feat: verifySignature function

[Villaquiranm]

related to #2777

Contributors' checklist...

• Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
• Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is self-explanatory
• Updated the official documentation or not needed
• No breaking changes were made, or a BREAKING CHANGE: xxx message was included in the description
• Added references to related issues and PRs
• Provided any useful hints for running manual tests
• Added new benchmarks to generated graphs, if any. More info here.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 89.47368% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 63.09%. Comparing base (05cd4f5) to head (43e14eb).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
gnovm/stdlibs/std/native.go	60.00%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2776      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   63.10%   63.09%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         564      564              
  Lines       79273    79311      +38     
==========================================
+ Hits        50023    50041      +18     
- Misses      25886    25906      +20     
  Partials     3364     3364              

Flag	Coverage Δ
contribs/gnodev	60.62% <ø> (ø)
contribs/gnofaucet	14.82% <ø> (-0.95%)	⬇️
gno.land	67.56% <ø> (ø)
gnovm	67.26% <89.47%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
misc/genstd	79.72% <ø> (ø)
misc/logos	19.45% <ø> (-0.51%)	⬇️
tm2	62.25% <ø> (-0.10%)	⬇️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[notJoon]

CI failed. could you please check and fix this?

[Villaquiranm]

CI failed. could you please check and fix this?

I think it is ok just one does not want to finish do not know why
@notJoon

[notJoon]

I checked it purely through test runs, it executed well without any significant issues.

Although I also looked into related issues, it might be better to conduct a more detailed review in the next stage.

remove: review/triage-pending

[thehowl]

I'm still not convinced by this approach. I think we should have verification happen at the protol level rather than happen at the Gno level. Can we not use the message signers as I pointed out in the discussion on #2777?