fix(textual): Use HEX instead of base64

[amaury1093]

Description

ref: #12910 (comment)

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
• included comments for documenting Go code
• updated the relevant documentation or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #12954 (c26b7b3) into main (4fe7797) will decrease coverage by 0.25%.
The diff coverage is 63.44%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #12954      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   55.87%   55.62%   -0.26%     
==========================================
  Files         646      652       +6     
  Lines       54895    55040     +145     
==========================================
- Hits        30675    30616      -59     
- Misses      21762    21952     +190     
- Partials     2458     2472      +14     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
baseapp/abci.go	64.09% <0.00%> (-0.33%)	⬇️
client/flags/flags.go	19.35% <0.00%> (-0.32%)	⬇️
client/rpc/status.go	66.66% <ø> (ø)
client/utils.go	34.92% <0.00%> (ø)
server/rosetta/client_online.go	1.35% <0.00%> (ø)
server/swagger.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
simapp/app.go	82.66% <0.00%> (+3.55%)	⬆️
testutil/list.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
types/result.go	76.74% <ø> (ø)
x/auth/tx/query.go	0.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 54 more

[aaronc]

What is the behavior for long bytes fields? For a cosmwasm contract that could be quite long.

What about a provision where short bytes fields (maybe <= 256 or 512) are displayed in their entirety in hex, and long fields automatically get hashed and the length + hash is displayed?

[robert-zaremba]

Note: we could also consider z-base32 if we want more compact representation, preserving readability.
ref: #12910 (comment)

[amaury1093]

What about a provision where short bytes fields (maybe <= 256 or 512) are displayed in their entirety in hex, and long fields automatically get hashed and the length + hash is displayed?

For now we still have bijectivity as a spec. If we do this, then we'll lose bijectivity.