Blockfrost chain integration

[v0d1ch]

• Final step for the blockfrost integration.

---

• CHANGELOG updated or not needed
• Documentation updated or not needed
• Haddocks updated or not needed
• No new TODOs introduced or explained herafter

[github-actions]

Transaction cost differences

Script summary

Name	Size (Bytes)
νInitial	-
νCommit	-
νHead	-
μHead	-
νDeposit	-

Init transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	-	-	-	-
2	-	-	-	-
3	-	-	-	-
5	-	-	-	-
10	-	-	-	-
43	-	-	-	-

Commit transaction costs

UTxO	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	-	-	-	-
2	-	-	-	-
3	-	-	-	-
5	-	-	-	-
10	-	-	-	-
54	-	-	-	-

CollectCom transaction costs

Parties	UTxO (bytes)	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	-	-	-	-	-
2	-	-	-	-	-
3	-	-	-	-	-
4	-	-	-	-	-
5	-	-	-	-	-
6	-	-	-	-	-
7	-	-	-	-	-
8	-	-	-	-	-
9	-	-	-	-	-

Cost of Increment Transaction

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	-	-	-	-
2	-	-	-	-
3	-	-	-	-
5	-	-	-	-
10	-	-	-	-
43	-	+0.38	+0.09	+0.01

Cost of Decrement Transaction

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	-	-	-	-
2	-	-	-	-
3	-	-	-	-
5	-	-	-	-
10	-	-	-	-
40	-	-	-	-

Close transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	-	-	-	-
2	-	-	-	-
3	-	-	-	-
5	-	-	-	-
10	-	-	-	-
35	-	-	-	-

Contest transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	-	-	-	-
2	-	-	-	-
3	-	-	-	-
5	-	-	-	-
10	-	-	-	-
29	-	-	-	-

FanOut transaction costs

UTxO, Parties	UTxO (bytes)	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
(0, 10)	-	-	-	-	-
(1, 10)	-	-	-	-	-
(5, 10)	-	-	-	-	-
(10, 10)	-	-	-	-	-
(20, 10)	-	-	-	-	-
(37, 10)	-	-	-	-	-

[github-actions]

Transaction costs

Sizes and execution budgets for Hydra protocol transactions. Note that unlisted parameters are currently using arbitrary values and results are not fully deterministic and comparable to previous runs.

Metadata
Generated at	2025-05-21 08:26:27.04559302 UTC
Max. memory units	14000000
Max. CPU units	10000000000
Max. tx size (kB)	16384

Script summary

Name	Hash	Size (Bytes)
νInitial	c8a101a5c8ac4816b0dceb59ce31fc2258e387de828f02961d2f2045	2652
νCommit	61458bc2f297fff3cc5df6ac7ab57cefd87763b0b7bd722146a1035c	685
νHead	be6ebc744208c660bf0fdc1cfbb5157477cd305de5b1777e575cbb4c	14665
μHead	1f47a42d1d6edc32ccd834acb19d5db3b2a5232f0bd7eaa8908dc519*	5284
νDeposit	ae01dade3a9c346d5c93ae3ce339412b90a0b8f83f94ec6baa24e30c	1102

• The minting policy hash is only usable for comparison. As the script is parameterized, the actual script is unique per head.

Init transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	5837	10.81	3.44	0.52
2	6037	12.41	3.92	0.54
3	6236	14.73	4.66	0.58
5	6646	18.80	5.94	0.64
10	7646	29.09	9.17	0.79
43	14279	98.73	30.85	1.80

Commit transaction costs

This uses ada-only outputs for better comparability.

UTxO	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	561	2.44	1.16	0.20
2	740	3.38	1.73	0.22
3	920	4.36	2.33	0.24
5	1280	6.41	3.60	0.28
10	2177	12.13	7.25	0.40
54	10056	98.61	68.52	1.88

CollectCom transaction costs

Parties	UTxO (bytes)	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	57	525	25.20	7.30	0.43
2	114	636	33.26	9.63	0.52
3	171	747	43.74	12.51	0.63
4	226	858	48.12	13.94	0.68
5	283	974	60.88	17.41	0.81
6	339	1081	68.27	19.58	0.89
7	395	1192	75.57	21.90	0.97
8	449	1303	98.92	27.76	1.21
9	508	1414	93.43	26.84	1.16

Cost of Increment Transaction

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	1810	24.16	8.03	0.48
2	1959	25.35	9.11	0.51
3	2021	26.18	9.93	0.52
5	2333	30.15	12.59	0.59
10	3218	41.31	19.75	0.77
39	7280	91.79	55.29	1.61

