Lifting the main root: was it an accident or just a consequence?

In the last few months, the Ethereum community has gone through significant changes in the blockchain architecture, especially with the Taproot update. One of the key elements of the update is the reduction of transaction size limits for certain types of transactions.

Pourteaux’s Twitter thread that caught our attention raised an interesting question: was Taproot’s removal of transaction size limits accidental or did it have unintended consequences? We’ll dig into the details and examine why sequence numbers might be willing 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 required for each transaction by using nested block-level transactions (BLTs) instead of individual I/Os.

Transaction Size Limit: A Brief Background

Before Taproot, every transaction on Ethereum had a fixed size limit, called the “block size limit”. This limited the number and complexity of transactions that could be included in an entire block. The current block size is 1.5 MB (megabytes).

New Block Size Limit

In October 2021, the Ethereum team introduced a new block size limit of 2500 KB (kilobytes), which seemed to be more flexible than the previous 1.5 MB limit.

Taproot and Transaction Size Reduction

As part of the Taproot update, 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 transactions with multiple inputs and multiple outputs.

However, some users have pointed out that the reduction in transaction size limits may not be entirely accidental. They argue that the new limit could have unintended consequences, such as:

• Increased complexity: By reducing the number of transactions per block, the overall complexity of each block increases. This can result in longer transaction times and more complex queries on the blockchain.

• Reduced scalability: The new limits may not be enough to handle the expected growth in user traffic and the increasing demand for smart contract features.

• Increased energy consumption: Due to the reduced block size limit, users will have to send more transactions, which can lead to increased energy consumption and environmental impact.

Publisher and OP-Return Addresses

One of the most interesting aspects of this new development is that ordinals (a key feature of Ethereum 2.0) will be able to complete blocks with their devices using OP-Return addresses. Oracles are specialized nodes on the network that store data from external sources, such as financial markets or weather APIs.

OP-Return addresses allow oracles to send their data to users without having to worry about the complexity and security of traditional blockchain-based systems. Using OP-Return addresses, serial numbers can efficiently transfer assets to users without the need for complicated transactions.

Conclusion

While it is not known for certain whether the removal of Taproot’s transaction size limit was an accidental or intentional change, the possible unintended consequences have sparked interest and discussion in the Ethereum community.

Reducing the transaction size limit can lead to increased complexity, reduced scalability, and potentially higher energy consumption. However, ordinals are happy to populate blocks with OP-Return addresses because it allows them to efficiently transfer assets without relying on complicated transactions.