The removal of Taproot: was it an accident or just a consequence?
Over the past few months, the Ethereum community has witnessed significant changes to the blockchain architecture, in particular regarding the Taproot upgrade. A key aspect of this upgrade is the reduction of transaction size limits for certain types of transactions.
The Twitter thread by pourteaux, which caught our attention, raised an intriguing question: was the removal of Taproot’s transaction size limit accidental or did it have unintended consequences? We’ll dive into the details and explore why ordinals might be eager to fill blocks with OP-Return (OP_RETURN) addresses.
What is Taproot?
Taproot is a key component of Ethereum’s scalability solution. It allows users to create complex transactions that can include multiple inputs, outputs, and fees in a single transaction. The idea behind Taproot is to reduce the amount of data needed for each transaction by using nested block-level transactions (BLTs) instead of individual inputs/outputs.
The Transaction Size Limit in Reduction: A Brief Background
Prior to Taproot, each transaction on Ethereum had a fixed size limit, known as a “block size limit.” This limited the number and complexity of transactions that could be included in a full block. The current block size limit is 1.5 MB (megabytes).
The New Block Size Limit
In October 2021, the Ethereum team implemented a new block size limit of 2500 KB (kilobytes), which was considered more flexible than the previous limit of 1.5 MB.
Taproot and Transaction Size Reduction
As part of the Taproot upgrade, transaction size limits were reduced from 4 MB to 400 KB for certain types of transactions. This change allowed for the creation of nested block-level transactions (BLTs), which can be used to create complex multi-input transactions with multiple outputs.
However, some users have pointed out that this reduction in the transaction size limit may not be entirely accidental. They argue that the new limit could lead to unintended consequences, such as:
- Increased complexity: By reducing the number of transactions per block, the overall complexity of each block increases. This could lead to longer transaction times and more complex queries on the blockchain.
- Lower scalability
: The new limits may not be sufficient to handle the expected growth in user traffic and increasing demand for smart contract functionality.
- Increased energy consumption: The reduced block size limit may require users to submit more transactions, which could lead to increased energy consumption and environmental impact.
OP-Return Addresses and Oracles
One of the most interesting aspects of this new development is that ordinals (a key feature in Ethereum 2.0) will be able to use OP-Return Addresses to fill blocks with their assets. Oracles are specialized nodes on the network that store data from external sources, such as financial markets or weather APIs.
OP-Return Addresses are a way for oracles to send their data to users without having to worry about the complexity and security of traditional blockchain-based systems. By using OP-Return Addresses, ordinals can efficiently transfer assets to users without the need for complex transactions.
Conclusion
While it is impossible to know for sure whether the removal of Taproot’s transaction size limit was an accidental or intentional change, the potential unintended consequences have sparked interest and debate among the Ethereum community.
The reduction in transaction size limits may lead to increased complexity, reduced scalability, and potentially increased energy consumption. However, Ordinals are eager to fill blocks with OP-Return addresses, as this allows them to efficiently transfer assets without relying on complex transactions.
