refactor(governance)!: Aligned package with updates to CIP-36

[Ryun1]

Context

CIP-36 (Catalyst/Voltaire Registration Transaction Metadata Format (Updated)) has seen some a couple recent changes:

• #373 adjusted the metadata standard, replacing the reward_address field with payment_address. Where payment_address contains a payment address rather than stake/rewards address. To accompany this new test vectors were supplied.
• #427 focussed on adjusting semantics to reduce ambiguity for tool makers and potential future protocol governance. Adding clarity around naming of vote keys (see here).

Proposed Solution

• Alter the governance package to reflect the changes introduced in #373:
  • Replaced rewards address with payment address.
  • Added new test vectors, to match those provided in the CIP.
• Alter the governance package to reflect the naming conventions introduced in #427:
  • Renaming elements that use naming such as votingKey to use CIP36VoteKey.
  • Altering comments that use terms such as "voting key" to use "vote key".

Important Changes Introduced

• cip36.ts:
  • Renamed interface VotingKeyDerivationPath to be interface CIP36VoteKeyDerivationPath.
  • renamed interface GovernanceKeyDelegation to be interface VoteKeyDelegation.
  • In interface GovernanceKeyDelegation I renamed votingKey to be cip36VoteKey.
  • In interface BuildVotingRegistrationProps I replaced rewardAccount with paymentAddress and changed the type to be a Cardano.Address rather than Cardano.RewardAccount.
  • Changed comments to reflect.
• cip36.test.ts:
  • Matched test vectors used in CIP-36.
  • Matched field changes from cip36.ts.
• cip36KeyAgents.test.ts:
  • Matched field changes from cip36.ts.
  • Renamed instances of votingKey to CIP36VoteKey.
  • Changed comments to reflect.

[mkazlauskas]

Thanks @Ryun1! Please update commit message to refactor(governance)!: aligned with updates to cip-36 to indicate that it has breaking changes

[Ryun1]

(Pushed changes to address prettier test failing)

[rhyslbw]

Looks good @Ryun1. There's a conflict after #589 was merged earlier, so you'll need to rebase this branch.