user80160: The original Bitcoin whitepaper mentions that there can be at most two outputs:

Normally there will be either a single input from a larger previous
  transaction or multiple inputs combining smaller amounts, and at most
two outputs: one for the payment, and one returning the change, if
  any, back to the sender.

However, I see transactions like this:
https://blockchain.info/tx/c18ff55d09c596ffbad30321719171c0d5b4d677d3554fc6ab3d12167ea8b9d6
that has many outputs.
Is this contradicting the Bitcoin paper or is there something I'm not getting?

user5757: Note the word normally at the beginning of the sentence.  This isn't imposing a restriction but merely describing a common use case.
It's obviously useful to allow more than two outputs, and there's no particular reason to impose any arbitrary limit on the number.  I don't think such a limit was ever contemplated.
In any case, the whitepaper isn't considered to be an authoritative description of the protocol; that would be the reference client.  For instance, the whitepaper describes a scheme for reclaiming disk space that I don't believe was ever implemented (the "pruning" feature came much later and is somewhat different).

80160: <p>The original <a href="https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bitcoin whitepaper</a> mentions that there can be at most two outputs:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Normally there will be either a single input from a larger previous
  transaction or multiple inputs combining smaller amounts, <strong>and at most</strong>
  <strong>two outputs</strong>: one for the payment, and one returning the change, if
  any, back to the sender.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>However, I see transactions like this:</p>

<p><a href="https://blockchain.info/tx/c18ff55d09c596ffbad30321719171c0d5b4d677d3554fc6ab3d12167ea8b9d6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://blockchain.info/tx/c18ff55d09c596ffbad30321719171c0d5b4d677d3554fc6ab3d12167ea8b9d6</a></p>

<p>that has many outputs.</p>

<p>Is this contradicting the Bitcoin paper or is there something I'm not getting?</p>
 5757: <p>Note the word <em>normally</em> at the beginning of the sentence.  This isn't imposing a restriction but merely describing a common use case.</p>

<p>It's obviously useful to allow more than two outputs, and there's no particular reason to impose any arbitrary limit on the number.  I don't think such a limit was ever contemplated.</p>

<p>In any case, the whitepaper isn't considered to be an authoritative description of the protocol; that would be the reference client.  For instance, the whitepaper describes a scheme for reclaiming disk space that I don't believe was ever implemented (the "pruning" feature came much later and is somewhat different).</p>
