This PR simply cleans up some of the examples and field names/types, and does not introduce breaking changes.
In some of the type descriptions, type annotations for fields that contain arrays/lists is done as such: <Array[BlindedMessage]>. This is explicit and easy to parse, and was not applied to all type descriptions. I think I refactored them all here (for example NUT-03 currently uses this notation: "inputs": <Proofs>, "outputs": <BlindedMessages> which is less clear).
In NUT-03, the example for PostSwapRequest has proofs with fields in the wrong order according to the model for Proof in NUT-00 (amount comes before id). Same for NUT-05 and NUT-08.
In NUT-03, the example for PostSwapRequest's outputs field has a blinded message with missing field id according to the new model for BlindedMessage in NUT-00.
The spec used BlindSignature and BlindedSignature interchangeably. These have now all be streamlined to BlindSignature.
In NUT-08, acknowledge the fact that the payment_preimage field in the PostMeltBolt11Response can be null.
This PR simply cleans up some of the examples and field names/types, and does not introduce breaking changes.
<Array[BlindedMessage]>. This is explicit and easy to parse, and was not applied to all type descriptions. I think I refactored them all here (for example NUT-03 currently uses this notation:"inputs": <Proofs>, "outputs": <BlindedMessages>which is less clear).PostSwapRequesthas proofs with fields in the wrong order according to the model forProofin NUT-00 (amountcomes beforeid). Same for NUT-05 and NUT-08.PostSwapRequest'soutputsfield has a blinded message with missing fieldidaccording to the new model forBlindedMessagein NUT-00.BlindSignatureandBlindedSignatureinterchangeably. These have now all be streamlined toBlindSignature.payment_preimagefield in thePostMeltBolt11Responsecan be null.