Now, when submitting transactions as opposed to before CIP-69, for the same script, the tx size increases from 968 bytes to 3401 bytes, which is a size increase by ~350%.
With CIP-69, is there a way to unwrap the redeemer that is more efficient wrt. to size of serialized code?
In general, is some sort of unwrapping code inside a script now a requirement?
Add: in our benchmarking setup, for the HashOntoG2AndAdd benchmark, this correlates with a tx fee increase by ~21%. (edited)
This task is to investigate such a size increase and conclude if this is expected and justified or if something fishy is going on.
@mgmeier :
So this snippet is now the scaffolding for our V3 benchmarking scripts (validtor, spending script) - we only need the redeemer
Now, when submitting transactions as opposed to before CIP-69, for the same script, the tx size increases from 968 bytes to 3401 bytes, which is a size increase by ~350%.
Add: in our benchmarking setup, for the
HashOntoG2AndAdd
benchmark, this correlates with a tx fee increase by ~21%. (edited)This task is to investigate such a size increase and conclude if this is expected and justified or if something fishy is going on.