<p>(Note: My answer is under the assumption that &quot;Blockchain = Bitcoin Blockchain.&quot; This doesn't apply to file blockchains such as SiaCoin or Storj)</p>
<p>It depends on how you define &quot;scalability&quot; and &quot;centralized&quot;.</p>
<h2>Centralization</h2>
<p>If you mean</p>
<blockquote>
<p>centralized = on one large computer</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, the blockchain might be more scalable, as it can be sharded: Here's the <a href="https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Sharding-FAQs" rel="nofollow noreferrer">huge Ethereum sharding FAQ</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>centralized = many computers in a large company</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Relational databases can also be sharded, thus scalability depends on the type of the data.</p>
<h2> Data type</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Immutable data / data with version-tracking</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Blockchain might or might not be a better option, depends on the implementation.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mutable data</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It's not a good idea to use an immutable blockchain to keep mutable data. You can just push the changes to the blockchain. On the contrary, you will have to scan the blockchain from start to end if you need to access one file, unless the current files are so small that you can keep a copy of it. (&lt;- Which are bigger, the files or the version history of files? It shapes how you define scalability.)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-22T14:22:11.820Z
Thank you, also I added a quote from the same white paper to precise the question more. Thanks
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-22T13:41:51.840Z
2018-08-22T13:41:51.840Z
2020-06-16T11:10:03.350Z
MCCCS
<p>There are many research papers on <strong>problem of scalability of blockchains</strong>:</p>

<p>Just as an example : <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hong-Ning_Dai/publication/318131748_An_Overview_of_Blockchain_Technology_Architecture_Consensus_and_Future_Trends/links/59d71faa458515db19c915a1/An-Overview-of-Blockchain-Technology-Architecture-Consensus-and-Future-Trends.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends</a></p>

<p>However, (usually by some companies which uses <code>blockchain</code> technology), it's mentioned that one of the <strong>advantages</strong> of <code>blockchain</code> against centralized <code>relational databases</code>, is <strong>scalability</strong>. </p>

<p>Just as an example : <a href="https://icorating.com/upload/whitepaper/CDt62AS6IjlVUY8CNdHk0aYJycsT7ez8Yp5HgKod.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">WePower White Paper</a>. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Quote from this white paper:</strong></p>
  
  <p><em>Relational databases are adequate in many applications and situations.
  However, sustainability and scalability are limited with these
  databases. From the perspective of sector transformation in trading
  and digital infrastructure creation, transforming energy production to
  100% renewable, the answer was to utilize a public blockchain.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Is it a correct proposition?</strong></p>

<blockchain><scalability><decentralization><database>
"Centralized Relational Databases" vs. "Decentralized Blockchain " : Which one is really more scalable?
Questioner
# "Centralized Relational Databases" vs. "Decentralized Blockchain " : Which one is really more scalable?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-08-22)

There are many research papers on **problem of scalability of blockchains**:

Just as an example : [An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hong-Ning_Dai/publication/318131748_An_Overview_of_Blockchain_Technology_Architecture_Consensus_and_Future_Trends/links/59d71faa458515db19c915a1/An-Overview-of-Blockchain-Technology-Architecture-Consensus-and-Future-Trends.pdf)

However, (usually by some companies which uses `blockchain` technology), it's mentioned that one of the **advantages** of `blockchain` against centralized `relational databases`, is **scalability**.

Just as an example : [WePower White Paper](https://icorating.com/upload/whitepaper/CDt62AS6IjlVUY8CNdHk0aYJycsT7ez8Yp5HgKod.pdf).

> **Quote from this white paper:**
>
> *Relational databases are adequate in many applications and situations.
> However, sustainability and scalability are limited with these
> databases. From the perspective of sector transformation in trading
> and digital infrastructure creation, transforming energy production to
> 100% renewable, the answer was to utilize a public blockchain.*

**Is it a correct proposition?**

**Tags:** blockchain, scalability, decentralization, database


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-08-22. Score: 0

(Note: My answer is under the assumption that "Blockchain = Bitcoin Blockchain." This doesn't apply to file blockchains such as SiaCoin or Storj)

It depends on how you define "scalability" and "centralized".

## Centralization

If you mean

> centralized = on one large computer

Yes, the blockchain might be more scalable, as it can be sharded: Here's the [huge Ethereum sharding FAQ](https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Sharding-FAQs).

> centralized = many computers in a large company

Relational databases can also be sharded, thus scalability depends on the type of the data.

## Data type

> Immutable data / data with version-tracking

Blockchain might or might not be a better option, depends on the implementation.

> Mutable data

It's not a good idea to use an immutable blockchain to keep mutable data. You can just push the changes to the blockchain. On the contrary, you will have to scan the blockchain from start to end if you need to access one file, unless the current files are so small that you can keep a copy of it. (<- Which are bigger, the files or the version history of files? It shapes how you define scalability.)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you, also I added a quote from the same white paper to precise the question more. Thanks  

---

