noxer

123 ms·

1231.
by noxer 7y ago
Crypto payment in a web shop isn't even a real use case. What they do is send crypto to a third party which sells it for fiat and then the good is paid with fiat. Does that need crypto? No that would work with anything else. The Code o
1232.
by noxer 7y ago
Read their paper, they stated form the beginning that TON isn't able to launch decentralized. The initial investment to run a node is to high so they can't just put some binary on the net and ask people to run it. They planed to r
1233.
by noxer 7y ago
No serious digital asset still uses PoW or at least is on the way to ditch PoW. If you look at the most popular tokens/coins you'll see all the PoW coins are useless and no one is developing anything for them. They are just there
1234.
by noxer 7y ago
Ripple never had an ICO - check your facts Ripple doesn't hold 60% they hold 50% The purpose of the 50% they still hold is public know since the very first days. They SHOULD use it to push the adoption of the XRP Ledger. Period. People
1235.
by noxer 7y ago
You have to register at Coil.com You pay with CC or whatever you like to Coil. Your browsers streams money as soon as you visit a site that implements web monetization over IPL. The site doesn't need any info from you it has the addres
1236.
by noxer 7y ago
Forget Monero it can't scale for micro payment. Currently it does like 1 Tx every few seconds. We can assume it could handle a few Tx per seconds. And with proper hardware upgrade it could probably handle some dozen Tx per second. Anyw
1237.
by noxer 7y ago
Any chance you'll do this with Coil.com next? Setup should be way way simpler and access the donations should be possible without any crypto at all.
1238.
by noxer 7y ago
The next evolution of the internet is most probably the internet of value. Google is in the position to push this and be the largest player in that new internet but reading their ideas on how to fix the current internet I don't think t
1239.
by noxer 7y ago
Exactly, it mostly about readability which is often (not always) better if the shortest possible pattern is used. [0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9][0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9]{0,} and [0-9][0-9]* and [0-9]+ and \d+ all do the same so they are not wrong as in
1240.
by noxer 7y ago
No problem =) I was just a bit confused myself as I saw that pattern an it didn't instantly make sense why someone would write that. If you often use regex like I do. You kinda instantly see that something is weird if pattern have repe
1241.
by noxer 7y ago
The pattern is kinda nonsense. The first part [0-9] matches one digit in the given range 0-9. The second part obviously the same but the * quantifier means the set can occur 0 or many times. The whole pattern therefore means one digit 0-9 f