I used to be studying this Twitter thread from pourteaux. I am fairly positive there are some inaccuracies in it however I’ve a few questions.

He states:

Taproot by accident blew up the outdated transaction measurement restrict in OP_RETURN

It wasn’t unintentional in any respect from what I perceive. The earlier transaction measurement restrict (pre Taproot) was intentionally relaxed although I can not (but) discover hyperlinks to historic dialogue on whether or not to chill out it or not.

Previously, arbitrary knowledge was restricted to 80 bytes through OP_RETURN, however with this quirk of Taproot you would take up a complete 4MB block with only one NFT transaction.

The OP_RETURN knowledge restrict in a single output stays submit Taproot. It’s simply now with no transaction measurement restrict you would (if you happen to have been prepared to pay ample payment) fill a complete block with a single transaction with many OP_RETURN outputs?

Is there a purpose Ordinals or NFTs would wish a number of OP_RETURNs in a single transaction? I used to be underneath the impression {that a} single OP_RETURN was ample for these use instances as you’ll be able to successfully embed a Merkle tree root within the OP_RETURN? I am not sure why these use instances would wish to pay the transaction payment(s) to fill blocks with OP_RETURN outputs.