Move EIP Integration to Common

[holgerd77]

Follow-up on #856 and #863

This PR moves EIP integration from the VM to Common to be able to spawn EIP implementations across different libraries touched (as currently possible along hardfork lines). Upon this base integration it updates the EIP2537 integration in the VM.

The Common integration is hopefully somewhat future proof. I already added an additional check for minimumHardfork requirements where Common initialization will throw if not met (EIP2537 is currently set to chainstart, let me know if this is too low for some reasons).

Not yet integrated is a possible EIP dependency, e.g. when one EIP depends on one or several others. This could be implemented by adding a parameter EIPdependencies or the like to the EIP*.json files. Since this comes with some mild extra complexity - e.g. on the param() functionality - I didn't want to integrate directly and eventually overload the PR. Think this can be added once this case occurs.

I also decided to change the semantics of the param() function and add changed demarcation lines to the existing paramByEIP() and a newly added paramByHardfork() function. param() removes the hardfork parameter and is now the function which just "does the right thing" [tm] - which means it either takes the parameter from the latest hardfork or - if present - from an EIP set. If an EIP is set and contains the parameter, this setting always takes precedence (which I think makes sense and would be expected e.g. on the VM instantiated with a certain HF and an additional EIP changing gas costs e.g.). paramByEIP() and paramByHardfork() can now be used to explicitly demand for an EIP respectively HF-specific parameter.

This makes use of theparam() function - especially in the VM - completely transparent and avoids code such as:

if (EIP_ACTIVATED) {
  common.paramByEIP(...)
} else {
  common.param()
}

Instead the current param() usage can stay completely "as is" and the parameter is chosen correctly based on the chain setup in Common.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #869 into master will decrease coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 78.37%.

Flag	Coverage Δ
#account	92.85% <ø> (ø)
#block	77.14% <66.66%> (ø)
#blockchain	80.79% <ø> (ø)
#common	93.04% <81.48%> (-1.70%)	⬇️
#ethash	83.33% <ø> (+1.11%)	⬆️
#tx	93.98% <ø> (-0.14%)	⬇️
#vm	82.21% <71.42%> (-0.11%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

[holgerd77]

Ah, too many VM API tests still failing, will look into that later.

[holgerd77]

Fixed that remaining failing tests.

This is now ready for review. 😄

[ryanio]

LGTM, good stuff!