that correct?
I think, this demo server didn't have the banking connection. Then, the fact that it was centralized and failed showed and perfectly to people that this single point of failure was a problem, and it wasn't going to be a very robust electronic cash system, even if they did get a banking service. There wasn't a demo server that was real dollars, or something. That started people thinking about whether you'd be able to distribute it, distribute it, double spend database.
There was some systematic spam, which was not commercial spam, like not trying to sell Viagra pills or things like that, with incredibly low success rate, but email is essentially free. These were just nuisance spam. It would just be random numbers and sent to Usenet, which is a very distributed broadcast chat system. That's still around, but less popular. It magnified the denial of service.
They could send some random numbers through a remailer, remailer would send it to Usenet, Usenet would broadcast it to thousands and thousands of sites around the world. Then, the system of administrators of those sites would get annoyed about the spam. I suppose, the people doing it wanted to create a backlash against privacy.
They were hostile to privacy. This was our operating theory. The spam was trying to discredit remailers and create a system administrative backlash, so that they would try to block the remailers as exit points, as send us to Usenet or something like that. It caused me to think about, normally at that time, and still, anti-spam is done by just blocking IP addresses, centers.
Of course, you can't do that with anonymous system, because the whole point is you don't know who the center is by design. It caused me to think about it in a different way, which is what's the real problem. The real problem is it's free. It's a pity that DigiCash didn't make it. Credit cards, or credit card processing was difficult and centralized and not everybody has one. Because I want to ask, I want to ask if you remembered this.
You mentioned the problem of centralization of DigiCash. There was another problem, which was that it was patented. This was a huge source of frustration for the Cypherpunks, including yourself. I've read messages of you, where — because the Cypherpunks had this idea that, you have this really cool technology. The way to improve this, and the way to actually make this work is to let people experiment with it and let people figure out how to make it work better, but that was actually blocked off by these patterns.
At one point, you grew so frustrated that you offered on the Cypherpunk list, let's just by this patents then. Do you remember this? But it was definitely a point of contention and there was a party when patent expired. It was the first upfront cash patent to expire, because it was so early.
Around —. I'm not sure. He had a couple, of course. But I think the earliest digital cash proposal by Chaum was Here we go. There you go. I guess, after the 20 years or whatever the rule was like, that the patent associated with that, which presumably was great sometime after it expired and there was a party for the expiring of it. Before that time, people were trying to think of different ways of achieving the same result.
He got to discrete local way of doing the same thing, which is more flexible and powerful, but unfortunately, it also patented it. I think, part of the problem with patents is that for Internet protocols, the ITF Internet engineering task force likes to have royalty free and patent technology, because it presents a barrier to adoption. I think, it's actually counterproductive to patent something.
Their argument of patenting is well, they can use it to present to investors to raise money, to commercialize and build the technology, but it tends to do the opposite, which is, after DigiCash went bankrupt, it was bought by a large company and put in a big patent portfolio and never used until it expired.
You basically said, there's this other option, which is we could just seize our rights with code. Could you talk a little bit about that strategy and how the Cypherpunks, basically, took a different line than others who are also concerned with the surveillance state at the time?
Just the two different strategies of lobbying the government and trying to work to make better public money, or better public communications versus creating open-source alternatives?
In a lot of cases, you would actually have right and legal sense, legal and regulatory sense, but they will be ignored, or eroded online. The other thing is, when you want to improve the balance of power for the individual, if you ask permission from the establishment, the answer is going to be no. You're getting mission creep from establishment and government and regulators. It has its own inertia. Typically, the way that things work out in practice is, society reaches a new norm.
There are various people victimized by these archaic laws in the meantime. You can view the legal landscape as a trailing indicator of society's views and it never — almost never leads. That, from that perspective to affect change, it seems like, society is led by adoption, innovation and just doing things becoming popular, and eventually, the laws will catch up, your regulations will catch up. On the one hand, a lot of these things, the rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech and things are entrenched in laws and regulations in many countries.
Nevertheless, the online trend was actually depriving you of those. The way to raise it up to a certain is to protect them with cryptography. That's what the segments were about.
Yeah, that's that direction. You can see a more modern version of that. Well, that's old news now. When Skype first started doing online audio and video voiceover IP things, the telecom regulators and the telecom companies, many of which are government-owned, hated it, because it was going to erode their long distance — egregiously expensive, long-distance calling plans. They lobbied against it. Skype didn't try to become a telephony provider and get all the licenses internationally. It just built the app and went for it and dealt with the legal attacks behind their backs.
What was it like to be a part of that and watch that? As John Gilmore had observed, actually one of the Cypherpunk co-founders, the Internet view censorship was damaged and routes around it. That's famous quote that he said at some point.
The fact that people were using it using encryption software and encryption libraries, and some of it was written internationally and not in the US — it seemed frustratingly stupid, but I think the pragmatic, kind of what the US national security apparatus, like the NSA and their counterparts in other countries.
In some countries, there were also restrictions. Mostly not. Was actually to impede the adoption of encryption. It would just slow adoption, and more encrypted things with less control.
That's why. It became an impediment to finance, basically. Eventually, it was overturned, because enough companies lobbied. The US has a strong free speech and anti-censorship, or printed books. For example, some people have printed the PGP source code in some thick books, but some people in Europe scanned. There wasn't really much they could do about it, because they couldn't quite bring themselves to ban a book. That would have been difficult politically.
It made a bit of a mockery of the whole situation until they gave up. Maybe that did matter. Countries on the worst end of that would be the ones that would have in place a ban on encryption, and some anomalies, like France had one, the US had one. Other places in Europe didn't. I think, it seemed like the strong precedent for not censoring written and spoken speech in the US health, because people, basically, transferred, they blurred the line between software and speech by printing it in books.
In my case, putting it on a t-shirt. There are a few people who've got a tattoo of that program as well, because it was three lines of space optimized pole code, basically. The point was to make it as small as possible to show how silly it was that this could be restricted. Adam, we have this decade between the failure of DigiCash, or creation of Bitcoin, or little more than a decade. Obviously, you were continuing to work on digital cash projects.
You kept looking at your own Hashcash design. We had Wei Dai. We had Nick Szabo and then we had Hal Finney all come out with interesting new concepts. There was still this, again, decade plus gap. Can you talk to us a little bit about this gap and what was happening there and what you were up to on the digital cash front, let's say, from the late '90s, till you got that email from Satoshi?
In the year , his third album Freedom was out which became a sensational hit. Download and listen to best Akon MP3 songs in high-quality on Gaana. Gaana Artists Akon. Akon Songs. Read full bio. Play All. Languages All tamil hindi telugu english. Songs Episodes. Chammak Challo Hamsika Iyer , Akon. Smack That Akon , Eminem. Freedom Int'l Version 2. I Wanna Love You. Beautiful Akon , Kardinal Offishall. Lonely Akon. Trouble Deluxe Edition. Chammak Challo - International Version Akon.
Beautiful Kardinal Offishall , Akon. Sexy Bitch feat. Akon David Guetta , Akon. One More Love. Hold My Hand Michael Jackson. Dangerous Kardinal Offishall , Akon. Not 4 Sale. Don't Matter Akon. Don't Matter.
0コメント