feat: add configurable exclude dialer addresses for universe

[hansieodendaal]

Description

Added user-configurable communication node addresses that should never be dialled. In Tari Universe the base node and wallet is configured in a listen-only TCP mode with a fake public address and when their addresses are propagated throughout the network, other peers should not try to dial them.

Motivation and Context

The previous implementation was hard-coded and did not work properly.

How Has This Been Tested?

Added unit tests.
System-level testing.

What process can a PR reviewer use to test or verify this change?

Code review.

Breaking Changes

• None
• Requires data directory on base node to be deleted
• Requires hard fork
• Other - Please specify

[github-actions]

Test Results (CI)

    3 files    129 suites   35m 2s ⏱️
1 310 tests 1 310 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌
3 928 runs  3 928 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit 21717d7.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Test Results (Integration tests)

 2 files  11 suites   39m 34s ⏱️
36 tests 34 ✅ 0 💤 2 ❌
38 runs  36 ✅ 0 💤 2 ❌

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 21717d7.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[SWvheerden]

This looks good so far, I have two issues with the implementation:
1: We should not exclude 172.2.3.4 this is a valid address, we should use 0.0.0.0 which is the special case address and exclude that.
2: We should not ban the node as it will cause issues for that node. We should just exclude it from being dialed. But we should allow that node to dial us.

[hansieodendaal]

Currently, setting public_addresses = ["/ip4/0.0.0.0/tcp/xxxx",] for base node and public_addresses = ["/ip4/0.0.0.0/tcp/yyyy",] for wallet does not work, as the remote peer (i.e. seed node in this case) closes the channel once a connection has been made.

To allow a peer to advertize a public address of "/ip4/0.0.0.0/tcp/xxxx" and accept that it should keep open their inbound connections, but not try to connect to them, is for a next PR.

[SWvheerden]

I think we need to make an distinction between peers and address here.
A peer might have an invalid, excluded address. But if the peer has other valid addresses, it should not be excluded and still be include. We should just ignore the invalid address.