fix: update vesting message server to handle base accounts correctly

[alexanderbez]

Description

Extends #12154 to apply to all message types.

closes: #12189

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
• included comments for documenting Go code
• updated the relevant documentation or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

[alexanderbez]

Actually I don't think this can be backported to 0.45 because it's state machine breaking, right? Same would apply for #12154

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #12190 (476f904) into main (df41b65) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #12190   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   66.15%   66.15%           
=======================================
  Files         673      673           
  Lines       71085    71085           
=======================================
+ Hits        47024    47025    +1     
+ Misses      21418    21417    -1     
  Partials     2643     2643           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
crypto/keys/internal/ecdsa/privkey.go	83.01% <0.00%> (+1.88%)	⬆️

[facundomedica]

utACK

[facundomedica]

Are we ok with not checking if the type cast went ok?

[alexanderbez]

We know that NewBaseAccountWithAddress will return a &BaseAccount. I suppose we could add an explicit check :)

I will do that

[facundomedica]

There are a couple more of these, so let's add it to all of them for good measure

[alexanderbez]

Actually there is no need to type check. It just creates more boilerplate IMO. We create a concrete BaseAccount and then we pass it to NewAccount, which just returns what we pass in.