…alue transfer (erigontech#21333)

added a test for this to EEST
ethereum/execution-specs#2893

---

## Summary

`makeSelfdestructGasFn` in `execution/vm/operations_acl.go` previously
gated `MarkAddressAccess(beneficiary, false)` on the destructing
contract having a non-zero balance, and on the zero-balance path
additionally marked the gas-calc `Empty()` reads internal so the
beneficiary would not appear in the BAL purely from that read.

Per EIP-7928, "Beneficiary addresses for `SELFDESTRUCT`" are in scope
for inclusion unconditionally — the SELFDESTRUCT is itself a state
access on the beneficiary, independent of any value transfer. The
pre-fix gate caused a BAL hash mismatch in the specific case where a
SELFDESTRUCT targets `SYSTEM_ADDRESS` (`0xff…fffe`) with the destructing
contract at zero balance: `versionedio.go::AsBlockAccessList`'s "drop
SystemAddress unless it experienced state access itself" filter then
dropped the entry because no non-revertable access mark was ever
recorded, while other clients (which mark the beneficiary
unconditionally) kept it. Result: BAL hash mismatch, block rejected,
sync stall.

## Fix

`execution/vm/operations_acl.go::makeSelfdestructGasFn`: record the
beneficiary access unconditionally:

```go
// Per EIP-7928, SELFDESTRUCT is a state access on the beneficiary
// independently of any value transfer, so record it unconditionally.
evm.IntraBlockState().MarkAddressAccess(address, false)
```

The pre-existing `SnapshotVersionedReadKeys` / `MarkNewReadsInternal`
helpers in `execution/state/intra_block_state.go` were only used by the
now-removed zero-balance branch and are dropped as dead code (−35
lines).

`execution/state/versionedio.go::AsBlockAccessList`'s SystemAddress
filter is left unchanged — its `&& !account.nonRevertableUserAccess`
clause is now correctly satisfied by the unconditional mark above.

## Test coverage

New file `execution/execmodule/bal_selfdestruct_systemaddress_test.go`
adds three regression tests via `blockgen.GenerateChain` against
`chain.AllProtocolChanges` (Amsterdam active at genesis):

- `TestBALIncludesSystemAddressOnSelfdestructToItWithZeroBalance` — the
bug scenario: CREATE tx with init code `PUSH20 SYSTEM_ADDRESS;
SELFDESTRUCT` and zero contract balance. Asserts the resulting BAL
contains a SystemAddress entry with every change-set empty.
- `TestBALIncludesSystemAddressOnSelfdestructToItWithNonZeroBalance` —
guard for the non-zero balance variant.
- `TestBALIncludesOrdinaryBeneficiaryOnSelfdestructWithZeroBalance` —
guard that ordinary EOA beneficiaries (where the SystemAddress filter
doesn't apply) are unaffected.

## Test plan

- [x] `go test -count=1 -run='TestBALIncludes' ./execution/execmodule/`
— 3/3 pass.
- [x] TDD verified: with the pre-fix `if !balance.IsZero()` guard
restored,
`TestBALIncludesSystemAddressOnSelfdestructToItWithZeroBalance` fails
with "BAL must include a SystemAddress entry"; the other two still pass
(confirming the bug is specific to SystemAddress + zero balance).
- [x] `make lint` — 0 issues.
- [x] `make eest-spec-statetests-devnet` — 65,202 / 65,202 tests pass.
- [x] `make eest-spec-blocktests-devnet` — 82,941 / 82,941 tests pass
(parallel exec).
- [x] Fresh resync from block 0 against the BAL devnet through
previously-divergent blocks: 0 BAL mismatches.
- [x] EEST upstream coverage: matching test
`test_bal_selfdestruct_to_system_address_zero_balance` opened as a PR
against `ethereum/execution-specs devnets/bal/7` (link to follow).

---------

Co-authored-by: Alex Sharov <AskAlexSharov@gmail.com>