[EPIC] Auth

[derekpierre]

Type of PR:

• [ ] Bugfix
• [x] Feature
• [ ] Documentation
• [ ] Other

Required reviews:

• [ ] 1
• [ ] 2
• [X] 3

What this does:

Customizable Authentication.

Comprised of PRs:

• [x] #518
• [x] #526
• [x] #529
• [ ] #530 - Not a blocker
• [x] #531
• [x] #532
• [x] #534
• [x] #537
• [x] #546
• [x] #547

Issues fixed/closed:

• Fixes #...

Why it's needed:

Explain how this PR fits in the greater context of the NuCypher Network. E.g., if this PR address a nucypher/productdev issue, let reviewers know!

Notes for reviewers:

What should reviewers focus on? Is there a particular commit/function/section of your PR that requires more attention from reviewers?

[netlify[bot]]

✅ Deploy Preview for taco-nft-demo canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	8cb3e9ea06f976f8185797aef4a84aab2ef341da
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/taco-nft-demo/deploys/66a3ed1abe2b900008b08982

[netlify[bot]]

✅ Deploy Preview for taco-demo canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	8cb3e9ea06f976f8185797aef4a84aab2ef341da
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/taco-demo/deploys/66a3ed1a2e678a0008157845

[piotr-roslaniec]

I think https://github.com/nucypher/taco-web/pull/534 became superficial - If we proceed with deprecation and removal of EIP712 we don't have to expose the complexity of managing auth providers to taco users just yet. There would be just one auth provider for the time being, the EIP4361 auth provider, and we provide it internally by wrapping ethers.Signer. So the decrypt method would not change in this release, and so on.

Other than than that I think we can merge this epic.

Edit: There is a couple of things we need to do before release like updating demos and docs, but I'm focusing on the scope of the epic here.