Enable collection of secp256k1_verify and secp256r1_verify operators

[Rigidity]

With BLS signatures, you can simply run a puzzle with its solution to figure out all of the public key and message pairs that need to be signed, since they're included in the list of output conditions.

However, the secp256k1 and secp256r1 opcodes will fail at runtime if the signature passed into the solution doesn't match, instead of returning the expected values in conditions.

This PR enables a similar workflow by adding a new run_program_with_signatures function that skips and collects these operators and returns them in a list. Instead of failing the program, they will be treated as if they were successful in validating the signature, to allow the rest of the program to proceed. You can iterate the list of collected ops to find the public keys, messages, and signatures needed for signing.

The only problem with this is you need a way to update the original solution afterward to use the new signatures (and then you could run it for real to see if it actually worked). This is the responsibility of the code consuming this API, and can potentially be done in two ways:

1. Walk the solution as a tree of NodePtrs and compare the NodePtr directly via a HashMap. This assumes nothing has been done to change the NodePtr itself (quoting does not, for example).
2. Instead of nil and relying on the NodePtr matching, you could use a completely random fake signature and check for equality of the signature value in order to replace it with the real signature later.

I believe this PR will enable considerable simplification of wallet code, if my assumptions are correct.

[coveralls-official]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12041720866

Details

• 64 of 66 (96.97%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.1%) to 93.443%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
src/run_program.rs	46	47	97.87%
src/runtime_dialect.rs	0	1	0.0%

Totals
Change from base Build 11855487378:	0.1%
Covered Lines:	5615
Relevant Lines:	6009

---

💛 - Coveralls

[richardkiss]

I do have reservations about making more complex this code which is already a bit too complex and nasty. You might be able to implement this functionality with pre_eval, and you can surely do it by creating a new separate "wallet/debugging" dialect where you can override the opcodes you need.

[Rigidity]

Good point, a new dialect might be cleaner

[Rigidity]

The only issue is the apply op function takes an immutable reference. Maybe we should maybe dialects mutable? Alternatively it could use a RefCell or Mutex I suppose, but that seems unideal

[richardkiss]

This is a great observation and there are some great ideas here.