Cost of Decrement Transaction

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	589	22.50	7.27	0.41
2	756	23.59	8.21	0.43
3	878	24.98	9.27	0.46
5	1312	31.80	12.54	0.56
10	1896	38.62	17.75	0.67
40	6454	94.24	53.22	1.58

Close transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	665	28.99	9.24	0.48
2	774	28.43	9.71	0.48
3	986	33.22	11.99	0.55
5	1300	34.76	13.88	0.59
10	1956	43.79	20.12	0.74
38	6265	99.83	57.32	1.65

Contest transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	667	33.73	10.50	0.53
2	814	35.77	11.79	0.56
3	1042	39.09	13.67	0.61
5	1262	42.38	15.91	0.66
10	2036	54.33	23.17	0.85
30	4983	99.06	50.61	1.53

Abort transaction costs

There is some variation due to the random mixture of initial and already committed outputs.

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	5789	26.97	9.03	0.69
2	5917	35.84	12.00	0.79
3	6128	46.41	15.63	0.91
4	6144	53.22	17.81	0.98
5	6352	64.87	21.75	1.11
6	6442	72.83	24.36	1.20
7	6700	85.63	28.87	1.34
8	6584	81.52	27.22	1.29

FanOut transaction costs

Involves spending head output and burning head tokens. Uses ada-only UTXO for better comparability.

Parties	UTxO	UTxO (bytes)	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
10	0	0	5835	19.19	6.41	0.61
10	1	57	5868	21.67	7.37	0.64
10	5	284	6003	29.10	10.35	0.72
10	10	569	6173	38.38	14.07	0.83
10	20	1139	6513	59.76	22.45	1.08
10	30	1707	6853	79.64	30.32	1.31
10	38	2164	7127	96.50	36.94	1.51

End-to-end benchmark results

This page is intended to collect the latest end-to-end benchmark results produced by Hydra's continuous integration (CI) system from the latest master code.

Please note that these results are approximate as they are currently produced from limited cloud VMs and not controlled hardware. Rather than focusing on the absolute results, the emphasis should be on relative results, such as how the timings for a scenario evolve as the code changes.

Generated at 2025-05-21 08:30:57.261396813 UTC

Baseline Scenario

Number of nodes	1
Number of txs	300
Avg. Confirmation Time (ms)	4.148266246
P99	5.730023859999962ms
P95	4.7965254ms
P50	4.012975ms
Number of Invalid txs	0

Memory data

Time	Used	Free
2025-05-21 08:29:42.54098802 UTC	730M	6721M
2025-05-21 08:29:47.54090114 UTC	841M	6569M
2025-05-21 08:29:52.540869667 UTC	833M	6576M
2025-05-21 08:29:57.5408578 UTC	833M	6576M
2025-05-21 08:30:02.540848191 UTC	838M	6571M
2025-05-21 08:30:07.540765002 UTC	839M	6570M

Three local nodes

Number of nodes	3
Number of txs	900
Avg. Confirmation Time (ms)	26.894312210
P99	39.91703951ms
P95	35.39602984999999ms
P50	25.973728ms
Number of Invalid txs	0

Memory data

Time	Used	Free
2025-05-21 08:30:20.504030364 UTC	757M	6687M
2025-05-21 08:30:25.506700768 UTC	974M	6387M
2025-05-21 08:30:30.505757064 UTC	1029M	6266M
2025-05-21 08:30:35.504218951 UTC	1033M	6224M
2025-05-21 08:30:40.504291134 UTC	1034M	6221M
2025-05-21 08:30:45.504141598 UTC	1036M	6218M
2025-05-21 08:30:50.504284745 UTC	1035M	6218M
2025-05-21 08:30:55.504118425 UTC	1036M	6217M

[locallycompact]

What's happening here? Why so many script tx ids?

[v0d1ch]

I guess the generator does it. I'll see if anything changed there.

[ffakenz]

nice job!

excited to see this in action already!

[ffakenz]

in love with this type class! <3

[locallycompact]

I'm not a fan of this kind of lawless overloading, but if we must do this then it should be a monad class. methods should not have constraints in the context.

An example of this kind of style is in pandoc:

https://hackage-content.haskell.org/package/pandoc-3.7.0.1/docs/Text-Pandoc-Class.html#t:PandocMonad

[v0d1ch]

@locallycompact I lean towards your approach but even more I think handles would be appropriate considering the our coding style. Let's do the changes as a follow up if you agree since this PR is dragging for a long time.