Bitcoin header chain verification per network

[yaziciahmet]

Description

Implements different header chain verification for each type of bitcoin networks: mainnet, testnet4, signet, regtest.

The only work remaining is to decide on the initial DA blocks for mainnet, testnet4, and signet.

Linked Issues

• Fixes Bitcoin header chain for different networks #1634

Testing

Describe how these changes were tested. If you've added new features, have you added unit tests?

Docs

Describe where this code is documented. If it changes a documented interface, have the docs been updated?

[eyusufatik]

well done

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 71.42857% with 118 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.7%. Comparing base (3ef406b) to head (40def29).
Report is 1 commits behind head on nightly.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
crates/bitcoin-da/src/verifier.rs	71.6%	98 Missing ⚠️
crates/light-client-prover/src/da_block_handler.rs	0.0%	11 Missing ⚠️
...ereign-sdk/full-node/db/sov-db/src/schema/types.rs	0.0%	9 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
crates/bitcoin-da/src/network_constants.rs	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
crates/light-client-prover/src/circuit.rs	95.4% <100.0%> (+<0.1%)	⬆️
...tes/sovereign-sdk/adapters/mock-da/src/verifier.rs	84.6% <100.0%> (-0.3%)	⬇️
...sovereign-sdk/rollup-interface/src/node/rpc/mod.rs	88.9% <100.0%> (+<0.1%)	⬆️
...reign-sdk/rollup-interface/src/state_machine/da.rs	74.0% <100.0%> (+0.3%)	⬆️
...n-sdk/rollup-interface/src/state_machine/zk/mod.rs	93.7% <ø> (ø)
...ereign-sdk/full-node/db/sov-db/src/schema/types.rs	71.3% <0.0%> (-1.7%)	⬇️
crates/light-client-prover/src/da_block_handler.rs	0.0% <0.0%> (ø)
crates/bitcoin-da/src/verifier.rs	76.8% <71.6%> (+30.1%)	⬆️

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes

[yaziciahmet]

One thing I realized is that, we actually don't need total work. We just store it, and add to it, no checks whatsoever. Should we remove it?

[ozankaymak]

I implemented all functionalities in a single function, did not seperate according to the network since we can decide it in compile time, see the pull request and the file. It would also be a good double check for me.

[yaziciahmet]

I implemented all functionalities in a single function, did not seperate according to the network since we can decide it in compile time, see the pull request and the file. It would also be a good double check for me.

Due to our current code structure, it is hard and ugly for us to decide this on compile-time. Also, this makes it a bit more testable with the unit and integration tests, not limiting us to e2e tests where we compile each target accordingly and test. Hence, I tried to get away with one match statement in runtime and no other overhead.

[ozankaymak]

Lgtm