feat: process/accept CbTx CL as new CL

[ogabrielides]

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

We should process/accept CbTx CL as new CL as we process/accept new blocks.

What was done?

How Has This Been Tested?

Breaking Changes

Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have assigned this pull request to a milestone (for repository code-owners and collaborators only)

[UdjinM6]

I see a couple of issues with this:

1. A syncing node will spam the network with old clsigs because of RelayInv inside of ProcessNewChainLock.
2. We are going to run VerifyChainLock twice in a row it seems - first here and then again inside of ProcessNewChainLock.

We should probably avoid processing any clsigs (these and p2p ones) until blockchain is synced. Pls see 93ed4e1.

[PastaPastaPasta]

What if we instead extract this code

dash/src/llmq/chainlocks.cpp

Lines 141 to 161 in d4e8aa7

	{
	LOCK(cs);
	bestChainLockHash = hash;
	bestChainLock = clsig;
	if (pindex != nullptr) {
	if (pindex->nHeight != clsig.getHeight()) {
	// Should not happen, same as the conflict check from above.
	LogPrintf("CChainLocksHandler::%s -- height of CLSIG (%s) does not match the specified block's height (%d)\n",
	__func__, clsig.ToString(), pindex->nHeight);
	// Note: not relaying clsig here
	return;
	}
	bestChainLockWithKnownBlock = bestChainLock;
	bestChainLockBlockIndex = pindex;
	}
	// else if (pindex == nullptr)
	// Note: make sure to still relay clsig further.
	}

to a new function and only call this function on block processing?

So avoid the re-verification and enforcement?

[UdjinM6]

might work.. not sure

[PastaPastaPasta]

Guix Automation has failed due to the HEAD commit not being signed by an authorized core-team member. Please rebase and sign or push a new empty signed commit to allow Guix build to happen.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.