Introduce block intervals to zero-bin

[atanmarko]

We need to unify zero-bin program input to handle one, multiple blocks, or continuous stream of new blocks, as discussed in #86. Introduce new type BlockInterval as a CLI argument, and update API of the main use-cases to use it.

Also, introduce new parameter that would indicate if the blocks in the range are dependent from previous block proof. If they are not dependent, their proof generation could be fully parallelized in some future PR.

[Nashtare]

If they are not dependent, their proof generation could be fully parallelized in some future PR.

Only the final layer (eg prove_block) can be requiring the previous block proof. So we could still have almost full concurrency across consecutive blocks, by treating all txn / aggregation proofs in parallel. Only the final proof (block) would be pending completion of the previous block.

[atanmarko]

If they are not dependent, their proof generation could be fully parallelized in some future PR.

Only the final layer (eg prove_block) can be requiring the previous block proof. So we could still have almost full concurrency across consecutive blocks, by treating all txn / aggregation proofs in parallel. Only the final proof (block) would be pending completion of the previous block.

Right, tasks #88 and #89 should address that topic