[gitgud]

To me it's obvious that centralisation benefits from having a simpler master-slave architecture. This makes centralised systems easier to control, update, etc. As only one part of the system controls the rest.

Conversely, decentralised systems have no master, so decisions are relatively harder to make in the system.

However, in reality centralisation is harder to scale, due to the bottle necks on the central parts of the system. Decentralisation can be theoretical easier to scale, as bottlenecks don't occur as easily.

[fastdev]

> However, in reality centralisation is harder to scale, due to the bottle necks on the central parts of the system. Decentralisation can be theoretical easier to scale, as bottlenecks don't occur as easily.

There is a difference between "distributed" and "decentralized". Uber, Amazon.com, Booking.com are distributed applications that can process a tremendous amount of transactions per second. At the same time, Amazon.com is owned by a single organization that controls data, hardware and makes all the decisions.

On the other hand, Bitcoin/Ethereum are decentralized: there is no single actor that is performing all state changes.

[h1d]

No, Bitcoin is having a hell of a time trying to scale it even split into 2 coins.

Under decentralized system they have to have quite a duplication of data even each nodes are much weaker than the one in a centralized system, they can't simply say, double the disk and be done with it.