Updated fee transaction priority proposal

[apfitzge]

Problem

Out of date and fee priority scheduler proposal

Summary of Changes

Updated the fee priority proposal for current idea of how we should schedule transacitons

Fixes #

[stale[bot]]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

[tao-stones]

The first paragraph needs to be updated, mainly to replace term additional fee with compute-unit price (aka prioritization fee), as it has been changed since the original proposal. Perhaps something like this:

[Prioritization Fee](https://github.com/solana-labs/solana/blob/master/docs/src/terminology.md#prioritization-fee)  were introduced to transactions as a method to allow users to bid for priority for
their transactions in the leader's queue.
The fee priority of a transaction `T` can then be defined as `F(T)`, where `F(T)` is the "compute-unit price", can be set by `ComputeBudgetInstruction.set_compute_unit_price()`. 

[tao-stones]

2. If T1 cannot be processed before T2 because there's already a transaction currently being processed that contends on an account A, then T2 should not be scheduled if it would grab any account locks needed by T1. This prevents lower fee transactions like T2 from starving higher paying transactions like T1.

As briefly discussed early, another reason for T1 cannot be processed could be it hit block/account compute-unit limit. In that case, T2 still should not be scheduled before T1

[apfitzge]

This was an initial idea for: #27027