RCP-240313B: Abstract script and type libraries out of consensus structures

[dr-orlovsky]

Implementation of https://github.com/RGB-WG/RFC/issues/4 on the consensus layer

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 5.00000% with 57 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 15.1%. Comparing base (2e01d87) to head (e3966db).

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/validation/logic.rs	0.0%	25 Missing :warning:
src/vm/runtime.rs	0.0%	11 Missing :warning:
src/validation/validator.rs	0.0%	9 Missing :warning:
src/validation/consignment.rs	0.0%	7 Missing :warning:
src/schema/script.rs	25.0%	3 Missing :warning:
src/schema/schema.rs	33.3%	2 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #221 +/- ## ======================================== - Coverage 15.2% 15.1% -0.1% ======================================== Files 33 33 Lines 4267 4187 -80 ======================================== - Hits 648 631 -17 + Misses 3619 3556 -63 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/RGB-WG/rgb-core/pull/221/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=RGB-WG) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [rust](https://app.codecov.io/gh/RGB-WG/rgb-core/pull/221/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=RGB-WG) | `15.1% <5.0%> (-0.1%)` | :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=RGB-WG#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.

[zoedberg]

To test this in rgb-lib I'm patching rgb-std with https://github.com/RGB-WG/rgb-std/pull/166, but compilation fails. Since that PR is still in WIP I assume this is expected, but I'm reporting this because I don't feel confident to approve this PR without first being able to test it with rgb-lib

[dr-orlovsky]

Yes, this is blocked upstream in https://github.com/RGB-WG/rgb-std/pull/166 which has appeared to be much more invasive than I thought. ATM I am not able to finish it due to other priorities, so this PR should be postponed as well.

[dr-orlovsky]

A better alternative: https://github.com/RGB-WG/rgb-core/pull/227

[dr-orlovsky]

Closing in favor of https://github.com/RGB-WG/rgb-core/pull/227