feat(protocol): re-implement bridge receive check

[dantaik]

This implementation is slightly different from the previous implementation in that we all the resolve to return empty values. It does't has security issues compared to the previous one.
I also allow the owner() in the receive just in case.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #13134 (5967c3a) into main (95596e4) will increase coverage by 0.17%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #13134      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   62.57%   62.74%   +0.17%     
==========================================
  Files         114      114              
  Lines        3220     3224       +4     
  Branches      435      439       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         2015     2023       +8     
+ Misses       1129     1124       -5     
- Partials       76       77       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
bridge-ui	92.61% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 95596e4
protocol	53.23% <0.00%> (+0.33%)	⬆️
relayer	69.15% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 95596e4
ui	100.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 95596e4

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/protocol/contracts/bridge/Bridge.sol	41.17% <0.00%> (-5.50%)	⬇️
...es/protocol/contracts/thirdparty/LibMerkleTrie.sol	90.36% <0.00%> (+7.22%)	⬆️
...ges/protocol/contracts/libs/LibAnchorSignature.sol	100.00% <0.00%> (+10.52%)	⬆️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more