Heads for anyone thinking of applying: I took the half hour or so to fill out their application and was instantly denied. I suspect it was because I don't have a proper CompSci degree (I have a degree in Chemical Biology and have been working as a Software Developer for six or so years).
It has a hardcoded background and limited token options, but you can see it live update token positions between the users connected. I actually decided to take another look at it yesterday and I'd like to add some preset game options. And very importantly, add persistence (right now the websocket server keeps each table's state only in memory).
Filecoin doesn't have any smart contracts as far as I'm aware, so it's limited to use as a decentralized storage network. I believe it would be possible to build something very similar to Filecoin on the Ethereum platform. Storj (https://storj.io/) may be trying to do that.
I believe there are times when it is favorable to "burn" ether or another cryptocurrency, i.e. lock up the money in an unowned account. For example, the decentralized market place OpenBazaar discusses proof-of-burn to establish a user's reputation (https://blog.openbazaar.org/proof-of-burn-and-reputation-ple...). Burning coins allows a user to show they are invested in their reputation on the platform, without being forced to pay money to a central party.
For those out of the loop, miners work together in pools to combine their mining power. With more mining power, the more likely it is for them to mine a block (of the blockchain) and divide its payout among members of the pool. Pools cause centralization of mining power. You can see a list of pools and the percentage of their mining power at [https://blockchain.info/pools].
Looking at the chart, you can see that the top 5 mining pools can collude in being a single entity to "control" the blockchain (I believe this is called a Sybil attack [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack]). Now keeping incentives in mind, the idea is that people using bitcoin have faith in the system. That gives bitcoins value. Miners get paid in bitcoin. If they were to manipulate the blockchain, that would most likely cause bitcoin's userbase to lose faith in the system and thus what the miners would be stealing would suddenly have little to no value.
I'm not positive, but I recall hearing that pools have been intentionally been made smaller to keep users' faith in the system. Perhaps the goal of these majority mining power is not to steal bitcoin but censor certain users? That may be a bit more complicated depending on the users' opinions on a case-by-case basis. Fun stuff :)
A Sybil attack is unrelated to consensus, but otherwise what you said is accurate.
A Sybil attack can occur when a system designer mistakes a system identity to be exclusive with other ones. e.g. you could create a website that used a phone number as a user identifier and give every new user a $5 signup bonus. But if someone found a way to create valid phone numbers for less than $5 each, they could exploit your new user bonus system.
If it's free/cheap/easy to create new identities, you must be careful how much weight to give those identities. e.g. reddit has some problems related to how easy it is to manipulate voting. They have probably made changes to their algorithm over the years to deweight new/unverified users and likely other clever things to detect voting rings.
Gross stuff which is actually a collection of microorganisms. And reading further, there's the idea that our exposure to this gross stuff may be beneficial and one of the few ways we're still exposed to it. Or harmful.
Very interesting stuff in my opinion. Have studies like this been made more accessible due to cheaper sequencing?
I suppose he could pose as the "winner" and claim ignorance, although I'm sure there's much better ways of laundering via a Mixing service [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mixing_service] or something similar.
