[Utility] CLI - Non custodial Staking command

[deblasis]

Objective

As implemented in #177, the CLI supports only Custodial staking. We need to support Non Custodial as well.

Origin Document

This comment:
Two separate subcommands - Can you create a follow-up issue to add support for non-custodial CLI support to avoid increasing the scope of this PR.

Goals

• Include a NonCustodial subcommand under the Stake command
• Identify the required arguments by referencing the V0 implementation
• Make sure that the MessageStake has all the necessary fields to support NonCustodial staking and that you are assigning the right values to them

Deliverable

• Updated CLI with non-custodial staking command
• (optional) recommendations for non-custodial enhancements documented on the PR of this issue

Non-goals / Non-deliverables

• Adding in additional stake commands
• Changing the behavior of non-custodial staking
• Updating the RPC

General issue deliverables

• Update the appropriate CHANGELOG
• Update any relevant READMEs (local and/or global)
• Update any relevant global documentation & references
• If applicable, update the source code tree explanation
• If applicable, add or update a state, sequence or flowchart diagram using mermaid

[Optional] Testing Methodology

• Task specific tests: make ...
• All tests: make test_all
• LocalNet: verify a LocalNet is still functioning correctly by following the instructions at docs/development/README.md

---

Creator: @deblasis
Co-Owners: @jessicadaugherty

[jessicadaugherty]

Considering for bounty. LMK of any objections @Olshansk

[Olshansk]

Considering for bounty. LMK of any objections @Olshansk

The only thing to keep in mind is that the current custodial/non-custodial design is very v0-centric (1 address, 1 output, very limited), and I don't think this is a major priority for TestNet.

With all of @h5law's work, this should be relatively straightforward to add, but I would also classify it as low priority.

Personally, I think we can move this out into M5, and potentially start collecting what custodial/non-custodial should look like first (who can sign what, rev-share, multiple output address, etc...).

[jessicadaugherty]

Thanks @Olshansk agreed re: not a priority for testnet. I am looking for a task to get a contributor onboarded and started. They are a node runner so thought this would be a good one for them. Can ask their thoughts about future enhancements. I updated the deliverables to include optional "non-custodial enhancements" documented in the PR for this. Will use that for foundational conversations with larger node-running community. Also if you have another ticket that is good for onboarding someone but is a higher priority I'm happy to move forward with that instead.

[Olshansk]

@Anaski99 do you still plan on tackling this?

[Anaski99]

I don't think so, no available bandwidth right now :(

[Olshansk]

This will be revisited as part of the E2E utility flows.