[Cleanup] Partial cleanup & refactor of different parts of the codebase

[Olshansk]

This PR does not introduce any functional changes to the logic.

• Tests: It is a partial cleanup & refatctor of functions, names, options and all tests remain the same & passing.
• Why: Make it easier for new developers to understand the SMT
• Up next:
  • Continud cleanup & refactor
  • Adding relay counts (not just compute units) to the tree (needed for relay mining)

[h5law]

Overall great refactor - bring the branch in line with main though. Left some comments with context and suggestions.

Nice job cleaning up my baby - but I miss my ss over your zs

Also add //nolint directives for unsued functions so the CI can check tests pass

[Olshansk]

@h5law Appreciate the quick review!

Summary:

1. The branch was in sync with main so not sure about that part.
2. Updated comments & left TODOs based on some of your comments
3. 🇺🇸

Next steps:

1. Note that this is one (of several) refactors. I think there's more work to be done so it's fully accessible to all developers.
2. I'm going to be adding this: Adding relay counts (i.e. the number of leafs) to the tree for relay mining. I have some ideas on how to do this. If you have a strong opinion of how to go about it, lmk. If not, I'll tackle it.

[h5law]

@Olshansk

The branch was in sync with main so not sure about that part

Your VerifyClosestProof method was old so it seems out of sync maybe a rebase is in order ahah gl

smt/proofs.go

Line 340 in fea9ecb

func VerifyClosestProof(proof *SparseMerkleClosestProof, root []byte, spec *TrieSpec) (bool, error) {

This also explains the nilPathHasher usage

Adding relay counts (i.e. the number of leafs) to the tree for relay mining

I will tackle this if you give me a spec/idea of the desired results and deadline

[Olshansk]

Your VerifyClosestProof method was old so it seems out of sync maybe a rebase is in order ahah gl

The header on main is: func VerifyClosestProof(proof *SparseMerkleClosestProof, root []byte, spec *TrieSpec) (bool, error) {

The header in this PR is the same:

What am I missing?

[Olshansk]

I will tackle this if you give me a spec/idea of the desired results and deadline

Noted. Don't want to take too much of your time so I'll handle it.

[Olshansk]

@h5law Please see #44 (comment)

[h5law]

Noted. Don't want to take too much of your time so I'll handle it.

I would kinda like to do it ngl ahaha but up to you

Regarding the out of sync I think I was in the error there ill do a once over now and see if I missed anything otherwise approve

[h5law]

Overall LGTM, approving now as the majority of my comments are in fact comments themselves and some naming - easy fixes no need for another review IMO. Great job on the refactor 🚀