fix: private key parsing

[Freyskeyd]

Description

This PR is fixing an issue while trying to parse the private key into a LocalWallet, instead of trying to parse bytes into ut8 str I directly use the bytes to generate the wallet.

PR Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have added or updated tests that comprehensively prove my change is effective or that my feature works

[dvdplm]

This seems like a different take on #323.

I think this one is better.

[atanmarko]

Duplicate of #323

[atanmarko]

This seems like a different take on #323.

I think this one is better.

Ok lets then take this one

[atanmarko]

This seems like a different take on #323.

I think this one is better.

I think it is cleaner for testing to stay with string representation of keys

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 7 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (705b97e) 60.52% compared to head (9fe601e) 60.55%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #324      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   60.52%   60.55%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         225      225              
  Lines       12049    12054       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits         7293     7299       +6     
+ Misses       4756     4755       -1     

Files	Coverage Δ
crates/topos-crypto/src/messages.rs	93.10% <100.00%> (+0.79%)	⬆️
crates/topos-crypto/tests/messages.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
crates/topos-tce-broadcast/src/tests/mod.rs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
crates/topos-test-sdk/src/tce/protocol.rs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
crates/topos/src/lib.rs	67.83% <ø> (ø)
crates/topos-tce/src/lib.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
crates/topos/src/components/tce/mod.rs	30.07% <0.00%> (-1.18%)	⬇️

... and 6 files with indirect coverage changes

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

[atanmarko]

@Freyskeyd @dvdplm This PR grows unnecessary complex. Could we switch back to much simpler variant #323?

EDIT: I take back this observation. Lets merge this