Dude, wakeup, there is no TRB fork.
for want of a better term, there are two coins existing in the current core chain. legacy coins (trb/satoshi/whatever you want tot call them) and segwit coins. sooner or later there will be a split to separate legacy coins out.
It is absolutely nonsense! Why should anybody suggest such a two-in-one perception at all? Why not n-in-1?.
And why should such a split occur at all and how is it going to convince people, economic majority or even a noticeable economic minority about stealing funds from SW transactions by miners for the god sake?
Totally. For the God Sake!
Just leave SegWit and its junior hackers alone.
Think bigger. Segregated Witness is a joke, a trick, kinda cobbling up heterogeneous things, I admit, but just leave these guys alone with their lifetime achievement, build yours.
Lame. Someone who has contributed so little doesn't get to shit on those who have contributed so much. I defy you to find a group of users more knowledgeable, experienced and intelligent than the bitcoin-dev nerds.
--------------------
Liking the thread. You're a smart chap aliashraf. Doing well with Anony. I think of him as the Kurgan (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kurgan )
Back to POW.
If you are referring to POW as the beautiful objective unit that we can all independently verify - the answer is no.
But if you are referring to it as the POW FEE-BASED MINING industry, and so that question is - does FEE BASED MINING centralise, the answer is yes.
I see your POCW as a way of spreading the mining out into an ever thinner sheet over the users, but
at the end of the day mining centralises. no matter how you wrap it up.
You have to get rid of the fee. That is what everyone fights over and that is what causes the centralising pressure. Then I think you could have POW mining that didn't centralise. (Of course as IOTA shows that brings up it's own set of interesting challenges)