[ACP-77] Adjust naming of txn types due to renaming of Avalanche Subnets -> Avalanche L1s

[meaghanfitzgerald]

As stated in this Avalanche Academy Guide: Avalanche Subnets have been rebranded as Avalanche L1s.

To avoid confusion, the spec has been revised to account for this, including the following changes:

SubnetValidator (struct) -> L1Validator
ConvertSubnetTx -> ConvertSubnetToL1Tx
RegisterSubnetValidatorTx -> RegisterL1ValidatorTx
RegisterSubnetValidatorMessage -> RegisterL1ValidatorMessage
SetSubnetValidatorWeightTx -> SetL1ValidatorWeightTx
DisableValidatorTx -> DisableL1ValidatorTx
SubnetValidatorRegistrationMessage -> L1ValidatorRegistrationMessage
IncreaseBalanceTx -> IncreaseL1ValidatorBalanceTx 
SubnetValidatorWeightMessage -> L1ValidatorWeightMessage
SubnetConversionMessage -> L1ConversionMessage

To Review:

ReadMe Preview

[michaelkaplan13]

I think it could be worth mentioning the fact that L1 validator sets creating using the new ACP-77 flow will not be a subset of the primary network validator set, making it technically incorrect to call them Subnets.

This is neither here or there, and I see the note in the abstract also, but feel like this explanation belongs more in "motivation" since it is no longer an open question IMO

[meaghanfitzgerald]

my original pr included it as the first part of the motivation, but @dhrubabasu disagrees. I've linked it in line 19 but am open to moving it

[michaelkaplan13]

🙏 The new transaction names make much more sense to me.

Only top-level comment is a suggestion to put the explanation of the L1 name (and the difference from a Subnet), and then updating all the references to the new L1s.

The technical difference between them removes the ambiguity about which would should be used when, and in my opinion makes it far clearer to comprehend and conform to.

[StephenButtolph]

There are more instances where Subnet seems to be incorrectly used now. But I don't think there is much value in me marking all of them.

Seems like we should be consistent

[michaelkaplan13]

🙏 The new transaction names make much more sense to me.

Only top-level comment is a suggestion to put the explanation of the L1 name (and the difference from a Subnet), and then updating all the references to the new L1s.

The technical difference between them removes the ambiguity about which would should be used when, and in my opinion makes it far clearer to comprehend and conform to.

@dhrubabasu do you agree here? It definitely results in a larger change to the ACP readme in terms of lines changed, but I think it makes it far clearer and less ambiguous which term should be used when going forward. It makes the most sense to update now in this ACP since it is what introduces the new terminology and will be referenced going forward.

[dhrubabasu]

🙏 The new transaction names make much more sense to me.
Only top-level comment is a suggestion to put the explanation of the L1 name (and the difference from a Subnet), and then updating all the references to the new L1s.
The technical difference between them removes the ambiguity about which would should be used when, and in my opinion makes it far clearer to comprehend and conform to.

@dhrubabasu do you agree here? It definitely results in a larger change to the ACP readme in terms of lines changed, but I think it makes it far clearer and less ambiguous which term should be used when going forward. It makes the most sense to update now in this ACP since it is what introduces the new terminology and will be referenced going forward.

I agree. Let's move up the explanation to the Motivation section and put "No open questions." in the Open Questions section. We may want to call out that this rename was done with overwhelming community support in the Motivation section as well

I didn't want it moved up in the prior PR because there wasn't a clear delineation between Subnets and L1s in the body of the ACP itself. Like @StephenButtolph pointed out, we should be consistent in the ACP to use Subnet and L1 per the delineation we're making. I don't mind the size of the change as long as the ACP becomes clearer and less ambiguous like this PR is doing with the rename (h/t @meaghanfitzgerald for spearheading this effort 🏆)

[michaelkaplan13]

Haven't done a full pass, but think there are a few places where the term "subnet" is still used in reference to what is actually an L1.

[dhrubabasu]

Great work going through and editing the ACP to delineate Subnets and L1s! A lot of these comments are more minor but thought it'd be better to be exhaustive so we can merge this in soon and then get #156 in)

I think it should be good to merge after this

[meaghanfitzgerald]

Awaiting approval @dhrubabasu

[dhrubabasu]

few more nits

[meaghanfitzgerald]

anything else? @dhrubabasu

[dhrubabasu]

LGTM after the last comment is addressed!

Could we rename this PR to "[ACP-77] Update with Layer 1 terminology" or something similar? We're not renaming Subnets to L1s in the latest form of this PR

[dhrubabasu]

I think this should be modified to say something similar to continuous-fee-paying. We wouldn't be supplanting the existing validator set with the ones defined in this array.

Not married to "continuous-fee-paying," feel free to modify

Suggested change

	// Initial set of validators for the L1
	// Initial continuous-fee-paying validators for the L1