Evaluate Overhead Of Deploying WebAuthn Logic In Signer

[nlordell]

One reason to have the WebAuthn signer contract "proxy" the signature verification logic to a WebAuthnVerifier (or the WebAuthn contract with #311) is to save on deployment gas.

However, given a more optimal Base64 implementation in #289, it may not save that much deployment bytecode to merrit the separation.

This issue captures the work to analyze including WebAuthn logic directly in the WebAuthnSigner contract and evaluate the gas tradeoffs of doing so.

[nlordell]

Partially implemented in #320, where a code-size optimized WebAuthn library implementation was introduced.

We should still compare gas consumption against a minimal proxy implementation before deciding.

Expected Outcome

A PR with a WebAuthnSigner implemented as a minimal proxy with gas analysis. Then, we should decide which implementation we prefer compared to #320.

[nlordell]

Closing issue, as the expected outcome has been achieved, and we decided to go with the proxy implementation.