Rename functions to reduce gas costs

[bxmmm1]

See issue for description and explanation

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #185 (77016ce) into main (27f856f) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head 77016ce differs from pull request most recent head 110c837. Consider uploading reports for the commit 110c837 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #185   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.85%   99.85%           
=======================================
  Files          13       13           
  Lines         697      697           
  Branches       88       88           
=======================================
  Hits          696      696           
  Misses          1        1           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
contracts/Controller.sol	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
contracts/ExtraRewardStash.sol	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
contracts/VoterProxy.sol	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 27f856f...110c837. Read the comment docs.

[BritikovKI]

Just tbh I don't like this solution. I understand that it maybe saves 40 gas for each call, which is like 10^11 wei, but what we have is 10^18 is one ether, which means we need to have 10 000 000 calls to reach the price of 1 ether. And due to the fact that the contract call is let's say 20-40k gas, this thing is just 0,1% increase of the cost, but in return we get beautiful and easier to read/understand function names.
Huge protocols like Uniswap/Sushi/Balancer/Curve don't do this magic for the contract names. If we will need to truly optimize costs, it's a lot better and more optimal to use inline bytecode or develop in Yul/Viper

[bxmmm1]

Just tbh I don't like this solution. I understand that it maybe saves 40 gas for each call, which is like 10^11 wei, but what we have is 10^18 is one ether, which means we need to have 10 000 000 calls to reach the price of 1 ether. And due to the fact that the contract call is let's say 20-40k gas, this thing is just 0,1% increase of the cost, but in return we get beautiful and easier to read/understand function names. Huge protocols like Uniswap/Sushi/Balancer/Curve don't do this magic for the contract names. If we will need to truly optimize costs, it's a lot better and more optimal to use inline bytecode or develop in Yul/Viper

Normal name earmarkRewards consumes 252510 and weird name one 252395. The difference is 115.
I got these values by running npm run test on main / this branch.

Convex called earmarkRewards 125903 times from the start (8/05/21)
https://bloxy.info/txs/calls_sc/0xf403c135812408bfbe8713b5a23a04b3d48aae31?signature_id=1913750

Let's say that we do half of that.
For 62951 calls * 115 we'd save ~ 7 239 365.
I agree that it is important to have nice and readable functions that are intended to be called by the public, but for these functions, it shouldn't matter that much.