fix: remove delegator addess from MsgCreateValidator

[0xmuralik]

Description

Remove delegator address field from MsgCreateValidator and other related checks, as one cannot create a validator on behalf of other address (i.e. both delegator and validator address are always same while creating a new validator).

Closes: #4595

---

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]

Thanks for the contrib @0xmuralik! As others have pointed out, we cannot remove fields from Proto schemas. Rather, you must explicitly mark them as deprecated and then you can remove/modify all associated business logic.

[julienrbrt]

Given that the field is deprecated, we may want to return an error when it is being used?
This makes it state breaking however. But we've done that from bank multisend (going from multiples inputs to only one supported)

[atheeshp]

Maybe we can ignore the value without giving error?

[alexanderbez]

Left one comment on making the docs clearer, but other LGTM!

[tac0turtle]

utACK

[julienrbrt]

lgtm, can you add a changelog entry as well?

[alexanderbez]

Nice! Thanks for the contribution! Once a changelog entry is in, we'll merge 🙌