feat!: update hasher design

[AaronFeickert]

This PR updates the domain-separated hasher design.

Currently, the handling of domain separators is done via an initial length-prefixed human-readable concatenation of a domain separator, version number, and label that requires special handling due to encoding.

The design proposed here simplifies things. All input entering an underlying hash function (domain separator, version number, label, and any subsequent data) is prefixed by a tag byte that indicates its purpose. If the input is of variable length, it is prefixed by its length as well.

This removes the need for more complex encoding, is very robust against collisions, and is flexible in that it allows for other input types to be added in the future if desired.

Closes #227. Supersedes #226.

BREAKING CHANGE: This changes the way that domain-separated hashing is performed, so it is extremely breaking. Existing domain-separated hashes will not match.

[AaronFeickert]

This PR is incomplete, but I'm opening it as a draft to get feedback.

[hansieodendaal]

This seems robust, with a cleaner and simpler implementation. I am in favour.

[AaronFeickert]

Blocked on a decision about whether to use a Borsh/CBOR design instead, as is used elsewhere.

[sdbondi]

In favour of the bugfix and simplifications in this PR, and the tagging makes sense to me. I don't think we need to choose between DS borsh hashing and DS raw bytes hashing. They both have their place. I would simply copy and paste the Borsh hasher to Tari crypto under the borsh feature flag (and bring docs up to the tari_crypto standard) in another PR. We can then use it with minimal effort in the two repos.

I don't think we should introduce CBOR into Tari crypto, as this is firmly a use case/concern of the L2.

I would perhaps clarify that the update (and therefore chain) methods are not simply adding the given preimage bytes to the hasher, and these methods should be called in a consistent/canonical way for every given hash construction e.g. make it clear that hasher.chain(b"A").chain(b"B").finalize() == hasher.chain(b"AB").finalize() does not apply as it does with other hashers.

[AaronFeickert]

I would perhaps clarify that the update (and therefore chain) methods are not simply adding the given preimage bytes to the hasher, and these methods should be called in a consistent/canonical way for every given hash construction

Good call. I'll update the documentation accordingly.