Adapt arbitrage weight calculations to proof sizes #1120
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does it do?
Previously,$w(a)$ be the weight required for arbitraging $a$ pools. We assume that $w$ is a linear function, $w(a) = ma + b$ . We therefore have $w(1) - w(0) = m + b - b = m$ . Suppose that $W$ is the available weight. Then the maximum number of pools we can arbitrage in the time available is $\frac{W - b}{m}$ (just solve $W = w(a)$ for $a$ ), ignoring the fact that we need to round down to make $a$ an integer.
execute_arbitrage_all
did the following calculation to estimate how many pools can be arbitrages. LetBut weights now have two components, ref time and proof size. The changes in this PR are the following:
on_idle
to even do the calculation described above. This is definitely an overestimation, but we should be on the safe side.What important points should reviewers know?
Is there something left for follow-up PRs?
What alternative implementations were considered?
Are there relevant PRs or issues?
References