A stronger vault abstraction instead of "coin" language

[darosior]

We've been discussing the UI and UX a lot lately with all the demo tests, and getting valuable feedback for Kevin and Jake from a "blunt" software perspective. By this i mean that since they did not assist to the incremental development, they could raise fundamental questions on the layout and clickpath.

I touched about it during the last meeting but it seems to me that increasing the abstraction of a "vault" at the expense of onchain transactions details would address a lot of these concerns.
For example take the confirmation of the deposit transaction:

• The transaction is technically confirmed after a block
• revaultd will tell it's funded after n blocks (6 right now but configurable soon ™️)
• revaultd will tell it's unconfirmed otherwise
  It may be confusing to the user (and it was to our pro testers) to have a confirmed transaction denoted as unconfirmed. I think that's an instance where a stronger "vault" abstraction would help:
• Not deeply confirmed: "vault is not matured yet"
• Deeply confirmed: "vault is mature"

I think there is a number of other places where removing the Bitcoin language for a simpler one (effectively coining a vault language if i may :p) would help, even though here i just reused the coinbase one.

Opening this issue to gather feedback and point to other places where it would benefit. What do you think @edouardparis @danielabrozzoni @kloaec ?

Fixes #85
Fixes #69

[darosior]

Another one could be for the managers. Currently the GUI is just replicating the raw logic / terminology of revaultd. It should instead be an abstraction layer for the user.

For instance, you should not "sign", "share and update" (why update???), "broadcast". We could use for example:

• Initiate a Spend
• Participate in a Spend
• Finalize a Spend

[edouardparis]

#101 #103 are related to this issue.

I think first step could be to remove "acknowledge vaults" to "create a vault", and replace "acknowledged funds" to "secured funds"