refactor: wsts-related cleanup

[cylewitruk]

Description

A breakout PR from #1285 to move some of the more refactor-like changes related to WSTS.

Part of: #1300

⚠️ This PR's branch is targeted by #1285 which needs to merge into this branch before merging this PR into main.

Changes

• Rename WstsMessage.txid to id and use a WstsMessageId enum instead of a bitcoin::Txid.
  • Protobufs updated in a backwards-compatible way, deprecating the txid field (flagging this breaking-protocol anyway, just in-case).
  • Generated proto code updated.
• StateMachineId is now an enum instead of a newtype over [u8; 32].
• A fair bit of restructuring/cleanup in wsts_state_machine.rs. This is the bulk of the changes in this PR
• Some logging improvements.
• Updates wsts to this commit (apply-fix + this).
  • ... and brings FROST back to life 🥳

Testing Information

All existing tests pass and devenv works like a charm.

Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my code
• My changes generate no new warnings
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

[xoloki]

Couple of quick questions, but LGTM

[cylewitruk]

@xoloki is the wsts version/rev correct?

[xoloki]

@xoloki is the wsts version/rev correct?

This is the rev for the head of the apply-fix branch, which has all the hotfixes plus the framework necessary for this PR.

I'm really not sure what version this should be. That branch is still version 10.0.0, but we changed the Coordinator trait in the last two changes, so maybe it needs to be 10.1.0 ?

[cylewitruk]

@xoloki is the wsts version/rev correct?

This is the rev for the head of the apply-fix branch, which has all the hotfixes plus the framework necessary for this PR.

I'm really not sure what version this should be. That branch is still version 10.0.0, but we changed the Coordinator trait in the last two changes, so maybe it needs to be 10.1.0 ?

Yeah we might need a minor release to include that, if we don't want to use the commit hash. I've reviewed the changes so I'm fine with using the commit hash until it's ready, but yeah it would be nice to have a 10.1.0.

[xoloki]

Yeah we might need a minor release to include that, if we don't want to use the commit hash. I've reviewed the changes so I'm fine with using the commit hash until it's ready, but yeah it would be nice to have a 10.1.0.

Ok, I'll publish 10.1.0 just before you merge this set of PRs into main, to avoid any churn. Or I could just do it now and risk needing to also publish 10.2.0.