Cardano Updates

- added the condition, that the publicStakeKey is not also present in the delegation array of the vote-public-keys. they are derived from different paths, so if there is a match a wrong vote-public-key was used, or the signing stake-secret-key is a wrong one.

In response to
https://forum.cardano.org/t/cip-draft-domain-validation-for-cardano-addresses/106328/9:
Lots of domain tokens – especially unsolicited ones – and the queries
done because of them could stall an application. Advice to do the
queries asynchronously/concurrently added.

Methods are considered to be used even if their results are malformed or
empty.

To allow (sub)domains longer than 64 bytes, allow the array of strings
workaround known from other metadata standards.

In response to
https://forum.cardano.org/t/cip-draft-domain-validation-for-cardano-addresses/106328/9:
Clarify domain tokens not being proofs of ownership of domains and,
hence, policies for them not needing to be complicated.

removed the 'CBOR' from the byte array in the example, because its not a CBOR byte array. if it would be a CBOR byte array we would need to have the CBOR major type 4 in it with the length of the byte array. which is not the case. its simply a byte array of the public_keys/rewards_address.

Added lines to make it clear that duplicated voting key entries (delegating weighted voting power) are not allowed in the registration metadata format and should be handled as invalid if such entries are included. This keeps away confusion about how the weight for each voting key should be calculated and its also mandatory for hw-wallets showing the right amount of weight for each voting key entry.

Based on the block here:

https://cexplorer.io/block/eea1247726ababb0b15ef7068b6917ceb6ebe3021c40fe44608585bba44e24b6

Amusingly, the first block in the babbage era has `babb` as a substring :)

    This is the first step in a broader work aiming at pushing the CIP
    in the forefront of _every_ Cardano changes. Before addressing
    current shortcomings of the process, it is necessary to capture what
    the process _actually is_ at present.

    This rework will serve as a base for a retrospective discussion
    amongst the editors and, shall be proposed to the community for
    approval and review.