update ed25519

[tac0turtle]

Description

use zip215 for ed25519 verification

closes: #7890

---

Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

• Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
• Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
• Code follows the module structure standards.
• Wrote unit and integration tests
• Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)
• Added relevant godoc comments.
• Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
• Review Codecov Report in the comment section below once CI passes

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #8690 (28cedcf) into master (92bc290) will increase coverage by 0.12%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #8690      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   61.36%   61.48%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         671      659      -12     
  Lines       38324    38045     -279     
==========================================
- Hits        23516    23393     -123     
+ Misses      12350    12193     -157     
- Partials     2458     2459       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
crypto/keys/ed25519/ed25519.go	69.38% <100.00%> (ø)
x/bank/keeper/migrations.go	0.00% <0.00%> (-50.00%)	⬇️
x/bank/types/metadata.go	94.44% <0.00%> (-5.56%)	⬇️
x/bank/module.go	51.16% <0.00%> (-4.66%)	⬇️
x/slashing/module.go	54.76% <0.00%> (-2.06%)	⬇️
x/distribution/module.go	54.76% <0.00%> (-2.06%)	⬇️
x/staking/module.go	57.50% <0.00%> (-2.03%)	⬇️
x/bank/keeper/keeper.go	72.50% <0.00%> (-1.47%)	⬇️
x/bank/keeper/send.go	73.63% <0.00%> (-1.37%)	⬇️
types/address.go	65.99% <0.00%> (-0.94%)	⬇️
... and 17 more

[robert-zaremba]

Just for clarifiaction - this is only if SDK will like to verify Tendermint validators signatures, right? Do we have any use case for that in SDK?

[tac0turtle]

Just for clarifiaction - this is only if SDK will like to verify Tendermint validators signatures, right? Do we have any use case for that in SDK?

I dont believe so. Its also the case in which user accounts are using ed25519. Not the case now but thought I might as well knock it out

[robert-zaremba]

Maybe we should also add a documentation that the package should be used only to validate compatible signatures. What do you think?

[tac0turtle]

Maybe we should also add a documentation that the package should be used only to validate compatible signatures. What do you think?

yea will add in the am

[fedekunze]

ACK. Pending changelog entry

[tac0turtle]

Maybe we should also add a documentation that the package should be used only to validate compatible signatures. What do you think?

added a doc.go and changelog entry

[robert-zaremba]

Approving, but please update the docs to clarify that we are using hdevalence/ed25519consensus for compatibility with Tendermint.

[amaury1093]

utACK