refactor: don't hardcode the transaction version

[panleone]

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

Refactor extracted from #5860. Even if that PR should not need anymore this commit (since it has been found a better way to activate dip143), I think It's still a worthy refactor

What was done?

Introduce tx.IsSpecialTxVersion() in place of tx.nVersion == 3, tx.nVersion >= 3
and tx.HasExtraPayloadField() in place of tx.nVersion == 3 && tx.nType != TRANSACTION_NORMAL

How Has This Been Tested?

Breaking Changes

Checklist:

Go over all the following points, and put an x in all the boxes that apply.

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have assigned this pull request to a milestone (for repository code-owners and collaborators only)

[UdjinM6]

NOTE: it's safe to go from == 3 to >=3 because the latter is used in ContextualCheckTransaction

[knst]

wallet_multiwallet.py --usecli | ✖ Failed | 23 s

I tried to re-start CI; everytime this test fails, maybe there's some newly introduced issue? I will try to re-start one more time

The last failure: https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/6135684689

[panleone]

wallet_multiwallet.py --usecli | ✖ Failed | 23 s

I tried to re-start CI; everytime this test fails, maybe there's some newly introduced issue? I will try to re-start one more time

The last failure: https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/6135684689

I don't know why it fails, but I have seen it failing in every PR I opened (always in the same job linux64_tsan-test)

[UdjinM6]

CI failure is unrelated, should be fixed by #5867

[PastaPastaPasta]

Hi @panleone; do you intend for this PR to move forward? I would see this likely merged soon with review addressed

[panleone]

Hi @panleone; do you intend for this PR to move forward? I would see this likely merged soon with review addressed

Completely forgot about this PR... reviews tackled but I do not have the time to make the history clean so I left 4 extra commits where I applied knst's patches

[knst]

LGTM, seems as all my suggestions are included

[UdjinM6]

utACK

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

[PastaPastaPasta]

Hi @panleone; Sorry, but this PR needs to be rebased, it has conflicts with develop.

[panleone]

Hi @panleone; Sorry, but this PR needs to be rebased, it has conflicts with develop.

should be good now

[knst]

utACK 8b6c96d

[UdjinM6]

LGTM, utACK