Back to 64 byte blocks for the market

[brittcyr]

[brittcyr]

Will follow up with client code change after review of program

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 83.96947% with 21 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
programs/manifest/src/quantities.rs	74.57%	15 Missing ⚠️
...ams/manifest/src/program/processor/batch_update.rs	53.84%	6 Missing ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[brittcyr]

without price caching, this is what I get
{
"name": "MFX_50",
"value": 8356,
"unit": "CU",
"range": "",
"extra": ""
},
{
"name": "MFX_95",
"value": 12343,
"unit": "CU",
"range": "",
"extra": ""
},
{
"name": "MFX_99",
"value": 13951,
"unit": "CU",
"range": "",
"extra": ""
}

a noticeable increase

[mschneider]

we are still 5% away from target on the 50, adding 20% on top of that for a 25% decrease in rent (after we reduced it by 9999%) seems like a step in the wrong direction. It's trading an insignificant rent improvement for significant cu efficiency.

[brittcyr]

we are still 5% away from target on the 50, adding 20% on top of that for a 25% decrease in rent (after we reduced it by 9999%) seems like a step in the wrong direction. It's trading an insignificant rent improvement for significant cu efficiency.

I'll keep this open in case we do want to try to cache things and squeeze back the CU, but agree that as it stands now, the decision would be no go.