test: run the full SDK test suite

[1507819106zxzx-crypto]

Summary:

• Remove the focused describe.only from the address test suite so Jest runs the blockchain, mempool, transaction, API, and address suites together.
• This prevents regressions in the other SDK wrappers from being hidden by a focused test block.

Verification:

• npm run build:main
• npm test -- --runInBand (5 suites, 22 tests passing)
• git diff --check HEAD~1..HEAD

Notes:

• npm install --ignore-scripts hits the existing jest@29 / ts-jest@27 peer dependency conflict, so I used --legacy-peer-deps for local verification.
• npm run test:lint and npm run test:prettier currently fail repo-wide on existing files; this PR leaves that unrelated configuration/state untouched.

Related bounty: BitgesellOfficial/bitgesell#39
Payout address if approved: 0x4451dF3D21925eF7a62D20eEdc80B99f7140C5D2

[MyTH-zyxeon]

Maintainer-facing review checklist for this PR:

• The diff is intentionally tiny but useful: removing describe.only from src/__tests__/address.test.ts restores the rest of the SDK Jest suites to the default test run, so this is a test-coverage visibility fix rather than a behavior change.
• Before merge, I would run the same dependency shape noted in the PR body: npm install --legacy-peer-deps, then npm test -- --runInBand to confirm the reported 5 suites / 22 tests still pass.
• I would also do a repository-wide focused-test guard before accepting it: rg -n "(describe|it|test)\.only" src test should return no committed focused tests after this change.
• The PR body says repo-wide lint/prettier already fail on existing files. If the full Jest run and focused-test guard pass, that looks like an unrelated project-health follow-up rather than a blocker for this one-line test-suite unskip.
• Bounty routing: the body references BitgesellOfficial/bitgesell#39; the same kind of SDK test fix also appears aligned with the active #81 improvement-program wording. Please confirm which bounty bucket maintainers want this evaluated under so contributors do not split review/payment tracking across the two umbrella issues.

No duplicate implementation PR or payout action from me here; this is just a review-assist note to make the acceptance check explicit.