raising taproot: Was it an accident or just a consistency?
In recent months, the Ethereum community has witnessed significant changes in blockchain architecture, especially in relation to the update of Taproot. One of the key aspects of this update is to reduce transaction size limits for some types of transactions.
The thread on Twitter from Pourteaux, which caught our attention, caused an intriguing question: did the limitation of the size of the transaction random, did it have unintentional consequences? We will delve into details and examine why defense may be willing to fill the blocks with OP-RETURN addresses (op_return).
What is taproot?
Taproot is a key element of the Ethereum scalability solution. It allows users to create complex transactions that may contain many entries, outputs and fees in one transaction. The idea of taproot is to reduce the amount of data required for each transaction using nested transactions at the block level (BLT) instead of individual input/output.
Reducing the size of the reducing transaction: short background
Before Taproot, each transaction on Ethereum had a constant size limit, known as “the border of the size of the block”. This limited the number and complexity of transactions that can be included in the entire block. The current block size limit is 1.5 MB (megabytes).
new block size limit
In October 2021, the Ethereum team implemented a new block size limit up to 2500 KB (kilobytes), which was seen as more flexible than the previous 1.5 m limit.
taproot and reduction of transaction size
As part of the Taproot update, the limits of the size of the transaction were reduced from 4 MB to 400 KB for some types of transactions. This change allowed the creation of nested transactions at the block level (BLT), which can be used to create complex, multi -stage transactions with many outputs.
However, some users have noticed that this reduction of the transaction size limit may not be completely accidental. They claim that the new limit can lead to unintentional consequences, such as:
- Increased complexity : by reducing the number of transactions to the block, the overall complexity of each block is increased. This can lead to longer transactions and more complex questions on blockchain.
- Reduced scalability : New limits may not be enough to deal with the expected increase in user traffic and growing demand for intelligent functionality of the contract.
- Increased energy consumption : A reduced block size limit may require users to send more transactions, which may lead to increased energy consumption and environmental impact.
addresses of orinals and returring
One of the most interesting aspects of this new development is that the boards (key function in Ethereum 2.0) will be able to use OP-RENTURN addresses to fill in their assets. Ongoes are specialized network nodes that store data from external sources, such as financial markets or weather APi interfaces.
OP-RETURN addresses are a way to send your data to users without having to worry about the complexity and security of traditional blockchain-based systems. By using OP-RETURN addresses, boards can effectively send resources to users without the need for complex transactions.
Application
Although you cannot know if raising the limit of the size of the Taproot transaction was a random or intentional change, potential unintentional consequences aroused interest and debate among the Ethereum community.
Reducing the transaction size limits can lead to increased complexity, reduced scalability and potentially higher energy consumption. However, cleaning willingly fill the blocks with OP-RETURN addresses, because it allows them to effectively transfer resources without relying on complex transactions.