[manta] Adjust Calamari weight to fee calculation

[ghzlatarev]

Description

closes: #299

• Adjust weight to fee calculation so our tx fees are at least as expensive as Polkadot/Kusama/Moonbeam/Acala. Compared balance.transfer and system.remark :
• transfer on Polkadot is roughly $0.47
• transfer on Kusama is roughly $0.016
• transfer on Acala is roughly $0.01
• transfer on Moonriver is roughly $0.25
• transfer on Calamari was $0.000036 and now is roughly $0.036

---

Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

• Targeted PR against correct branch (manta or dolphin) with right title (start with [Manta] or [Dolphin]),
• Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR have an explanation in the PR that describes this work.
• Wrote unit tests.
• Updated relevant documentation in the code.
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer.
• If runtime changes, need to update the version numbers properly:
  • authoring_version: The version of the authorship interface. An authoring node will not attempt to author blocks unless this is equal to its native runtime.
  • spec_version: The version of the runtime specification. A full node will not attempt to use its native runtime in substitute for the on-chain Wasm runtime unless all of spec_name, spec_version, and authoring_version are the same between Wasm and native.
  • impl_version: The version of the implementation of the specification. Nodes are free to ignore this; it serves only as an indication that the code is different; as long as the other two versions are the same then while the actual code may be different, it is nonetheless required to do the same thing. Non-consensus-breaking optimizations are about the only changes that could be made which would result in only the impl_version changing.
  • transaction_version: The version of the extrinsics interface. This number must be updated in the following circumstances: extrinsic parameters (number, order, or types) have been changed; extrinsics or pallets have been removed; or the pallet order in the construct_runtime! macro or extrinsic order in a pallet has been changed. If this number is updated, then the spec_version must also be updated
• If needed, notify the committer this is a draft-release and a tag is needed after merging the PR.
• Verify benchmarks & weights have been updated for any modified runtime logics
• If needed, bump version for every crate.
• If import a new pallet, choose a proper module index for it, and allow it in BaseFilter. Ensure every extrinsic works from front-end. If there's corresponding tool, ensure both work for each other.
• If needed, update our Javascript/Typescript APIs. These APIs are offcially used by exchanges or community developers.
• If we're going to issue a new release, freeze the code one week early(it depends, but usually it's one week), ensure we have enough time for related testing.

[ghost]

👍

[stechu]

For current block weight, this means a single block cause 43.2 USD to attack?

[ghzlatarev]

For current block weight, this means a single block cause 43.2 USD to attack?

Right, based on Jamie's results of 1134 transactions in a block I get ~41USD

[Dengjianping]

For current block weight, this means a single block cause 43.2 USD to attack?

Right, based on Jamie's results of 1134 transactions in a block I get ~41USD

Once we change fees calculation, I think we should re-benchmark all related pallets.
And perhaps 1134 is not correct any more.

[ghzlatarev]

For current block weight, this means a single block cause 43.2 USD to attack?

Right, based on Jamie's results of 1134 transactions in a block I get ~41USD

Once we change fees calculation, I think we should re-benchmark all related pallets. And perhaps 1134 is not correct any more.

This should probably be the last PR to merge then.

[stechu]

Per the discussion on Discord, we need a clear understanding of the fee dynamics under network congestion. I personally don't think a fixed fee is a good design.