Rewamp workflows on generating commitment ids

[dr-orlovsky]

This is the result of self-audit for the commitment ID constructions. In v0.10 we had a very non-transparent commitment workflow with multiple redundant hashing, absence of clear tagged hash structure etc. This PR linearizes commitment workflows, streamlines and simplifies related APIs.

This is consensus-breaking since generated commitments will differ.

Summary of changes:

• All commitments are now created with a single procedure
• CommitEncode now implemented only for types generating the final commitment id. This prevents multiple bugs when commit encode was calling strict encoding, and the commitment-encode code in the subtypes was never executed
• Fixed relation between commit-encode and conceal procedures
• MPC Merkle trees now commit to depth, cofactor and other metadata
• New CommitEncoder type which logs all commitment workflow and is able to document it right from the runtime

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 75.11521% with 54 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 76.7%. Comparing base (c604733) to head (5359d84).

:exclamation: Current head 5359d84 differs from pull request most recent head b7df64a. Consider uploading reports for the commit b7df64a to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
commit_verify/src/id.rs	50.0%	26 Missing :warning:
commit_verify/src/merkle.rs	72.2%	15 Missing :warning:
commit_verify/derive/src/derive.rs	81.8%	4 Missing :warning:
commit_verify/src/mpc/block.rs	81.8%	4 Missing :warning:
commit_verify/derive/src/params.rs	75.0%	3 Missing :warning:
commit_verify/derive/tests/base.rs	96.9%	1 Missing :warning:
commit_verify/src/mpc/atoms.rs	75.0%	1 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #152 +/- ## ======================================== - Coverage 82.6% 76.7% -5.9% ======================================== Files 20 19 -1 Lines 2076 1710 -366 ======================================== - Hits 1714 1311 -403 - Misses 362 399 +37 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/LNP-BP/client_side_validation/pull/152/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LNP-BP) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [rust](https://app.codecov.io/gh/LNP-BP/client_side_validation/pull/152/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LNP-BP) | `76.7% <75.1%> (-5.9%)` | :arrow_down: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LNP-BP#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[crisdut]

Hi @dr-orlovsky,

I found an error related with this implementation in rgb-core, see here: https://github.com/RGB-WG/rgb-core/pull/204#issuecomment-1935439581

[dr-orlovsky]

@crisdut The only way to solve the issue seems to do another re-wamp. WIP.